Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights…As Long As You Don’t Have a Life-Threatening Illness

Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The fed really needs to get bent on the whole reefer madness thing. As does the legion of boot licking RINOS out there.

    • Just a narrow band of gene types where it seems to trigger early onset schizophrenia so not widely applicable.

    • The problem isn’t that a person has a disease but that they are using a medically unproven prohibited drug to treat it.

  2. Funny thing is, that’s not even funny. Every citizen has the right to defend themselves, even drug users. Simple solution is to remove weed and it’s components from the drug schedule or remove the ban on weed for firearm purchases and possession. Cancer victims or domestic violence victims don’t need to be victimized again by the law.

    • How about a simple solution spelled out in the constitution? Why ask any questions of a person purchasing a gun? Why any forms?

      Shall not be infringed.

      • That’s all it ever should be, just not the way it seems to work. Most people never read or understand the Constitution

    • In my 22 years of law enforcement I’ve yet to see responsible meth or fentanyl use. I see a lot of people addicted to hard drugs who will do anything – absolutely anything – for their next fix. If their families take them in, they will sell heirloom jewelry for their next fix. I can’t say I support homeless druggies packing heat. Go to a homeless encampment and let me know who you’d be comfortable giving an AR-15 to. Some weed guys are ok, most of the big-time weed fans are worthless. I see them sitting around Lake Tahoe stinking up the public parks with crappy weed. Again, I’m not impressed.

      • I don’t entirely disagree but to be fair, in law enforcement you *wouldn’t* see responsible meth or fentanyl use (and no, those aren’t entirely oxymorons), you’d only see the problematic examples of it

      • Whether or not I’m comfortable with an AR-15 in the hands of a homeless encampment inhabitant has exactly fuck all to do with their right to have it.

        • They should have the right.

          The bottom line is, an actual AR-15 in an actual druggie’s tent in an actual homeless camp will last as long as they are conscious.

          The first time they pass out (*cough* ‘fall asleep’ *cough*) that AR is *gone*…

        • Who said that everyone in a homeless encampment is a “druggie”?

          Loads of people go through temporary homelessness thanks to a financial problem, often related to a medical bill.

      • OK, your anecdotal evidence that drug users are unreliable is taken at face value.

        Now, explain again why they should be denied a right spelled out in the constitution?

        If you’re in law enforcement, you are perfectly well aware that the justice system is FUBAR with all the Soros funded prosecuting attorneys. The prisons were largely emptied, with violent criminals dumped into the streets, and prosecutors refuse to prosecute for new crimes. THERE is the real problem.

        We need a lot of criminals to be attacking armed citizens, who put those criminals in their graves. Problem largely solved. It matters little if the criminal is a meth head, whether he’s an immigrant, old or young, male or female, black or white, educated or a high school dropout. The issue is their criminality.

        • Anecdotal, no. A meth head charged me with a knife after running around nonstop on a freeway and we shot and killed him. I have had multiple fights with meth users – all documented. And thankfully I won. Also, the Constitution is for US citizens, not immigrants. I totally agree with the dirty Soros-funded DA’s being an issue. That’s one of many reasons I left LA.

          Do I think the casual, productive weed user should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights? Absolutely not. One ought to have a little common sense and conceal those weed purchases just like a concealed carrier might accidentally traverse a “Gun Free Zone.” Concealed means concealed.

          Would I trust a homeless street druggie with their mind blown with guns? No way. I wouldn’t trust someone who is drunk to handle a firearm, either. Get a job, contribute to society, and do something useful with your life.

          I’m not the trendy libertarian who supports homeless drug user gun rights, hates cops, supported rioters, and complains impotently about politicians. I’m the hardworking conservative on the side of people who actually contribute to society and the handful of politicians (DeSantis, Cruz, Paul, Trump) who do some worthwhile things for the US.

          And by hardworking I mean I helped get the shooter and his girlfriend at the Hard Rock in Stateline, NV yesterday.

        • Accur81,

          As Inigo Montoya said, “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means”. Anecdotal, BY DEFINITION, means “events I am personally aware of”. As a cop, did you get charged by a tweaked-out methhead? I’m sure you did. That is called “anecdotal”, or at BEST, a “data point”. I’m sure most of your fellow LEOs have had scary encounters with tweaked-out methheads. Again, those are called “data points”. You are implying that there basically ARE NO meth users that could be considered responsible – sorry, that is simply NOT accurate. I know at least two meth users who held down jobs, got college degrees, and one bought a house, WHILE they were actively using meth.

          Not condoning it, not saying it’s a good idea, but making a blanket statement that “methheads cannot be responsible” is just . . . cop bullshit. Probably most aren’t. That they CANNOT be is simply bullshit. Try again, after you figure out what words actually mean.

          And then tackle explaining why we should treat meth users differently from alcohol users from heroin users from cannabis users. And then see if you can spot the difference (hint: which are “illegal”, and which are “illegal – wink, wink”). Critical thinking is a good thing.

        • To Lamp of Diog

          Trying to be smart right now must have really hurt, huh? Anecdotal, by implication and definition, inherently implies unreliable. Here’s the definition, as it seems you are trying so hard to outsmart me:

          anecdotal:not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

          Were their personal accounts? Absolutely. There was also video data, ballistic data, coroner reports, and buckets of evidence. Also the personal accounts were recorded and placed into evidence, and the personal accounts matched the video and crime scene evidence.

          Really, just f off and have a nice day. You are a prime example of why I have little value for TTAG opinions.

        • Accur81,

          OOOH!!! You found a dictionary!! Good on you!

          Now look up “generalization’. In case you didn’t notice, in the midst of your righteous indignation, I acknowledged that many (most?) methheads AREN’T responsible. What I objected to, you pretentious git, was your generalization that “all [X] aren’t responsible”.

          Your willingness to impose YOUR judgement on the world is entirely consistent with fascists everywhere (dacian the demented and MinorLiar, take note), but seems particularly a trait of many cops. And feel free to go micurate up a cable, you pompous horse’s ass.

      • Ever hear of Ritalin, vivance, or concerta? Yeah, its basically meth and prescribed. As far as fentanyl, the first time I’d ever heard of it, it was in patches prescribed to my mother in-law dying of cancer, so yeah, totally legal and doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

      • Society has no obligation to support putting an AR-15, or any firearm, into the hands of a person who is homeless and or addicted. However you as a bleeding heart libertarian liberal or leftists, are certainly free in our society, to, spend YOUR MONEY, on an AR-15 and give it to that homeless/addicted person.

        And if that Homeless person addicted or not uses that AR-15 to commit a crime that you gave them? Society has an obligation to punish you criminally and or civilly. As well as the homeless person who committed the crime in the first place

        • Chris T,

          “Society has no obligation to support putting an AR-15, or any firearm, into the hands of a person who is homeless and or addicted.”

          SOOOO close . . . and yet, so far. Society has no obligation to do diddly-shit, other than enforce Constitutional laws. Period, dot.

          NO, I am not “obligated” to have my taxes pay for drugged-out, criminal, homeless. Being homeless isn’t a crime. A good portion of homeless are veterans – and we (and I) OWE them support. They bought our support with the pledge of their lives (and years of doing shitty work for shitty pay, even if they didn’t see the elephant). Everyone else who is “homeless”?? “Oh, they are a homeless drug addict!” Hmmm . . . why are they a homeless drug addict? Perhaps they have a ‘bad childhood’? I’m not their parent, so it is certainly not MY obligation to support them. Perhaps they are genetically predisposed to addiction? Again, if I’m not their parent, why is that a ‘me’ problem?

          Historically, people having difficulties were supported by their family, their friends, their church, and sometimes their town (small towns). Suddenly, the Leftist/fascists have made EVERY loser someone I am “obligated to support”. Family? Yes (and I’ve done it). Friends? Yes (and I’ve done it). Fellow parishioners? Yes (and I’ve done it). Veterans? Yes, they PAID for that. Some rando loser off the street? Sorry, new phone, who dis?

        • to LampOfDiogenes

          My family used to work with homeless people back in the 1970s. almost every one of them were homeless because they were addicted to substances like alcohol heroin or whatever. what bothers me about the drug l e g a l i z a t io n crowd is there careless endorsement of drug use.

