Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 701-748 next last
To: tpaine
Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

Keep begging the question though.

151 posted on 01/12/2003 11:44:49 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I've 'begged' no question.
152 posted on 01/13/2003 12:30:46 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Shell game.

This your response to my saying that I prefer local regulation of drugs. Can you expand? I don't know what you mean.

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.

This is the response you made to my saying, "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

What does "No cities" mean? It it means I named no cities, I didn't need to. Municipalities are just an extension, and get their powers from, the state divisions of government.

Otherwise your response is meaningless.

Your posting of the rationalization for using 1-8-3 to ban plant products is very strange. I don't need to "refute" it. What is there to refute? It's just a statement of purpose. It makes no argument, just unsupported allegations. Rememer, this just makes something illegal, it doesn't not make it bad. Something is not bad just because Congress says so. "Illegal" could have other purposes, like establishing a base for social control or eliminating constitutional liberties.

(2) could be used to ban virtually anything, and doesn't provide a source of proof of any danger. Where's the evidence that cannabis constitutes any danger to the health, welfare and safety to the people? There is none.

Alcohol is a much greater danger to the public health and welfare than cannabis and it is not included.

(5) and (6) means anything can be controlled using the excuse its local movement can't be distinguished from interstate movement.

Like (2), all the Congress has to do is just state something is a danger and it is so presumed. At the state level, proof is required.

Every fed program effecting individuals has been a failure in that it produced unintended consequences far worse than the original "danger" it proported to fix.

What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause? Do you support that, too?

Remember, if this charade did not have your and other public school products' support, they couldn't get away with it now any more than they could have in 1919.

153 posted on 01/13/2003 6:11:24 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Your link referenced a thread on our gradual movement to socialized medicine. Is prescription drug assistance being done under the Commerce Clause?

"...Commerce Clause that many defend."

I would hope that we would all defend the Commerce Clause -- it is part of the Constitution. We can argue about the misapplication of the Commerce Clause to justify certain laws.

Lastly, many on this board ask the question, "Point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Congress to do _________". If the answer is the Commerce Clause, it doesn't mean that one agrees that it is a proper application of the Commerce Clause. It just means that is where Congress got it. Don't confuse a factual answer with a person's position on that issue.

154 posted on 01/13/2003 6:25:12 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: btcusn
You are exactly right. And consideration for the BOR is restricted to the first eight; the 9th and 10th Amendments are vitually ignored (how convenient for a centralized government).
155 posted on 01/13/2003 6:30:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping
156 posted on 01/13/2003 6:59:18 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; Roscoe; robertpaulsen
"What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause? Do you support that, too?" -WT-

Good question, which our boys will dance around with as usual, being unable to rationalize the point.

And, of course, any cites/quotes they bring up that support such 'control' will NOT be indicative that they ~personally~ support gungrabbing. -- Pollyanna lives.
157 posted on 01/13/2003 8:14:38 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: btcusn; robertpaulsen
If one wants to make a case for legalizing drugs based on the 9th or 14th amendment, be my guest.
But that's not what the author of the article was doing, was it? He was attempting to compare drug freedom with gun freedom, a right specifically protected by the 2nd amendment.
Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately? #89 -RP-


bicusn replies:
That was a argument many founders had against the Bill of Rights, they were afraid that if any rights were listed, than sooner or later only those listed would be considered protected. Guess what,they were right. Thank God that the Bill of Rights is there, or some would be arguing that we have NO RIGHTS, except what the govt was willing to extend to us. Subject to change, of course. -bicusn-

Robertpollyanna replies, unadroitly reversing his position at 89 above:

-- You are exactly right. And consideration for the BOR is restricted to the first eight; the 9th and 10th Amendments are vitually ignored (how convenient for a centralized government).
155 -robertpaulsen-
158 posted on 01/13/2003 8:37:21 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I don't need to "refute" it.

You can't.

159 posted on 01/13/2003 8:42:02 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
At the state level, proof is required.

False.

160 posted on 01/13/2003 8:43:47 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind.

The Dutch have exchanged the drug war and all it's problems and expense for a littering problem in a small defined area. Good trade.

161 posted on 01/13/2003 8:48:19 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause?

Backwards. The courts have rejected the inane equation of the right to keep and bear arms with the "right" to smoke dope.

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html


162 posted on 01/13/2003 8:50:02 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to defend yourself from thugs who would deny your right to pursue happiness is the reason it was enumerated in the bill of rights.

Not that you care.

163 posted on 01/13/2003 8:51:27 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Thank you roscoe. You confirmed my predictions at #157.
164 posted on 01/13/2003 8:55:30 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Keep begging.
165 posted on 01/13/2003 8:58:52 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Dope as self defense. As ludicrous as usual.
166 posted on 01/13/2003 9:00:31 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Moronic post which had nothing to do with what I said, as usual.
167 posted on 01/13/2003 9:09:51 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power.

