Cannabis & Firearms: The Problem With Politics

[Amadeus]

From my book in progress:

Two key issues often debated among liberal and conservative parties are the legality of marijuana and firearms. But in essence, these issues are similar. Both infringe on the constitution and man’s right to the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Both can be used destructively, and the legality of both has been brought up to prevent death. And finally, if made illegal, both can be easily smuggled and used on the black market and shortfall all efforts by the government to ban such items. And so it is interesting that the parties so adamantly oppose the issues, with liberals supporting gun regulations and conservatives advocating maintaining federal and state laws against marijuana. These political opposites are unable to allow their opponents to be correct, and stray only to the extreme ends. Unable to recognize the similarity of their fights, they stay separate and adamantly opposed to each others' views.
Concerning firearms, a frequent mistake is made among men of all political parties, though more frequently perhaps among conservatives. This error is in regarding the Constitution as a political bible, as if the people who wrote it were brilliant omniscient men who put down viewpoints and rules which will abide for the next million years, always relevant and clear-cut. This however, is not the case. The men who wrote the rules to govern the United States were ordinary politicians, no better or worse than those we have now, with their own share of flaws, mistakes, accidents, and gaps in knowledge. And to suggest that views relevant in the 1700s are still so today verges on ignorant. Times change. A perfect example is the current issue surrounding firearms. In the United States Constitution, the Second Article, Section 13 reads “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.” Our founding fathers, created the Bill of Rights shortly after British rule, which weighed heavily on their decisions. Americans of the time saw this important so as to deter undemocratic government, for self defense, and to maintain an organized militia. The size and strength of our current, two million strong army negates citizen action against both our own government and against other nations, knocking both the first and last reasons off our list. This leaves only self defense. In the 18th century, muskets made up the most technologically advanced personal firearm. It would take from half to a full minute to load, and could only fire one bullet at a time, which was horribly inaccurate at a length of more than 20 feet. Now compare this to modern weapons. Accurate from hundreds of yards, firing hundreds of rounds per minute. They can kill dozens of people, as demonstrated by school shootings nationwide. At the Columbine School Massacre, in which took the lives of fourteen students and a teacher, in addition to wounding twenty one others, the guns used were bought legally at Tanner's Gun Show in 1998. In the Virginia Tech Shooting, which took thirty two lives, the semi-automatic pistols used again were bought legally, sold to a mentally unstable man. Although we can only speculate, it would be much more difficult for these killers to access such weapons illegally, and perhaps the issue of obtaining such weapons on the black market would prove too much a hard ship for these unstable students, with little criminal knowledge.

Do you think guns should have more/less restrictions? Do you agree with above statements and opinions? And are parties perhaps blinded in thinking their opponents are so adamantly wrong?

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't think that two parties being at odds on two separate issues like they are here is an irony; rather, I think you've overgeneralized what this is about. Neither party believes in true freedom, and so they aren't arguing that people should have guns or weed available to them because of the inherent need to be free. Libertarians, who come at each issue from the "How can we be the most free?" look at the issue this way. Republicans, on the other hand, see marijuana and think about health risks, its alleged reputation as a gateway drug, and the state of mind it puts you in being, allegedly, more severe than the effects of alcohol. Democrats, on the gun issue, realize that if there are more lax gun laws, there are going to be more guns, which means more gun accidents as well as more availability to those that wish to misuse guns. It isn't ironic that both parties are arguing that you shouldn't be perfectly free; it's in line with their policies. They just want you to be unfree in different ways.

[SkyPanda]

The size and strength of our current, two million strong army negates citizen action against both our own government

I think this statement needs a bit of elaboration. You seem to be claiming that in the event of revolution, the "two million strong army" will deal with the government and the citizens won't need weapons. Who commands the army? Do you have some historical examples to back up your prediction?

[yungerkid]

The size and strength of our current, two million strong army negates citizen action against both our own government

The army is a strong force, but it can work either way. Remember that it is composed of the people. I do not think it is safe to assume that in case of a major feeling of distrust against the government, the army will take either side specifically. It is most likely that the army will be divided. The government commands the army, but they also "command" the general populace in the same way, and if there are enough dissenters within the army, the army could be a small factor with the uprising.

I agree with your point that the Constitution is not perfect. But our nation does need a legal Bible of some sort. We need an unchanging central ideology around which there is no debate. A groundwork. The constitution is that groundwork. Anyway, as Tsukatu has already posted in another thread, all humans naturally would not be restricted in acquiring guns. Thus the advocates for gun control must provide a reason for it. Seeing as guns are not necessary for our society, and they do cause major harm occasionally, I would think it best to introduce a minimal form of gun control wherein each person purchasing a gun is investigated to some degree before being granted the gun. Even forgetting the spectacular killings, homicides are reason enough to strengthen the restrictions a bit more.