          Not every veteran becomes a drug addict. Not every veteran beats up their wives and children. Those are vicious stereotypes that are created by people who hate veterans themselves, and hate what they call the “military industrial complex”. And there are Libertarians who have said anyone who serves in the military is the enemy of Liberty.

          But those same people are quite happy to support the “education Industrial complex”. Even though in the same speech President Eisenhower warned us about both.

          The states can do what they want. Their sovereign. But if the federal government would stop all federal spending on education. Most of our social problems I believe would disappear very quickly. The activists get their money from the Federal government. Which is filtered through the universities and colleges. Conservatives have complained about this for quite some time. But I hear crickets from the Libertarians on this issue. It’s very rare to hear a libertarian point out where the left gets their funding. Through federal education funds.

          And I think the reason why you don’t hear too many Libertarians complain about federal government education spending, is because they’re a whole lot of Libertarians who are paid employees. Paid with government money. Who work at these universities and colleges.

          They are more comfortable complaining about the military industrial complex. Because most of them have never served in the military.

          And no one needed the government when they were in need. Their family took care of them and their Church took care of them. It is the leftists who hate the church. And they hate the first amendment. And they wanted to replace the church with government. And sadly they have been largely successful.

          Religious based scientific research has helped to greatly improve the life of the average human over the centuries. especially in modern times.
          But that has been an obligation. it was never a law handed down by the government.

        • “Religious based scientific research has helped to greatly improve the life of the average human over the centuries“

          Just ask Galileo!

        • to Miner49er
          It wouldn’t surprise me if most atheists have never heard of the Reverend Gregory Mendel. Who is the “father of genetics”. Who in the 1800’s conducted his studies in the church.

          And it was church leader Martin Luther. Who told the peasants they needed to learn to read the Bible for themselves. It was his efforts that put Bibles and instructions for reading it into the hands of millions upon millions of people.

          That was the beginning of the Christian world becoming literate. It is understandable why the atheists want to ban the bible. Because atheists do not want a literate Society.

        • fyi
          “Jordan Peterson on the Christian Origins of Science [Logos & Literacy]” video 42 min long

      • I worked LAPD from the 70s to the 90s. Most of the south end was into harder stuff, but where the Anglos lived, there were plenty of kids using weed to their detriment. Plenty of accidents when driving, anger issues and the like. Problem with weed is the THC content can vary in a joint from the equivalent of a can of beer to a bottle of Scotch. Heavier the content, the more to pay, but to a user it doesn’t matter. As a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) I saw hundreds of druggees, from grass to PCP to LSD to Crack. All wanted another fix. I think, someone who genuinely needs MEDICAL marijuana shoulod be able to arm themselves. Problem there are too many dispensaries where anyone can get a prescription.

    • Sorry, not just the ban on weed, but the whole drug scheme in its entirety. Up until 1933 it was legal to purchase meroin, morphine, cocaine and any other number of drugs and many people led useful lives even while using those substances. When my kids were young and teething, I bought tincture of paregoric at the local drug store and put it on their gums. Stopped teething pain immediately. They didn’t grow up to be drug addicts. The second most prescribed medicine in the armed services when I was in after APC pills was B&P solution, bismuth and paregoric. Works wonders if one has simple diarrhea. Doesn’t work that great for parasitical infections. Used to be able to buy Hadacol with codeine OTC. Worked great for stopping that hacking cough you have in the morning from too much booze and too many cigarettes the night before. Try buying those items OTC now. Many doctors are afraid to even write scripts for them these days. And just so you don’t think I am some pothead advocating for universal drug use, unlike several recent POTUSes I have never used any illegal drug at any time in my long life. It is part of my ultra conservative views on goober mint power. No goober mint should have the right to tell me what I put in my body. PERIOD As long as my actions don’t infringe on what you do, it’s none of your business what I do to myself. And don’t talk to me about goober mint footing the bill for my health care. I and my employer paid for my health care. And furthermore the goober mint has no business being in the health care industry. It’s not anywhere in the Constitution.

    • Exactly this. It isn’t complicated. Just don’t give them a reason to notice you. The police have become very tolerant of pot these days anyway. It isn’t like it was decades ago.

      A good friend of mine was actually deported when his student visa ran out, all because he was caught with a joint when he was a minor. Now compare and contrast that with today’s immigration policies (both legal and illegal) as well as how lenient and tolerant prosecutors and judges are with violent criminals. He was a good dude too.

      • Back in “the day” you could buy pot on the street and be reasonably comfortable that it wasn’t laced with fentanyl or something. People nowadays need to buy medical (or recreational) pot from someplace safe. The problem is why should people need more documentation to buy MJ than a bottle of brandy.

        • Jim, what if one of the reasons for the intentional influx of fentanyl (and it is intentional) is to force people to go the medical, or otherwise legal, route for their pot purchase? That would ensure corporate interest would be served (tobacco companies are invested in pot), and the largest organized crime syndicates in our country got their cut (the government).

        • Grow yer own as best you can. Three or four decently cared for female plants will produce more sinsemilla than most people could consume in a year. Keep a low profile and cover your 6.

    • Seems like the prescription card is the main issue here. If you get it from “legal” sources (dispensaries and the like), the .gov knows about it and your firearm rights are in limbo, at best, or most likely outright denied.

      If you get it from illegal sources, the .gov might find out but probably doesn’t know for sure, and then only at a low level, unless you get caught and convicted.

      If you don’t use at all you should be in good shape (as far as that particular restriction is concerned).

      This is what happens when the government gets involved in everything.

    • Some states cross index their purchase and medical marjiwanna databases. IIRC Hawaii and NJ were doing that. Probably others too. PA may or may not, or perhaps only on days that end in Y.

      • Our CA A.G. Bonta openly bragged about our CADOJ’s ability to do just that and dragnet newly defined “prohibited persons” who weren’t prior to some law or situation change.

  3. Let’s see here, ““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.” Nope, nothing about marjiwanna in there. Carry on ma’am.

    • Yep! Although I generally think addictive substances are bad for you, I fail to see how the solution to you ruining your life is… the government ruining your life. Plus, the amount spent on cops and incarceration is ridiculous. As a taxpayer, I think the government should do the bare minimum.

      • In this context the woman with cancer is, in most cases, choosing the least addictive possible pain management solution.

        Yet it’s the one that’s illegal because reasons and loads of people are OK with that because they mumble “drugs are bad” as they wash down a handful of pharma concoctions that they don’t know fuck all about with their third highball of the day.

        • strych9,

          Mebbe yes, and mebbe no. Not MY place to make that judgement. I know, from (painful) personal experience that “illegal substances” can be effective palliatives for terminally-ill patients, while having fewer side effects. To that extent, I agree with you.

          if someone decides (or, more realistically, they are impelled to decide, by their insurance company’s reimbursement policy), that they want to smoke pot to alleviate their nausea/pain/whatever? Nunamybiz. If someone decides, instead, to follow the money, and just do what their doctors and insurance companies tell them? Nunamybiz.

          What someone else chooses to do to alleviate their pain, nausea, or even unhappiness? Not. My. Business. Or yours, either. Sure, if they choose to steal from you to pay for their drugs, then THAT becomes your business. If they tell me that it’s “my obligation” to pay for it, with my tax dollars? Yeah, that kinda makes it MY business. Otherwise?? STFU. You are entitled to ‘have an opinion’, of course, but . . . you’re the only one who cares.

      • That’s what our Founding Fathers thought too. It was only Hamilton and fortunately he got shot violating the law against dueling who thought the goober mint should be all powerful and all intrusive.

    • Problem is, lefties, libs, and government (but I repeat myself) don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

  4. It’s almost like these are completely disingenuous people who don’t believe in their own catchy slogans. “My body, my choice! Unless it’s the government forcing experimental injections on me to make the pharma giants rich, in which case, hooray for the latest thing they tell me to be for!”

    • It’s not like the “Right” or the “2A community” are much better.

      Right here in this thread we have people suggesting that your personal feelings about a person should dictate whether or not that person may or may not be armed.

      The number of people willing to sacrifice the illusion of safety for the dangers of freedom is very, very limited in the modern Western world. The people who talk a big game about “rights” quite often quickly shift gears to restricting privileges as soon as you find something they don’t approve of.

