RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Hawaii police order marijuana users to ‘voluntarily surrender’ guns an - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Hawaii police order marijuana users to ‘voluntarily surrender’ guns an Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 30 November 2017 - 10:59 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 30 November 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Yup, LOL, I've never been in the military. And your comments demonstrate exactly why not.




I take it that means you're a rabid anti-pot crusader? LOL, if so, then shame on you.

:nono:

In this day & age, with all that is known on the subject, to still be against full legalization is akin to still believing the world is flat. Sure, there are people in both categories, but they can't be taken seriously on those subjects.

B)



Funny, but be damned if they will 'ask' people who are on psychotropics KNOWN TO CAUSE PSYCHOTIC EPISODES OR VIOLENT OUTBURSTS to turn in their firearms. Can't upset the Apple Cart know can we? This is exactly why you never register fire arms, the last person you ever want to know that you have a gun is the Government.

Oki
0

#22 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • I'm dethpicable
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,005
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 30 November 2017 - 11:47 PM

meh, it's Hawaii. Little would surprise me coming out of their state government. Think of it as San Francisco with palm trees.

I concluded long ago, while I still resided there, that the populace of at least Oahu represent the democrat ideal: passive, lazy, uneducated, largely racist, a people who will willingly sacrifice freedom in order to be taken care of by an all-intrusive, caretaker state. Just keep the checks a-comin' and they'll agree to anything.

While some may be surprised at the lax marijuana laws, don't be confused into thinking that is freedom. It's just another tool to keep the populace placated, passive, and intoxicated; "Here's your joint, some kava-kava, and a surfboard, now don't bother me".
0

#23 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,387
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 01 December 2017 - 06:20 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 30 November 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

In this day & age, with all that is known on the subject, to still be against full legalization is akin to still believing the world is flat. Sure, there are people in both categories, but they can't be taken seriously on those subjects.


[momentary break while I dig through my closet and dig out my Flame Resistant Nomex jumpsuit. Aha! I found it. Now I can continue the thread.]

http://workingperson.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/nfpa-labels.jpg

(I think I'm gonna need it before the thread is over. But that's okay, I can take the heat.)


Without getting into the question of legalization, the fact remains that it IS (currently) illegal under Federal law, and SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of it being Federally illegal in {Atty Gen. Albert R.} Gonzales v Raich 545 US 1 (2005).

Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.


{And here's where the Nomex jumpsuit comes in}

I would liken this Very Much to the topic of "illegal immigration". Congress's authority to ban marijuana is, I'll admit, "sketchy" at best (Yeah, I don't like the "Commerce Clause" argument either.)

But, then, ALSO, IF want to be a "strict constructionist", which I am when it suits me, then I see no constitutional authority for congress to limit immigration, either. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, gives congress the authority to "...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Okay, so congress makes the rules on how to become a citizen once here. Doesn't say ANYTHING about limiting who gets here in the first place.

Still, though, such things ARE federal law, and there is that pesky Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


So, the Question of the day is: DOES any state have the right to become a "sanctuary" from Federal Law on [whatever]? Are we a Republic or a Confederacy??? (And, please, don't use the word "Democracy" with me. Them's "fightin' words")
0

#24 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 46,980
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 01 December 2017 - 06:29 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 01 December 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

[momentary break while I dig through my closet and dig out my Flame Resistant Nomex jumpsuit. Aha! I found it. Now I can continue the thread.]

http://workingperson.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/nfpa-labels.jpg

(I think I'm gonna need it before the thread is over. But that's okay, I can take the heat.)


Without getting into the question of legalization, the fact remains that it IS (currently) illegal under Federal law, and SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of it being Federally illegal in {Atty Gen. Albert R.} Gonzales v Raich 545 US 1 (2005).

Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.


{And here's where the Nomex jumpsuit comes in}

I would liken this Very Much to the topic of "illegal immigration". Congress's authority to ban marijuana is, I'll admit, "sketchy" at best (Yeah, I don't like the "Commerce Clause" argument either.)

But, then, ALSO, IF want to be a "strict constructionist", which I am when it suits me, then I see no constitutional authority for congress to limit immigration, either. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, gives congress the authority to "...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Okay, so congress makes the rules on how to become a citizen once here. Doesn't say ANYTHING about limiting who gets here in the first place.

