BIGGEST TRIGGER -- Gun Ownership - Cannabis Legality - Aborting Babies.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: underwerks

Why do I get the feeling you don't fully read your own links, but rather cherry pick the words that trigger you?

On Tuesday, Sessions told a Washington ballroom packed with state attorneys general – many of them in charge of defending laws that conflict with federal prohibition – that pot legalization should be resisted, though he did not describe any specific plans to challenge state-regulated markets.

“I doubt that’s true. Maybe science will prove I’m wrong, but at this point in time you and I have a responsibility to use our best judgment – that which we’ve learned over a period of years – and speak truth as best we can. My best view is that we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana.”

Exactly where does he say he's coming for your pot again?

Sessions says this:

“Marijuana is a cure for opiate abuse? Give me a break," Sessions had told the room, discounting what he said was a recent Washington Post article associating lax pot laws with less opioid abuse, a link demonstrated by research.

Where do you think Sessions is getting his medical info about marijuana from? Sure sounds like sources that are supported by mainstream science and Big Pharma only despite there are local studies and more from states saying otherwise of what he claims. In the end who do you think he is going to trust to prove himself wrong?

a reply to: andy06shake

Technically its also illegal to do for medical purposes too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really!

I thought it was legalized in rather a few states not that long ago for medical purposes.

Suppose it depends on which state you reside?

End of the day through banning herbs with medicinal and recreational purposes is beyond reproach.

Then again with cautionary movies and derogatory advertisements such as the one below having been doing the rounds since the 1930s is it any wonder our respective populations are so against the substance in question being legalized?

a reply to: andy06shake

Well on the federal level its still illegal across the board. There are some things like the Cole Memo that stop the federal government interfering with States' marijuana decisions, but technically even medical marijuana is still illegal.

Though Sessions is coming under fire now about lying saying he didn't talk to Russia. The marijuana industry may have just dodged a bullet if Sessions has to step down.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Keeping in mind said right to bear arms was implemented with muskets in mind way before the inception of modern battlefield weaponry.

No, the second amendment was implemented so that citizens had the weapons necessary in order to overthrow a tyrannical, out-of-control government, if it ever came to that.

So, with your logic, I guess that people shouldn't be able to exercise freedom of speech on a television or internet, or even a typewriter or use a bullhorn or microphones at a rally, because back when the first amendment was implemented, they had a quill and paper and loud voices.

Times change, technology progresses, so should your constitution.

No, the Constitution shouldn't change, people should start to jettison logical fallacies when trying to argue that the constitution says this or that, or stop falsely claiming the intent of an amendment when it is absolutely clear that you have chosen not to research the reason why the framers of the constitution felt that the second amendment was so important that it is the only one to include the phrase, "...shall not be infringed."

If they meant it only for muskets (a false claim that has been refuted by historians and the actual writings of the founding fathers time and time again), they would have swapped out the word "arms" with "muskets."

But, please, continue on with how much smarter you are than the people that wrote our constitution...

(and I see that you have already thoroughly been appropriately countered in your claim by a few others prior to my response...I doubt that it will change your opinion, though)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

By my logic freedom of speech, television, internet, typewriters, bullhorns or microphones don't have the same capacity to kill than guns do.

The second amendment came about so your people were armed against further attack, so they could defend themselves. Who is it that's threatening your sovereignty these days? Because i don't see anybody.

I don't claim to be smarter than anyone else, just offering up my opinion as i am free to do so.

Which claim have i "thoroughly been appropriately countered in"? You do relies i use muskets to highlight the drastic difference between fire arms of days gone by than the modern day equivalent.

By my logic gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.

Logically that's an issue that needs to be addressed!

originally posted by: andy06shake
Obviously when the founders of your nation proposed the second amendment they had no idea as to the implications it would have 240 odd years down the line, and if they did, if the could see the horrendous acts of depravity and genocide associated with the right to bear arms i imagine they might rethink the matter.

You can imagine anything that you'd want, but it wasn't about potential "acts of depravity" that they were worried about.

Anyhoo, I'm not sure if you fully understand the range of "arms" available at the time of the American Revolution, but they included rifles, pistols, swords, bayonets, mortars, canons, and grapeshot (basically a canon turned into a shotgun) amongst them. So, if you're so concerned about the second amendment only pertaining to arms of the time, then all of those should be legal for all Americans, right?

