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

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher Shotgun News P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

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.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus3; corruption; drugskill; drugskilledbelushi; freetime; gramsci; huh; mdm; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 701-748 next last
To: Roscoe
"The court's "finding" was that dope doesn't get the same protections as firearms." roscoe

So what? They are wrong. The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.
We have inalienable, basic rights to life, liberty, and property. Both guns & 'drugs' are property. -- Thus, they can no more be prohibited than life & liberty.
251 posted on 01/15/2003 11:34:13 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The Founders did NOT set up the States.

Physically, no. Legally, yes. Read the USC. It specifically lays out the extent to which states can govern. That which is not prohibited to the states is left up to the people of each state to decide.

Yes, your gated community example is OK, but ONLY to the level of a rather smallish community, not at the level of a State.

I believe the more local the laws, the better, however there is nothing keeping states from acting as such, unless their state constitutions specifically prohibit it. The USC, in no way prohibits states from acting as such. If you believe it does, where is this mentioned, and why can smaller communities and towns (by your statement) be allowed to do this? I want specific constitutional references.

252 posted on 01/15/2003 11:44:23 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I mean it as it read, the Constitution does NOT CREATE the States. They existed, first as the 13 Colonies, then as rebels and finally as states under the Articles of Confederation, seperate and Sovereign. They acceded some of their Sovereignty to the new National Government under the Constitution, but the States created the Constitution, not the other way around. Read a good history book.

The Constitution sets forth the extent to which BOTH States and FedGov may govern. It also sets forth, in a Bill of Rights, that all RIGHTS, enumerated and otherwise, are retained BY THE PEOPLE. Which means that the sole legitimate excuse for having any government at all is the equal protection of the rights of ALL THE PEOPLE... not finding non-existent rights of some to exist at the coerced expense of others or to kill the pre-born and most surely not to find some non-existent authority to flat ban and prohibit the use of any substance on someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY, no matter where.
253 posted on 01/15/2003 12:03:25 PM 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 252 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
(DAMN Windows XP!)

Remember the old saying, "a man's home is his castle"? It was true once, and still is, except for the fact that this principle of Common Law is ignored routinely by gooberment thugs and their legislative and judicial enablers.
254 posted on 01/15/2003 12:04:48 PM 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 252 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; Texaggie79
Apparently, our 'aggie' has this weird concept about home as a castle/private property.

He seems to believe that a communities 'majority will' can decide proper behavior, and legal possessions for ALL who live in the area, regardless of constitutional restraints.
In this view you are free to leave this commune-ity, but not to disagree with its ability to rule by majority decree.

It's a form of 'democratic communitarianism', -- but aggie insists it is 'constitutional conservatism'.
-- His denial of political reality seems to be getting worse.

255 posted on 01/15/2003 12:49:11 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.

And demand will increase! We will end up with a nation of dope-heads incapable of discerning filth!

256 posted on 01/15/2003 12:51:36 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
You follow the WOD's party line well. -- Do you also use this type line on the war on guns?

-Make a federal CCL legal-

And demand will increase! We will end up with a nation of gun crazies incapable of discerning proper conduct! There will be blood on the streets!

257 posted on 01/15/2003 1:04:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
So what? They are wrong.

Not at all. Libertarian and liberal ignoramuses who work to discredit the right to keep and bear arms by equating it to smoking dope are wrong.

258 posted on 01/15/2003 1:10:03 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

I suspect these guys have never even read the Constitution. Maybe High Times.

259 posted on 01/15/2003 1:12:43 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
A REPUBLICAN form of government... wherein the GOVERNMENT is reined in by the bit and bridle of the CONSTITUTION... quite the opposite of what you envision, a society where government is the bit and bridle reining in the people. And where thugs like you are holding the reins... Sorry, roscoe, old thug, YOU are who's high on something... something rotten and reeking. And it AIN'T conservatism or the Constitution.
260 posted on 01/15/2003 1:21:42 PM 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 259 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
A baseless, silly opinion, well refuted by the article, and most respondents.

Only a few of you well known FReeker gun-bashers rant otherwise. - Telling.
-- We may have found a 'tipping point' in defining conservatism, in the drug/gun connection.
261 posted on 01/15/2003 1:25:02 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Roscoe is high on the illusion of power & control the state gives him.
He, no doubt, is a minor level bureaucrat, hunched over his terminal, pretending to work at the peoples business, as he envisions his dreams of socialistic triumph.
262 posted on 01/15/2003 1:33:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; dcwusmc
Apparently, our 'aggie' has this weird concept about home as a castle/private property.

Oh contrare...

If you will read up on the fee simple, bundled rights on your property, you will see that you do not own all the rights to your property. You bought in willingly not having those rights. It was 100% consensual.

