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 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 701-748 next last
To: robertpaulsen
California can't do it. Please refer to Natural law , the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights. The Constitution doesn't grant "rights".

Can California force it's citizens to quarter troops in their homes ? After all the California Constitution doesn't address that "right' either. By the way the California Constitution does recognize the right to own private property and the "right of self defense". Gee,it even says:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

JUST WHAT CAN ONE PROTECT HIS LIFE, LIBERTY PROPERTY AND SAFETY WITH ? No, it's not a cell phone !

501 posted on 01/21/2003 10:15:53 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Moving only works if there are standards. If it were anarchy, and all drugs were legal, no matter where I moved, it would, most likely be near threat. Now, if there are states with say.... DRUG LAWS, I could move there.... HEY!!! I'm already there!!!!
502 posted on 01/21/2003 10:47:32 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: lawdog; robertpaulsen
Yep, this post by Paulsen is probably the most candid on the thread. Follow his replies and he admits that a state can ban the RKBA's, and that he doesn't care because 'its the law'. Incredible:

From tpaine:
"States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."


Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms?
I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.
California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.
California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.
85 -RP-
503 posted on 01/21/2003 11:35:58 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Good grief, are you still whining about 'feeling threatened'?

Grow up aggie! Get a grip & tame your irrational fears.
504 posted on 01/21/2003 11:40:40 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth.

A renter.

505 posted on 01/22/2003 12:15:24 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; lawdog
tpaine, what is your problem? Where do I say I don't care? Where did I say that "a state" can ban RKBA? Many states have allowed it under their constitution. Just trying to stir up trouble?

lawdog is correct in pointing out that Section 1 of the California constitution can be used as an argument to own a gun -- but you have to admit that it's pretty flimsy compared to other state constitutions which spell it out.

If you want to bury your head in the ground and pretend that gun rights are not in jeopardy in California, be my guest. You can't begin to fix the problem until you've identified it. Maybe you're the one who doesn't want the gun owners in California to find out the truth.

506 posted on 01/22/2003 7:45:13 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Proud Member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: lawdog
"The Constitution doesn't grant "rights"."

No, it doesn't. But keep in mind that the Constitution puts limits on the Federal government, not the state governments. State governments were allowed to do what they wished.

For example, Massachusetts had a state funded established religion (Congregationalism) until 1825, 36 years after the Bill of Rights was passed. So be careful when applying the Constitution to a state.

The 14th amendment (ratified after the Civil War in 1868) applied much of the Federal Constitution to the states. I said "much", not all. The 2nd, 5th, and 7th amendments remain unincorporated.

To answer your question, no, California cannot force it's citizens to quarter troops in their homes since that is against the 3rd amendment which is incorporated.

507 posted on 01/22/2003 8:14:28 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Proud Member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yep, this post by Paulsen is probably the most candid on the thread. Follow his replies and he admits that a state can ban the RKBA's, and that he doesn't care because 'its the law'. Incredible:

From tpaine: "States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found. California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York. California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to. 85 -RP-

tpaine, what is your problem?

You, and those like you, are our constitutional problem, imo.

Where do I say I don't care?

"State governments were allowed to do what they wished", is a recent quote that shows a lack of concern. Many others abound in your postings.

Where did I say that "a state" can ban RKBA?

Just above, - "California can ban all guns" - Your attempted word games are a silly dodge, btw.

Many states have allowed it under their constitution. Just trying to stir up trouble?

You bet. You 'states rights' advocates are trying to subvert human rights, imo.

lawdog is correct in pointing out that Section 1 of the California constitution can be used as an argument to own a gun -- but you have to admit that it's pretty flimsy compared to other state constitutions which spell it out. If you want to bury your head in the ground and pretend that gun rights are not in jeopardy in California, be my guest.

Dishonest 'pretending' on your part. You know better.

You can't begin to fix the problem until you've identified it. Maybe you're the one who doesn't want the gun owners in California to find out the truth.

Again - you attempt to smear me in your desperation. It is totally clear that you 'states rights' advocates at FR will sell out our constitution in order to further your single issue agendas, -- which are fantasies of a 'controled' society.

508 posted on 01/22/2003 9:51:02 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Which has WHAT connection to the discussion?
509 posted on 01/22/2003 11:48:32 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 505 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I am still waiting for cites showing that government owns all the land in this country. {yawn... Damn it's been a long wait!}
510 posted on 01/22/2003 11:51:15 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 502 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Hey, TPAINE, wanna take a swing at this question? As if I didn't know your answer already!
511 posted on 01/22/2003 11:53:39 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 508 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Your understanding of the nature of property is small.
512 posted on 01/22/2003 12:43:14 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Presume for the sake of discussion that your comment is true. Making it contributes WHAT to the topic of the thread?
513 posted on 01/22/2003 1:54:07 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 512 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth.

