Skip to comments.
Unintended consequence of Colorado's new marijuana laws: you can't buy a gun.
Posted on 01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST by LouAvul
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
1
posted on
01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST
by
LouAvul
To: LouAvul
Cry me a river.
Stop smoking dope.
2
posted on
01/06/2014 10:41:11 AM PST
by
ifinnegan
To: LouAvul
3
posted on
01/06/2014 10:41:56 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: LouAvul
Saw this coming a mile away. This is the quid pro quo the anti-gunners have been dreaming of.
4
posted on
01/06/2014 10:42:24 AM PST
by
rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
To: LouAvul
We are told that potheads are peaceful people. Why would a pothead need a gun?
5
posted on
01/06/2014 10:42:29 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
To: LouAvul
6
posted on
01/06/2014 10:43:03 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
To: rarestia
No oppression is easier than the oppression the people seek out on their own.
7
posted on
01/06/2014 10:44:08 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: FReepers
As far as the left is concerned, Americans cannot
be trusted with these high capacity lead delivery systems.
Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
8
posted on
01/06/2014 10:44:20 AM PST
by
deoetdoctrinae
(Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
To: ifinnegan
Cry me a river. Stop smoking dope.The feds have no Constitutional authority for a pot ban. That should be up to the states.
However, since you don't seem to care about the feds denying an enumerated Consitutional right (gun ownership) over a usurped power (banning pot), I guess you also wouldn't have a problem with the feds eventually banning guns to those whose political views they disagree with as well. Who cares about that messy Bill of Rights? Ignore the 10th, ignore the 2nd, ignore the First, as long as those dopers can't get a gun...
9
posted on
01/06/2014 10:46:06 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
As far as I’m concerned if you don’t have enough common sense to fill out a 4473 appropriately then you probably don’t have enough common sense to carry a firearm.
To: dirtboy
...about the feds denying an enumerated Consitutional right (gun ownership) Right. Wonder if the feds have a way of tracking retail purchase of mj?
11
posted on
01/06/2014 10:54:12 AM PST
by
frog in a pot
("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
To: cripplecreek
Or as Sun Tzu once said (paraphrasing): “Never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.”
12
posted on
01/06/2014 10:57:40 AM PST
by
rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
To: frog in a pot
Sure if you’re using electronic means to pay. You could use cash, and I’d bet they could still track you through surveillance.
13
posted on
01/06/2014 10:58:34 AM PST
by
rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
To: Tucsonican
...if you dont have enough common sense to fill out a 4473 appropriately then you probably dont...[etc.] Is it possible by "appropriately" you suggest that the applicant lie to the feds in a sworn statement?
14
posted on
01/06/2014 10:59:21 AM PST
by
frog in a pot
("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
To: rarestia
Dude, don’t harsh my buzz!
To: frog in a pot
If you put the pot on your credit or debit card they could have indirect proof that you lied on the form - if they could get ahold of that info.
16
posted on
01/06/2014 11:01:22 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: E. Pluribus Unum
"..We are told that potheads are peaceful people. Why would a pothead need a gun?Careful. Sounds like you're suggesting that someone who wants to buy a gun is not "peaceful". Borderline libtardism. d;^)
To: frog in a pot
I’d never recommend intentionally falsifying a sworn statement.
To: dirtboy
As part of Obamacare, they do have law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and allowed by the courts that deals with this: anything the FDA lists as a drug must be made by an agent approved and taxed by the Federal government. Even your local pharmacy can get in trouble for mixing things that were legal before the abomination was passed. This is as close as you can come to an “authority”.
19
posted on
01/06/2014 11:11:42 AM PST
by
Ingtar
(The NSA - "We're the only part of government who actually listens to the people.")
To: rarestia
That does seem obvious, doesn’t it? In which case it becomes just another tool for a far-reaching, zero tolerance government.
Arguably, there is less risk of improper firearm handling from a smoker than a drinker; imagine the furor if action were taken regarding the latter.
20
posted on
01/06/2014 11:12:18 AM PST
by
frog in a pot
("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson