Hawaii orders gun owners on medical marijuna to surrender firearms - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Quark:;52935576]I absolutely, without a single doubt, would rather suffer and die from cancer than surrender my rights as a tax paying, naturalized citizen of the United States of America. Not one thing, not one single plant that you can put in your body should [B]ever[/B] be a reason to revoke your rights. [B]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [U]shall not be infringed.[/U][/B] This right, and many others, were afforded to us by our nation's founders. The text is clear, the intent is obvious, and the right [B]shall not be infringed. [/B]Stand up for your rights, and refuse to give in to a system that would have your rights revoked over a simple lifestyle choice that doesn't harm anyone, never has harmed anyone, and never will harm anyone.[/QUOTE] I mean I get your points, but the topic isn’t really about lifestyle choices, it’s about medical marijuana. Something to aide with pain and suffering, not to “420 blaze it bro”. I’m on your side of fighting for your rights and all but if it came down to what was standing between me having access to a pain-relieving natural remedy that has potentially dampening effects on tumors VS being in agonizing pain and dying a slow and torturous death was my collection of [I]firearms[/I], I’d say take em.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935718]I mean I get your points, but the topic isn’t really about lifestyle choices, it’s about medical marijuana. Something to aide with pain and suffering, not to “420 blaze it bro”. I’m on your side of fighting for your rights and all but if it came down to what was standing between me having access to a pain-relieving natural remedy that has potentially dampening effects on tumors VS being in agonizing pain and dying a slow and torturous death was my collection of [I]firearms[/I], I’d say take em.[/QUOTE] So you would also forfeit your right to vote and right to free speech as well?

Marijuana use is a lifestyle choice, whether it's recreational or medical. No lifestyle choice is worth surrendering your rights, even if it provides comfort and medical remedy to your disease. Your rights are your rights.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935718]I mean I get your points, but the topic isn’t really about lifestyle choices, it’s about medical marijuana. Something to aide with pain and suffering, not to “420 blaze it bro”. I’m on your side of fighting for your rights and all but if it came down to what was standing between me having access to a pain-relieving natural remedy that has potentially dampening effects on tumors VS being in agonizing pain and dying a slow and torturous death was my collection of [I]firearms[/I], I’d say take em.[/QUOTE] False dichotomy, the only reason this is an issue is because someone made it one. Smoking marijuana to cope with cancer pain doesn't literally render you incapable of owning firearms, this is just shit law being enforced arbitrarily to abuse citizens. [I]There should not be an "either or" situation.[/I] Hawaii wants to have its cake and eat it too - they want medical marijuana but they also want to punish gun owners, so they enforce federal law selectively to target a specific group, giving exceptions to people who are in violation of federal law as long as they aren't also otherwise-lawfully owning weapons. And you... are OK with that.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935718]I mean I get your points, but the topic isn’t really about lifestyle choices, it’s about medical marijuana. Something to aide with pain and suffering, not to “420 blaze it bro”. I’m on your side of fighting for your rights and all but if it came down to what was standing between me having access to a pain-relieving natural remedy that has potentially dampening effects on tumors VS being in agonizing pain and dying a slow and torturous death was my collection of [I]firearms[/I], I’d say take em.