Gun registration v Plant registration...

[RDD_1210]

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

... but not a human right..... like I said.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The SECOND AMENDMENT CLEARLY prohibits any denial of the right of the people to have and bear cannabis.







Oh.


Wait.

lol cute, but what about the 9th amendment or even the 14th?

They do not address either guns or pot.

 

[KNB]

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The first draft of the US Constitution was written on hemp paper.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

... but not a human right..... like I said.

But it is. For people (at least citizens) IN the U.S.A. For, it is a right of the PEOPLE and each and every one of them is a human. Thus, it is a human right.

******* dogs have no such right.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The first draft of the US Constitution was written on hemp paper.

Wow. What a non interesting alleged factoid.

 

[KNB]

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The first draft of the US Constitution was written on hemp paper.

Wow. What a non interesting alleged factoid.

Yeah, you're right, choad. It's entirely uninteresting that the "Land of the Free" now has more prisoners than anywhere else on Earth specifically because of the ridiculous prohibition of the same plant which helped continue to build the United States from the early 1600s until the early 1950s.

In terms of American history, it was reported that in 1492 Christopher Columbus brought cannabis as rope of hemp into the New World. In 1619, Jamestown colony law declared that all settlers were required to grow cannabis. George Washington grew cannabis for fiber production at Mount Vernon as his primary crop.
http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2009_2010/Children_Family/Emerging-Issue/mmga-presentation-cannabis-history-aug2010.pdf

American production of hemp was encouraged by the government in the 17th century for the production of rope, sails, and clothing. (Marijuana is the mixture of dried, shredded flowers and leaves that comes from the hemp plant.)

In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.

Domestic production flourished until after the Civil War, when imports and other domestic materials replaced hemp for many purposes. In the late nineteenth century, marijuana became a popular ingredient in many medicinal products and was sold openly in public pharmacies.

During the 19th century, hashish use became a fad in France and also, to some extent, in the U.S.
Marijuana Timeline | Busted - America's War On Marijuana | FRONTLINE | PBS

The cultivation of Cannabis sativa, otherwise known as marijuana, has been documented in the United States since the early 17th century, when settlers brought the plant to Jamestown, Virginia to produce hemp. The plant was also recognized for its medicinal purposes, even meriting an entry in the 1850 edition of the medical reference book United States Pharmacopeia. These relatively permissive attitudes toward marijuana would, however, change dramatically in the beginning of the 20th century, as social reform movements attempted to eradicate the recreational use (and abuse) of marijuana and other substances such as alcohol, morphine, and opium. Local and state jurisdictions codified these prohibitions, passing laws that restricted the non-medical use of marijuana or banned the drug completely. By the time Congress passed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, a bill that levied a fee on commercial transactions involving the Cannabis sativa plant, every state had laws in place that criminalized the general possession or sale of marijuana.
https://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/wordpress/2012/05/medical-marijuana-policy-in-the-united-states/

In 1971, Congress created the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, led by Governor Raymond P. Shafer, known as the Shafer Commission.

The Shafer Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the nature and scope of marijuana use, its effects, the relationship of marijuana use to other behavior, and the efficacy of existing law.

The final report of the Shafer Commission recommended that marijuana be decriminalized.

Since the Shafer Commission, the Federal Government has expanded its ‘‘War on Drugs’’ and continued to prohibit the use of marijuana.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1635ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1635ih.pdf

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

But of course that's all just left-wing big government Marxist media propaganda or whatever, right?

 

[DNAprotection]

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

lol so what then is the 'bill of rights'?
its a partial list of human rights gov was created to protect in the view of those that created such...
so in your mind you have 'constitutional' rights, right?
thats where your probs understanding this basic concept begins...

 

[RDD_1210]

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

... but not a human right..... like I said.

But it is. For people (at least citizens) IN the U.S.A. For, it is a right of the PEOPLE and each and every one of them is a human. Thus, it is a human right.

******* dogs have no such right.

LOL, ok crackpot. You really just compared "human rights" to dog rights? LOL, this board is amazing.

 

[DNAprotection]

The SECOND AMENDMENT CLEARLY prohibits any denial of the right of the people to have and bear cannabis.







Oh.


Wait.

lol cute, but what about the 9th amendment or even the 14th?

They do not address either guns or pot.

well thats kinda nutty to say and leave, its like dropping a turd and not flushing...
of course they dont say such because they left it for you to fill in = flush
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
isnt it self explanatory?

 

[DNAprotection]

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The first draft of the US Constitution was written on hemp paper.

dude you are an expert swimmer when swimming in the river of irrelevance...
and ps...in response to your other post here blaming prohibition and the corpsgov for all the folks in prison over cannabis, you of course are incorrect again as usual because such is of course due to an abandonment of our common and most basic human rights by you and your masters...but i dont blame them, i blame you

 

[Darkwind]

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It absolutely is. It is also protected in conjunction with the 4th Amendment with regard to registration.

