Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[Texaggie79]

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

[Protagoras]

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

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

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

[Roscoe]

1. Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication.

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

3. At the state level, proof is required.

Read the Slaughterhouse Cases

Quote 'em in support of your inane assertions.

You can't, you won't.

[Roscoe]

They hope to conjure up their "right" to smoke crack from a penumbra, just like the judicial activism that gave us their beloved Roe v. Wade.

[Ken H]

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

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

Your last paragraph is not quite accurate either.

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

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

[Protagoras]

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

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

[robertpaulsen]

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

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

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

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

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

[dcwusmc]

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

Sheesh and I once thought that lead was virtually the densest of matter...

[tpaine]

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

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

Your points on the pending prohibitions of other substances, is unrefuteable. The camels nose, [hell, half his body] is under the tent.

[tpaine]

RP's 'points' have ALL been well refuted.
Why not offer rebuttals, rather than a meaningless backslap?

[robertpaulsen]

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

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

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

[tpaine]

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


Well put, - our boy will now 'feign innocence'.

[robertpaulsen]

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

[Redcloak]

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

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

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

[tpaine]

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

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

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

-- Listen to TJ, he gave you some good, honest advice.

[tacticalogic]

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

Might want to have a look at US v Morrison.

[tpaine]

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

Thus; -- Why bother? -- You have no honor.

[tpaine]

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


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

The proof is in the thread, not in your silly denials.

[robertpaulsen]

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

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

[robertpaulsen]

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

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

For that, I pay $15/month.