[/QUOTE] Please take that and apply it to any other right found in the bill of rights. Would you rather have freedom of speech, or be able to smoke pot but only be able to practise one religion? Would you rather have the right against illegal search and seizure, or be able to smoke pot and let the government come into your home whenever they would like and take whatever they would like? Would you rather have the right to due process, or would you rather be able to smoke pot and be imprisoned for whatever reason and let the government figure out whenever they want to try you? Whether you like it or not being able to own guns is a right just like the rest in the bill of rights, and allowing for infringement upon that right sets a precidence that can be used against other rights.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52935754]So you would also forfeit your right to vote and right to free speech as well?[/QUOTE] Well, while I'm pretty sure you're going for some sort of "gotcha" moment here and while I do think there's a pretty massive difference between being able to use your [I]naturally [/I]born ability of speech and your [I]privileged [/I]right to own deathmachines, if it came down to me either having free speech or being able to not suffer immense pain or maybe even have my ails dampened/fixed then I would go for the latter. What's the point in free speech or the right to vote anyway if I can't utilize it - either because I'm in too much pain, or worse yet, I'm dead? [QUOTE=Quark:;52935756]Marijuana use is a lifestyle choice, whether it's recreational or medical. No lifestyle choice is worth surrendering your rights, even if it provides comfort and medical remedy to your disease. Your rights are your rights.[/QUOTE] It [I]can [/I]be a lifestyle choice, but for those on medical marijuana who use it for medical reasons it's definetely [I]not [/I]a lifestyle choice because to them it's just medicine. Would you say that someone who needs to be on a constant dose of anti-depressents or Vicodine is living a "lifestyle choice"? [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52935782]False dichotomy, the only reason this is an issue is because someone made it one. Smoking marijuana to cope with cancer pain doesn't literally render you incapable of owning firearms, this is just shit law being enforced arbitrarily to abuse citizens. [I]There should not be an "either or" situation.[/I] Hawaii wants to have its cake and eat it too - they want medical marijuana but they also want to punish gun owners, so they enforce federal law selectively to target a specific group, giving exceptions to people who are in violation of federal law as long as they aren't also otherwise-lawfully owning weapons. And you... are OK with that.[/QUOTE] Hey, I'm not saying I'm "OK" with this decision. I'm not saying Hawaii is in the right here. You have your silly gun-rights. I don't agree with those either, but you have them. I'm saying if I personally was put on the spot to choose between one or the other (like the post I quoted) I would choose the one where I give up my toys. Also marijuana definetely literally has the potential to render you incapable of owning firearms, for the same reason alcohol or any other drug would. For the same reason you shouldn't drink and drink you shouldn't smoke and shoot.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935867]your [I]privileged [/I]right to own deathmachines You have your silly gun-rights. I would choose the one where I give up my toys. [/QUOTE] Is this supposed to be serious?