Your slippery-slope, logical-fallacy argument doesn't hold water at all, and like I said before, it is highly apparent that you've never immersed yourself in the writings of the Founding Fathers concerning the reason for the second amendment.

a reply to: carewemust

1. Gun Ownership Rights.

Police can never be on scene faster to protect you than your shotgun at home.

2. Marijuana Legality/Usage.

Exposes the hypocrisy of the republican party. Either you are for big govt or you aren't. No gov't should tell me what I can do to my own body as long as it doesn't hurt others. BTW I don't even do drugs but this has gone on long enough.

War on drugs is BS and does more harm than good. F the war on drugs and take those resources and money and go after real crimes such as pedophiles and the sex trade. To bad there is no corporation that benefits from stopping crimes with real victims.

3. Aborting Babies.

Exposes the hypocrisy or the republican party aswell. Either you care for that fetus for life or you don't. The republicans want to have big gov't force people to give birth of that fetus but then not take adequate responsibility of that child after birth. They are hypocritical and as irresponsible as the person that got pregnant, that shouldn't have.

originally posted by: andy06shake
By my logic freedom of speech, television, internet, typewriters, bullhorns or microphones don't have the same capacity to kill than guns do.

That's not what I'm arguing--you're arguing that the intent of the amendment should only apply to the technology associated with it at the time of the writing. If you're going to use that argument, you need to apply it to all amendments across the board, otherwise you're opting to be intellectually dishonest within your argument.

The second amendment came about so your people were armed against further attack, so they could defend themselves. Who is it that's threatening your sovereignty these days? Because i don't see anybody.

There were many reasons behind the second amendment--you are citing just one. I cited one of the main ones that prompted it to be second (only to freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc.) in the list of rights that are protected from the government (not provided by the government). And like I said, "...shall not be infringed" means something pretty substantial, and for them to ONLY include in concerning the right to keep and bear arms for the average citizen says something as to the weight that they give this right.

I don't claim to be smarter than anyone else, just offering up my opinion as i am free to do so.

Sure, but in the face of verifiable facts, you still disregard them for your own opinion. I find that tantamount to willful ignorance most likely driven by ideology, but I don't want to assume anything.

Which claim have i "thoroughly been appropriately countered in"? You do relies i use muskets to highlight the drastic difference between fire arms of days gone by than the modern day equivalent.

The thread speaks for itself.

By my logic gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.

Logically that's an issue that needs to be addressed!

By your logic, you're including EVERY injury or death from a firearm, which is dishonest to do. If you're worried about "acts of depravity and genocide," you would only include deaths or injuries as the result of illegal assaults or murders using a firearm. Suicides, accidents, self-defense, justified police shootings, and the like should all be taken off of the table...again, if you're wanting to be intellectually dishonest.

As far as per-capita, in a nation of 320-million people--one-third of whom actually own the more than 300-million estimated privately owned firearms in this country--who have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, the fact that our homicide rate has been hovering around the 4/100,000 people mark is pretty great. That equates to .04% of the population of America gets intentionally killed by a firearm every year, give or take a thousandth of a percent on any given year.

Illegal firearm injuries for people over the age of 12 in America seems to hover between the 100/100,000 (0.1%) and 200/100,000 (0.2%) mark, depending on year, which again, given the fact that there are well over 300-million guns existing in our country at the moment, is pretty amazing.

So, again, when you look at the numbers and percentages in context, your concern and opinion are not quite justified. And this stuff is addressed within the confines of the constitution (and unconstitutionally at times) through buy-back programs, safety classes, multiple safeties on the weapons themselves, public service announcements, and, of course, responsible parents, family, and friends who often go above and beyond when it comes to teaching firearm safety and in the ways that they safely store their weapons.

Look, our difference in opinion (and facts) aside, I have a pistol that I carry on my hip every day. I have multiple firearms that I own and keep in my house, even though I have a family with a 13-year-old and a 3-year-old (and I do so safely, in different gun safes)--some with the intent to just have fun shooting them in a controlled environment, and a couple that I purchased with the sole intent of keeping for home security. I have trained both in the military and as a civilian in many different shooting techniques, and the skills that I have can not only potentially save my life, but the life/lives of others around me if anything were ever to take a turn for the worst and I found myself in the unfortunate position to have to take a human life.

