English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Because drugs kill people? No, I think you will find that guns kill people (that is what a hand gun is designed to do it's not for hunting and pretty useless in most war situations too) so why is it that you can easily buy a gun in the US of A but if they catch you with a bit of weed they want to lock you up? In fact, in many states if they catch you smoking mary jane three times then they will give you a life sentence.

Go out and buy a kalashnikov? No problem.

2007-04-21 08:19:21 · 23 answers · asked by airmonkey1001 4 in Politics & Government Law Enforcement & Police

The constitution says state militias can have guns not individuals. And anyway something people wrote down over 200 years ago does not change the fact that this is madness - ban drugs but not guns. What is that if not lunacy?

2007-04-21 08:28:39 · update #1

If you offend 3 times in some states in the US you get life ie. zero tolerance.

A militia is not everyone living in the state stop playing with words and get real.

2007-04-21 08:36:12 · update #2

23 answers

Because it was a way to protect yourself, and still is. Granted if there never was guns, we would just die a more painful death when someone wanted us dead. But guns were originally designed for military use only, even police officers didnt carry weapons, except for that good ole billy club. But then the rich politicians wanted to shoot weapons because they felt that the guns is what was saving America, so why shouldnt they be allowed to partake in the fun of shooting. Then it became a way to settle disputes and kill the accused.

Eventually they had to allow everyone to have a gun if they wanted, the ammendment right to bear arms, was made for civilians to defend themselves. The thought of everyone being treated equally is what made it so that anyone could have a damn gun. Now a days its the same way to an extent, now it is actually hard to recieve a handgun, a rifle or shotgun, is a little easier. But every handgun is marked, so that when a bullet from that gun is used in a crime, it can be traced to the owner.

But to answer your question, drugs were okay back then, this is why they werent put in the earlier laws, guns were okay as well because it made the rich feel protected and powerful. The poor could never really afford the guns, so it was as usual something only the rich and powerful could have. If it made the politicians happy, then that is how it was done. Kind of like it is today, we still have the right to bear arms, but we dont have the right to use deadly force unless deadly force is being used against us. See how they got around that 2nd ammendment, sneaky *******.

Drugs should be illegal period, even cigarettes and alcohol, both of these things cause the brain to function a different way. If you smoke a cig really fast all the oxygen gets cut off to the brain, leaving you disy and loopy. Drink too much alcohol, well you know about that one. But these things used to be known as drugs as well, but when it came time to start to get rid of things because people were able to make hella profits on them, and sneak past the tax act, they decided to make it illegal.

But they had to keep some things, hence the cigs and booze. Ciggarettes were originally made for women anyways. But you drug test the people that make up the government, you will be surprised to find that a majority of them use drugs, including the jack *** we have in the white house. Every president did drugs, even the most innocent Lincoln did drugs, all the damn time.

2007-04-21 12:12:23 · answer #1 · answered by David K 3 · 1 0

First of all, the right to own a gun is GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment - it is not granted by the Second Amendment.

Second - the current definition of militia is covered in Title 10, United States Code, Section 311 - this covers both the organized and unorganized militia.

Third - No states have laws that would result in a life sentence for smoking marijuana 3 times. If there are, I expect you to provide some references.

California Deputy

2007-04-22 14:17:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

As you read it's a mixed crowd charged with emotion. In my opinion if it was kept only in the home or for a sport I don't like there is an argument here. Easy access like we keep witnessing is serious. I'm stunned we learn nothing each day with drive bys and gang shootings let alone Cho on a sad rampage at VTech & the NASA dude. Who's next if we are all armed and mayhem breaks out? Now we really have panic and stray bullets to deal with. Run, stay down play dead follow what the experts say don't play Rambo expecting to beat all the bad guys because you are not in a Hollywood movie here. It's real life. Thank you for listening to my thoughts as well.
Pot? Man that is another page conversation. None of it makes alot of sense. Maybe the government can get rewards and money from the NRA and not a plain little farmer. But I do know some abuses go on there too. Communities that for years made big $$ on large sales of weed.

2007-04-21 08:42:09 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1 2

Drugs kill.

