You support drug laws that punish people for simple possession or use which harms no other. That's an impediment on the law abiding attempting to prevent crime.
Irrelevant to the point being made. The law makes (x) illegal and punishes people for (x). This differs from laws that restrict the law abiding in attempt to prevent people from breaking the above law.
No... you fail to differentiate. This is your problem, not mine, as I have explained the difference in terms even the simplest person can understand.
A law banning "assault weapons " (such a bullshit term) makes them illegal and punishes people for possession. What, pray tell, is the difference exactly between that and a law against possession of marijuana making possession of marijuana illegal and punishing people for same?
It does... in an attempt to prevent a criminal act. Thus, said ban is an example of restriction on the rights of the law abiding enacted to prevent the commission of a crime. Compare this to making it illegal for a felon to own a gun -- there's no pretense this will prevent him from doing so, and it does not affect the rights of the law abiding in any way. There's no pretense that making it illegal to possess MJ will prevent someone from doing so
You're talking about banning possession in the first example, ALL possession. In the 2nd you're talking about banning possession by a select class (where do you find the felons exception in the 2nd amendment, incidentally?) In the 3rd you're back to banning possession as in the first, ALL possession. What exactly is the difference again?
Yes. -Criminalizing the possession of MJ -Criminalizing the possession of firearms by felons. The laws that do these things are designed to result in punishment after the law is broken; they do not attempt to prevent the possession indicated or the violation of any other law. This, on its face, contrasts with criminalizing the possession of 'assault weapons' which, as its sole purpose, is to prevent the commission of a crime. I don't see how you don't see the difference.
Here is a real mans rifle. Largest bore ever made. Imagine if the cartridge was larger with much more powder!!!!! Who wants to fire the rifle?
Except POSSESSION of the assault weapon becomes the crime itself. The reasoning being it makes it more difficult to obtain to use in crime. Barring POSSESSION by felons is intended to help curb crime by making it more difficult for them to obtain a firearm for use in crimes. Barring POSSESSION of marijuana is intended to halt the "reefer madness" crimes. Its to make it more difficult to obtain, thus making it more difficult to commit the crimes that will surely follow from being under the influence of the devil's lettuce. You're ALMOST a lover a liberty.... just a smidge off. And its worse than the gun grabbers. At least they know what they are, "safety" over liberty. You.... you're confused and its breaking my heart man. Tough love over here, we're generally on the same side. But your reasoning here simply isn't sound. There is no reason to outlaw gun possession, of any sort, by anyone not currently on paper. There is likewise no reason to outlaw simple possession of drugs by anyone an adult. Crimes they commit with firearms? Aggravated by the presence Crimes commited under the influence? Same. Simple possession? Absolutely not. By the way you never answered where you find the felon exception in the text of the 2nd amendment. Where do you find that?
I mean honestly man, you don't see a parallel in a law banning sale and possession of weed and one barring sale and possession of a type of firearm? No similarities there at all? Nothing doing? Honestly?
That's what I said. The law was enacted to prevent people from breaking another law. Not any more than murder laws were enacted to make it harder for someone to commit murder. It was enacted to punish felons who have guns, not make it harder for them to get them, because it does not in any way do so. Not any more than murder laws were enacted to make it harder for someone to commit murder. It was enacted to punish people who possess MJ, not make it harder for them to get it, because it does not in any way do so. I forgive you for your ignorance. 5th Amendment, due process: No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The 2nd protects those who have the right to keep and bear arms; that right can be removed trough due process.
If it is illegal to sell to them, it makes it harder to obtain. You're simply wrong. It was enacted to make a market in MJ completely illegal, thus making MJ harder to obtain and the crimes thought to stem from it, the "reefer madness" more difficult to come to pass. Again you're simply wrong. I forgive you for your ignorance but it remains painful to watch you tie yourself in these knots. Except once their crimes are done there is no cause to do so. If they are not imprisoned or on parole for life there is no proper constitutional function to deprive them of their natural rights. Could they be halted from speaking? Could they be made to speak only certain things? Could they entirely lack the 4th amendment protection once released? What about right to counsel, could due process remove that from them? No they could not, because there is MORE to 5th amendment than simple procedural due process, there is also substantive due process IE due process as used means more than there was a legal process to strip you of your rights.
Do laws against murder make it harder to commit murder? Commit assault? No? There you go. Both criminal possession of a firearm and criminal possession of MJ do the same thing and are enforced when the law is broken. This contrasts with laws intended to prevent the criminal possession of a firearm or MJ, which I oppose.. You can make that argument if you want - you originally asked about the exception in the 2nd, which I explained. You may disagree with it, but as a mater of law, the issue is more than settled. Personally, I believe if a convicted felon cannot be trusted with a gun, he should not be released from prison.
In some cases I see the point, such as with marijuana. In other cases, such as meth, these substances are extremely addictive. You cannot control your need for the drug, it has no positive benefits, and leads to many problems in society.