Still, though, such things ARE federal law, and there is that pesky Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


So, the Question of the day is: DOES any state have the right to become a "sanctuary" from Federal Law on [whatever]? Are we a Republic or a Confederacy??? (And, please, don't use the word "Democracy" with me. Them's "fightin' words")


Not sure why you'd expect flames, LOL. I understand all that, and basically agree: Yup, marijuana is illegal at the federal level. My point was about people who still believe it should remain illegal, not whether or not is is illegal.

:coolshades:
0

#25 User is offline   firecoco 

  • Yes! We! Can!
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 14,523
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 December 2017 - 06:43 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 01 December 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

Not sure why you'd expect flames, LOL. I understand all that, and basically agree: Yup, marijuana is illegal at the federal level. My point was about people who still believe it should remain illegal, not whether or not is is illegal.

:coolshades:

It’s refer madness Monty....refer madness :whistling:

So my “Not in my lifetime” mantra still holds?
0

#26 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 46,980
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 01 December 2017 - 07:25 PM

View Postfirecoco, on 01 December 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

It’s refer madness Monty....refer madness :whistling:

So my “Not in my lifetime” mantra still holds?


Nope, not a chance.

:no:
0

#27 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:05 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 01 December 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Nope, not a chance.

:no:



Speaking as someone who is not outright pro legalization, I'd rather be dealing with gun owners who smoke weed then those who are prescribed damn near any of the Psychotropic drugs commonly in use.

Oki
0

#28 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 10,977
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:26 PM

View Postoki, on 04 December 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Speaking as someone who is not outright pro legalization, I'd rather be dealing with gun owners who smoke weed then those who are prescribed damn near any of the Psychotropic drugs commonly in use.

Oki

I agree, but would add boozers to the ‘rather not deal with armed’ list.
0

#29 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 23,778
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:57 PM

View PostLadybird, on 04 December 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

I agree, but would add boozers to the 'rather not deal with armed' list.


And you would be wrong. Though there is a prohibition in most states when you carry a firearm you cannot be drunk. One of the main reasons today I never drink. I pop that perp in a place I have every right to be in and there is a blood test (there WILL be a blood test) I could be liable because of the alcohol use, whether I am right about the reason for popping the clown in the first place.
0

#30 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,353
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:58 PM

View Postfirecoco, on 01 December 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

It’s refer madness Monty....refer madness :whistling:

So my “Not in my lifetime” mantra still holds?

What madness are you referring to?
0

#31 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 10,977
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 04 December 2017 - 02:07 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 04 December 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

And you would be wrong. Though there is a prohibition in most states when you carry a firearm you cannot be drunk. One of the main reasons today I never drink. I pop that perp in a place I have every right to be in and there is a blood test (there WILL be a blood test) I could be liable because of the alcohol use, whether I am right about the reason for popping the clown in the first place.

What am I wrong about here? When it comes to someone in an ‘altered state’, my experience has been that drunks more often show an angry, resentful side (and quick to anger) of their personality than the incoherent, perpetually snickering pot smokers.
0

#32 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 December 2017 - 02:24 PM

View PostLadybird, on 04 December 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

I agree, but would add boozers to the ‘rather not deal with armed’ list.


Yes and no. I say that because what is considered Alcohol Abuse or Alcoholic varies incredibly.

IE, while I can down 3 or 4 of the 'heavies' (thicker stronger) bears and barely feel anything, someone else might be drunk of their but.
In some medical circles doing this even once a week is considered a problem. For someone with a little meat on their bones or a higher tolerance it's nothing even if it isn't very often.

The other issue is that vast majority of people even when intoxicated pose no threat to anyone. The chances of being killed by a drunk driver are many many many times greater then being shot by, even when the drunk driver is a gun owner. Although stupidity and violence is often associated with alcohol abuse, the majority of people who consume alcohol either socially or on occasion as well as alcoholics are neither violent nor inclined to use a firearm to harm someone.


Excessive Alcohol consumption may cause some people to be violent but statistically speaking, to mean amount consumed vs violence both reported and not reported it's unusual. Prescription Psychotropic drugs, that's a whole nother story. Sadly finding much of any study is tough, and I doubt that part is by accident, it's a huge business. But, for what it's worth I do not agree with people having to forgo 2nd Amendment rights simply based on what's in their medicine cabinet or fridge. Due process is there for a reason, without it we become the very nation so many fought and died to save us from

Oki
0

#33 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 46,980
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 02:26 PM

View PostItalian Biker, on 04 December 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

What madness are you referring to?


Yeah, LOL, I caught that too, and considered correcting his spelling. But I've already got too much of a reputation around here as a hopeless pedant.

B)
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users