But, that said, and like the majority of gun owners in America, we are not paranoid nor delusional as to why we have firearms, and many of us own them just because we can and we like to take them to a gun range every now and again. I'm a much more trained individual that your average, I would assume, but that doesn't mean that I go out every day with the pistol on my hip either assuming that I am going to get attacked or looking for a reason to use it--hell, most days, I forget that it's even on my person.

This is the right that we have as American citizens. Honestly, I don't expect countries who do not have that right to understand why I would carry a firearm nearly every day, nor why I want to own multiple firearms, nor even why I appreciate living in a society where all of this is possible (included the threats that come with it, as minimal in probability that they actually are).

Also, and bluntly said, I don't care about anyone else's opinion as to our second amendment and what it allows us as U.S. citizens to do in regards to firearm ownership and open or concealed carry. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that I have to entertain it as a valid one, nor continue with this discussion.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually down to firearms is hardly a logical-fallacy more like statistical fact i'm afraid.

But heh you keep on pretending you need all those guns to protect you from all those bad hombres that are out to get you and people will keep right on dying by the hand of people with guns legal, illegal or otherwise.

If you are looking for a slippery slope look no further than the statistics.

Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide.

In 2010, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were committed using a firearm.

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs

In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.

In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.

In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.

Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011.

Says it all really.

www.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...

Best regards to you also.

a reply to: andy06shake

Out of 400 million firearms owned by 120 million Americans. Those are the legal ones.

Also, many of those numbers are skewed as homicides include self defense shootings.

If guns were really a problem the US would be a bloodbath and it isn't. The vast majority of that crime happens in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, and others. What do they all have in common? Strict gun control.

But please, keep blaming the vast majority of law abiding gun owners for what criminals do.

a reply to: projectvxn

I'm not blaming any particular demography, i just think people kill people and guns are somewhat of an enabler in that department.

Obviously guns are a problem or 1.4 million(Probably a lot more now) people would not have died as a direct result firearms since 1968-2011.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually down to firearms is hardly a logical-fallacy more like statistical fact i'm afraid.

Again--intellectual honesty, here. I specifically cited intentional, illegal acts (homicides and injuries via assault with a firearm). It is a logical fallacy to include all statistics when you're arguing that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have included the second amendment if they had know how firearms would be used for nefarious purposes, I'm afraid.

But heh you keep on pretending you need all those guns to protect you from all those bad hombres that are out to get you and people will keep right on dying by the hand of people with guns legal, illegal or otherwise.

Are your reading-comprehension skills up to par? I said that I don't own/carry my firearms because I expect (or want) to ever use them against any other human being for any reason...but, keep pretending that's what I said, I suppose. Maybe citing my Thomas Jefferson quote in my signature area would be good to do at this point. I like liberty--which include the freedom to own firearms--even if it comes with the potential for some negative consequences for a small amount of the population.

And for the record (in the interest of facts and all), there are many, MANY other countries with a higher firearm homicide (and injury) rate than the U.S., and many of those places have made firearm ownership illegal or so hard to do that it makes it nearly impossible or not worth the effort for most law-abiding people.

If you are looking for a slippery slope look no further than the statistics...

Yes, I have looked at the statistics many times over, and while some percentages look scary if you choose not to invest time into researching them more deeply, when compared to the whole of a society of a population that I already pointed out and with the homicide and injury rates resultant to illegal use of firearms, no matter how you slice it with neat Wikipedia copy/paste statistics, for being such a populous country with such freedom to own so many guns, your concerns are alarmist, plain and simple, and your implication that our freedom to own guns equates to an ongoing murder orgy would be laughable if it weren't so downright ignorant to reality.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"ignorant to reality"

Something i'm sure the U.S will be synonymous with over the next 4-8 years.

"Are your reading-comprehension skills up to par?"

Are yours?

The statistics speak for themselves, and on that note ile bid you good day as you seem rather obtuse regarding the plain fact of the matter, bordering on belligerent.

a reply to: andy06shake

Andy, I have done more research into this topic than I'm confidently sure that you ever will, to include research papers and very extensive study both for my own general edification and in response to people on ATS who spout the long-since disproven claim (as you did at the start of our dialogue) that the second amendment doesn't provide a broad freedom/liberty, but only pertains to weapons of the time period (along with statistics associated with firearm violence).