  5. Or, hear me out here, they could just take something from the panoply of drugs or cannabis extracts that don’t get you high or affect judgment. But of course that’s not what they want.

    “Medical marijuana” is a canard. It’s dope, no better than cigarettes or alcohol and sometimes worse. Although it probably *should* be legal along with those I find it offensive to refer to it as anything “medical”.

    • Obviously you’ve done the research and can state categorically, supported with documented studies, about the lack of medical applications of cannabis. You’re as much full of it as that troglodyte Jeff Sessions that Trump gave the AG job to. He probably thought “Reefer Madness” was a documentary.

      • Nice straw man argument there. The point is that there are drugs that DO WORK for pain, appetite, and nausea, but they don’t get people stoned so the stoners don’t want to admit they exist.

        If you want to get stoned then go for it and enjoy. Just don’t expect anybody to believe your nonsense that it’s doing something beneficial that other drugs can’t.

        • You assume I’m supporting cannabis because I use it. Thus proving the truth in the old canard about using the word “assume” – especially when you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.

          Yes, we’ve all seen the fallout from those “safe and effective” pain management drugs. Not what I would call a success story. And you still fail to propose an alternative to glaucoma, neuromuscular conditions – really, anything other than classic pain management.

          You have no problem expecting people to believe that cannabis isn’t fit for use as a pain reliever until big pharma gets its chance to massage, modify, and “refine” it (and raise the price tenfold), and thus assuage the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.

        • “The point is that there are drugs that DO WORK for pain, appetite, and nausea, but they don’t get people stoned…”

          Opiates will temporarily stop pain and get one stoned, full stop. In varying degrees with the varying substances, they will get you stoned. That’s the attraction with the addiction, it feels good being wasted on opiates.

          I was prescribed some potent ones after my leg got crushed. When they ran out, the detox wasn’t very pleasant, but I recognized it for what it was. But I very much can understand the attraction with the physical sensation of the stone, and the craving for it… 🙁

        • “The point is that there are drugs that DO WORK for pain, appetite, and nausea, but they don’t get people stoned“

          The point is, some people don’t want to be forced to use Big Pharma’s mystery chemical concoctions when a safer, more effective and less addicting natural “herb bearing seed” is already growing in their backyard.

          Conservatives are all in for smaller government, until it comes to telling me who I can marry or what positions are permitted the bedroom or what weeds I can grow in my own backyard.

        • Eric,

          So, . . . lemme get this straight. You, from your VAST knowledge of pharmacology, your INTIMATE knowledge of “what works”, can educate us all about what palliatives “are effective” for coping with pain, nausea, sleeplessness, unhappiness . . . and more importantly, which ones are “acceptable”?

          ‘Splain it to me, Lucy – why is your opinion (or worse, the opinion of the “elected” morons in D.C. – or whoever paid them off) the issue that should control what plants you can imbibe? If you’ve never watched a close friend LITERALLY starve to death in front of you, because their chemotherapy made them throw up every mouthful of food they TRIED to eat, and their “anti-nausea” drugs did fuck-all, smoke a joint and then be able to eat a small amount and keep it down? I will give your opinion, and the opinions for the “elected” morons in D.C., all the weight that opinion deserves . . . which is less weight than you think, chief.

          I’m sure, based on your EXTENSIVE knowledge and research, you are aware that all opiates are derived from a plant, the opium poppy? And all “opiates” are chemical substitutes for the original? Aspirin is willow bark; Tylenol is a chemical substitute (that has serious side effects). Or that smoking some plant, that people have been smoking for CENTURIES to alleviate their pain and nausea, isn’t an “acceptable” way to do that? But because some white-coated nerd with an excess of self-regard says that one is OK, and the other isn’t (Oh, and one way makes money for Big Pharma, and the other doesn’t), YOU now get to decide what’s “OK” for another person to do to alleviate the very real side effects of the drugs that the same white-coated nerd told them would “make them better”?

          Arrogant asshole, much????

    • Heard out, dismissed as the canard it claims to refute.

      From a utilitarian point of view:

      Many of the Rx don’t work as well, don’t work for everyone, come with much worse side effects and within pain medication territory are highly addictive. They’re also extremely expensive in comparison.

      Some people would rather puff a joint than go the route of Kurt Cobain (especially in terms of ending up married to Courtney Love) and end up a junkie thanks to legal pain pills being pushed by our current 80% socialized medical system that openly proclaims that it doesn’t give a fuck about individual people (full socialization, the direction in which we are headed, of which will make this nearly infinitely worse btw). This is entirely understandable.

      The ability of a pharmaceutical company, through lobbyist cash, to get meth and heroin made “legal” in pill form and pumped into the population based on lies doesn’t change the fact that people are now legally ingesting much more dangerous substances with extremely high addiction potential, particularly with regards to a problem like cancer which make take several years to treat or which may be a chronic condition for the rest of the person’s life.

      From basically any other school of thought outside those colored by Marxism or reductionist thought masquerading as intelligence:

      No person has the moral standing to mandate that people take a much higher risk of becoming addicted to opiates because they don’t like cancer patients smoking marijuana based on specious arguments about abuse as if those arguments don’t apply to the same pills which such sophists wish the afflicted people to be forced to take.

      Ethically and morally, the substances used to treat a patient’s ailment are broadly their choice so long as they are made with informed consent, sans fraud and to the satisfaction of the patient. No one else gets to make that choice on their behalf unless the patient specifically gives them that capacity along with the circumstances under which it can be or is revoked.

      Therefore, it’s not your choice and not government’s choice because adding up a bunch of people who don’t have the moral authority to make a choice doesn’t suddenly grant the group that choice. The fact that someone might get a lot of stupid people to agree with the proposal does not grant said person the moral right to make such a choice for others. In some circumstances it may give you the power to enforce your opinion on other people, but that doesn’t make it right.

      And, within this realm, opinions need not apply because that’s how a Monarchy works and we’re not a Monarchy.

      Further, the view that .gov can ban the ownership of guns is, part and parcel, of the same school of thought that mandates experimental medications, consequences be damned and then lies and gaslights the population about the real-world outcomes which is no different that a government that attempts to ban psychoactive substances because reasons. I’ve yet to meet a Prohibitionist who even attempts to square this circle, probably because at base they know it can’t be done. This is pure Will to Power and they, on some level, know it. Since they *cough *detest *cough* such a thing as raw power exercised simply because it can be, they cannot openly support it and so they turn so sophistry about “safety”.

      Further still, there is no logic under which “drug laws” make sense yet “gun laws” don’t because they both rest on the exact same logical and moral foundation. The only difference is which social circle being an “anti” for these things is fashionable. For Conservatives, it’s fashionable to “protect society from dangerous drugs and people addicted to those drugs” where as for others they want to “protect society from assault weapons”. At root, the logic is identical: People cannot be trusted and therefore must be controlled by force administered by government.

      Drill into this and you’ll find the argument from the people pushing these things always comes back to form of “Some people abuse [something] to [do X that you don’t approve of] because abuse of that thing is bad due to [reasons]”.

      Yes, some people might abuse marijuana just to get high just as some people might abuse semi auto rifles to shoot children. These are not statements about the thing, they are statements about theoretical human behavior about which the speaker has an opinion. And no human has the right to tell another human what they may or may not due because some other asshole may or may not abuse that same thing.

      Which is because this argument ends up being true of literally everything and therefore this is not an argument worth the time it requires for actual consideration. It’s pure Leftist/Marxist power concentrating tripe wrapped up in the pretty bow of a preferred “morality” that the speaker either doesn’t understand to be a façade, or worse, knows is such a trick and deploys in the hopes that the rest of us do not notice bullshit for being bullshit.

      The last part being why it is so seductive to those who don’t examine the thought process or choose to use this as a weapon to increase the power of government to use FORCE to enact control over the people. And you will note that this is what such a position always and by necessity does in the real world.

      • I hope you don’t think I’m actually reading a wall of text defending pot. You guys like getting high – fine, enjoy. Stay away from guns while you’re wasted and we won’t have any issues.

        • And YOU get to decide what “works”, what doesn’t, what side effects are OK, what aren’t? Then I guess YOU get to decide what firearms I can use to defend myself and my family, amirite???

