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 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-748 last
To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?

There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns & drugs.
-- People like you.

Such sound facts you have on this issue.

You have facts that counter mine?
-- Post them my boy. -- Feel free.

[two bits you won't even try]

701 posted on 04/03/2006 11:18:42 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You have facts that counter mine?

Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread.

You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.

I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".

You also try to make the case that nukes are prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.

So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?

702 posted on 04/03/2006 11:30:54 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?

There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns & drugs.
-- People like you.

Such sound facts you have on this issue.

You have facts that counter mine?
-- Post them my boy. -- Feel free.

[two bits you won't even try]

Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread. You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.
I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".

There you go again, boldly misrepresenting what I've written just above.

You also try to make the case that nukes are [not] prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.

Exactly my point, my boy. Thanks for making it once again.

So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit [Another bold lie, I never said that] because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?

Texbaby, -- thousands of essays have been written on the unconstitutionality of prohibitions on drugs, guns, private sexual behaviors, etc; -- on & on. The essay posted above is a fine example, and you reject it, but ask for more.
--- None of them can convince you neo-prohibitionists.

Instead, why not write your own essay to try to convince us that it is reasonable to regulate [up to the point of prohibition] crack, or crystal meth, or heroine on the basis that it violates ~your~ individual rights due to safety issues and standards?
-- Try to prove that you can enforce such invasive regulations without violating our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.

If you succeed, you would be a national hero.

703 posted on 04/03/2006 12:36:39 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Your problem is that you call it prohibition with drugs and regulation with bio/nukeweapons, when it is, in fact, that a regular citizen is prohibited from owning either, yet certified government supervised entities could obtain such material.

It makes no difference that you see no danger or violation of community standards if you have a crackhead living next door, what matters is that the majority of your state does, and if they so choose to regulate that material and prohibit regular citizens from obtaining it, just as they prohibit them from obtaining nuke/bioweapons, they, constitutionally, can.


704 posted on 04/03/2006 3:11:57 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit [Another bold lie, I never said that] because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?

Texbaby, -- thousands of essays have been written on the unconstitutionality of prohibitions on drugs, guns, private sexual behaviors, etc; -- on & on.
The essay posted above is a fine example, and you reject it, but ask for more.

--- None of them can convince you neo-prohibitionists.

Instead, why not write your own essay to try to convince us that it is reasonable to regulate [up to the point of prohibition] crack, or crystal meth, or heroine on the basis that it violates ~your~ individual rights due to safety issues and standards?

-- Try to prove that you can enforce such invasive regulations without violating our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.

If you succeed, you would be a national hero.

Your problem is that you call it prohibition with drugs

It is. Prohibitions violate due process of Constitutional law.

and regulation with bio/nukeweapons,

It is. Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.

when it is, in fact, that a regular citizen is prohibited from owning either, yet certified government supervised entities [~people~] could obtain such material.

Rave on kiddo. -- You can't prove ~your~ point, so you try to misrepresent mine in order to defend unconstitutional prohibitions on drugs, guns, whatever..

It makes no difference that you see no danger or violation of community standards if you have a crackhead living next door,

In 69 years of life kid, I've had a lot of weird neighbors. - But none that I considered dangerous or in "violation of community standards". -- You do? Call 911. There are hundreds of criminal laws to protect you from 'dangerous' people.

what matters is that the majority of your state does, and if they so choose to regulate that material and prohibit regular citizens from obtaining it, just as they prohibit them from obtaining nuke/bioweapons, they, constitutionally, can.

Yep, thats the way you communitarians want our country to be run. No way.

Give it up. -- Your communes standards will never rule in our Republic.

705 posted on 04/03/2006 4:02:01 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It is. Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.

I'm just going to have to quit. I think this has to be some joke you are playing if you can't see your twisted logic here. Drugs are regulated, weapons are regulated. How? through prohibiting regular citizens of obtaining either. It's exactly the same. The punishments/fines whatever might be different, but both are impossible for me to legally go out to my street corner and buy. EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME THING.

706 posted on 04/03/2006 4:05:32 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
" -- 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. --"

__________________________________

The logical core of the article.

--- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.

I'm just going to have to quit. I think this has to be some joke you are playing if you can't see your twisted logic here.

I've been presenting the same unrefuted logic since this thread started kiddo.
You can't 'see' it? Read the article again.

Drugs are regulated, weapons are regulated. How? through prohibiting regular citizens of obtaining either. It's exactly the same. The punishments/fines whatever might be different, but both are impossible for me to legally go out to my street corner and buy. EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME THING.

And you support those prohibitions.