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52935877]Is this supposed to be serious?[/QUOTE] Yes. Maybe it's because I'm in a country where I don't feel the need to hold my government at gunpoint, nor do I feel threatened enough by the people I see on the street that I feel I need a gun to keep me safe? [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935864]Would you rather have freedom of speech, or be able to smoke pot but only be able to practise one religion?[/QUOTE] See above. Ridiculous comparison because one is a natural ability you are born to have and the other is a privilege. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935864]Would you rather have the right against illegal search and seizure, or be able to smoke pot and let the government come into your home whenever they would like and take whatever they would like? Would you rather have the right to due process, or would you rather be able to smoke pot and be imprisoned for whatever reason and let the government figure out whenever they want to try you?[/QUOTE] Neither of these are really comparable because they're about the privacy and freedom of the individual, where as the 2nd Amendment is about arming the people against the government. Again, this makes it privilege. It's written as a "right", but it's not like you're given a gun at birth - you still have to buy one (which can be various degrees of expensive, making it a non-option for poor people & families) and go through the necessary checks to acquire it. That's not a right. That's a drivers test. And driving a car isn't exactly a right either.

Whether you agree with the idea of making it a law or not, marijuana absolutely alters your mental state the same as alcohol and any drug and you have no ability to say you are a responsible firearm owner under the influence of drugs. It's impossible. It's just like giving up your right to consent. When you're under the influence of [I]anything[/I], even other prescription medication (which you also can be denied a gun license due to), you give up the ability to legally judge your own actions. That sucks, but it's for not just your protection but for the protection of people around you. It's a hard case then because it might not be your fault, you may very well need that medical marijuana to function- I have crohn's disease, and it helps me out greatly in my daily life when I'm suffering from the pain. But it's important to acknowledge that you can be as safe as you want with it AND remain in control of your own actions and still be a danger, because it alters your ability to judge and react appropriately to situations.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935883]Yes. See above. Ridiculous comparison because one is a natural ability you are born to have and the other is a privilege. Neither of these are really comparable because they're about the privacy and freedom of the individual, where as the 2nd Amendment is about arming the people against the government. Again, this makes it privilege. It's written as a "right", but it's not like you're given a gun at birth - you still have to buy one and go through the necessary checks to acquire it. That's not a right. That's a drivers test. And driving a car isn't exactly a right either.[/QUOTE] So because it's something you have to get that makes it a privilege? The Right is being able to own them. Anyone in the US can own a gun so long as something has not disbarred them from doing so, just like everyone has a right against illegal search and seizure unless they end up in prison. The 2nd amendment is just as about the freedom of the indevidual as the rest, as it helps insure that freedom for the indevidual. It is a right to own a firearm, one that has been muddled by over a century of regulation, but still a right to own none the less. The government cannot stop you from owning a gun without significant reason, to which that reason is usually enough to strip you of other rights as well. Under that same argument you made one could say one is not born with speech, nor is born with a house in their name. They are both things that people aquire, some requiring a purchase. So no, it's not quite the same as being able to drive a car. Many things can stop you from owning a car, many other things can prevent you from getting a license. Very little reason is needed for the government to take your car. All legally owned cars are registered with the government, are required to have taxes paid on them yearly depending on the state (tabs).

We all have the natural ability to take objects and own them. We also have a natural right to self preservation, which means the right to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves and our lives. Either way, you missed the entire point.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935928]So because it's something you have to get that makes it a privilege? The Right is being able to own them. Anyone in the US can own a gun so long as something has not disbarred them from doing so, just like everyone has a right against illegal search and seizure unless they end up in prison. The 2nd amendment is just as about the freedom of the indevidual as the rest, as it helps insure that freedom for the indevidual. It is a right to own a firearm, one that has been muddled by over a century of regulation, but still a right to own none the less. The government cannot stop you from owning a gun without significant reason, to which that reason is usually enough to strip you of other rights as well. [/QUOTE] I technically have a "right" to own a gun in Sweden as well, nothing says I "can't" own a gun. I just have to pay the necessary fees, get the necessary licenses, be an active member of a gun-club and keep my weapons locked in a safe when not in use. Doesn't need to be in my "constitution". [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935928]Under that same argument you made one could say one is not born with speech, nor is born with a house in their name. They are both things that people aquire, some requiring a purchase.[/QUOTE] One is natural, one is not. That's the main point. Your ability to speak is natural. Your ability to own a gun is a privilege. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935928]So no, it's not quite the same as being able to drive a car. Many things can stop you from owning a car, many other things can prevent you from getting a license. Very little reason is needed for the government to take your car. All legally owned cars are registered with the government, are required to have taxes paid on them yearly depending on the state (tabs).[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong here, but many things can stop you from owning a gun in the US - like not passing a mental health check, from what I know. If you shoot someone with your gun, the government (read: cops) might confiscate your gun as evidence. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52935929]We all have the natural ability to take objects and own them. We also have a natural right to self preservation, which means the right to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves and our lives. [/QUOTE] You can protect yourself without a firearm. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52935929]Either way, you missed the entire point.[/QUOTE] I really don't think I did.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935883]See above. Ridiculous comparison because one is a natural ability you are born to have and the other is a privilege.[/QUOTE] Both are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment falls, everything else in the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution itself is now vulnerable to the same. One could argue that preventing gang violence and terrorism would be a thousand times more efficient if police were allowed to search any person or property at-will. But we don't let them do that because our rights are protected by the Constitution.