[otters]

The size and strength of our current, two million strong army negates citizen action against both our own government

The army is a strong force, but it can work either way. Remember that it is composed of the people. I do not think it is safe to assume that in case of a major feeling of distrust against the government, the army will take either side specifically. It is most likely that the army will be divided. The government commands the army, but they also "command" the general populace in the same way, and if there are enough dissenters within the army, the army could be a small factor with the uprising.

As far as I'm aware (and I know a few people who are soldiers or otherwise employed in the Army, etc.) no soldier will fire upon an American civilian. That is to say, if there was another American Revolution, most of the military would be on our side.

[Ampersand]

http://quotes.maestrosync.com/view.php?388

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

http://quotes.maestrosync.com/view.php?388

I think this is an extremely valid point that demands further discussion. This is now the subject of this thread.

[Tanner]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Weap ... ot_Planets.

[Amadeus]

I don't think that two parties being at odds on two separate issues like they are here is an irony; rather, I think you've overgeneralized what this is about. Neither party believes in true freedom, and so they aren't arguing that people should have guns or weed available to them because of the inherent need to be free. Libertarians, who come at each issue from the "How can we be the most free?" look at the issue this way. Republicans, on the other hand, see marijuana and think about health risks, its alleged reputation as a gateway drug, and the state of mind it puts you in being, allegedly, more severe than the effects of alcohol. Democrats, on the gun issue, realize that if there are more lax gun laws, there are going to be more guns, which means more gun accidents as well as more availability to those that wish to misuse guns. It isn't ironic that both parties are arguing that you shouldn't be perfectly free; it's in line with their policies. They just want you to be unfree in different ways.

Well of course it's inline with their policies; it makes up of their policies. However, the reasons for the restrictions the political parties desire is based around safety, while the principal reasons for allowing firearms and cannabis is that to restrict them is an infringement upon civil liberties.

[SkyPanda]

We need an unchanging central ideology around which there is no debate.

No, nobody needs this. A nation's Consitution needs to include a process or method for altering the Constitution. This is because values, laws, society, etc, change over time. A rigid Constitution, no matter how minimal, will rapidly become either a burden or inadequate.


On gun control, I support it. I recognise that people need to be able to defend themselves but I do not accept that firearms are the best method of defense.

Perhaps one day I should start up a business in the non-lethal-but-still-powerful-unlike-wimpy-pepper-spray self-defense technology industry. :)

[乳头的早餐谷物]

The size and strength of our current, two million strong army negates citizen action against both our own government

The army is a strong force, but it can work either way. Remember that it is composed of the people. I do not think it is safe to assume that in case of a major feeling of distrust against the government, the army will take either side specifically. It is most likely that the army will be divided. The government commands the army, but they also "command" the general populace in the same way, and if there are enough dissenters within the army, the army could be a small factor with the uprising.

As far as I'm aware (and I know a few people who are soldiers or otherwise employed in the Army, etc.) no soldier will fire upon an American civilian. That is to say, if there was another American Revolution, most of the military would be on our side.

Who's side?

[origami_alligator]

As far as I'm aware (and I know a few people who are soldiers or otherwise employed in the Army, etc.) no soldier will fire upon an American civilian. That is to say, if there was another American Revolution, most of the military would be on our side.

Who's side?

I'm with maestro on this. Whose side would the military be on? You seem to assume they'd champion the cause of those dissenting. The military probably wouldn't unless ordered to. Which would probably never happen.

[T3chno]

Oakland, California has become the first city to tax marijuana. First step to legalization!

[Lachesis]

Both can be used destructively

Bullshit. Marijuana is not destructive unless you're doing it wrong.

[McP]

same thing with guns

and by wrong i mean against the law

on a side note as a proud Texan and Californian i carry a firearm and eighth of weed on me at all times. I call it dual patriotism

[scythe]

* is not destructive unless you're doing it wrong.

[Amadeus]

Both can be used destructively

Bullshit. Marijuana is not destructive unless you're doing it wrong

Emphasis on the "can" guys. I never said they're always used incorrectly. Medical marijuana is extremely helpful towards cancer patients, and guns can be used by cops to protect innocent civilians.

EDIT: However, as an illegal drug, marijuana kills brain cellsand alters reality and perception, making everyday actions a hazard. And guns can be used to kill the innocent people that other guns are trying to protect.
Regardless of technicalities, the drug is obviously bad for you health.

[scythe]

However, as an illegal drug, marijuana kills brain cells

I take issue with your logic. I doubt the legality of a substance has any bearing on its neurotoxicity.

Also, in the case of cannabis, statistically significant neurotoxicity has never been detected.

[Amadeus]

I apologize, I was uninformed as to that statement. However, marijuana is bad for a person's health in a number of ways. I don't think that's really debatable, its a scientific fact.

Scythe, I was not saying that marijuana is necessarily bad because it is illegal, I was simply separating illegal drug usage from its medical counterpart.