--- Those prohibitional powers have never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

707 posted on 04/03/2006 4:36:45 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
--- Those prohibitional powers have never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local. Yet somehow, they magically have for nuke/bioweapons. And don't say "no those are reasonable regulations" because I can say the exact same thing of hard drugs. There is no difference constitutionally.
708 posted on 04/03/2006 5:24:22 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

Yet somehow, they magically have for nuke/bioweapons. And don't say "no those are reasonable regulations" because I can say the exact same thing of hard drugs.

You can 'say' hard drugs compare with CNB materials, but it's ludicrous. -- Your neighbor can have his basement secretly full of 'hard drugs', at no risk to you. CNB materials, extremely high risk, possibly to a whole city/county.

There is no difference constitutionally. [between hard drugs & CNB materials]

Dream on kiddo. -- Or is it cocktail time again that's fueling your imagination?

709 posted on 04/03/2006 6:05:59 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You can 'say' hard drugs compare with CNB materials, but it's ludicrous. -- Your neighbor can have his basement secretly full of 'hard drugs', at no risk to you. CNB materials, extremely high risk, possibly to a whole city/county.

I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit. You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here. What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?

710 posted on 04/03/2006 6:11:55 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit.
You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here.

What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sigh. -- We discussed this exact same 'gottcha game' you play, -- several days ago. -- I answered you about "who decides" in detail at #635:

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820965/replies?c=655


Read it, and reply if you can.
711 posted on 04/03/2006 6:39:06 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

Texaggie79 wrote:

I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit.
You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here.

What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sigh. -- We discussed this exact same 'gottcha game' you play, -- several days ago. -- I answered you about "who decides" in detail at #656:

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820965/replies?c=655


Read it, and reply if you can.


712 posted on 04/03/2006 6:43:52 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We are all responsible for being "reasonable" about each others Constitutional liberties.

Who get's to decide what is reasonable? Because my definition obviously differs from yours.

713 posted on 04/03/2006 6:56:56 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

Read my answer at #656.


714 posted on 04/03/2006 7:10:52 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

So the legislators, executives and judges get to decide. Ok then, well they decided that it was reasonable to regulate narcotics through prohibiting possesion by private citizens.

What's the complaint then?


715 posted on 04/03/2006 7:31:33 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

Read our Constitution and you might get a clue.



716 posted on 04/03/2006 9:01:29 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

LMAO, you just go in circles.

Constitution apparently means by "property" that nothing can be prohibited from us.

What about bio/nuke weapons?

Well we can make reasonable regulations on bio/nuke weapons.

Why not drugs?

Because that's not reasonable.

Who says? The constitution.

Skip back to the top.


717 posted on 04/03/2006 9:08:58 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

LMAO, you just go in circles.

You claim, as you chase your own tail.

Constitution apparently means by "property" that nothing can be prohibited from us.

"Apparently"?. [see Harlen on due process]

What about bio/nuke weapons? Well we can make reasonable regulations on bio/nuke weapons.

Yep, so we have.

Why not drugs? Because that's not reasonable.

Yep, prohibitions made on drugs. guns, etc, are Constitutionally unreasonable.

Who says? The constitution.

How bout that kiddo, you've finally 'got it'. Congrats.

718 posted on 04/04/2006 5:37:50 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

So there we have it. All this "unconstitutional" bs is fake. We have come to the heart of the matter.

Drugs and wmds are both regulated through prohibiting private citizens from owning them. It's reasonable for wmds, but not drugs, so sayeth the tpaine, all mighty tpaine.


719 posted on 04/04/2006 9:32:17 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
So there we have it. We have come to the heart of the matter. Poor tex is reduced to misrepresenting my arguments, -- because he has none of his own.

Drugs and wmds can both be reasonably regulated using Constitutional means.

But instead we must have prohibitions on liberty. -- So sayeth the communitarians, those who think they are an all mighty majority.
720 posted on 04/04/2006 9:53:16 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Drugs and wmds can both be reasonably regulated using Constitutional means.

Well since I cannot buy or own wmds, then I guess you are fine with the fact that you cannot buy or own crack. So, we have reached an agreement.

Good times.

721 posted on 04/04/2006 10:03:51 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

Dream on about 'agreements' texbaby. -
I don't agree with anti-constitutionalists.


722 posted on 04/04/2006 10:10:31 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tex opines:


"-- We have come to the heart of the matter.
Drugs and wmds are both regulated through prohibiting private citizens from owning them. It's reasonable --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here ya go tex, something else that 'the community' claims should be prohibited; - 'harmful' video games:


Michigan Violent Game Bill Ruled Unconstitutional
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608973/posts
723 posted on 04/04/2006 10:27:39 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate violent games from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

The argument with video games is that they send the wrong message. I hardly see that as dangerous as a substance that chemically alters one's brain, causing them to do things they have no control over.

724 posted on 04/04/2006 10:34:48 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

Paraphrasing your stance:

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

The argument with assault weapons is that they send the wrong message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Thank you Ms Brady.