          A little intellectual consistency might be worth considering . . . if your brain can make that leap. Personally, I’m all in favor of letting people make that decision, themselves. If they make “the wrong decision”, that makes it my problem because . . .? But LITERALLY the same people who decided WHICH plant was an acceptable palliative for pain/nausea/etc., have no right to tell you how to exercise your “inherent right of self-defense”. Sorry, not following that train of “logic”.

          Don’t own a mirror, do ya? Get the fuck over yourself. You have the right to an opinion. You DO NOT have the right to impose that opinion on others. Or make them pay for your opinion. Seem to remember some saying about opinions and some body part.

          But thank you for illustrating why I can’t stand “conservatives”. Then MinorLiar will come along and tell me “the right way” to handle a perceived issue, economically. Again, you’re both entitled to your “opinions” . . . and I am obligated to give them the consideration I think they deserve. In my two examples? Not much . . . like, maybe, none at all. I would ask you to give some thought to why YOUR opinion should control on SOME issues . . . but you don’t have to heed other people’s opinions on other issues that happen to be important to you. Next time you are giving instructions to God, tell him not to make people so damned self-important, would ya?

  6. They grow that stuff two blocks from my house. Large facility. 1/2 mile west a much larger facility. A west wind and the smell of skunk weed will knock you to your knees. Only two of several large operations here. The oldest tobacco and Coca-Cola money in the county is invested in it. Including law enforcement. Shares are traded on Wall Street. Legalize it and be done with it.

    • No other than “Sue-them-all” lawyer John Morgan has his fingers in some of those legal grow-ops…

  7. There’s a bill here, not sure of current status, to legalize brass knuckles. The typical screeching Karen’s are against it. The same Karen’s who push that keys between the fingers advice.

    You’d think they’d be more supportive of their own demographic but these are often the sort of people who think it’ll never happen to them until it does then it’s the rest of the worlds fault for not doing anything about it.

    • “There’s a bill here, not sure of current status, to legalize brass knuckles.”

      With a carry permit, they are legal to carry here in Florida. Along with saps (coin purses) and switch-blades… 🙂

      • Interesting. Another area where Florida loses to a blue state.

        Switch blades, OTFs and gravity knives are legal to own and carry in Colorado thanks to the knife-rights folks. Ballistic knives are still illegal though.

        Have been since 2017. One of the only good things (IMHO) that Hickenlooper ever signed.

        • Colorado did advance further (or had fewer nonsense restrictions to begin with) but voter demographics halted one and advanced another. Hopefully your state has another swing in a decade (or 3) to improve but till then Florida Florida Florida (ala Bradey Bunch) for humor only.

        • Florida’s appeal on “2A rights” is a marketing gimmick. Same in Texas.

          They’re like the NRA, nothing but a punching bag for Lefties making grandiose claims that the victim somehow comes to believe, or at least claims to. The difference is that most people have wised up to the NRA’s game.

          I’m getting a bit tired of the constant bullshit. Claiming “Gunshine state” is like Lia Thomas claiming to be the college women’s swimming champ.

          It’s nonsense but most people are too timid to point out the obvious and the kneejerk defenders get emo and start namecalling when you point it out.

          I don’t expect perfection but claiming to be all that and a side of fries when you’re behind the states that are deep blue is just fucking tired at this point.

        • Let them talk big, and when Ohio/Iowa/Idaho+others laugh at them for being gun control states in comparison the truth will speak for itself. Either way clearing out RINOs at the same speed if not faster than democrats will have to become a priority if rights of all sorts have any hope of improving. As much as I complain about NY we cleared a lot of dead wood and broke a few majorities so it’s possible everywhere.

        • Let them talk big, and when Ohio/Iowa/Idaho+others laugh at them for being gun control states in comparison the truth will speak for itself.

          Kinda the point of what I’m saying.

          All information processing is, at root, emotional. Trolling, done right, is actually effective when the goal isn’t shitstirring for the point of shitstirring.

          Make the Florida and Texas Republicans big mad that they’re behind the blue states they constantly talk shit about and they’ll start to change things to catch up and eventually overtake those states.

          It also raises the blood pressure of the RINOs, which shortens their life expectancy, hence bringing us closer to the goal by removing roadblocks.

          There is actually a method to my madness.

        • Lol yeah figured as much but it is a good test on my end for how well the coffee is working. And the technique was largely what got a lot of passable conservative politicians elected up here. Still have a few locked in but their voter base is aging out as quickly as they are moving out. NY will not be turning red but it will have fewer net blue votes at all levels (especially federally)

        • I haven’t looked at the demos for NY in probably 15 years.

          When you say the ” Still have a few locked in but their voter base is aging out as quickly as they are moving out.”

          Can you expand on this both in terms of demos and geography? I’m assuming that you mean the NYC area old folks, not the upstate folks who, at least traditionally tend to be much more conservative (except Buffalo and Albany) and also tend to get much more “red” with age. At least, they used to.

        • Redistricting essentially upset the apple cart and made 7 solid blue districts into 3 red and 3 competitive. The RINOs that were typically held in place by inertia (Albany area especially) suddenly had to compete with far more conservative primaries with far more conservative neighborhoods. The moderate age ranges for Republicans starts around the mid 50’s for those that really only knew RINOs to be electable but are quickly moving out to Florida or dying with the replacements being heavy liberal (urban) and increasingly suspicious conservative rural to suburban voters. Ultimately I expect we will trend Democratic over the long term as high density apartments are being sprinkled all over the state but a lot of those in power are not happy at having opposing viewpoints that are not veto proof and are able to win in court.

        • Fascinating.

          In your opinion is the redistricting mostly due to outflow (including flights on Grim Reaper Air), inflow or a goodly mix?

          At a glance it seems the outflow portends poorly for Florida in the future but if the inflow to more rural areas is concentrated in high-density apartments sprinkled around in towns in “redish” districts (thanks Obama) then a continuation of ballot harvesting (which your state is “unspecified” on, which presents GREAT opportunity on the Red side if they can move quickly) would seem to augur very well for the hard Left at the state-wide political level and the only backstop would be the courts.

          Yet at the same time, older moderates “aging out” or leaving could present an opportunity for the GOP if it can get it’s shit together with ballot harvesting they could actually give the Dems a serious run for their money outside NYC and Long Island (and, IRL, some parts of Long Island) since most younger “independents” really just see red/blue and not policy and will respond to incentives to leave them the fuck alone during election “season”.

          Based on your election laws I’d say that your expectation of trending Democrat is probably correct but there’s a narrow window of opportunity to actually really screw the Dems by using ballot harvesting to get elected and then make ballot harvesting illegal.

        • I would need to talk to the actuaries to give good numbers but more took U-Haul than grim reaper air and has been the case for more than a decade and likely is a part of why Florida went full red along with why silly restrictions persist. They got enough of our republicans where our governor was able to win a dumpster fire reelection but our republicans more resemble Idaho than Florida. At the least we will be forcing a lot of issues post Bruen.

  8. Look, I personally put my gun away as soon as I sit down to have a drink. I, personally, don’t think handling firearms interacts well with any psychoactive substances. They affect judgement, perception, impulse control, coordination. I don’t do it. That’s my choice.

    As others have noted, the 2A doesn’t say one fucking word about drugs or alcohol. Just like it has no provision saying “as long as they are properly trained, and jump through all the government hoops”. Nor, for that matter, does it mention anything about felons, violent people, or Zoroastrians, FFS.

    And anyone who thinks that ex-felons don’t acquire guns, because they are “prohibited persons” is either lying (or lying to themselves) or unutterably stupid. Active criminals, even those with prior felony convictions (including crimes involving firearms) acquire guns ALL THE TIME – on the black market, steal them from people, or even *gasp* make the damn things.

    Prohibition actually INCREASED the consumption of alcohol in the US. The “War on Drugs” certainly has done nothing to reduce drug use in the US (but, like Prohibition, it sure as hell has enriched organized crime). Outlawing prostitution certainly eliminated it, didn’t it? Heck, you NEVER see hookers hanging out in the skeevy areas of any metropolitan downtown, do you?