MIAMI (Reuters) - An explosion set fire to a Miami house being used to grow marijuana hydroponically on Wednesday and the force of the blast sent the occupant flying into the yard, police said.
The man, identified by police as Edel Mesa, 40, was badly burned on the chest, arms and legs and was in critical condition at a trauma hospital, investigators said.
"The house was pretty much destroyed," said Miami-Dade Police Detective Carlos Maura.
Firefighters extinguished the flames and called police, who seized more than 40 marijuana plants from the home, police said.
Arson investigators were trying to determine the cause of the explosion, but police said the man may have been using propane gas near the high-intensity lamps used to grow the plants indoors.
Police said Mesa was not immediately charged with a crime because of his injuries.

2007-04-21 09:32:14 · answer #4 · answered by william74044 3 · 1 0

The only action government ever takes to crack down on illegal guns is by passing more laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them. The government doesn't get it, and they don't care. This is another reason I support Ron Paul. He's the only one who has the record to show he supports the Second Amendment. Not Romney, not Perry, -Ron Paul. Or they sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to justify more gun control in the US. But that's okay if the government commits treason and then persecutes its own people I guess.

2016-05-20 04:23:53 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Can you imagine druggies w/ even easier access to a mind altering substance and then combine w/ the already easy access to guns? We know that if drugs were legal the tampering of them to make them better than the seller's next door would be imminent. So add a little PCP or Meth for a little more kick. Give it to an already disturbed individual and watch how the bullets will fly. Not saying all druggies are disturbed, my opinion would be that they are, or all lunatics w/ guns do drugs, but the combination is frightening. Unfortunately our forefathers did not realize the carnage their "Right to bear arms" amendment would bring about, but I am sure ole Ben and Jefferson are regretting the large loophole they left for the NRA nutters and other "if I ain't packing, I ain't a real man" lunatics. Please, keep your rifles for the "sport" of hunting, but let's get rid of the hunting weapon of choice for mad-men/women, hand-guns and automatic weapons.

2007-04-21 08:36:36 · answer #6 · answered by mak 5 · 1 1

Handguns are primarily designed to kill people, which is why they are so good for self defense. Self defense is the most important reason for guns to exist. Not hunting or target practice (Although those are very good uses) Guns by their very presence prevent injury to both the victim and the criminal in most situations of defense. I.E. The gun is brandished by the victim, and the criminal runs off to find an unarmed victim instead. A study by the journal of criminal law and criminology showed that a gun is 60 times more likely to protect a life than it is to take life. This is in contrast to the myth that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than protect one. That myth came from police reports only - Comparing home invasion defense killings to murders, suicides, and accidents. It makes no discrimination for illegally obtained guns, and doesn't account for times when the gun owner stops the invasion by merely brandishing a gun. Not to mention the preventions never reported to police. The myth comes from the Brady Campaign, and the real study comes from Dr. Gary Kleck who was anti-gun rights until he did the study. When guns are illegal, only criminals have them.

2007-04-21 09:22:39 · answer #7 · answered by Lancaid 3 · 2 2

Have you bothered to actually read it, and see what it says?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's what it says. NOT "only the Militia can have guns." PEOPLE--right---not infringed.

Now, show me an amendment that says anything like that about the people having a right to get high. Gun, legal. Mind altering substance, not legal. Therein lies the difference.

2007-04-21 09:24:29 · answer #8 · answered by oklatom 7 · 6 2

we need guns to keep each other and the police honest. you cross the line people will fight back. Pot is illegal because drug companies cant put a patent on it and its hard to tax. You go to almost any doctor and tell them your depressed and they'll give you all the prescription drugs you want (Zoloft Wellburtan, etc etc etc) all to make feel better. All of which are highly addictive and you can kill yourself by overdose and legal to drive on ain't that a hoot.
somebody answered because drugs kill people well 350,000 people a year die from smoking nicotine,150,000 people a year drink them selves to death and not 1 person has ever died from smoking pot. (these figures don't include drunk or drugged driving accidents).
as far as the constitution goes i believe life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what its all about. liberty to decide for myself what to put in my body as long as i don't infringe on the rights of others. if smoking pot makes you happy why not long as your not driving or handling your gun

2007-04-21 09:22:37 · answer #9 · answered by freedom my ass 1 · 1 1

The answer you want to hear is "because the gun lobby is so strong." The other side would argue it's because the gun doesn't start the action of killing, whereas drugs can cause actions (sometimes regrettable) to start.

I know that everyone who smokes weed doesn't do bad things; neither does everyone who owns a gun.

2007-04-21 08:27:14 · answer #10 · answered by TheOldOkie 3 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers