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

Skip to comments.

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

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 701-748 next last
To: robertpaulsen
An interesting aspect of Morrison is that Congress had specifically defined violence against women as a "class of activity" that had a substantial and direct affect on interstate commerce.
201 posted on 01/13/2003 11:43:37 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Again, it's encouraging to see the USSC ruling the way they did in Lopez and Morrison. Maybe there's hope.
202 posted on 01/13/2003 11:49:09 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Clicking a button on the internet isn't speech. Since this activity isn't specifically in the Bill of Rights, why do you think that you have such a right?
203 posted on 01/13/2003 11:54:33 AM PST by Redcloak (Tag, you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Why do you insist on calling this a right? I don't have some "right" to the internet. I bought it.

And I don't have a "right" to FreeRepublic -- I can be thrown off at the whim of the moderator.

204 posted on 01/13/2003 12:10:59 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So then, if one buys a baggie of weed...
205 posted on 01/13/2003 12:14:10 PM PST by Redcloak (Tag, you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
So then, if one downloads child pornography...

C'mon Redcloak, try a different tack.

206 posted on 01/13/2003 12:22:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Is that specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights somewhere? I thought that the BOR was going to be the litmus test for what is or isn't allowed. And since purchasing internet time isn't called out anymore than purchasing weed is...
207 posted on 01/13/2003 1:18:20 PM PST by Redcloak (Tag, you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"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."

"So then, if one downloads child pornography"...

One could be guilty of aiding/abetting an evil crime, child molestation, which a jury of your peers could decide.

C'mon paulsen, try a different tack.

208 posted on 01/13/2003 1:20:45 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Frankly, I've done all I'm willing to do.

The bottom line is this, Roscoe. You don't have enough social consciousness to keep your fears and prejudices from moving you to support governmental actions that destroy the range of non-tort personal choices available to the entire country of which you're a part.

Oh, yes, you'll say that it's social consciousness that makes you support them. But you have no evidence that to back up your concerns, so that means all you have to base your support on are fears and prejudices.

Lest you forget, the decades when this country grew the most and the fastest, and was the healthiest, was when there were no illegal drugs at all. The increase of drugs paralleled the increasing prohibition of them. We have not tried legalizing them to see the effect, and others who have legalized the more benign, such as cannabis, report no effect such that you're afraid of.

I can't see your problem. It looks like madness to me. But mumble on and happy trails. You're just one guy, or girl.

209 posted on 01/13/2003 7:27:48 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Thanks and well said, rp.
210 posted on 01/13/2003 9:41:07 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Frankly, I've done all I'm willing to do.

Make ill-informed bogus assertions.

211 posted on 01/14/2003 12:04:00 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Ill informed? Bogus? -- Lordy, but you're a mean little ass, roscoe.
212 posted on 01/14/2003 8:46:06 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe, this self-serving piece of crap needs no refutation. Just because the Congress finds and declares something does not make it so. The CSA and its variants are just FedGov's attempts to make 2+2=5 and hope no one notices. 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 for your delusions. Have a nice day.
213 posted on 01/14/2003 10:30:58 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 142 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Let me see... we have BROAD attempts to sue firearms manufacturers out of business, coupled with attempts to outlaw the purchase of spare parts and ammunition. And THIS is to an object specifically protected under the second amendment. As to tobacco and fast foods, where is the protection for them? I can't find specific authorization for we the people to use tobacco and/or eat fast foods. Your logic tells me that if there is no specific amendment ALLOWING us to do something, gooberment can prohibit us from doing/owning/ingesting/whatever it... Yet the Constitution for the United States is a specific limitation on the powers of GOVERNMENT... and GRANTS NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER... It compels government to recognize God-Given, PREEXISTING rights, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO those enumerated. It also says that Government may only exercise the SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS. You seem to want to turn that on its head for some reason. Why?
214 posted on 01/14/2003 11:32:02 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 187 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
You will get no rational answer.

The logic of this matter, - this socialistic effort to prohibit by government fiat, - is irrefutable.
215 posted on 01/14/2003 12:00:21 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I know it. robertpaulsen suffers from one of the same three ailments as roscoe, as noted in my #213 post... and only ONE of the three is potentially curable. The other two will require the application of sterner measures. (I recommend death row for those Drug Warriors and Gun Grabbers who use violence in the commission of their nefarious deeds.) And maybe their enablers should be sent to some sort of re-education camps along the lines of what the North Vietnamese used when they finally overran the South.

(BTW, is it me or does North ANYPLACE have socialistic, totalitarian or just plain big-goobermental tendencies? Look at North Vietnam, North Korea, North Dakota (Wasn't that home to George McGovern?), the Northern States in the war of Northern Aggression... Russia (the USSR of old) is in the frigid north; a lot of China is that way; Merrie Olde England (home of the Fabian Society) is pretty frigid... Hmmmmmm)
216 posted on 01/14/2003 12:12:40 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 215 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Those long cold winters inspire thoughts, [in the sheepies, like roscoe etc.], of huddling in the communal warmth of the almighty state.
217 posted on 01/14/2003 12:36:05 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
The USC does not GIVE rights, but it protects certain ones. To smoke crack in a state that outlaws it, I'm afraid, is not one of them. Now if a state were to outlaw guns, it would be unconstitutional because that is a PROTECTED right.
218 posted on 01/14/2003 1:24:50 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tex, what makes a right "protected?" Is it the mention in the BoR? Are those the SOLE rights protected? Seems to me the Ninth Amendment is still there, never having been repealed. Now, if a Sovereign State wants to prohibit PUBLIC USE of a substance because it can make you do crazy things when you are intoxicated with it, I can see that. Public intoxication, by whatever substance, can be regulated and controlled. Consumption of an intoxicant on PRIVATE PROPERTY may not be so controlled (except as to the age of the consumer...). The Ninth Amendment refers to rights not to be disparaged just because they are not mentioned by name. This obviously is where we derive the right to our coffee, Big Macs, Internet Speech and self-medication. Of course, it confers NO RIGHT or PROTECTS no right to violate the rights of others (the usual cry of the lunatic fringe when drug re-legalization comes up about repealing the laws against rape and murder)....
219 posted on 01/14/2003 1:49:50 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 218 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The Ninth Amendment refers to rights not to be disparaged just because they are not mentioned by name. This obviously is where we derive the right to our coffee, Big Macs, Internet Speech and self-medication.

Indeed. However, where do we decide how far those right's extend? Sure, it's easy to say, "That which does not violate the rights of another.", but that is a paradoxical statement. To illustrate this, it would be similar to me answering the question "Who all is a female?", with the statement, "Whoever isn't a male." Well, it's not that simple. There are hermaphrodites, "gender benders", sex changes, ect. It is not cut and dry. There must be a precise definition if you want a precise answer.

I believe our founders knew this and gave us the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In this, it tells us "others retained by the people." Now. Where do we look to define what those "others" are? I believe the founders set up states for this purpose. You see, many things that the founders supported prohibiting in their own states, could be construed as rights by others (witchcraft, sodomy, ect). So, in order to enjoy those rights, not specifically identified in the BoR, one must live in a state with others that share the same view on whatever it is they see as a right; be it drugs, sodomy, prostitution, incest, and what have you.

220 posted on 01/14/2003 2:29:28 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

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

You still think that amendents confer rights and must all be spelled out to be valid?
C'mon Tex, most people here have forgotten that you keep making that dumb argument, let them forget that you said it, then you won't have to retract it when you grow up.
182 posted on 01/13/2003 10:10 AM PST by ThomasJefferson
_________________________________

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

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

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

-- Listen to TJ, he gave you some good, honest advice.
195 -tpaine-
__________________________________
The USC does not GIVE rights, but it protects certain ones. To smoke crack in a state that outlaws it, I'm afraid, is not one of them. Now if a state were to outlaw guns, it would be unconstitutional because that is a PROTECTED right.
_________________________________

You never learn 'aggie'.
-- ALL rights pertaining to life, liberty, and property, -- are protected, enunmerated or not.

Give up these socialistic prohibitional idiocies you advocate.
-- That they infringe upon your own rights should be obvious.
221 posted on 01/14/2003 2:47:18 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Have you even read the thread, aggie?
- Robertpaulsen was making that same, lame, 'states rights' point. - It has been thoroughly discredited on this thread, and many others at FR over the last five years.
In fact you and I have 'discussed it' ad nauseum. Give it up.