    The only people ‘prevented’ from accessing firearms by such nonsense as NICS checks, ‘prohibited person’ classification, etc. are those either too stupid, or too law-abiding, to tell the Karens to take a flying fornication at a rolling deep-fried breakfast pastry, and just hitting up the black market, stealing a gun, or making the damn thing.

    Just like Prohibition, outlawing prostitution, outlawing gambling, and the War on Drugs have done literally NOTHING to control any of those things. It distresses me that we have become a nation of pearl-clutching Karens.

    Just like “shall not be infringed” is a thing, “you can’t legislate morality” is a thing. A whole bunch of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Including some on this forum.

    AARRGGGHHH! If you’ve got nothing better to do than retire to your fainting couch over the possibility that someone, somewhere, owns a gun and dared to smoke a joint? You seriously need to find a hobby.

    • …to tell the Karens to take a flying fornication at a rolling deep-fried breakfast pastry…

      An interesting turn of phrase. Don’t let anyone ever tell you that you don’t have a way with words.

      • Is certainly longwinded and self-righteous.

        Great great grandpa figured out that the a peaceful, productive civilized society was not compatible with hookers on every corner, opium dens (other drugs), gambling joints (organized theft) and a multiple bars on every block. That none of these counted as actual/real “business”. Being the province of lazy useless deadbeats. And none are protected by the Constitution.

        How has “liberalizing” any of these over recent decades improved American society? Stop with your pothead BS of dragging the 2nd into your silly (phony) faux”libertarian” drivel. Go smoke your red herring. It’s astounding the extent of the rationalization of potheads.

        • neiowa,

          And there were no opium dens after great great grandpa came along? Sounds like you’re getting high on your own supply. Passing laws against anything individuals want/choose to do has a long and storied history of failure.

          1. Consumption of alcohol INCREASED after Prohibition. FACT.
          2. Consumption of drugs NEVER decreased, anywhere, during the time when we were aggressively pursuing the ‘War on Drugs’. FACT.
          3. ‘Prostitution’ has been illegal since Moses (in some form or manner) – so we don’t have any more prostitutes, amirite???
          4. The fascists and Dimocrats (ah, but I repeat myself) have been trying to “regulate” guns since forever . . . and we have more guns now than at any time in our history. And during periods when “gun laws” were being passed by the truckload, there is NO demonstrable reduction in “gun crime”. “Gun crime was going down for years, until, basically, the 2020 riots. It has gone up since then. Interestingly, the vast majority of that increase has occurred in . . . Dimocrat-run cities. One might almost conclude that there is a connection there.

          Let me try to make this clear for you – yes, Leftist/fascists try to control things that are inherent rights. Now, do Republicans.

          It’s easy to condemn things you don’t personally do. Some of us require some intellectual consistency. This is obviously not a “value” for MinorLiar or dacian the demented, but it appears it’s also not a value for you.

          You want to worship at the local church of people speaking in tongues and playing with rattlesnakes? Have fun. You want to worship Allah? Go with Allah . . . right up to the point where you decide that your particular jihad is killing as many innocent people as possible at the local mall.

          I can deplore someone else’ use of “illicit” drugs, because I personally don’t do, or believe in, that behavior. Didn’t notice the Universe appointing me God, either. Please learn to differentiate between “protecting my family and society” from “outlaw s*** I don’t approve of” – I’m fairly certain that there is at least one person who disapproves of your definitions and how you apply them. That would be me. “Let that man among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.” I don’t “do” drugs, either . . . doesn’t mean I think I have any right to judge anyone else’s behavior. It’s astounding the extent of the rationalization of Karens. Grow up; you ain’t all that.

        • Well, you’ve certainly found an entertaining way to explain to me that you’re an outright authoritarian and wrap it up in tales of yore while throwing ad hominem and defending unethical behavior that has already been turned against your 2A rights.

          Personally, I’ll stick to actual arguments and do you the solid of assuming they’re not over your head.

          But keep it up and maybe I’ll just come to the conclusion that you’re the same type dumbfuck that says a 1A supporter wants people wandering into bars yelling racial slurs because words are violence and freedom of speech is white supremacy.

          You know, like the Leftists you’re claiming you don’t like but spend time emulating?

          What with imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I might start to think you’re untruthful with the rest of us, yourself or both.

        • strych9,

          SO??? Where’s your deep and internally consistent “explanation”?? I am certainly willing to accept/acknowledge that you have a different opinion than do I about certain things. And I am obligated to give your opinion weight over my own because . . . what, exactly?? Because a passel of babbling, egotistical nitwits who SOMEONE ELSE anointed as “legislators” said so?

          And you accuse me of being self-important. Not big on examining your own actions, or striving for intellectual consistency, are you?

      • strych9,

        Well, originally I came up with that to avoid the OBJECTIVELY STUPID TTAG “moderation”, to replace “take a flying fuck at a rolling donut”. Given the absolute subjectivity and absurdity of TTAGs’ “algorithm” (LIARS!!!!! Algorithms do not work that way, and anyone who knows anything about software and coding knows that).

        Perhaps I should just stop bothering to try to “think around” TTAGs absurd, absurdly subjective, “moderation” rules.

        As for the point I was trying to make, given that I think “the Golden Rule” makes sense, my philosophy is “you don’t bother me, and I won’t bother you”. Wish that fascist idiots like MinorLiar and dacian the demented could get the point.

        • Half the curse words I use are just to see if the moderation lets me do it. Especially since there are quite a few things that WP allows some of but has a threshold thou shalt not exceed. Especially for punctuation or html insertions.

          WP’s auto-moderation has gotten way, way tighter over time and it’s obnoxious. I’ve found numerous terms that innocuous and not off topic that WP will not let you use and, in a lot of cases, they make zero sense. They’re not a slur, not offensive they’re just a noun.

          Might be two years ago that there was a Pink Pistols story and I realized that moderation would catch the use the actual word for a woman who prefers women when talking about… anything. And it didn’t send you to moderation, it just wouldn’t post the message at all.

          Whatever, fuck ’em. I found your comment hilarious, took me a second to realize what the “rolling deep-fried breakfast pastry” was. When I did, I LOLed.

  9. I couldn’t care less about what sex, color, religion or what someone chooses to smoke, drink, or ingest. Legal or not, people are going to continue to do or use whatever they choose to do. You cannot legislate morality.
    Those with criminal intent are going to find ways to arm themselves or otherwise give themselves an advantage over their intended victims. Being able to defend yourself against such intent is the individual’s responsibility. Depending on State or government agents to protect you is foolish at best.
    I would prefer if someone chooses to use any mind altering substance they would put their weapons away while under the influence of said substances. If I settle down with an adult beverage, or decide to have a few beers when we have a cookout, I do so after the firearms have been put away. Never cared for pot. tried it twice as a much younger man and got nothing but a headache from it.
    Just my opinion on this, and not a request for legal action. Legalize any and all recreational drug use. Including those deemed dangerous etc. Given how most users want to regain that original high and use ever increasing amounts to get to that level, the problem soon solves itself.
    Either that or start eliminating dealers and users on the street. Otherwise the whole situation will continue as it has for decades with no end in sight. The entire “War on Drugs” has been as dismal a failure as the “War on Poverty”.

    • If I settle down with an adult beverage, or decide to have a few beers when we have a cookout, I do so after the firearms have been put away.

      I see this kind of comment a lot and I’m fascinated by it. Why do you do this?

      • It’s pretty much been proven that fine motor skills decline with alcohol intoxication. Put someone drunk in a driving simulator, they will crash more than someone stone-cold sober. It pretty much goes double (if not triple or more) for someone flying a plane. Fine motor skills are degraded.

        I don’t see a problem with someone who recognizes this and voluntarily decides to eliminate the possibility of a bad result with ‘butter-fingers’ and elects not to combine the two…

        • EDIT – There’s a phenomenon where people can falsely believe their performance is better (reflexes quicker, sharper, etc.) when buzzed. It’s a delusion…

        • Geoff:

          Not that your comment is a stand in for a reply from the OP (oldmaninAL), nor should my reply to your comment be taken as my assumption of such, but “fine motor coordination” makes no sense for several reasons and in fact is an argument for training after a drink or two on occasion to cover those bases in exactly the same way that people argue for training under stress.

