Drugs + guns = DEATH!

[Chunky Monkey]

Trust me I have first-hand knowledge of being offered a second chance. I took that second chance and have changed my ways. I am now a better father, husband, and human being. In someways getting in trouble made me a better person.

So I'm not opposed to a second chance to re-obtain rights to own firearms after probation, community service, etc. (just like DUI). The thing that makes this different is that it is illegal. Even though it was a little amount. What if it was only a little amount of crack, coke, heroin, meth, would you feel the same.

Further, if the following is true, then that worries me more about the individual owning a firearm, than having been caught with a little pot.

Hobson Lyle McKown, of 592 Pierson Drive, Ferguson Township, was due in court to face summary charges of harassment, public drunkenness and disorderly conduct at 4 p.m. Tuesday, but in the hours leading up to the hearing, his strange behavior led court staff to think he was armed, according to court documents.

I don't know all the particulars of this case but people with tempers and short fuses that fly off the handle scare me. Especially when I think that they may be carrying a weapon. It's not my position to judge someone. But I do feel they should be afforded a second chance, if they earn it!

If I could I would just tell the individual in question that if you get another chance, TAKE IT! None of that crap is more important than the feeling of freedom (i.e., someone telling you what to do, not do, and especially that you cannot have a gun).

GOOD LUCK

[Joe Smith]

Originally Posted by Chunky Monkey

Trust me I have first-hand knowledge of being offered a second chance. I took that second chance and have changed my ways. I am now a better father, husband, and human being. In someways getting in trouble made me a better person.

So I'm not opposed to a second chance to re-obtain rights to own firearms after probation, community service, etc. (just like DUI). The thing that makes this different is that it is illegal. Even though it was a little amount. What if it was only a little amount of crack, coke, heroin, meth, would you feel the same.

Further, if the following is true, then that worries me more about the individual owning a firearm, than having been caught with a little pot.



I don't know all the particulars of this case but people with tempers and short fuses that fly off the handle scare me. Especially when I think that they may be carrying a weapon. It's not my position to judge someone. But I do feel they should be afforded a second chance, if they earn it!

If I could I would just tell the individual in question that if you get another chance, TAKE IT! None of that crap is more important than the feeling of freedom (i.e., someone telling you what to do, not do, and especially that you cannot have a gun).

GOOD LUCK

For me, I would feel the same. I wouldn't do any of them and I think it's completely stupid. But it should be your right to make that decision.





And I agree about that the temper is a bigger issue. Just harder to prove than finding some physical evidence.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

True, there is more to this story than just the pot.

Unfortunately, there usually is, at least in my experience.

Zero tolerance, by the way, is very often common sense at its most basic level. You simply don't think it should apply to the use of illicit drugs because you have a particular opinion on the subject, marijuana specifically. Would you advocate less than zero tolerance for other crimes?

I have an opinion as well, from both a legal and medical standpoint. While I could dispute the claim that marijuana is harmless, I don't need to do so to make my point.

Taking the charges at face value, and assuming convictions, the public drunkenness and weed/paraphernalia charges should make this person ineligible for a PA LTCF under 6109 (e)(1)(vi), and 6109 (e)(1)(vii).

One could also make the argument, taking everything at face value, that this person has a substance abuse issue not restricted to marijuana.

One could also take it further by theorizing about where the marijuana came from. It seems to me that either the person grew it himself (thus committing more offenses) or that he bought it (thus associating himself with criminals, and committing more offenses).

I'm sorry, but I cannot support a drug user who wants to carry firearms. There are too many concerns attendant to this issue.

[ar15jules]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

I've seen many people who have never smoked a joint in my life that I would not want to own guns.

Just because a man smokes a little reefer does not mean they are irresponsible, OR pose a danger to anyone by owning guns.


I've seen discussions like this get pretty heated. I hope we can keep common sense in this discussion.

Zero tolerance leave no room for common sense.

What does make sense is this. Whether you feel the laws that prohibit the possession or use of marijuana to be foolish or not, a blatant disregard for the current law is foolish. He was aware that marijuana was illegal, he was caught with it, and will now pay the consequences for "smoking a little pot". When someone disagrees with a law and simply disregards that law, it certainly doesn't give them the right to cry foul when caught breaking it. People who speed on the highway for example. Drive a red vette 100 mph on the freeway and get popped. Well, don't complain, pay the ticket. You need to outweigh the consequences vs. the benefits.
Jules

[edstephan]

Has anyone really thought about Innocent until Proven Guilty? Even if it is/was PEX, everyone is passing judgment on newspaper and TV accounts and we know how unbiased and accurate their reporting is.

Personally, I will make a decision of guilt or innocence for myself after hearing both sides. Until he is acquitted or convicted I will support him
To me from the reports I have read, someone is trying to make an example of him to scare the sheeple into staying compliant with their wishes not the laws.
The law strictly says that the Courts MUST have an available means of check a legally carried firearm and the district court has ignored this law as if their above it.
True this may not be the best way of testing the system but nonetheless it is still a test to the system.
Just my 2¢
Ed

[Philbert]

I'm not a fan of the war on drugs, though I don't think everything should be legal. But it's undeniable that the way in which we deal with drugs and addiction is harmful to society. Addicts need treatment, not jail. Violent criminals need long-term jail time.

