Why are so many growers against gun ownership?
- Thread starter Carthoris
- Start date
Spanishfly
Well-Known Member
You really think that is a genuine pic??
Evil Buddies
Ganja King
Some people want peace they dont want to kill or have instruments of death in their home. Not all weed growers are the same maybe the herb is whats needed to bring peace to this world.
Evil
Evil
rucca
Active Member
So you are the problem - the only way you will act civil and respect someone is if you fear they will kill you if you do otherwise?
wyteberrywidow
Global
Basically you are the problem.
The entire human race exists only by the exploitation of other forms of life. Plants, Animals, oil, all those are exploitation of other forms of life. As far as " the only way you will act civil and respect someone is if you fear they will kill you if you do otherwise?" civility is made up. Why don't you grow huge marijuana plants in your front yard - because you fear the repercussion of a more powerful entity(The Government) Thats why mice dont attack lions and try to eat them, but will attack a bug and eat it. The entire world runs off of violence in one form or another - killing, maiming, and pain aren't the only forms of violence. Being Civil is just conforming to those around you, little more. It rarely if ever has anything to do with a person.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Some people want peace. Great! So do I.
They don't want to kill. Fantastic! Neither do I.
They don't want to have instruments of death in their home. That's their prerogative. No one is forced to own a gun; neither a space heater, razor blade, automobile, nor a steak knife either (those can be instruments of death after all).
What is not their prerogative is to dictate to me what I choose to have in my home in the matter of firearms.
If someone is against firearms they should not own any. End of story.
Evil Buddies
Ganja King
nice to have someone that wants and talks about peace thanks johnny. Yeah I agree loads of instruments can be used to kill but the soul purpose of a gun is to kill.
Evil
Evil
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
A firearm is a tool. Purpose is irrelevant because it varies according to the user of that tool.
For me, the purpose of that tool is deterrence. Firearms prevent more crime than most people would ever imagine.
The 2nd Amendment states that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. That settles it as far as I am concerned.
The soul purpose of a gun is to shoot a bullet. In fact, I would go so far to say that most bullets that have been fired, have been fired at papers on a board or other targets. The soul purpose of a sword is to kill people - you can't exactly hunt with it. Yet, would you look at someone who had a sword on the wall of their house as a violent person? There are almost as many guns in the US as there are people - so any gun violence is a VERY VERY small percentage of that number. Not to mention - virtually all the crimes committed using guns are committed by criminals who did not buy the gun legally anyway. Im not advocating letting a parolee out after being in jail 10 years for armed robbery and letting him buy a thompson gun. I'm saying that your average and responsible adult has the right to have a gun whether anyone likes it or not.
When you hold an antique gun in your hand, you get that feeling of someone elses life. Its not any different than holding a finely crafted hand blown piece of glass from the 1800s, or looking at a painting. Someone spent a lot of time and effort on making it. When I hold a pre-WW1 Russian Mosin Nagant in my hands, I get that feeling, thinking of how many people held it, the life they lived, what this gun might of meant to them. Not to mention they only cost around 100 dollars. When I hold an AK47 I feel much the same way, Most of the AK's you can buy were made in the 60s-80's, during a turbulent time in the world. Tell me you wouldn't consider owning Hitler's personal sidearm or the gun that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, maybe the cheap caraco rifle that took JFK's life(supposedly). Every gun from a war has a story, a history, and when you hold it you can only imagine the lives that surrounded it.
A newer gun does not have all that, but you still think of the people who use a gun like it, maybe the soldiers in Iraq or the rebels in many countries. Not to mention the 'I love this shit WOOO" feeling you get when blasting off a few hundred rounds at water bottles. If I had to guess, Id say gun ownership hurts people less than cellphone, television, and video game ownership.
The most important thing to remember is: In our society, the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of society. If an individual isn't causing damage to those around him, then society should mind its own business. Its not POTENTIAL for damage, its actual damage that I speak of. Not what you think might happen, but what a person really does. Learning Karate for instance, does that make you a violent person? Isn't Karate basically a fighting style used to harm other people? Sure, it involves meditation and learning to breath and control your body, but so does sniping.
Carthoris
When you hold an antique gun in your hand, you get that feeling of someone elses life. Its not any different than holding a finely crafted hand blown piece of glass from the 1800s, or looking at a painting. Someone spent a lot of time and effort on making it. When I hold a pre-WW1 Russian Mosin Nagant in my hands, I get that feeling, thinking of how many people held it, the life they lived, what this gun might of meant to them. Not to mention they only cost around 100 dollars. When I hold an AK47 I feel much the same way, Most of the AK's you can buy were made in the 60s-80's, during a turbulent time in the world. Tell me you wouldn't consider owning Hitler's personal sidearm or the gun that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, maybe the cheap caraco rifle that took JFK's life(supposedly). Every gun from a war has a story, a history, and when you hold it you can only imagine the lives that surrounded it.