725 posted on 04/04/2006 10:53:40 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; tpaine
Texaggie, I am going to try to make this as I can, somebody is stoned, he is affected, his family maybe, maybe a few folks he work with.
I have a nuke and do something stupid with it, who is affected, I am, my family and depending on where I live maybe a few tens or hundred thousand of my neighbors.
YOUR freedoms end where I begin, noise, smoke, trees overhanging a shared fence, as long as a person is not infringing on someone else how is it anyone's business whether he gets high, or if living in the middle of nowhere has a particle accelerator in his basement?
726 posted on 04/04/2006 10:55:21 AM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost
how is it anyone's business whether he gets high,

If that state/township/community agrees that his drug of choice is too much of a threat, it's theirs. If he wants to do that drug, don't do it in a city that prohibits it.

You say, "when someone gets stoned" look, we can all agree pot is less harmfull than alcohol, and it's idiotic and hypocritical to outlaw it. But for hard drugs, they are a threat.

I advocate in court for abused children. And I will tell you that 99.9% of the cases I see are caused by drug usage. HARD drug usage. Crystal Meth, crack, heroin. These drugs are just simply impossible to do responsibly. The very act of doing them at all is irresponsible. And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

727 posted on 04/04/2006 11:27:57 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.

728 posted on 04/04/2006 11:33:36 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79's position, paraphrased:

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.

Meaning that only the enumerated rights are protected? -- Read the 9th.

729 posted on 04/04/2006 12:03:14 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I have two responses, they may sound angry, but I'm not, actually hearing someone be somewhat reasonable on a WOD thread is seldom seem.

The second amendment has not been incorporated to apply to the states like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 14th, and a couple of others. So states like California and New Jersey have their Assault Weapons Bans, and towns like Morton Grove, Illinois have their handgun bans that have held up to legal challenge, both in clear violation of the 2nd amendment IMO.

I believe that much of the abuse around drugs is because they are illegal, once you are breaking the law ingesting, why not break it by leaving the kids over night while I go out partying, or beat the crap out of a guy for their wallet to feed my need. I'm sure folks hold other folks up for beer money, but I believe they much more often hold them up for drug money. I might be wrong, or I might be naive but it it wasn't illegal would some of the problems go away or moderate, I believe they would.

Finally, maybe some drugs would have to be regulated or prohibited, ie, pot and coke like tobacco, heroin at a clinic working to wean you off, meth, X continue like we currently are. I don't know if that is a solution, but an honest discussion ought to take place. I also wonder if coke for example were legal and readily available would crack have even been developed, hopefully food for thought.

Sorry it's so long.
730 posted on 04/04/2006 12:14:59 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?

731 posted on 04/04/2006 12:15:27 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I'm figure Texaggie works with or for CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) or a similar organization, which means they has more patience than I'll ever have and have also probably seen some disturbing things. Working with abused children is,.... deserving of thanks. Thanks Tex. It also explains why many people take the WOD threads very seriously they've seen how bad people can be and what they do when around those drugs. Rather than abstractly talk about how things ought to be or why they focus or how things are. When you are that close to something it is difficult to be objective.
732 posted on 04/04/2006 12:30:56 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost; Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


thinkthenpost wrote:

I'm ---- actually hearing someone be somewhat reasonable on a WOD thread ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You're actually hearing someone that advocates in court that we use drug prohibitions so that we can get kids out of abusive homes quite easily.

'Use a drug, and we take your children'

The 'war on drugs' is destroying our Republic.
733 posted on 04/04/2006 12:31:15 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I hope the reason kids would be taken is because of abuse, and laws related to the abuse that a child has received rather than you get high we take your kids. I know here in El Paso County a great deal of cross work takes place between the designated Drug Court and the Family Court when drugs are involved. I'm not a CPS fan, I'm also not a big government fan, and I'm also not a WOD fan, but I am enough of a realist to understand over 50 or 60 years all the things that drive most conservatives crazy grew and put down roots and became entrenched to the point many folks don't realize something came before, to even have a chance of getting back to some semblance of a free country we aren't going to get there overnight, and we aren't going to get there by throwing each other under the bus. (how's that for a run on sentence?)
734 posted on 04/04/2006 12:46:18 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

"I hope" you say, we "have a chance of getting back to some semblance of a free country."


I fear the more communitarian 'advocates' we have, the less chance of that.








735 posted on 04/04/2006 1:10:35 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

Well, dealing with these families directly I can tell you, legalizing thier hard drug of choice would help nothing but maybe allow them to have more money to pay the bills a little more often. They still wouldn't work, they still would abuse their children they still would be worthless humanbeings that were nothing but a drain on the system.

Legalizing their drug would probably actually create more families like this. Because with the "illegal" stigma taken off, some naive parents might think they can do meth or crack on the weekends while the kids are away only to find out they no longer have any control over their habit and lives.