          And yeah, I’ll defend that position.

          Like keys in your pocket, the gun in your holster does not become dangerous if/when you become intoxicated. You might become dangerous but objects remain simple objects.

          Therefore, under the schema you describe, this is an open admission of a problem with alcohol mixed with a generally irresponsible mode of life. Not only can you not be trusted not to get drunk but once drunk you can’t be trusted not to fuck around with your gun. This problem is so obvious that it’s even obvious to you, and… you’re a fucking drunk by your own admission at this point.

          The alternative is that you CAN be trusted not to get drunk but are unwilling to do the work to overcome the minor disability introduced having imbibed alcohol to the point of non-intoxication when it comes to handling a firearm, a problem easily solved by a drink or two and a firing range on occasion to reacquaint yourself with the firearm after a drink or two. This would be no different than the recommended training regimens of increasing stress while training until you can handle execution of the tasks at hand while under stress.

          If this is the case, it raises questions about what other work you’re not putting in.

          But let’s assume, since the OP didn’t say he was getting rowdy, that our hypothetical gun slinger who’s had a social drink or two is the same way; responsible about their alcohol consumption.

          Well then, this all presupposes that you’d have fine motor coordination during an extremely stressful event, which we already know that the vast majority of people under the influence of adrenaline do not, which means that if you’re not drunk it’s not really an alcohol related issue anyway. Your fine coordination isn’t going to be great regardless, so what matters is mostly impaired judgement and reaction time but if you’re not drunk how is either one significantly impaired? It’s not.

          Now, fine motor coordination, generally, makes sense for a gun to some extent but to compare it to a car is off-base. Medically “fine motor coordination” is medically defined thusly:

          “Ability to perform delicate manipulations with the hand requiring steadiness, muscle control, and simultaneous discrete finger movements.”

          Which means that sure, you might not be quite as quick on the draw since that is since fine motor coordination and you might need an extra moment to get it right. But such fine coordination isn’t the issue with a car since you use gross motor coordination to drive one.

          So, we already know that simply based on human reactions we can’t control that most people will lose fine motor coordination. That leaves judgement and reaction time affected by the drink.

          But our gunslinger ain’t drunk so his judgement isn’t impaired. This leaves the potentially for a measurably slower reaction time. Not huge but still potentially measurable and due to the booze. For the purposes of argument let’s grant that this is true, there is a measurable difference but not significant enough to seriously raise the threat of a car accident (as a baseline comparison)

          So, how would the problems created by this slow reaction time which is making you slower on the draw be made better by having an even longer or infinitely longer reaction time created by the need to go and procure the gun you need now instead of having it on you?

          Is the maniac waving a machete at your party guests going to be shot more effectively by the gun you don’t have or less effectively? Can you stop him from harming more guests more quickly or less quickly with a slightly impaired draw time or with the need to go get a gun? Unless you’ve managed to get yourself into a dual old-West style, I’m not seeing how the extra .25 second on the draw is somehow negated by putting the gun somewhere you can’t just draw it. Seems to me it’s made worse.

          Now, all that said one can imagine other reasons that make sense for the behavior the OP describes but “motor coordination” after two or three drinks simply isn’t one of them. Nor is judgement or reaction time.

          To say “Look, when I drink it’s not to get drunk but it’s still part of an overall form of relaxation and I’m not sure that having guns present is a good idea because things could happen when my guard is down because I’m not paying as much attention to weapon retention as I do in public. I’m simply not comfortable with guns being around unless people are entirely on point about it and it’s not really a booze thing so much as an overall atmosphere thing”.

          That’s a perfectly rational explanation of behavior. Which is why I asked oldmaninAL his rationale behind this behavior.

          Also, IIRC, there is a narrow band where people actually do preform better under stress after drinking because they don’t tend to panic under stress as much as they would dead sober but it doesn’t get anywhere near “drunk” or even “legally drunk”. It’s a BAC of like 0.02-0.04 or something like that. The equivalent for most people of a single drink after like 20 minutes.

        • strych9,

          Before I attempt to respond to that, let me ask you one simple question:

          Is it your contention that you are EVERY BIT as good a shooter (as fast, as accurate, as good at target acquisition, etc.) when you have been drinking/smoking/snorting as you are before such (and that would be REGARDLESS of training)?

          One of my buddies was an Army Ranger, and shot a 1911, either hand, more accurately and faster than any other pistolero I’ve ever personally shot with. SCARY good. He and his buddies often snuck onto the base range after a night of drinking, when they were HAMMERED drunk, and he could still outshoot everyone in the bunch. Even he never claimed that his accuracy at those impromptu range visits was as good as what he did sober.

          Like I said, you do you. If it pleases you to carry on your person while imbibing, that’s your choice. I can choose to drink with you, or not – that’s my choice. And I haven’t (nor did oldmaninAL, that I saw) suggest that you not be able to exercise that choice. Not my place to say.

          I am saying two things:

          1. It is INCONTESTABLE that many skills, necessary to shooting, degrade under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc. If it is your assertion that this is not true, I have nothing further to say; you’re so deluded there is no rational argument to have, and I’ll allow you your delusion.

          2. If it is your contention that you can train yourself to the point where YOU feel it is still safe for you to be armed even when you are “under the influence”, I have a simple challenge, and a statement. The challenge is, go somewhere you can shoot in private, sober, and shoot three magazines or so. Now imbibe, and shoot three magazines at a new target. Lather, rinse, repeat. When you get to the point that even your delusion can’t convince you you aren’t “as good”, then ask yourself “At what point did my shooting become unacceptable to me?” (preferably when you look at your targets sober).

          ANYONE who argues that psychoactive substances do not degrade your abilities to perform complex tasks is either a liar or deluded. Period. Now, you are welcome to set your own limits on what level of “degraded” you can have and still remain comfortable carrying/using a firearm. All I state was my limit – once I start drinking Scotch (and I like expensive Scotch, so I don’t get hammered; I have a ‘wee dram’), my gun gets put away. Feel free to behave differently, if you choose – but also recognize that I have the choice not to be around you when you do that.

          Not sure what your point was intended to be. “I can have a drink or two, and I think I’m still OK to carry” is one thing. “I don’t need to worry about drinking and carrying, because I’ve often shot/trained while drunk” is another. I already conceded that your limits may be different from mine, and I accept that – as long as you accept that I have the absolute right not to remain in your presence while you are armed if you indulge past the point where I am comfortable (and that would expressly include telling you to leave my house, even if I’d invited you there, if you WOULDN’T put your gun away, and drank/smoked/snorted past the point where I was comfortable with you being armed).

          Like I said, not sure what “point” you are trying to make, here.

        • @Lamp, I’m going to break this into two replies and hope that it enhances the clarity. The first replying specifically to your points/queries, the latter a broader note on how this topic is a microcosm of something else.

          Is it your contention that you are EVERY BIT as good a shooter (as fast, as accurate, as good at target acquisition, etc.) when you have been drinking/smoking/snorting as you are before such (and that would be REGARDLESS of training)?

          Well, I don’t drink or indulge in any intoxicants. So… I don’t really have a contention about my own performance when under the influence of the substances I don’t use. I have done both in the past, however. Occasionally, even *gasp* to excess when I was younger.

          As such, I draw several distinctions here that, so far as I can tell, are lacking in this general conversation (this comes up every so often on TTAG).

          Also, going forward I’ll assume that, outside context specific usages, this generally asks about “you” in the general sense and reply to that.

          We’ll go one at at time.

          1. That’s not my contention at all. My contention is that there is no world where putting a gun in another room results in a faster time to deploy the gun than having it on you. It’s that simple. A holster is a thing for this reason.

          Ergo, putting the gun away cannot make you safer in terms of speed in accessing the gun should you need it.

          If speed is not the issue, then something else must be. Which leads to…

          2. Define your terms for “under the influence”.

          This is what I don’t get and maybe I’m not being clear about it. If so, that’s my bad.

          On the one hand you would seem to acknowledge the difference between a drink or two and “drunk”.

          To which I would say “Yeah… EXACTLY!”. There’s a difference between a social drink or two and being drunk. Such a wide and obvious difference that it’s even codified in law. So, if there’s a difference why treat them as the same?

