Drug users are a prohibited group of gun owners, and we know gun use impairs the necessary judgment for proper gun use. Therefore it makes sense to have drug testing for gun owners.
In contrast, despite a factually inaccurate belief on the part of right wing nuts about drug use, it does not turn out to be a prevalent problem among those in need of public assistance.
So of course, instead of drug testing gun buyers, the right tests poor people who can't afford to use recreational drugs, and to deny medical assistance to those who have previously used drugs and need help dealing with drug use as a medical issue. Instead the right spends a lot of money on incarceration that could be better spent elsewhere.
We have obstruction from the right, not because the idea of drug testing people prior to gun use is a bad idea, or not drug testing people for public assistance has proven to be a good idea, but because it doesn't FEEL good to Republicans and other righties.
In contrast, despite a factually inaccurate belief on the part of right wing nuts about drug use, it does not turn out to be a prevalent problem among those in need of public assistance.
So of course, instead of drug testing gun buyers, the right tests poor people who can't afford to use recreational drugs, and to deny medical assistance to those who have previously used drugs and need help dealing with drug use as a medical issue. Instead the right spends a lot of money on incarceration that could be better spent elsewhere.
We have obstruction from the right, not because the idea of drug testing people prior to gun use is a bad idea, or not drug testing people for public assistance has proven to be a good idea, but because it doesn't FEEL good to Republicans and other righties.
"Drug testing for gun ownership is unconstitutional. Show me in the Constitution where food stamps, welfare checks, and Obama phones is a guaranteed right."
ReplyDeleteThis is not an actual quote from anyone DG. But I would be willing to bet, that this statement would come out of someone's mouth if you're idea was ever brought up. I'm guessing it would come from a Conservative's mouth.
Me personally, I wouldn't like it. I have been known to smoke some natural and illegal substances from time to time.
Show me in the constitution or any decision by the SCOTUS that something being a right means it is not regulated.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to show you where SNAP etc. is a guaranteed right. It is part of the intent of the constitution outlined in the preamble, and other sections as well as by law.
All decisions by the SCOTUS but most notably Heller, make it clear that a great deal of regulation is allowed under the constitution, most notably the denial of gun rights due to illegal activity.
I would agree with you (presumably) about making marijuana legal; but I would also put in the category of substances that impair the part of the brain involved with the kind of decision making that is critical to safe gun ownership.
And that is what we should be looking at - what impairs judgement and what doesn't. Period. for. gun. ownership.
"And that is what we should be looking at - what impairs judgement and what doesn't. Period. for. gun. ownership."
DeleteIn that case, maybe we should make alcohol illegal, and legalize marijuana. Have you ever heard of an altercation between two potheads ending in gun fire?Now I'm sure there are some instances, but I would think that alcohol plays a bigger part in bad decision making.
In some cases, yes. I think anyone who has more than one conviction of DUI, felony OR misdemeanor, should lose their gun rights. There is some very compelling evidence that alcohol abuse or heavy use impairs the decision making process and parts of the brain.
DeleteMost booze is legal; but that should not translate into gun rights for those who have impaired judgment because of how a substance affects the brain.
But then I also believe that like driving, due to the basic safety rules for safe gun handling where seeing what you are shooting and where the shot will go is fundamental - I also think eye testing is a good idea, along with laws that require that - like driving - if you need some kind of corrective mechanism to see clearly, you are required to be wearing them if you fire or handle a gun.
Using drugs that alter one's perceptions is pretty and should not be a disqualifier. Using drugs that can cause serious mental or physical degradation in the user are a different story. Use of "crack", methamphetamine, oxy and other legal drugs used illegally or drugs manufactured illegally indicates that there are serious judgmental deficits in the user's behavior. That SHOULD be a disqualifier.
ReplyDeleteStudies of those states that have, until slapped around by the federal courts, used drug testing of welfare recipients and others on public assistance have found illicit drug use in that population to be at or below the levels in the rest of society. It would be interesting to see what the illegal use of drugs is like in the ranks of the unreg'lated milishia.
I don't think mixing altered perceptions and firearms is ever a good idea Democommie.
ReplyDeleteOne of the justifications for legalizing marijuana is that by regulating and taxing it, the levels of active ingredients that affect our brains can be moderated.
The neurochemistry information on marijuana and how it affects the human brain is not definitive, at this point. But I've seen at least one study that suggests that it is possible to obtain the beneficial qualities of marijuana use while minimizing or eliminating the negative effects by what forms and varieties of marijuana are used. The plant is far from standardized.
We saw cigarette companies try to grow tobacco that had higher rates of nicotine with the intent to make it more addictive. I'd like to see us regulate tobacco further to lower the amount of allowable nicotine, and to lower the amount of other ingredients that are toxic, like the tars content.
It should be an exercise in regulation - and taxation - like taking the lead out of paint or out of gasoline, or making kids clothes less flammable.
I would not only include the currently illegal drugs either, but those which affect or impair perception that are legal, including some prescription drugs, btw.
The yardstick should be functional - what does or does not impair judgment, and in what quantities and with what frequency.
Drug testing welfare recipients is a right wing prejudice, a bias, a stereotype assumption that was already well known to be bogus when they started the requirement, like their assumption the poor are lazy, and other ideas they have about the world that are wrong.
There is a functional justification for drug testing gun users, and that is fully justified by the correlation to impairment and gun violence.