263 posted on 01/15/2003 3:11:30 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yes, well, roscoe's positions on this rather remind me of that old saying about a politician (or in his case, JBT) being like a dead fish in the moonlight, "shining and stinking at once." And we know that gun-grabbers and WODDIES both perform best in the dark because they abhor daylight which would expose their actions for what they are: CRIMES committed on AMERICAN CITIZENS by their own national (and state) government... What a sick bunch these buffoons are...
264 posted on 01/15/2003 3:16:01 PM 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 262 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I would not buy a piece of land without ensuring that I owned ALL the rights to it. Would you? I would not tolerate ANYONE coming on my property for ANY reason without my permission. If YOU would do that, then you deserve what happens to you.
265 posted on 01/15/2003 3:19:31 PM 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 263 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Look here and see what fee simple means: http://www.iown.com/glossary/FeeSimple.htm

Anything ELSE and you don't own all the rights...
266 posted on 01/15/2003 3:39:55 PM 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 263 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Yes, of course aggie.
We are all well aware that you consider yourself an expert in contractural/property/title matters.
We can only hope your customers get/have good insurance.

But tell me. -- If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?

267 posted on 01/15/2003 3:51:30 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own. It is not ALL. Walk up to your courthouse and tell them you are creating your own country with your land. Tell them you are seceding. Or try building a nuclear power plant on it. Tell me how they treat those "rights" of yours.

In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.
268 posted on 01/15/2003 4:06:14 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
We don't live in 'functioning commonwealth', we live in a disfunctional constitutional republic, --- primarily thanks to communitarians like you and the freeker roscoe-ites among us.
269 posted on 01/15/2003 4:30:40 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
A REPUBLICAN form of government... wherein the GOVERNMENT is reined in by the bit and bridle of the CONSTITUTION...

Nothing about slamming smack in there. Don't confuse our Constitution with one of the Libertarian Party's endless press release rants.

270 posted on 01/15/2003 6:39:10 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Libertarians and liberals are in bed together spewing their loathsome equation of our right to keep and bear arms with slamming smack. Just when I think they've touched bottom in their rejection of reason, they reach new lows.
271 posted on 01/15/2003 6:42:32 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own.

Funny, isn't it?

Pretending to be defenders of property rights, they are astoundingly ignorant of its nature.

272 posted on 01/15/2003 6:45:13 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
How weird you are roscoe. You spew loathsome invective here at FR day in, day out, against those taking constitutional positions on the drug & gun wars.

It is hard to imagine what your agenda here favors, but your distain for constitutional debate is quite evident. -- Thus:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
273 posted on 01/15/2003 7:07:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Poor Yappy.
274 posted on 01/15/2003 7:15:52 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Yip! Yip! --- Barks our pitiful little roscoe.
275 posted on 01/15/2003 7:24:45 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty? Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
276 posted on 01/15/2003 8:29:38 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was a bit too rational for their cult to understand.
277 posted on 01/16/2003 1:40:04 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
to roscoe: Your pathetic attempts to justify FedGov's war on Americans means one of three things:
a.) you make your "living" as a JBT feeding off the misery you cause your fellow citizens;
b.) you are seriously misguided and need to have your eyes opened by a nocturnal visit from your local drug goon squad; or
c.) you suffer from terminal tongue-on-jackboot disease because you have never seen a FedGov prohibition you don't like or a Storm Trooper's a$$ you won't kiss.

No matter the problem you have, you are somewhere between despicable and pitiable

Whether he is a knavish Bootlegger promoting narco-terrorism for profit or a duped Baptist committing narco-crimes in the name of false "morality," the lesson in personal responsibility that Roscoe will be taught at the Final Judgement will be the same.

Unless they repent and ask the victims of their crimes for forgiveness, both knaves and dupes will pay for their crimes in the Lake of Fire.

278 posted on 01/16/2003 1:56:31 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.
What if a person owns no property? What rights must be "sacrificed" then? Where does your logic take you in that instance?
279 posted on 01/16/2003 2:11:25 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
I like your questions.
280 posted on 01/16/2003 2:13:25 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Nothing about slamming smack in there.
Nothing about not slamming smack in there either.
I like your statements too.
281 posted on 01/16/2003 2:14:47 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."

The Making of Prohibition


282 posted on 01/16/2003 7:41:36 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
Whether he is a knavish Bootlegger promoting narco-terrorism for profit or a duped Baptist committing narco-crimes in the name of false "morality," the lesson in personal responsibility that Roscoe will be taught at the Final Judgement will be the same. Unless they repent and ask the victims of their crimes for forgiveness, both knaves and dupes will pay for their crimes in the Lake of Fire.

The theology of a pipe worshipper?

283 posted on 01/16/2003 7:43:22 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I always thought it was: "They that can give up the liberty to smoke crack to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
284 posted on 01/16/2003 8:35:22 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
None, because that person hasn't any property rights to sacrifice. That person is living on other's properties and must obey the law of those properties anyway.
285 posted on 01/16/2003 8:37:24 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.

286 posted on 01/16/2003 8:39:20 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; dcwusmc; Texaggie79; Roscoe; philman_36
"It's a form of 'democratic communitarianism', -- but aggie insists it is 'constitutional conservatism'.
-- His denial of political reality seems to be getting worse."