736 posted on 04/04/2006 1:54:12 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate

It's a volunteer job for a private charity.

737 posted on 04/04/2006 1:55:54 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

Believe me, had these parent's not been getting high, and they were treating their children the same way, you would still agree they should be taken out of the homes.

But sadly, it is the drugs alone that make these parents so dangerous for their own kids. Parent that would sell their own childs bodies for access to drugs. Parent who let their 5 year olds take care of themselves for days at a time.

It's down right horrifying, and just about every single one of them, when you talk to their relatives, they tell you that they were never that way, until they got on the meth, or crack or whatever hard drug it is.

If you legalized it, they would still not be able to afford it legally, because they would still be high all the time, and without a job. Hell, if you made it legal alot of them wouldn't have a job because the local drug store would take over. Then they would do even more desperate things for the drugs.


738 posted on 04/04/2006 2:00:53 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
In a closer to perfect world I would hope folks would make better choices, but then I also believe welfare has done more to split up the family unit, particularly the black family than drugs have or ever will. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
739 posted on 04/04/2006 2:01:17 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?

It's a volunteer job for a private charity.

Is the court aware that you consider these parents "-- worthless human beings that were nothing but a drain on the system --"?

740 posted on 04/04/2006 2:08:20 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Is the court aware that you consider these parents "-- worthless human beings that were nothing but a drain on the system --"?

When they are high on these hard drugs, yes, and it often agrees. CPS tries way beyond what I would do to help these parents. Services from treatment, financial aid, job training, ect. If they do not get off the drugs, they remain worthless and a drain. The people, alone are not worthless, of course, the drugs make them that way. And I can tell you that, like I said, from talking to their family members who knew them before they got on the drugs.

741 posted on 04/04/2006 2:22:43 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

The court agrees with you... Amazing.

Thanks kid, I had no idea that our system is this far gone. How did you get the credentials to become an "advocate"?



742 posted on 04/04/2006 3:18:04 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The court agrees with you... Amazing.

What would you call someone that does nothing but takes in gov and charity money, sits around high all day, let's their kids starve and run around unsupervised all day and night?

How did you get the credentials to become an "advocate"?

Over 40 hours of training with continuing hours required.

743 posted on 04/04/2006 3:24:41 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Wow, a whole 40 hrs... I'm sure impressed with this system. We the people are sure lucky that the children have trained avocates like you tex. Yep..

And thanks to prohibitive drug laws, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily, -- that's the best part.
744 posted on 04/04/2006 3:48:53 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Wow, a whole 40 hrs.. Obviously you aren't aware of what being a court advocate means. I don't make the choice of taking kids from parents. I have no say in that matter. I only see the kids after the court has decided to take them away.

And thanks to prohibitive drug laws, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily, -- that's the best part

Yep, I am in 100% in support of removing children from homes of hard drug addicts who do not get help.

745 posted on 04/04/2006 4:08:16 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Obviously you aren't aware of what being a court advocate means. I don't make the choice of taking kids from parents. I have no say in that matter. I only see the kids after the court has decided to take them away.

I advocate in court for abused children.

And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

Yep, I am in 100% in support of removing children from homes of hard drug addicts who do not get help.

Yep, its a great system tex.
First we make addicts into criminals by prohibitive 'law'; then take their kids away if they don't seek "help", - help that would put them in jail for being addicts.
And thanks to those same prohibitive drug laws, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily, -- that's the best part. -- It's all so easy to control these "-- worthless human beings that were nothing but a drain on the system --" if we just ignore the Constitution.

746 posted on 04/04/2006 4:36:50 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Actually jail is hardly ever used, unless they commit real crimes like stealing or murder. Physical and sexual abuse hardly ever put the kids parents behind bars, and I stress hardly.

And the reason the kids need advocates is because their parent don't care enough about them to take care of them. Parents getting high that still take care of their kids.... well if that ever happened, I have yet to see that case.


747 posted on 04/04/2006 5:44:57 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist

MINUTE MEN of America

NRA of America

 We want to know.....what the hell are you waiting for?

Your endorsements could make the difference in the upcoming elections.  If you haven't noticed, you have the perfect candidate in the race.  The future of stopping illegal immigration and the individuals right to bear arms are at stake.  Failure to give your support to the right person could cost all freedom loving Americans dearly.  Your members want you to endorse a person that will stop illegal immigration and secure our rights to bear arms.  A true conservative is the only choice, no liberal republicans or democrats need apply.

Everyone needs to call NRA headquarters / Minute Men headquarters today and voice our opinions.  I have.

 


"When I am president, I will build a fence."

"My idea of gun control is a good, steady aim."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

748 posted on 12/24/2007 10:54:10 AM PST by glmjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-748 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