          When I read your (again, acknowledging that you’re not the OP and don’t speak for him and nothing I say here should be considered to be a reflection of my position on his opinion, which he has not given) statements I would think that you’d have no problem sipping a fine scotch with dinner while armed. Yet you tell me you won’t do this. “Why?” is my question.

          From a purely logical point of view (as well as that of someone who has consumed alcohol in the past), assuming that you do not drink to excess, the behavior and the argument don’t jive. The argument is perfect the action doesn’t follow the argument.
          Therefore there is a distinction which I will codify the terms here:

          #1. Intoxicated: Used interchangeably with “impaired”. The state of having consumed enough alcohol to impair your physical and mental faculties to the point that you would be unsafe to drive or operate machinery as well as bring into serious question your capacity to use proper judgement. What would be commonly termed “drunk”.

          #2. Not intoxicated. Not significantly impaired. The state of NOT having consumed enough alcohol to impair your physical and mental faculties to the point that you would be unsafe to drive or operate machinery. Nor is there any particular reason to question your capacity to use proper judgement.

          This state may be “sober”, having consumed zero intoxicants OR may reflect a state in which small quantities of intoxicant have been consumed but not enough to register as “drunk” or “impaired’ or “intoxicated”. Minor differences between sober function and this state may exist but are not enough to raise any serious issues in driving, operating machinery or the use of judgement.

          If you’re not intoxicated then you’re not impaired to the point that it matters in terms of judgement and there’s no danger in you being stupid. That basically leaves you with a potential slower reaction time. Sure, obviously.

          But, to steal from a movie, let’s kick the ballistics here.

          Hypothetical If 1 drink adds .25 seconds to your reaction time then it does that no matter what you’re reacting to. If your time to draw and shoot sober is, say 2 seconds, you’re now at 2.25.

          But if walking to the other room and returning takes you 20 seconds now it takes you 2.25 seconds. Yes, you’re slower but the gun not being on you is 18 seconds slower to retrieve and deploy NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You’re not gaining an advantage. You’re making your disadvantage markedly worse.

          Pick any numbers you want, going to get the gun always loses to having it on you.

          Ergo, if you are not intoxicated then there’s no logical reason to put up the gun. Yes, the drink may slow you down a bit but it’s slowing you down less than you are being slowed down by having to go get your gun from the other room or something. There’s no world where the loss in speed of taking the gun off is less than the loss of speed to draw due to a drink.

          Therefore, unless you’re drinking more than you claim the actual loss of safety comes from taking the gun off because in a situation where you need the gun you are always slower if you have to go get it.

          And I think we can all agree that no bad guy is going to kick your door, see you holding a rocks glass and say “Wow, you’re like super responsible disarming yourself, I’ll come back tomorrow when you’re strapped”.

          Now, there are alternative considerations as I noted in my original reply to Geoff. Those may involve social circumstances or something else that’s unique to you. Cool, I’m just curious what they’d be.

          And honestly, I don’t care if you choose to disarm just because you looked at a bottle or feel that one looked at you askance. I’m simply pointing out that until the threshold of “intoxicated” is crossed this doesn’t have much logic behind it in the way that it is commonly presented.

        • The original with specific answers is stuck in moderation, whodathunk?!

          Anyway, the bigger picture as I see it on this overarching topic that comes up repeatedly in the gun community:

          [Also, this post uses you and your in both the personal and the general sense. I’ll try to make the difference obvious with y’all for the general but I may not be perfect about that since I’m in the middle of replacing hubs and axle shafts which requires me to go back and forth as cleaning agents do their thing/remove rust etc.]

          The issue I have there is, simply put, the hypocrisy. It looms large and is not confined to one person or conversation. It’s part of the overall zeitgeist. No offense Lamp, but since I judge you to be an adult I’ll pick on you just a touch here. I can see it in your post here. I also suspect that you don’t intend it that way, yet you must know it’s there to some extent and you do nothing to correct it. I can practically feel the anger coming off the text and your subtle suggestions that I’m an irresponsible idiot don’t escape my notice. Why not just call me an “impudent whelp” and get it over with?

          Yet I quite clearly have said none of what you suggest I have. How does this escape your notice?

          Though, I guess I can thank you for not resorting to direct name calling as others have and often do.

          Imbibing what? See the starting point here is a question: Why would you assume that I imbibe fuck all when you could just ask a question? Why do you guys instead choose to tell me what I do/believe in what can only be described as an accusatory tone?

          See, I don’t much care about that. My feelz are a lot harder to hurt than most of you would even believe. But there’s a much larger point here.

          As I said earlier, I don’t imbibe anything. The real starting question here is: Is that impossible for you guys to process? Can you not actually understand this?

          It may not seem so, but that’s a pretty big thing, actually. It’s a VERY large point IRL. The fate of the Republic type shit. So, let me be clear and ask directly;

          Does that just not compute for a good chunk of you people? Not that, or me specifically, but the overarching schema in the Kantian sense.

          Are you people actually incapable of having a philosophical position that is consistent to the point that you cannot bring yourselves to imagine that someone else could possibly have such a thing? Are you that hung up on tribalism? That stuck to the things you prefer to the exclusion of everything else, even your own best interest? That… well, for lack of a better term, weak?

          It’s interesting to me because I don’t think so. I wouldn’t be here if I did. Yet the people I so often defend argue against themselves quite publicly by acting as such, often while coming after me to boot. Odd, that.

          Is it really impossible for y’all to understand the idea that a person would take a philosophical position over something they don’t personally support or engage in? Does the concept that a person might perhaps “disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it” and really fucking mean it truly elude you?

          Is that’s what’s going on here? Please, tell me that Conservatives are not that fucking stupid and evil in the aggregate. Because if you literally cannot wrap your head around the idea of a “principle” and rather than ask a question you must immediately resort to ad hominem and innuendo then you are just as lost as the most ardent Leftist and you really are just a bunch of idiots who only care about the toys you’ve accumulated.

          And, let us not fail to note, that this is the root of many a Leftist attack on Conservatives. I generally don’t bother to explain them because, honestly, I don’t want to deal with the butthurt from the people who can’t tell the difference between an explanation and the voicing of support.

          Those attacks work because everyone knows they contain at least a grain of truth and, mostly, the Right seems happy to reinforce that interpretation. What, you think the Left came up with that “They’re dumbass, redneck old fucks who care more about their toys than the lives of kids. Hurr durr, durr now they’ll talk about a civics class that they actually failed and buying a house at 26!” thing out of the blue?

          They didn’t. Think it doesn’t work? Think again. This is but a single microcosm example of why Trump lost in 2020. And for all his failings, I don’t think anyone here will disagree that the man was obviously at least a few percentage points better than Biden in the bigger scheme of things, amirite?

          The hard truth is that hypocrisy of the Right, especially the 2A community, is NOT hard to detect unless you’re fully immersed in that echo chamber. It’s also damned easy to amplify to the point that it’s blown out of all proportion. It’s just LibsofTikTok^-1. But it’s really quite simple to fix too.

          You’re SO close, y’all are right about 95% of shit but you don’t seem to know WHY you’re right and where you’re wrong you’re not far off yet you seem to think you’re on target as you shoot yourself in the foot.

          The fact that you are mostly right and generally close to target is why you attract disaffected liberals like Bret Weinstein and you’ve created a war with the Libertarian party between the Commies and the Mises caucus which Mises won. You guys basically did that, by accident no less, because you’re that close. Libertarians sure as shit didn’t do that without having that path illuminated for them.

          And you might get mad that I say this but no one here in a nearly a decade has given me the explanation as to why you guys seemingly choose look at Triumph in all her glory and then spit in her face. Is it just because herding cats is almost impossible?

          And ultimately this is the issue for the 2A community and freedom minded people more generally. You can celebrate your court victories all you want and, yeah, they’re nice. But you’re celebrating winning skirmishes, not battles, and certainly not the war.

          The 2A is part of the BoR, which is designed to be self-reinforcing. Kinda like interlocking fields of fire. To myopically focus on one part to the exclusion of the others pretty well guarantees you’ll lose it all. And you are. Maybe you don’t see it but you are slowly losing a war of attrition.