I agree with what someone said earlier about how purchasing drugs is unethical because it channels money to some very bad people. That's true, and all the hippies getting high on illegal drugs while protesting free trade and eating their ethical bananas are total hypocrites. The demand for drugs in the west, coupled with an international (but heavily US-led) policy of prohibition, has done untold harm across the world.

Then again, perhaps he grew the pot himself or got it from a local supplier who had nothing to do with organized crime.

Lastly, I find it quite surprising that someone who was so enamored of the right to bear arms, to the extent that he advocated violent rebellion to defend it, would throw that right away for the sake of getting stoned. I can't even make sense of why someone would take that risk if they cared at all about their gun rights.

[Joe Smith]

Originally Posted by policemedic

Unfortunately, there usually is, at least in my experience.

Zero tolerance, by the way, is very often common sense at its most basic level. You simply don't think it should apply to the use of illicit drugs because you have a particular opinion on the subject, marijuana specifically. Would you advocate less than zero tolerance for other crimes?

I have an opinion as well, from both a legal and medical standpoint. While I could dispute the claim that marijuana is harmless, I don't need to do so to make my point.

Taking the charges at face value, and assuming convictions, the public drunkenness and weed/paraphernalia charges should make this person ineligible for a PA LTCF under 6109 (e)(1)(vi), and 6109 (e)(1)(vii).

One could also make the argument, taking everything at face value, that this person has a substance abuse issue not restricted to marijuana.

One could also take it further by theorizing about where the marijuana came from. It seems to me that either the person grew it himself (thus committing more offenses) or that he bought it (thus associating himself with criminals, and committing more offenses).

I'm sorry, but I cannot support a drug user who wants to carry firearms. There are too many concerns attendant to this issue.

As a person who has never smoked or done drugs EVER, and count on one hand the drinks I have had I feel comfortable giving an opinion.





Most of the laws we have on the books such as murder, rape, robery, reckless driving, tax evasion, ext... exist because when a person breaks them they cause harm to someone else. The same can not be said for ingesting substances of any kind. Actually, existing laws would cover any issues as they come up. DUI, harassment, ext... so I would be fine with removing laws in cases where the person is not harming anyone.



I also think less importance should be paid to speeding and more to reckless driving. However, "reckless" is subjective and we have radar guns so I doubt that will happen.

[ar15jules]

Originally Posted by Philbert

I'm not a fan of the war on drugs, though I don't think everything should be legal. But it's undeniable that the way in which we deal with drugs and addiction is harmful to society. Addicts need treatment, not jail. Violent criminals need long-term jail time.

I agree with what someone said earlier about how purchasing drugs is unethical because it channels money to some very bad people. That's true, and all the hippies getting high on illegal drugs while protesting free trade and eating their ethical bananas are total hypocrites. The demand for drugs in the west, coupled with an international (but heavily US-led) policy of prohibition, has done untold harm across the world.

Then again, perhaps he grew the pot himself or got it from a local supplier who had nothing to do with organized crime.

Lastly, I find it quite surprising that someone who was so enamored of the right to bear arms, to the extent that he advocated violent rebellion to defend it, would throw that right away for the sake of getting stoned. I can't even make sense of why someone would take that risk if they cared at all about their gun rights.

Did he really care about his rights, or feel that he had the right to do anything?
Jules

[P-11 shooter]

Originally Posted by ar15jules

What does make sense is this. Whether you feel the laws that prohibit the possession or use of marijuana to be foolish or not, a blatant disregard for the current law is foolish. He was aware that marijuana was illegal, he was caught with it, and will now pay the consequences for "smoking a little pot". When someone disagrees with a law and simply disregards that law, it certainly doesn't give them the right to cry foul when caught breaking it. People who speed on the highway for example. Drive a red vette 100 mph on the freeway and get popped. Well, don't complain, pay the ticket. You need to outweigh the consequences vs. the benefits.
Jules

Well said, rep to you sir.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by edstephan

Has anyone really thought about Innocent until Proven Guilty? Even if it is/was PEX, everyone is passing judgment on newspaper and TV accounts and we know how unbiased and accurate their reporting is.

Personally, I will make a decision of guilt or innocence for myself after hearing both sides. Until he is acquitted or convicted I will support him
To me from the reports I have read, someone is trying to make an example of him to scare the sheeple into staying compliant with their wishes not the laws.
The law strictly says that the Courts MUST have an available means of check a legally carried firearm and the district court has ignored this law as if their above it.
True this may not be the best way of testing the system but nonetheless it is still a test to the system.
Just my 2¢
Ed

The issue isn't innocent until proven guilty. The OP asked a general question that was occasioned by this specific situation. For my part, I'm discussing this topic from a theoretical standpoint. I have no idea whether this person should be found not guilty (which is a damn sight different than innocent), or guilty. It doesn't matter, frankly.

The central theme of the discussion appears to me to be whether a drug user should be accorded the ability to carry, or even own, firearms. Are they responsible citizens, or are they not?

Further, the (alleged) failure to provide storage facilities in no way negates the prohibition against guns in court facilities, nor does it allay any penalty associated with the act.