GET READY FOR SAFE ACT II

[WNYBuckHunter]

Meaning that saying anyone who drinks enough to become inebriated or smokes a little weed or anything like that, has some sort of "mental illness", and that those who do not do that are somehow superior to those that choose to. Its a bunch of horse manure, and has nothing at all to do with any further updates or changes to the so called safe act.

[Steuben Jerry]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:36 PM, Wilderness said:

Someone who uses chemicals (marijuana, alcohol or other dope) with the intent to alter their mental state are mentally ill.  

So with your broad brush you have classified the majority of Americans as mentally ill? Because the majority of Americans have drank alcohol. I'm pretty sure it not because of the taste.

 

[WNYBuckHunter]

59 minutes ago, Steuben Jerry said:

So with your broad brush you have classified the majority of Americans as mentally ill? Because the majority of Americans have drank alcohol. I'm pretty sure it not because of the taste.

 

The majority has also smoked weed at least once in their lifetime.

[dbHunterNY]

14 hours ago, Rattler said:

What he said was, anyone who drinks it with the intention of altering their mental state, is mentally ill.

I tend to agree that people who do anything that intentionally makes them stoned, are dealing with some mental issues, or at least an addiction.

on the contrary anyone who does smoke or drink and ends up in shock they got stoned or buzzed has a very limited mental capacity regardless of its state. those individuals probably shouldn't use weapons or operate equipment. lol  pretty sure everyone knows what's coming when they do so, to what extent is another context.

[Chef]

 
The NRA is currently suing Cuomo for banning the sale of Carry Guard insurance for concealed carry permit holders.  They are also working on getting semi-auto rifle bans like the SAFE Act before the Supreme Court and expect to see a ruling on it in the new year.  The challenge will be against the ban in another state, but will affect all bans like it in any state.
Legalizing pot has nothing to do with state governments recognizing your freedom to smoke it.  It's all about taxing it to get more money in the state coffers.  It won't be cheaper when it's legal and the state will be the one making big bucks from selling it.  When booze was illegal, crime was high.  The government made it legal again to stop the crime, but also to make lots of tax revenue from it.  The same can be said for the lottery.  The same can be said for drugs. (Except not all drugs will be legal, so the crime will not stop)
It's not about freedom, your rights, or even crime.  It's about money.  That's all the government is ever interested in when it makes anything taxable.  They start doing the same thing criminals were doing, but because they are the government, it's legal.  Not moral or ethical, but legal.
When these semi auto gun bans are declared unconstitutional, you will see states begin massive micro managed regulation of any firearm they thought should have been banned.  The taxes on them will fly sky high and the permits to own them will cost you big money every year.  Ammo will also be considered fair game for "sin" taxes.  Taxes are always constitutional.
 

Taxes are constitutional but in that case could be considered punitive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[burmjohn]

On 11/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, Wilderness said:

True.  But all  "weed" smokers always smoke it to get inebriated.

Someone who uses chemicals (marijuana, alcohol or other dope) with the intent to alter their mental state are mentally ill.  Making marijuana legal only enables the mentally ill to further degrade their ability to cope with life.  Additionally the inhalation of the smoke can cause respiratory diseases.

Personally if people want to deliberately disable themselves, they should not receive any government social programs benefits.

Why stop there.  What about people that drive fast, eat to much, drink soda, smoke cigs, vape, take prescription drugs. 

[Rattler]

QUOTE:

"Meaning that saying anyone who drinks enough to become inebriated or smokes a little weed or anything like that, has some sort of "mental illness", and that those who do not do that are somehow superior to those that choose to. Its a bunch of horse manure, and has nothing at all to do with any further updates or changes to the so called safe act."

Nobody said anyone who drinks or smokes pot has a mental illness.  Anyone who frequently seeks out drinking and drugs to deal with life, has a mental illness.  That's not an opinion, it's a clinical diagnosis from the America Psychiatric Assn. 

Considering this thread was about more restrictions under the SAFE Act, and the fact that alcoholics and drug addicts are already banned from buying a firearm when honestly answering those questions on the background check paperwork, is it too much to expect those restrictions will become even more oppressive as the anti's strive to deny more applications?

They will be making the rules, and you will not be given any quarter when they do.

If they can prove you are a habitual drinker or pot smoker, rest assured, you will be denied based on not being in your right mind.  It will be easy to get a multitude of professional mental health counselors to attest to it.  Frequently seeking out substances that put you in any intoxicated state, is already diagnosed as a mental illness.  Getting a DWI may be enough to get you denied in the future under these rules.

You can make the same rebuttals to the debate as you do here, but it won't matter to those who prefer preventative law over constitutional rights.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Rattler