The State has no rights. None. The State has only responsibilities to the law.

There is no compelling need for the State to register guns.

 

[RDD_1210]

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It absolutely is. It is also protected in conjunction with the 4th Amendment with regard to registration.

The State has no rights. None. The State has only responsibilities to the law.

There is no compelling need for the State to register guns.

You have no clue what human rights are, do you?

"They are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[2] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). "

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please get a clue.

 

[DNAprotection]

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It absolutely is. It is also protected in conjunction with the 4th Amendment with regard to registration.

The State has no rights. None. The State has only responsibilities to the law.

There is no compelling need for the State to register guns.

You have no clue what human rights are, do you?

"They are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[2] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). "

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please get a clue.

a human being (that wasnt a slave) would not need a wikipedia definition to understand what their human rights are because they would inherently just know such
i admit that the right to guns is an odd right if examined from an extremest view (especially when compared to the ever present right to grow plants etc), but when looked at from the context of the era of guns ruling the day as it was when the bill of rights was written (and as it still is today), its easy to see why it has been acknowledged and declared a human right in the bill of rights...

 

[RDD_1210]

It absolutely is. It is also protected in conjunction with the 4th Amendment with regard to registration.

The State has no rights. None. The State has only responsibilities to the law.

There is no compelling need for the State to register guns.

You have no clue what human rights are, do you?

"They are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[2] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). "

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please get a clue.

a human being (that wasnt a slave) would not need a wikipedia definition to understand what their human rights are because they would inherently just know such
i admit that the right to guns is an odd right if examined from an extremest view (especially when compared to the ever present right to grow plants etc), but when looked at from the context of the era of guns ruling the day as it was when the bill of rights was written (and as it still is today), its easy to see why it has been acknowledged and declared a human right in the bill of rights...

Just because something is in our bill of rights, that doesn't make it a basic human right. The fact that this needs to be explained is amazing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you are against gun registration while at the same time supporting the cannabis laws in Wa.Co. = plant registration, please explain...
If you are against gun registration and yet support the prohibition of the coca plant or the poppy plant or the cannabis plant, please explain...
Do you think it should be an added special crime to have a gun and a plant at the same time?
Sincerely seeking clarification, thanks,
dna

The farm industry is regulated by the gov with the support of big farma

I'll assume you are against regulating guns, as you should be

 

[KGB]

I would prefer we license gun buyers not guns. I would also prefer we register dope growers, not dope.

You pass a reasonable background check to ensure you aren't a country music fan or an escaped serial killer, and then you can buy all the guns you want, or grow all the dope you want.

You go to a gun seller, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the guns you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

no. that is just enhanced "may issue" which is garbage to begin with. We need more "shall issue", open carry, etc. Not more govt restriction of a constitutional right.

 

[eflatminor]

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

Self protection is. A firearm is a the means by which we most commonly exercise that right.

Further, owning a firearm most certainly is an inalienable right under the Constitution, which means the government can have no say in a person's right to arm himself without due process.

 

[eflatminor]

You have no clue what human rights are, do you?

"They are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[2] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). "

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please get a clue.

a human being (that wasnt a slave) would not need a wikipedia definition to understand what their human rights are because they would inherently just know such
i admit that the right to guns is an odd right if examined from an extremest view (especially when compared to the ever present right to grow plants etc), but when looked at from the context of the era of guns ruling the day as it was when the bill of rights was written (and as it still is today), its easy to see why it has been acknowledged and declared a human right in the bill of rights...

Just because something is in our bill of rights, that doesn't make it a basic human right. The fact that this needs to be explained is amazing.

It most certainly means that such rights are not to be infringed by government. Of course, we don't need a Bill of Rights for that...there is NO enumerated power giving government the right to restrict firearm ownership without due process. Sorry, there just isn't.

 

[RDD_1210]

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

Self protection is. A firearm is a the means by which we most commonly exercise that right.

Further, owning a firearm most certainly is an inalienable right under the Constitution, which means the government can have no say in a person's right to arm himself without due process.

Neat. Still isn't a basic human right.

 

[RDD_1210]

a human being (that wasnt a slave) would not need a wikipedia definition to understand what their human rights are because they would inherently just know such
i admit that the right to guns is an odd right if examined from an extremest view (especially when compared to the ever present right to grow plants etc), but when looked at from the context of the era of guns ruling the day as it was when the bill of rights was written (and as it still is today), its easy to see why it has been acknowledged and declared a human right in the bill of rights...

Just because something is in our bill of rights, that doesn't make it a basic human right. The fact that this needs to be explained is amazing.

It most certainly means that such rights are not to be infringed by government. Of course, we don't need a Bill of Rights for that...there is NO enumerated power giving government the right to restrict firearm ownership without due process. Sorry, there just isn't.

Awesome. Still doesn't mean gun ownership is a basic human right. None of what you said changes that, but please continue.