Empty noise?

514 posted on 01/22/2003 2:12:13 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Yes, you do contribute a whole LOT of empty noise to most threads you frequent. I'm glad you finally see that. Now maybe you can actually post some logical, rational and FACT-based comments in the future.

Here's a question for you: WHO should be the one or ones to define our rights? And why?
515 posted on 01/22/2003 2:30:23 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 514 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I'm sorry that it's that far over your head. Ownership is quite a complex issue when it comes to real estate.

The simplest way I can describe it for you is to look at as the government being the initial owner. Such as with the Louisiana purchase. From there, they SELL rights to that land or give them to people. They still, however, retain rights to that land that were never sold or given away.

Therefore, when your local government votes on local laws, those very laws are directly effecting the land you own rights to. It is subject to them, and any violation of them is punishable by government.
516 posted on 01/22/2003 4:02:14 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I would buy no land without ALL rights

Well, then you CERTAINLY won't buy land in this country, or any country I can think of. I hope you can find a deserted, uncharted island somewhere...

517 posted on 01/22/2003 4:03:42 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Sorry. I don't subscribe to the "States Rights" opinion of the Second. Fortunately, more courts today are beginning to recognize the "Standard Model", that is the Second is declaring an individual "right".

The dirty little secret is that many Californians are " ignoring " the gun bans spewed forth from Sacramento.

518 posted on 01/22/2003 4:04:22 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Therefore, when your local government votes on local laws, those very laws are directly effecting the land you own rights to.
It is subject to them, and any violation of them is punishable by government.
-ta79-

Lord but you are dense.

The issue is, that "when your local government votes on local laws" these laws must conform to the base principles of our constitution.
- You deny this simple fact.
519 posted on 01/22/2003 5:13:07 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
WHO should be the one or ones to define our rights?

WHO? Your very question demonstrates the poverty of your "philosophy."

History, custom, law and our representative systems of government, among other things, all play important roles in establishing, defining and protecting our rights.

520 posted on 01/22/2003 6:49:46 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Well, then you CERTAINLY won't buy land in this country, or any country I can think of.

Does squatting count?

521 posted on 01/22/2003 6:59:43 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
Hey genious, if we make drugs legal, who in their right mind will market legal cocaine, heroin, crack, and the like??{psssst ever hear of the tobacco liability lawsuits???}REMEMBER THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY MOTTO :" GIVE ME LIBRIUM, OR GIVE ME METH"
522 posted on 01/22/2003 7:06:34 PM PST by BOOTSTICK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Good grief. Most drugs are already legal.

Just this last week a women in a suv pulled out in front of my cousin totalling his Camaro. He called me and I rushed to the scene since it was nearby as he had just left my office.

I stood on the curb observing the scene of the accident as she was arrested. From her behavior I assumed she was drunk. Turns out she was driving under the influence of prescribed and legal drugs...and not one of those "illicit" ones that you fear which obviously inhibited her ability to drive.

Could you have prevented her with a law?





523 posted on 01/22/2003 7:55:22 PM PST by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe: "Does squatting count?"

I believe that is what you do here. Does it count? Nope
524 posted on 01/22/2003 8:45:58 PM PST by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: BOOTSTICK
bootstick asks: "who in their right mind will market legal cocaine, heroin, crack, and the like?"

Who in their right mind markets any drugs? Hello, pharmaceutical companies do. Have you been injured by a legally prescribed drug? If so, there are innumerable TV lawyers pleading for your case.

525 posted on 01/22/2003 8:52:10 PM PST by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Libertarian beliefs bear little resemblance to reality.
526 posted on 01/23/2003 12:21:59 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Nothing is 'real' to a delusionary roscoe.
527 posted on 01/23/2003 6:57:31 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
In other words, you have no citation for your outlandish contention that FedGov or the States own all the land, is that about the sum of it?
528 posted on 01/23/2003 8:05:39 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 517 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"when your local government votes on local laws" these laws must conform to the base principles of our constitution.

No friggin duh. And to bad for you local and state drug laws, in no way, violate the USC.

529 posted on 01/23/2003 8:22:57 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Well, I guess, since squatting is basically acting like you own all rights to the land, most uninformed people do just that.
530 posted on 01/23/2003 8:25:23 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Could you have prevented her with a law?

But you must ask, what WORSE would she be on if everything were legal and accessible.

531 posted on 01/23/2003 8:26:30 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The "citation" is at your local courthouse, are you too lazy to go look it up? Go read what rights you have to your land and tell me if you have ALL rights to your land.

Where else would you think I would be able to use as a source to prove this to you?

532 posted on 01/23/2003 8:28:43 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Since they seem to believe that property ownership is some kinda free lunch, squatting seemed an apt analogy.