Your entire argument from the start (or, at least, to which I initially replied) is based on ignorance to American law, its constitution, and the range of motivations for the inclusion its second amendment.

I understand how to process statistics, and I also have the intelligence necessary to apply them to the bigger picture of the topic at hand. You can belittle America because of your ideology and you can attempt to call me out for an inability to understand facts all that you want to, but it doesn't change reality.

And I fully admit that I'm being aggressive in how I'm speaking to you, because I get immeasurably aggravated with the willful ignorance that abounds concerning discussions on the second amendment and its meaning and motivations. If that hurts your feelings, so be it, but my 'belligerence' is founded, as this is a topic that gets falsified by anti-second amendment people in perpetuity on ATS, and no amount of historical fact nor reality changes your views on the topic; you continue to spout opinions based off of either logical fallacies or cherry-picked data that excludes the necessary broader picture to which it applies.

So, yes, I'm belligerent against willful ignorance, but your claim of obtuseness is solely based on your perception/opinion of the cited stats and nothing more.

A good day to you, too, sir.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: namelesss

So, you see the value of a carrion bird more so than "insane humans", and yet you procreated, making more humans.

Didn't think that one through did ya.

It appears that I need to clarify.
Just because I can appreciate another Perspective does not mean that it must be 'mine', ,or that I must 'act' on it!

Don't feel bad, most people just make babies without ever thinking it through.

How wonderful that you are so concerned with my feelings!
You must be a very Loving person!
Thank you for your concern, though completely sarcastic and unnecessary...

You know because cutting up an "accidental" fetus is way easier than contraceptives or practicing restraint.

Now we are getting to the real 'emotional' argument, just about the only 'argument' that many can offer; "It makes me FEEL BAD so I hate it!"
And I can sling my sarcasm, that'll show 'em! *__-
Not any rational 'argument' at all.

'Easy' has nothing to do with it. It is obvious that you have never had an abortion, probably never pregnant...
I suspect that you are a male.
Amazing how many irrelevant males have something to say, and loudly, of which they are completely ignorant!
Experience = Knowledge, and unless you have experience in pregnancy, and the intricacies, you are speaking from ignorance.

It was never 'easy' for anyone that I ever knew who had an abortion.

(Couldn't one get free contraceptives from Planned Parenthood, before the damned Republikkkans began with their corrupt lies and inquisition against all that is decent and honest?)
Yeah, contraception helps.
Figure the Repubs are completely against it and forcing their disgusting tongues down throats all over the world!
I'd agree that contraceptives are better than abortion, but that's all the devolved idiots leave available!

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: underwerks

Why do I get the feeling you don't fully read your own links, but rather cherry pick the words that trigger you?

On Tuesday, Sessions told a Washington ballroom packed with state attorneys general – many of them in charge of defending laws that conflict with federal prohibition – that pot legalization should be resisted, though he did not describe any specific plans to challenge state-regulated markets.

“I doubt that’s true. Maybe science will prove I’m wrong, but at this point in time you and I have a responsibility to use our best judgment – that which we’ve learned over a period of years – and speak truth as best we can. My best view is that we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana.”

Exactly where does he say he's coming for your pot again?

In the end who do you think he is going to trust to prove himself wrong?

Science. He said it himself. Go ahead and listen for yourself.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: underwerks

Why do I get the feeling you don't fully read your own links, but rather cherry pick the words that trigger you?

On Tuesday, Sessions told a Washington ballroom packed with state attorneys general – many of them in charge of defending laws that conflict with federal prohibition – that pot legalization should be resisted, though he did not describe any specific plans to challenge state-regulated markets.

“I doubt that’s true. Maybe science will prove I’m wrong, but at this point in time you and I have a responsibility to use our best judgment – that which we’ve learned over a period of years – and speak truth as best we can. My best view is that we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana.”

Exactly where does he say he's coming for your pot again?

In the end who do you think he is going to trust to prove himself wrong?

Science. He said it himself. Go ahead and listen for yourself.

Yes he did, already seen the vid. Agenda leaning science BTW.

Religion should be in there as a hot button issue.

a reply to: carewemust

Trust me, if ya legalize cannabis ya gonna be able to rule with 80% less problems---Getting punitive with it will be your down fall. GODDAMNED RIGHT ITS A WARNING TO SESSIONS