A newer gun does not have all that, but you still think of the people who use a gun like it, maybe the soldiers in Iraq or the rebels in many countries. Not to mention the 'I love this shit WOOO" feeling you get when blasting off a few hundred rounds at water bottles. If I had to guess, Id say gun ownership hurts people less than cellphone, television, and video game ownership.
The most important thing to remember is: In our society, the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of society. If an individual isn't causing damage to those around him, then society should mind its own business. Its not POTENTIAL for damage, its actual damage that I speak of. Not what you think might happen, but what a person really does. Learning Karate for instance, does that make you a violent person? Isn't Karate basically a fighting style used to harm other people? Sure, it involves meditation and learning to breath and control your body, but so does sniping.
Carthoris
Evil Buddies
Ganja King
People have the right to protect themselves and if they want to own a gun thats their right. As its also the right for people that dont want them not to have them. Guns was invented with two things in mind to cause harm and power.
Evil
Evil
Doubtful that guns were invented for harm and power. I think they were invented for the same reasons as spears, bows, and throwing rocks were. It was probably made by someone who enjoyed weapons (much like the evolution of a rock weapon becoming a sling) Most weapons were used to hunt initially. The bow was definitely a military weapon - though it was invented for hunting. What are the practical differences between a gun and a bow? They are both the same thing. No one really knows though, since it was 8 or 900 years ago.
BuddhaDawg
Active Member
Gun ownership is a privilege and a right. It does need to be be regulated and people should have to earn the right of ownership. A car is said to be a more dangerous "weapon", well then an individual should have to pass a test in order to possess a gun just like a vehicle.
The 2nd amendment has to do with with a well-armed regulated militia, not the guarantee of universal ownership.
Personally, I think gun ownership is losing proposition but I do recognize the right of gun ownership. We need better regulations across the board.
The 2nd amendment has to do with with a well-armed regulated militia, not the guarantee of universal ownership.
Personally, I think gun ownership is losing proposition but I do recognize the right of gun ownership. We need better regulations across the board.
tranquility
Active Member
i think read under the MMJ laws for some states that once you use medical marijuana, you give up your right to carry a firearm(of course whos gonna know...but hey) so if you get caught its automaticly a felony.
BuddhaDawg
Active Member
The difference in weaponry is that some firearms are designed specifically to harm/kill humans. No one is going deer hunting with a .38.
Some longbows were designed to harm/kill humans.
The practical differences in weaponry is the intent of the design.
From a personal standpoint, I have no issue with hunting of animals in a responsible manner (even though I am a vegetarian)... I do think the ownership of firearms designed to just to harm/kill is a bad idea.
It does not matter. 'Mericans love 'emselves sum guns.
doc111
Well-Known Member
The supreme court would disagree with this statement. The specific text is as follows; '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.'
The text is a bit confusing because people pay too much attention to the intent and not the wording; .....'the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' To me it's cut and dry. The sentence to me means that the state shall be able to have militias and the people have the right to have arms. This, in my mind, is our most important right. The only thing that stands between the citizenry and a tyrranical govt. is the ability of the citizenry to rise up and overthrow its govt. Yes, they have superior weapons but the people have the numbers on their side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
BuddhaDawg
Active Member
We make the gov't our enemy to our own detriment. The point is that the powerful elite run the gov't partially because we think the gov't is our enemy. The gov't should be a vehicle for the people. Instead people latch unto the inane anti-establishment idealism without any concrete goals. If people really want control, then they need to grab control of our gov't from the elite. Election reform is an example. We, the People, do not have representation because we do not fight for the laws/rules which would give our candidates a chance to be elected. Yes, we have numbers...and we could use them...instead we let the media/elite/powerful separate us with partisan BS sentiment like "the gov't is bad".The supreme court would disagree with this statement. The specific text is as follows; '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.'
The text is a bit confusing because people pay too much attention to the intent and not the wording; .....'the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' To me it's cut and dry. The sentence to me means that the state shall be able to have militias and the people have the right to have arms. This, in my mind, is our most important right. The only thing that stands between the citizenry and a tyrranical govt. is the ability of the citizenry to rise up and overthrow its govt. Yes, they have superior weapons but the people have the numbers on their side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
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.
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State... (is a proviso to the second part ... a well-regulated Militia, as in people's military group... security of a free State (the security of the United States)...
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed... (in order to secure the first part of a well-regulated Militia... having gun control and laws can be argued not to be an "infringement" towards a well-regulated Militia...in actuality control/laws would enable an improvement on those lines...)
Gun ownership is not universal...if they were universal then it would have been spelled out more plainly... "All people have the universal right to keep and bear Arms" without any such proviso like "well-regulated Militia"...
Gun ownership is a responsibility. That is the part that is left out of many discussions. Along with rights comes responsibility. Some people should not have a gun, they are not responsible citizens.
Regulations are in dire need in the US.