Curious that no one even dared ask the question prior to 1937. This is the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter, and federal laws concerning it are a valid exercise of the commerce power.

168 posted on 01/13/2003 9:10:46 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Keep making a fool of yourself, -- please.

And, thanks for bumping my thread.
169 posted on 01/13/2003 9:26:01 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
This is the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter

Not equating the right to keep and bear arms with doing drugs is "the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter?"

Dope logic.

170 posted on 01/13/2003 9:27:31 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
What point are you trying to make on this thread? And what do you think you will accomplish by doing it?
171 posted on 01/13/2003 9:34:53 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Not equating the right to keep and bear arms with doing drugs is "the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter?"

Clintonian parsing.

172 posted on 01/13/2003 9:37:38 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Only dopes think that drugs equal firearms.
173 posted on 01/13/2003 9:38:37 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

I wish I could say I thought you were wrong, but I cannot. Considering recent developments with regard to tobacco and fatty foods, such as McDonald's hamburgers, I can't disagree with your post. I'm a bit of a cynic, but I saw the "War on Fat" coming a mile off. When the large tobacco lawsuits first came on the scene, I told some friend's of mine that junk food was next. They scoffed, saying that no one could put fast food in the same category as an addictive drug such as nicotine. I'm sad to say that I was right.

174 posted on 01/13/2003 9:38:48 AM PST by Liberal Classic (This space intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You can't.

Ok. What specifically should I refute? The linchpin is a statement that the vegetative products they refer to are a threat to the publics health and welfare? There is no evidence of that, and they present none. Give me something to reute and I will.

I will acknowledge that the rationalization you published exists.

175 posted on 01/13/2003 9:44:32 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Only dopes don't answer the question, What is your point and what do you think it will accomplish?
176 posted on 01/13/2003 9:47:47 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
False.

You don't know much about the state's police powers, do you? Read the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 US 36). It's probably the most comprehensive source.

177 posted on 01/13/2003 9:50:23 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Thank you for making that point.
178 posted on 01/13/2003 9:53:11 AM PST by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I find it hilarious that their posted evidence proves that some drugs are illegal because. . .they're illegal! That these people probably vote republican reflects ill on the GOP.

179 posted on 01/13/2003 9:55:07 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Your feigned ignorance is quite cute. I believe that you are aware of the link and the erosion of basic and essential rights (ALL related to the concept of self-ownership and control) AND that your smarmy responses are the product of a "mind" that feels that YOU'LL never be affected by them, either because you are part of the problem or you are so ignorant that you can't comprehend that YOUR vices are fixing to come under gooberment scrutiny and control. After all, it is NOT ABOUT drugs or guns or fast foods or tobacco, per se. It is totally about control over others, about bending them to your will. I am not a drug user or one to encourage others to do them, but I am also not one to wait until MY door comes crashing down before I try to stop the madness. By then my only option is to take as many of the bastards with me as I can, which is not the nicest thing to contemplate... so unless you are one of the thugs who does the door kicking, I would suggest you get your cranial-rectal inversion problem resolved and start looking at reality instead of fantasy.
180 posted on 01/13/2003 10:02:05 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Still waiting for that ammendment that secures the right to smoke crack....
181 posted on 01/13/2003 10:04:23 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Still waiting for that ammendment that secures the right to smoke crack....

You still think that amendents confer rights and must all be spelled out to be valid?

C'mon Tex, most people here have forgotten that you keep making that dumb argument, let them forget that you said it, then you won't have to retract it when you grow up.

182 posted on 01/13/2003 10:10:06 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
1. Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication.

2. Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow.

3. At the state level, proof is required.

Read the Slaughterhouse Cases

Quote 'em in support of your inane assertions.

You can't, you won't.

183 posted on 01/13/2003 10:16:49 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
They hope to conjure up their "right" to smoke crack from a penumbra, just like the judicial activism that gave us their beloved Roe v. Wade.
184 posted on 01/13/2003 10:20:25 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I flat out said the downside of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that many defend.

You left out broad interpretation when you quoted me. That changes the meaning of what I wrote and was misleading, IMO.

Your last paragraph is not quite accurate either.

I always ask "where in your opinion does the Constitution authorize...

The question is not asking what the government's rationale is. It is designed to expose a poster's liberal "living, breathing" approach to the Constitution.

185 posted on 01/13/2003 10:24:01 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You think that amendents confer rights and must all be spelled out to be valid?

What point are you trying to make on this thread? And what do you think you will accomplish by doing it?

186 posted on 01/13/2003 10:38:06 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"After all, it is NOT ABOUT drugs or guns or fast foods or tobacco"

Guns, fast foods, and tobacco are legal. If the "gooberment" wanted to exercise total control it would make them illegal, just like drugs.

