Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/18/2010 5:47:00 AM PDT by marktwain
People shouldn't have to get a permit to bear arms and people who debase themselves by asking permission to exercise a right should darn well not be denied at the whim and fancy of someone else.
Unfortunately MJ use is a federal disqualifier to possessing firearms, but with a (former?) coke head in the oval office I don't see that happening.
Agreed, but the part of 18 USC 922 reflected in Form 4473's question "5e" pertains without regard to purchase from a federally-licensed dealer. It's a (federal) possession prohibition.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -...
(3) who 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)); ...
... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Folks that love freedom need to understand that the old rules are no longer operable. IT IS OKAY TO LIE TO YOUR GOVERNMENT. If that makes you uncomfortable, you best get over it. Think of it as a poker game, where lying is part of the game. The government lies to us constantly and is so utterly corrupt that normal ethics are off the table.
You cannot cheat a thief. Hiding a hundred dollar bill in your shoe and keeping it there when a thief says, "Gimme all your money" is not unethical, and that logic is true no matter who is supporting or electing the thief. Our government is run by thieves for the purpose of thieving. Open your minds to joys of misinformation! Be sand in the gears of big daddy governments plans!
The federal courts are intellectually corrupt and void of moral righteousness on the RKBA and second amendment. "The law" is nothing more than might makes right. All the way to the top, including Scalia and Thomas.
But the federal government is a ruthless and powerful monster. It enjoys nothing better than devouring a few subjects as a means of keeping the others in line. Beware of "getting over" on the man.
That’s the justification all criminals use. Lying is fine, if I do it to certain people.
**The bank robber warns the teller not to alert anyone. "I won't!" she says while triggering the silent alarm.
**"Are you harboring any Jews?" demanded the Gestapo agent. "No, but of course not!" responded Mr. Gies.
Seriously, would you hand over the 100 dollar bill in your shoe to a thief demanding ALL your money? I wouldn't. I don't care if the thief is some lone punk in a dark alley or a democratically elected thief operating in the light of day. At this moment in time, we have a corrupt thugocracy undeserving of our compliance. To comply with the unrighteous is to give sanction to unrighteousness.
Exactly correct. It is immoral to kill... except in defense of self and others.
It is immoral to lie...except in circumstances where the truth does more damage than the lie.
This is a difficult thing to deal with, but any sane person needs to accept it. If someone is violating your rights, they have forfeited their own.
Exactly! Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I won't blowout the pixels by going all CAPS, but it deserves to at least be bolded:
If someone is violating your rights, they have forfeited their own.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lopez that mere possession of a gun within a thousand feet of a school was not interstate commerce.
Justices Scalia and Kennedy seem to have retreated from their principled stand in Lopez in Gonzales v. Raich, where they held that merely possessing majijuana that was never involved in commerce was interstate commerce, but I believe that case was one of the worst in the history of the court.
Right, and then Congress rewrote the GFSZ Act to include the "or affecting" amplifier, and the modified GFSZ Act has been upheld by federal court. Plus, as you note, Raich now exists. Raich has been used to uphold the conviction of a guy (Stewart) who had a homemade machine gun that AFAIK, never left his home. The Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to apply Raich in order to sustain the conviction.
I had a feeling of deja vu ... see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2243741/posts, from a little over a year ago.
To: marktwain-- Lopez was cited in United States v. Stewart, where the 9th circuit held that homemade machine-guns did not fall under jurisdiction of the Federal government because they were not involved in interstate commerce. --
SCOTUS directed the 9th Circuit to reconsider Stewart and be guided in that reconsideration by Raich. The result:
"We therefore hold that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that in the aggregate, possession of homemade machineguns could substantially affect interstate commerce in machineguns."19 posted on 05/04/2009 7:49:56 AM PDT by Cboldt
That case is more misapplied than incorrect. One funny thing about it too -- it notes that Farmer Filburn could have avoided the penalty by feeding his unthreshed grain to his own animals (the law used "threshing" as the criteria for possession, rather than using growing or harvesting), and thereby gutted the "home consumption affects interstate commerce" premise for its own holding.
The [monetary] penalty provided by the amendment can be postponed or avoided only by storing the farm marketing excess according to regulations promulgated by the Secretary or by delivering it to him without compensation; and the penalty is incurred and becomes due on threshing. Thus the penalty was contingent upon an act which appellee committed not before but after the enactment of the statute, and had he chosen to cut his excess and cure it or feed it as hay, or to reap and feed it with the head and straw together, no penalty would have been demanded. Such manner of consumption is not uncommon. Only when he threshed and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat overhanging the market did he become subject to penalty.
I'd also point out that Wickard didn't deal with an out and out prohibition or criminal statute - two extremely important distinguishing qualities that SHOULD give rise to a different rule, compared with legislation that aims to manage and allocate agricultural commodity output.
Look, You can get addicted to anything.
Sugar... look at the obesity problem we have in modern society.
Computer games - how many divorces have occurred because of that?
Porn - enough said.
You can get addicted to just about anything. You can over-use just about anything. Now Cannabis is a PLANT for heavens sake, and one that a huge number of people consider to be a tremendously valuable asset. I know cancer patients who have used it during therapy, and it does work. That being said, there is the potential for over use, but at least you can’t overdose on the stuff.
Overusing anything can make you sick. Why is cannabis singled out as being too harmful to allow, when it is clearly less destructive than a lot of other things - alcohol and cigarettes come to mind - are so much more destructive, but Legal?
Shoot people want to get away from Petroleum so bad... why not go back to using hemp fibers for many of the things that now require Oil based products?
You can make the stuff into paper, our money used to be printed on hemp paper.... Maybe the Timber and oil industries don’t want the cheap easy to grow alternative to their products?
Why do we need a nanny state continuing to make this plant illegal when it is literally fueling drug lords in Mexico who are guilty of murder, human trafficking, rape and every other crime against humanity you can think of??? When American citizens can no longer count on a federal government to defend and protect our borders, its time to look at ways to deal with these issues that will actually WORK.
Decriminalizing pot and regulating it like Alcohol is a FAR better idea.
In order to win a war, one has to adopt the successful tactics the enemy uses.
Iron hulled ships, unrestricted submarine warfare, blitzkrieg, to name a few.
And if criminals are successful with this tactics, we must consider it. Of course, the question is whether this really is a successful tactic or not.
(And everything else you said.)
Thank you for that most excellent post. It is the best and most practical answer to the conundrum as it applies in the here and now. For we are not "seeking permission", but gaining access to a fundamental right that always existed and will survive mere laws.
Absolutely not. I had some Bailey's in my coffee last night (and not even for medicinal purposes, I just like it!) but I'm not addicted to alcohol. I drive my truck every day, but I'm not addicted to that either.
I hate to have to tell you this, but the feds think they have the jurisdiction to visit garage sales and thrift shops to make sure all those $0.25 kids clothes have been properly checked for lead and pthalates! :-(
How can you tar Thomas with that brush? Scalia, all to often, yes. But Thomas?
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.