Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
The one that that stood out for me was the fact that even in the RNC primary we had at least 1 or 2 Libertarian questions a debate from the "peanut gallery". We never even got ONE question like:
"What do you think the role of the Federal Government should be?"
"What percentage of taxes on ANYONE is too much?"
"If the question in tax policy is fairness, and the same percentage of a tax being mathmatically fair, why isn't a FLAT TAX an option in your opinion?"
"We talk about the war on terror, what about the war on drugs and it's failure?"
"At what point if the government telling us what to eat going to far?"
Nothing, of cource "Candy Cruller" did nothing but pick questions that were left leaning...
Granted I am a small L libertarian conservative, but no good questions about the PHILOSOPHY of government, of course someone put it in good contaxt today that all the "undecided" voters at the debate were nothing more than mere liberals that were pissed off Obana didn't go far enough LEFT in his first term....
I know more about American History than you ever will.
What are you raving about? I support non-criminal CITIZENS owning guns and concealed carry. Guns are great but no substitute for brains as you probably have figured out.
My logical abilities point out to me that you apparently don’t know that every “corpse” is “dead”.
You couldn’t me any more graceless or crueler to Candy, Grace. The questions came from the audience not from the big bag of Candy!
You couldn’t me any more graceless or crueler to Candy, Grace. The questions came from the audience not from the big bag of Candy!
However Candy was the one who took all the audience questions and picked the ones that would be asked.
I suspect then that the undecided who miraculously were able to decide on what socks to wear yesterday morning, as well as on the questions to submit, I suspect they failed to decide on the kind of questions that you and I and others here would like answered. The questions asked were, to be honest, lame and uninformed.
No, those are not merely State issues. The very legitimacy of the raids stems from the [illegitimate] War on Drugs, and in particular Federal "Law" regarding them.
Hell, even the Prohibitionists realized that in order for the Federal Government to regulate a substance they first had to amend the Constitution. Given that legal precedent, how can the War on Drugs be legitimate? Or is it as I suspect and 'precedence' only counts when it's in favor of something you support?
I believe that a criminal that has served his sentence is a criminal no more.
Or would you like to explain how a criminal, having performed the punishment dictated by the law, must always be under condemnation from the law?
I can think of one... their Candidate for President.
Actually that's not necessarily true, even though it's obsolete it ["corpse"] can refer to a living body.
corpse - noun
1. a dead body, usually of a human being.
2. something no longer useful or viable: rusting corpses of old cars.
3. Obsolete. a human or animal body, whether alive or dead.
If you've done any research into Christian Theology you would be familiar with this, as "the Corpse of Christ"* is not unheard of; indeed it is prominant in the name of a Texas town: Corpus Christi.
* Jesus is not dead, though He died He lives forevermore.
If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.
Some actions are worthy of life time punishment, even loss of rights. Jail time is only one element of punishment.
Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.
Wild rhetoric is always sooo convincing.
Let me know next time you see a corpse walking around.
Corpus is Latin for body but that is different than corpse.
They will not be pleased.
Murder ought to be a capital crime; very few of those serving that sentence are repeat offenders.
If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.
And who decides 'inappropriately'? You? The government?
In particular, is pointing a gun at a trespasser commanding that he leave 'inappropriate'? (Some people, and laws, would say yes; others no.)
Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.
That's exactly what I'm saying; but let's take it one step further: do you support the imposition of further punishments for a crime which has had its sentence served? [IE Ex Post Facto & Bill of Attainder law.]
This is exactly what the GCA [or NFA, I get the two mixed up] did: it imposed the "prohibited persons" status on those who were already serving [or had served] their sentences. Therefore, given that it is an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore contraconstitutional in both State and Federal law how can it be that you would consider it valid?
Completely ignoring the Theological link presented. (I.E. the translations from Latin, prior to the obsolescence of def #3, would tend to translate it to corpse.)
You made a For All-style statement; the only thing needed to disprove it is a single example: Romney is a great example of a socialist in the GOP because he passed into law socialized healthcare.
Welfarism is not socialism. States are the place to make those kind of experiments.
Mitt is not a “socialist” at least by the common meaning of the term.
Lawmakers (the People) are the ones who make the decision on the appropriate use of a gun. They have decided that pointing a gun at an intruder is appropriate, I agree. These are state matters and states do differ.
If you pull a gun to rob your fellow citizen - that is not going to be acceptable to me or many others.
If you use it to rob a store or a bank or a church - that is not going to be acceptable.
If you kidnap someone at gunpoint - guess what?
This is not difficult.
As it stands the loss of rights by felons is spelled out in the law. Most citizens have no problem with it. Extra non-judicial or unconstitutional punishment should not be allowed.
When you get the law you are concerned about properly identified I could discuss it. If it is not constitutional that will be before the courts before too long and it will be overturned.
Obsolescence is obsolescence.
And not walking around is not walking around.
Excluding, of course, the Zombie demographic.
Like the Affordable Care Act was overturned?
The "Law" is actually much worse than the little bit I shared; to wit:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
[...]
#1 is plainly contrary to the Fifth Amendment which states that liberties cannot be denied w/o due process of law: mere indictment does not qualify.
#3 is plainly contraconstitutional, the federal government is not Constitutionally allowed to regulate substances (see the 18th and 20th amendments); moreover as it references some other regulation, that regulation can be changed to disastrous consequence: making water a 'controlled substance', for Environmental reasons, would be an example.
#4 is particularly dangerous, given that there is one prominent instance where, in order to silence opposition, those opposing the government were labeled as mentally defective by the government: Russia.
So, please explain to me how anyone who loves Justice can love this 'law'*.
* - I maintain that it, being contrary to the Constitution, is not law.
Except that just because something is marked 'obsolete' doesn't mean you'll not come across it.
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.