          The 2A is a battle within that war, which contains smaller actions, but it is part of a larger war that Conservatives have been losing my entire lifetime. Seemingly by choice too.

          It’s very strange to some people to think about this but you guys represent the counterbalance to the Left. The yin to the yang if you wanna get all meta about it. If you fuck this up the other side takes over completely or the entire disc becomes unstable and flies apart, either way this country is over and there’s no coming back. There’s no peaceful divorce from the spouse that’s hell-bent on murdering you.

          Is this so hard to understand?

      • strych9,

        Easy answer – I enjoy a good Scotch, I have in my past indulged in marijuana, and with my medical history, I’ve been through pretty much every opiate and opioid there is. Bottom line, ALL of these substances reduce reaction time, depress impulse control, warp or modify direct perception of your environment, reduce higher brain function (if you doubt me, try taking a cognitive test sober, get stoned, then take it again) – ALL things that do not contribute to proper, or effective, firearm handling.

        I made it clear, above, that this is MY choice (I also notice oldmaninAL didn’t propose a federal prohibition) – if you choose to carry in a bar, or while you’re hitting the bong, that’s on you. If it yields a bad result, that’s not my problem. I NEVER said no one else should carry while having a wee dram with their friends; I said I don’t do it. I, being a fanatic about safe gun handling, deem the risk too high. My choice. Not trying to impose it on anyone else. But don’t try to argue that cannabis, opiates, etc. do not affect essential skills for safe gun handling, because that’s absolute bullshit. You are free to evaluate the risk differently than do I, and that is your right. I don’t insist all my guests disarm before I break out the Caol Ila 18 (but I do admit I keep an eye on the ones who don’t). Interestingly, my younger son, who just left the financial industry and opened his own gun training business, and also enjoys Scotch and even the occasional joint, has even stricter rules – if psychoactives are being consumed at his house, EVERYONE has to disarm. He learned his attitude about gun safety from me (I’m still working on getting him to adopt more libertarian attitudes).

        Do whatever suits you, and you’d still be welcome at my crib for a drink (even armed), but that’s my rule for myself. And I think it makes sense, but it’s a rule for me, not “I want this compelled by law”.

        • Oops, “reduce reaction time” should have been “reduce reaction SPEED”. My bad. Proofreading is your friend.

        • But don’t try to argue that cannabis, opiates, etc. do not affect essential skills for safe gun handling, because that’s absolute bullshit.

          I never said anything of the kind. I’m not sure where you’d get the idea that I did.

          My specific reactions to your other comment will have to await moderation because reasons, apparently. But as I said in those, in part, no, I do not and never have made the contention you ask me about. Not even close. Ever. In fact, granting the concession is the crux of my point.

        • strych9,

          Once again, I find myself in violent agreement with you. I honestly believe we are saying much the same thing, in different ways . . . and probably disagreeing for no reason.

          I probably did a weak job of making it clear that stating that my personal decision about when I put the gun down was my PERSONAL decision, and I wasn’t telling anyone else what they should do. Even using the example was probably a bad idea, as you obviously interpreted that as “he thinks he’s right, and I’m wrong”. Nope. I think I’m right for ME . . . my personal level of comfort, for ME, is that I don’t like ANY degradation in my shooting skills – they are marginal enough, at my age, when I’m stone cold sober. And the consequences of shooting badly are potentially devastating, and always irrevocable. If I’m responsible for the results of my use of a firearm (and I am), then I have to make the judgement about when I, PERSONALLY, shouldn’t.

          I’m not so arrogant as to believe that my judgement should control others – I made an observation about what I do. While I certainly understand why that translates to “this what I do, so you should, too” – people make those decisions because they think they are “right” . . . don’t forget the “for them” part. I’ve made it a big part of my life’s work to learn humility. What I say or do is, to the best of my limited ability, what I think is right FOR ME, in those circumstances. I freely admit that others, with more discernment, can process the same information and come to a different conclusion. And they are “right” . . . for them, in those circumstances. If I make a different decision, I’m not saying, or even implying, that they are “wrong” for themselves.

          I thought my example of my buddy, the ex-Ranger, made that clear. The little sumbitch, STUMBLING drunk, could outshoot my best, with either hand. He had better skills than I am even capable of. I can shoot a string I am proud of, every now and then. I can also shoot a target I’d be ashamed of showing to anyone else. I consider my skills (and my intellect, for that matter) BARELY acceptable . . . to me. So any degradation of those skills makes me nervous. ME, for myself. Part of my calculation about when I ask someone ELSE to put down their gun is to recall my ex-Ranger friend’s skillz.

          But I’m still responsible for my own safety (and that of my other guests, if any), so if I feel uncomfortable with a friend being armed in my house, I have the right to tell them that. Not judging them (even though it sounds like it), just responding to my personal level of comfort . . . and I recognize that that level of comfort is based on my own perception of my own skills. You may be (probably are) more skilled than I. It’s still my decision about my level of comfort.

          As for accessing the gun, I agree with your observation – I normally, at MY home, sleep with my 1911 under my pillow (always in the same place/same orientation). Hard to get more accessible than that, without sleeping with it in your hand (which my Ranger buddy did, MANY times, in the bush). Part of the reason I “put my gun down” is to require myself to take affirmative steps to get it. Slows my response time, but if I manage the access, it gives me a read on exactly how “impaired” I might be. I PERSONALLY rate the risk of slower access as less than the risk of grabbing my gun and . . . accidentally shooting one of my guests.

          Not sure what part of “personal” and “for me” isn’t getting through, or how I could state it better, but to give an example, I would be completely comfortable with my ex-Ranger buddy carrying (and he does, EVERYWHERE, all the time) when he was completely hammered – he could still outshoot me. Someone whose skills I haven’t personally assessed? I opt for caution (again, for me – I get to choose who is armed in my house; if someone is carrying in a bar, my choice is to leave if I’m not comfortable). That is entirely based on my own knowledge of my own skills.

          There are obviously people around, including at least one guy I’ve been around for . . . longer than I care to think about, who have better skills (and judgement) than do I. When I have confirmed those skills to my satisfaction, that informs my judgement and level of comfort. I’ve only asked one person, in my entire long life, to leave my house because they wouldn’t “put the gun down”, and I was no longer comfortable . . . and most of my friends carry.

          Again, I try not to judge others’ decisions by my sorry skillset . . . that’s unfair to them (and makes me look like an @$$hole). But I can’t change my ‘comfort level’. I’m fairly certain you could outshoot me, even after a few drinks. Good on you. I know my own abilities, and as Dirty Harry Callahan said, “A man’s got to know his own limitations.” That was seriously ALL that I was implying. Sorry if that read to you like I was judging you, and your decisions.

          My decision is (I like to convince myself) the “right” decision . . . for me, in those circumstances, with a thorough knowledge of my own limitations.

  10. Meanwhile, in a gunstore across town…
    A scrawny male walks in complaining of testicular cancer and an abusive spouse with a legal weed card in hand as the female behind the counter has the same look on her face.

    Me…I just work retail. What do I look like to you? Your therapist or your bar tender? Wondering why I’m not earning more money. Boss, I quite!

  11. It’s amazing to watch the drug l e g a l i z a t i o n crowd to willingly work with the government to set up the marijuana card authorization system. These people who say they “support Liberty”. And allowing the government to approve what kind of medicine they want to voluntarily use in their body. And having the government approve the source for which you get your marijuana from.

    Government slaves made comfortable with their marijuana intoxication.

  12. I’m going to start out by stating that I do like a bit of pricey Isley malt whisky or a good straight bourbon. I’m no stranger to intoxicating liquids altho my consumption has dropped as my tastes have risen, like the man said, you got to know your limitations…. There are some observations I’ve made over my lifetime.
    People can get stupid when they drink. Inhibitions are lowered… When people get stupid, they can say and do things they otherwise wouldn’t- people sometimes get hurt. It’s an old story that is repeated all over this country every Friday and Saturday night, and not necessarily with guns.
    It’s pretty simple and doesn’t need a phone-book size dissertation to say it. It’s not really the same as operating a motor vehicle, it’s not that you’re slower on the draw or less accurate (tho you could be!) but that your judgement and social or religious inhibitions are impaired and lowered.. Just don’t play with your weapons when you’re drinking!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here