Personally I would treat using a gun and substances like driving, both situations are bad IMO. Like, just having booze or medical marijuana in your possession might not be grounds for a review of that there license but if someone is drunk with a firearm then the police should be able to insist that you turn it over to them, at least until you come back to collect it sober. Of course, I don't live in a country where guns are seen as a right, so its hard for me to understand opposition to regulation for something that can kill people.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935962]I technically have a "right" to own a gun in Sweden as well, nothing says I "can't" own a gun. I just have to pay the necessary fees, get the necessary licenses, be an active member of a gun-club and keep my weapons locked in a safe when not in use. Doesn't need to be in my "constitution". One is natural, one is not. That's the main point. Your ability to speak is natural. Your ability to own a gun is a privilege. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but many things can stop you from owning a gun in the US - like not passing a mental health check, from what I know. If you shoot someone with your gun, the government (read: cops) might confiscate your gun as evidence. You can protect yourself without a firearm. I really don't think I did.[/QUOTE] And your ability to own property is not natural, but we still have a right from having it searched without reason. The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right takes significantly more to take away from someone than a privilege. In the US there are 4 major things that bar you from owning a firearm. Being a convicted felon, having any crime of domestic violence, having been forcefully institutionalised, and being an unlawful user of illicit substances. There are of course smaller things that prevent ownership temporarily, such as being on probation, but that too strips you of other rights. Failing a mental health test does not bar you from owning a gun, being forcefully institutionalised does. That also strips you of other rights as well. Having a gun confiscated as evidence when used to lawfully defend ones self does not infringe on the right to ownership. Unless there circumstances were questionable, they don't take the rest of your guns or prevent you from buying more. If the situation was questionable than it's no different than investigating a murder, with other rights being suspended as well until the investigation is complete.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52935981]Both are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment falls, everything else in the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution itself is now vulnerable to the same. One could argue that preventing gang violence and terrorism would be a thousand times more efficient if police were allowed to search any person or property at-will. But we don't let them do that because our rights are protected by the Constitution.[/QUOTE] I dunno man, I don't think that slippery-slope really works in this instance. I'd agree if it [I]was[/I] something like your freedom of speech or your right against unlawful seizure etc., but this is... guns. Just guns. Not many countries even [I]have [/I]something similar to a second amendment, infact the vast [I]majority [/I]don't.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935883]Yes.[/QUOTE] Ok, I asked if you were serious because your wording was so condescending and you liken a hobby and way of life for many people as just "toys", as if owning them was somehow childish; and then you call a major cornerstone of American life silly. I'm sorry, but with that massive lack of self awareness I literally cannot take anything you say seriously. [QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935991] but this is... guns. Just guns. Not many countries even [I]have [/I]something similar to a second amendment, infact the vast [I]majority [/I]don't.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm talking about.

He's not missing the point, he's intentionally ignoring it. Apply the "natural ability" horseshit to the remainder of the Bill of Rights and it becomes increasingly obvious how ludicrous an argument it is, which was addressed like ten posts ago. Pretend to be unbiased and ready to hear out a discussion but counter everything with bad faith rhetoric, another day another gun "debate".

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52935990]And your ability to own property is not natural, but we still have a right from having it searched without reason. The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right takes significantly more to take away from someone than a privilege. -list-[/QUOTE] But see that's what I mean, this doesn't read like a "right" to me, it reads like a privilege - one with restrictions, just like a drivers license. If it was a right then you shouldn't be "barred" from owning the gun no matter what. [editline]30th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52935992]Ok, I asked if you were serious because your wording was so condescending and you liken a hobby and way of life for many people as just "toys", as if owning them was somehow childish; and then you call a major cornerstone of American life silly. I'm sorry, but with that massive lack of self awareness I literally cannot take anything you say seriously.[/QUOTE] Sorry if you don't agree, I guess? The American fetishization of firearms is weird to me. It is childish, and I do think it's silly. I don't see how I lack self-awareness for thinking your constitution has some ridiculous flaws in it. [QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52935992]This is what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] ??? [QUOTE=FZE;52936001]He's not missing the point, he's intentionally ignoring it. Apply the "natural ability" horseshit to the remainder of the Bill of Rights and it becomes increasingly obvious how ludicrous an argument it is, which was addressed like ten posts ago. Pretend to be unbiased and ready to hear out a discussion but counter everything with bad faith rhetoric, another day another gun "debate".[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about?