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

533 posted on 01/23/2003 8:46:42 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Hey, it's my land so I can dig up all these department of water and power pipes, can't I?
534 posted on 01/23/2003 8:48:31 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It figures, Roscoe. So you'd favor letting R. Kelly define pedophilia. It's the same thing, after all. Government does NOT DEFINE our rights. We are BORN with them. The sole legitimate function of government is to protect the equal rights of ALL. No more, no less. Our rights include anything we wish to do which does not require an UNWILLING outside party to fulfill. And government's function is NOT to protect people from themselves, keep property values high or rob one group of people to pay for the fantasies of another group, such as WODDIES.
535 posted on 01/23/2003 8:57:13 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any governmeot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
536 posted on 01/23/2003 9:02:50 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Cite a law that says that government owns all the land. If it's true, I'm sure you can do that. It must be there, right? Cite one law that says so. Is that asking too much? Must be, because there IS NO SUCH LAW. And if you'd lie about this, what else would you NOT lie about?
537 posted on 01/23/2003 9:02:57 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any governmeot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Therefore, when your local government votes on local laws, those very laws are directly effecting the land you own rights to.
It is subject to them, and any violation of them is punishable by government.
-ta79-

Lord but you are dense.

The issue is, that "when your local government votes on local laws" these laws must conform to the base principles of our constitution.
- You deny this simple fact.
519 tpaine


No friggin duh. And to bad for you local and state drug laws, in no way, violate the USC.
529 -ta79-

There you go again, proving my point. You deny, deny, deny. - Weird.
538 posted on 01/23/2003 9:16:22 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
takenoprisoner:
"Could you have prevented her with a law?"


But you must ask, what WORSE would she be on if everything were legal and accessible.
531 -ta79-

No, a rational person would not 'ask' that at all. -- You have once again demonstrated your near total inablity to comprehend the role of the rule of law in a free republic.
It is, imo, a constitutional principle, a 'given', that law does not/cannot prevent misbehavior. It can only punish.
539 posted on 01/23/2003 9:42:19 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson
540 posted on 01/23/2003 11:12:18 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
KEWL!! Never seen that one. Gotta cut and paste that baby to my favs.
541 posted on 01/23/2003 6:29:20 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Law? Are you having trouble understanding? It doesn't require a LAW. This is the structure of our country. There needs to be no LAW to say that you don't COMPLETELY own your property. You NEVER bought em in the first place.

Let me think of an easy way to get this across to you....
If you COMPLETELY owned your property, explain how the government can take it away if you gain it through ill ways, or if you don't pay your taxes, or if they utilize Eminent Domain? All you own dcw, is certain RIGHTS to that property. Want to know what rights? Go to your courthouse and look them up.
542 posted on 01/23/2003 6:45:39 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Cannot prevent, only punish? LMAO. Tell me tpaine, what is the purpose of punishment?
543 posted on 01/23/2003 6:47:09 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tell me tpaine, what is the purpose of punishment?
-aggie-

No sale. - You're gonna have to tell me sport; -- you must have some point, so cough it up.

Or, maybe you don't have a point? Hmmmm. - Veerry likely...
544 posted on 01/23/2003 6:56:47 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance.
By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.
Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
533 Roscoe


KEWL!! Never seen that one. Gotta cut and paste that baby to my favs.
-aggie-

Don't get too excited, - in context, -- TJ was musing to his correspondent about how some indian tribes viewed real property. -

This out of context snippet just happens to ~appear~ to agree with your communitarian beliefs. -- Jefferson was no commie.


545 posted on 01/23/2003 7:09:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Is punishment EVER used as a deterrent?
546 posted on 01/23/2003 7:48:16 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79
Tell me tpaine, what is the purpose of punishment? ---
--- Is punishment EVER used as a deterrent?
-aggie-

No sale. - You're gonna have to tell me sport; -- you must have some point, so cough it up.

Or, maybe you don't have a point? Hmmmm. - Veerry likely... Extreeemly likely...

547 posted on 01/23/2003 8:14:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You have yet to answer the question. Has it ever dawned on you that punishment just might be for the exact purpose of deterrence?
548 posted on 01/23/2003 8:56:10 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
At 539, I made a comment, which you countered with a silly question:


Cannot prevent, only punish? LMAO. Tell me tpaine, what is the purpose of punishment?

543 posted on 01/23/2003 6:47 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply
--To 539--

I responded with a reguest that you make a counterpoint, if you are able. -- It seems you are inable.
-- Which is NOT my problem. Please, do continue to make a fool of yourself, as its very amusing.
549 posted on 01/23/2003 9:16:27 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
KEWL!! Never seen that one.

Jefferson, like all of the Founding Fathers, knew that law is the foundation of our rights as Americans. The juvenile mentalities on the thread can't comprehend that.

550 posted on 01/24/2003 12:28:56 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 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