Unfortunately, the sheeple have surrendered their God-given rights guaranteed by the USC voluntarily to contract with the JBTs every since Lincoln took control of the Republic.

This societal "denial of political reality" is the true equation that has the brought the USA step by JBT step to the tyranny that Amerika is today.

Uncontrolled immigration, flooding us with sheeple who have no vested interest in the USC, coupled by a long standing animosities between the North and South, has given us citizens that not only do not respect the God-given rights of others, they don't respect their own.
287 posted on 01/16/2003 9:07:34 AM PST by TaZ (Amerika; Land of the sleaze, home of the knave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
Amerika

The cult can't conceal its hatred for America.

288 posted on 01/16/2003 9:23:11 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; tpaine
"Yes, well, roscoe's positions on this rather remind me of that old saying about a politician (or in his case, JBT) being like a dead fish in the moonlight, "shining and stinking at once." And we know that gun-grabbers and WODDIES both perform best in the dark because they abhor daylight which would expose their actions for what they are: CRIMES committed on AMERICAN CITIZENS by their own national (and state) government..."

The average Amerikan citizen seems to be little shaken by the tyranny performed in broad daylight at Ruby Ridge and Waco, President Klintoon performing adultry with young interns in the so-called White House, and the actual REALITY of events that led up to and contributed to the destruction of the WTC on 9-11...

No, I believe the average Amerikan citizen is quite comfortable holding his nose and giving his support to the "politician (or in his case, JBT) being like a dead fish in the moonlight", which are presently the only options available from the corrupt two-party regime that controls the Hollywood-esque political rhetoric spewed forth for entertainment-only purposes (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Phil Donohue, etc...).

The reality of today is that God has been pronounced dead, either in the hearts and/or minds of the Amerika sheeple, and to fill that void the almighty "State" has become the only supreme-being worthy of the Amerikan sheeples adoration, worship and tithes (X5).
289 posted on 01/16/2003 9:23:57 AM PST by TaZ (Amerika; Land of the sleaze, home of the knave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
Amerikan citizen

The cult can't conceal its hatred for American citizens.

290 posted on 01/16/2003 9:26:01 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"The cult can't conceal its hatred for America."

Au contraire, my poor bind puppet, I truly love and mourn the loss of America...a country my forefathers fought to establish, protect and preserve.

Hate is a strong word and emotion, which has no place in my heart or in my mind.
291 posted on 01/16/2003 9:29:16 AM PST by TaZ (Amerika; Land of the sleaze, home of the knave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
False. Your posts drip with your hatred for our nation and its citizens.

All because they disagree with you about dope.
292 posted on 01/16/2003 9:33:09 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Cult (Merriam-Webster definition #5)

"Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion."

Yep, by this definition those of us who love the un-perverted US Constitution could be most readily described by athiest, statist and all other JBT loving sheeple in any sovereign state of tyranny.
293 posted on 01/16/2003 9:40:27 AM PST by TaZ (Amerika; Land of the sleaze, home of the knave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
JBT loving sheeple

The cult can't conceal its hatred for America or its citizens.

Dope über alles.

294 posted on 01/16/2003 9:43:12 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"False. Your posts drip with your hatred for our nation and its citizens.

All because they disagree with you about dope."

Did I say anything about dope?

Personally, I don't even drink and have not been intoxicated for over 17 years.

I have no use at all for drugs, alcohol or brain-washing...that does not give me the God-given right to tell you how to live now does it?

Nevermind, I forgot I was talking to a unthinking bot.
295 posted on 01/16/2003 9:43:48 AM PST by TaZ (Amerika; Land of the sleaze, home of the knave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

First the venomous hatred, now the pretense.

296 posted on 01/16/2003 9:47:12 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Nothing about slamming smack in there. Don't confuse our Constitution with one of the Libertarian Party's endless press release rants

Excuse me, but doesn't Thomas Jefferson cover this in the federalist papers?

If memory serves me correctly, you can not make a law taking a right to do anything away. Wasn't this part of the debate on legislating morality?
I'm an old fart, out of school for decades, so maybe you can set me straight on this.
Do we have the right to live our life our own way, or must we accept the dictates of your king?
297 posted on 01/16/2003 9:56:40 AM PST by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: radioman
Thomas Jefferson cover this in the federalist papers?

Which federalist paper did Thomas Jefferson write?

298 posted on 01/16/2003 10:05:06 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

The intent of your question puzzles me aggie. Have I ever given the impression that the RKBA's is just some 'arbitary' right? -- Are any rights capricious or discretionary [arbitrary] in your view? Again, - you reveal a strange attitude toward rights with your use of that word.

Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

The same they would have given for the smoking of tobacco, I have no doubt. -- And, -- I think they'ed have thought you a very strange person for even implying that the state should have power to prohibit the smoking of ANYthing. ,

299 posted on 01/16/2003 10:24:56 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"

"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."
The Making of Prohibition
282 -roscoe-

Thank you my boy, for showing us your true stripe as a socialistic prohibitionist.
Your agenda here is clear.
300 posted on 01/16/2003 10:29:44 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 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