But why should they be made illegal? People use them responsibly, don't they? Certainly the people don't use tobacco then sue somebody else because "they're not responsible" for becoming ill? They wouldn't eat fast foods, then try to sue the fast food suppliers for their weight gain, would they? And how can they possibly sue a gun manufacturer and the distributor and the pawn shop, and the uncle for a murder by the nephew who stole the gun?

We live in a society just like the one that existed in 1776, don't we? You know, the society with no safety net, where people took personal responsibility for their actions. When people had morals and you didn't have to have "sexual harassment" laws because men wouldn't dream of treating a lady that way. And when women were ladies, not sluts cranking out 8 different children by 8 different "fathers" and demanding that I pay for them.

I'll make you a deal. You give me the moral, responsible society that we had back in 1776, and I'll vote for any drug law you want.

187 posted on 01/13/2003 10:42:14 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Is your right to eat beef enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Then whence does it come? Perhaps it is what the founders thought blindingly obvious: If an individual is free to own his (or her) own body, then that person may not be constrained as to what he ingests, be it steak or mj or even an opiate...

Sheesh and I once thought that lead was virtually the densest of matter...
188 posted on 01/13/2003 10:48:40 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same."

The clownish 'roscoe' types posting to this thread, - prove the authors point you quote, --- beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your points on the pending prohibitions of other substances, is unrefuteable. The camels nose, [hell, half his body] is under the tent.
189 posted on 01/13/2003 10:57:49 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ampat
RP's 'points' have ALL been well refuted.
Why not offer rebuttals, rather than a meaningless backslap?
190 posted on 01/13/2003 11:02:21 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
As noted by my post, I was focusing on the last half of your statement, ingoring the first half. I apologize.

Yes, a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause can have a downside, and does have a downside to those who view it in the strictest sense.

IMO, it has probably run it's course. I believe the last major USSC case which cited the Commerce Clause was struck down; United States v Lopez restored some sanity to the Commerce Clause, and the opinion in the case makes for good reading.

191 posted on 01/13/2003 11:05:03 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"Your feigned ignorance is quite cute." -dcwusmc-


Well put, - our boy will now 'feign innocence'.
192 posted on 01/13/2003 11:07:55 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If by "refuted" you mean that you stomped your feet, held your breath, then shouted, "Because I said so!", then yes, you "refuted" my points.
193 posted on 01/13/2003 11:14:33 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Since he didn't put the numbers in, you can't keep up. Is that it? The author specifically stated that all of the articles of the Bill of Rights are under attack. (He's wrong about this, by the way. I know for a fact that the 3rd Amendment is still held sacred by the Drug Warriors!)

While we're on the specifics of what is or isn't spelled out by name in the Bill of Rights, what gives you the right to post on the internet? And don't give me that 1st Amendment drivel. That only applies to printing presses and actual speech. Clicking "Post" on a web page does not involve a printing press; nor does it compare to speaking in a public square. Since this activity isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, any more than ingesting drugs is mentioned, what makes you think that you have a right to do so?

194 posted on 01/13/2003 11:16:14 AM PST by Redcloak (Tag, you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Still waiting for that ammendment that secures the right to smoke crack....

181 posted on 01/13/2003 10:04 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)

Aggie, this forum decided long ago to ignore such idiocies as 'crack amendments', and the clowns like you & roscoe that pretend you aren't serious about them.

-- Listen to TJ, he gave you some good, honest advice.
195 posted on 01/13/2003 11:17:24 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I believe the last major USSC case which cited the Commerce Clause was struck down; United States v Lopez restored some sanity to the Commerce Clause, and the opinion in the case makes for good reading.

Might want to have a look at US v Morrison.

196 posted on 01/13/2003 11:20:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
If he did, you would 'beg the question' and post flip one liners.

Thus; -- Why bother? -- You have no honor.
197 posted on 01/13/2003 11:20:52 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"If by "refuted" you mean that you stomped your feet, held your breath, then shouted, "Because I said so!", then yes, you "refuted" my points." -RP-


Show where:
"you stomped your feet, held your breath, then shouted, "Because I said so!"

The proof is in the thread, not in your silly denials.
198 posted on 01/13/2003 11:29:11 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Ah yes, rape as a "gender motivated hate crime" protected by Federal law.

Ok, United States v Lopez as the beginning of the end, and United States v Morrison as support.

199 posted on 01/13/2003 11:33:37 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
"And don't give me that 1st Amendment drivel."

I wouldn't dare. After all, the 1st Amendment protects my right to speak; it does not give me the right to be heard.

For that, I pay $15/month.

200 posted on 01/13/2003 11:39:35 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 701-748 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson