|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,191
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,191 |
what does using Mary Jane have to do with "owning" firearms?
Just because a person owns firearms doesn't also mean that they'll be using said firearms while high?
Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point.
Now if a person is high, or drunk, and uses a firearm for self protection and kills someone, they'll have a legal battle for sure.
But the 2A doesn't say anything about not being able to own firearms because you "might" par-take in drinking or smokin' weed every now and then.
Laws aren't preventative measures. In other words, more laws won't prevent gun crime from happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,064
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,064 |
The only ones that should be denied firearms are those IN PRISON. If you are out you are legal. I've always felt this way. If/When they release someone..... they are saying that they have paid their dues and are not a threat to society. So WHY are you denying them a right? If they gun down one of your family, and then are eventually left out, which happens on a regular basis, have they paid their dues? Karen liberal judge made the decision they are not a threat. Fix that problem instead of creating another one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,088
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,088 |
Sure! I also believe they are responsible for anything they do while their using it. Someone shoot's a member of my family, drugs or not, I figure that gives me the right to shoot back!
|
|
|
|
|
122 members (300s, 01Foreman400, 2UP, 257 mag, 35, 14 invisible),
1,505
guests, and
954
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,623
Posts18,474,067
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