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52935991]I dunno man, I don't think that slippery-slope really works in this instance. I'd agree if it [I]was[/I] something like your freedom of speech or your right against unlawful seizure etc., but this is... guns. Just guns. Not many countries even [I]have [/I]something similar to a second amendment, infact the vast [I]majority [/I]don't.[/QUOTE] But this isn't about other countries or their constitutions, this is about the United States and the US Constitution. It's a slippery slope because the 2nd Amendment is just one amendment within the Bill of Rights. It's on the same list as freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, unreasonable searches and seizures, and many other rights that keep our government and law enforcement in check. If you have a list of 10 items and you decide to remove the 2nd item, what stops you from removing the 1st item or 4th item? You already know you can, and a lot of people even support it, so why not? There are legal ways of removing parts of the Constitution, but that's not what pro-gun control is doing, they want to brute-force their bans.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936003]But see that's what I mean, this doesn't read like a "right" to me, it reads like a privilege - one with restrictions, just like a drivers license. If it was a right then you shouldn't be "barred" from owning the gun no matter what.[/QUOTE] And some would argue that should be there case. Every single right on the bill of rights has an astrik next to it these days. You can't threaten the president of the US with death, even though it should be covered under the 1st. Police can do no knock house raids, even though that should be covered by the 4th. Like I said, the difference between a right and a privilege in the US stems on how much the government has to do in order to take it away.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936003] Sorry if you don't agree, I guess? The American fetishization of firearms is weird to me. It is childish, and I do think it's silly. I don't see how I lack self-awareness for thinking your constitution has some ridiculous flaws in it. [/QUOTE] So you're not even making a point then you're just mad that those dumb Americans can't be as enlightened as you and your glorious master race.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52936025]But this isn't about other countries or their constitutions, this is about the United States and the US Constitution. It's a slippery slope because the 2nd Amendment is just one amendment within the Bill of Rights. It's on the same list as freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, unreasonable searches and seizures, and many other rights that keep our government and law enforcement in check. If you have a list of 10 items and you decide to remove the 2nd item, what stops you from removing the 1st item or 4th item? You already know you can, and a lot of people even support it, so why not?[/QUOTE] I just think there's too big of an ocean of difference between the ability to use guns and the ability to just talk freely. I don't see how it could lead to such a slippery-slope, I genuinely don't. [QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52936031]So you're not even making a point then you're just mad that those dumb Americans can't be as enlightened as you and your glorious master race.[/QUOTE] What in the holy hell are you on about? Where did you get any of that?

I always like when anti-gun arguments descend into nationalist shitposting and infantile generalizations, you can suddenly see the true heart of the issue.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936046]What in the holy hell are you on about? Where did you get any of that?[/QUOTE] From this steamer of a post: [QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936003] Sorry if you don't agree, I guess? The American fetishization of firearms is weird to me. It is childish, and I do think it's silly. I don't see how I lack self-awareness for thinking your constitution has some ridiculous flaws in it. [/QUOTE] If you want people to actually debate with you, refrain from calling people "silly" and using things like "childish" and "Fetishization". Instead, why not try to bring up sources and arguments from logic rather than from emotion. Really it isn't hard.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52936047]I always like when anti-gun arguments descend into [B]nationalist shitposting[/B] and[B] infantile generalizations[/B], you can suddenly see the true heart of the issue.[/QUOTE] Citation needed?

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936046] What in the holy hell are you on about[/QUOTE] Your entire "argument" is "Why do Americans have such [I]dumb[/I] laws and '[I]rights.[/I]' You shouldn't have these rights because [I]I[/I] don't have them in [I]my[/I] country, which is [I]so[/I] much better then [I]your[/I] stupid country with it's [I]silly[/I] and [I]childish[/I] laws."

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52936056]From this steamer of a post: If you want people to actually debate with you, refrain from calling people "silly" and using things like "childish" and "Fetishization". Instead, why not try to bring up sources and arguments from logic rather than from emotion. Really it isn't hard.[/QUOTE] This was never a "source"-based argument though, the argument stemmed from opinion. There's nothing to fact-check, it's a debate on personal opinions and morals.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936057]Citation needed?[/QUOTE] Do you even know what you've written in your posts? Are you drunk or something?

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936057]Citation needed?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Coyoteze;52936003] Sorry if you don't agree, I guess? The American fetishization of firearms is weird to me. It is [B]childish[/B], and [B]I do think it's silly[/B]. I don't see how I lack self-awareness for thinking your constitution has some ridiculous flaws in it. [/QUOTE] Do you not read what you post