Our constitutions principles are clearly the 'law of the land'. They cannot be violated by state 'laws' or regulations. - No matter how many "others that share the same view".

222 posted on 01/14/2003 3:08:37 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Why must we look to government to define "rights" for us? That's like allowing the neighborhood perv to define pedophilia. Quite simply, a RIGHT is defined as what ever I decide I can do with MY life and MY property, which does not entail the forced participation of another party. I have a right, for example, to self-medicate with tne meds of my choice (keeping myself home if I take an intoxicant); I do NOT have a right to "free medical care" or "free prescription drugs" as envisioned by HillaryCare or Dubya. (As a veteran, my VA care is part of the contract they made with me.... which is something else.) I have a RIGHT to do whatever I may (properly and without violating another's rights) to sustain my life by acquiring property; I may NOT use the force of government to take someone else's property... get the picture? It's very simple and all-encompassing. I may not be forced to either ingest or refrain from ingesting something, nor may I demand that others be prohibited from using substances of which I disapprove.
223 posted on 01/14/2003 3:18:18 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 220 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; Texaggie79
Actually, incredibly enough, tex admits he wants his ~neighbors~ to define his unenumerated rights:

"-- in order to enjoy those rights not specifically identified in the BoR, one must live in a state with others that share the same view on whatever it is they see as a right; be it drugs, sodomy, prostitution, incest, and what have you." -TA79-

This socialist, communitarian concept boggles the mind of constitutional conservatives.
224 posted on 01/14/2003 3:35:44 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; tpaine
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

Tpaine himself admits that gated community laws are valid, he just refuses to believe the fact that that is how the founders set up states.

225 posted on 01/14/2003 5:38:47 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
no refutation

Figures.

226 posted on 01/14/2003 6:57:05 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

Nice quote by ol TJ, and every time you post it, I make the same comment, which you never rebut:
The principles mentioned are those of our constitution.
A few posts ago, on this thread, you admitted that states & local governments should be able to ignore our constitution, except on 'specified', enumerated rights.

Tpaine himself admits that gated community laws are valid, he just refuses to believe the fact that that is how the founders set up states.

The constitution is clear on the matter. States can 'reasonaby regulate', - not prohibit.

Sure, 'gated communities' can make contactual regulations governing behavior, - until they violate basic human rights; -- those rights, enumerated or not, that encompass life, liberty, and property, cannot be infringed.

227 posted on 01/14/2003 6:58:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The principles mentioned are those of our constitution.

Which provides for the creation of our laws through our elected representatives, much to the consternation of the libertines who hate our nation's principles of self-government.

228 posted on 01/14/2003 7:03:23 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The principles mentioned are those of our constitution.

Which provides for the creation of our laws through our elected representatives, much to the consternation of the libertines who hate our nation's principles of self-government.

'Libertines' like you roscoe, who advocate that our representatives are at liberty to make findings to prohibit drugs, guns, most anything, -- under the guise of 'regulating commerce'.

You have no honor, or shame.

229 posted on 01/14/2003 7:16:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
prohibit drugs, guns

Drugs don't equal guns.

230 posted on 01/14/2003 7:20:45 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Pick any of the authors points, and make a logical rebutal. -

-- You can not, - you never do, and you never will.

You have no honor, or shame
231 posted on 01/14/2003 7:29:23 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Drugs don't equal guns.

Drugs, guns, spotted owls - commerce all.

232 posted on 01/14/2003 7:33:11 PM PST by tacticalogic (This tagline is dedicated to SheLion and family until further notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Drugs, guns, spotted owls - commerce all.

Liberals and libertarians draw no distinction. Irrational both.

233 posted on 01/15/2003 12:17:18 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Pick any of the authors points, and make a logical rebutal.

They've all failed miserably, what's left to rebut?

234 posted on 01/15/2003 12:20:53 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Liberals and libertarians draw no distinction. Irrational both.

Then surely conservative philosophy will hold that a marijuana plant growing in your garden, not for sale or trade, is not "commerce".

235 posted on 01/15/2003 6:10:18 AM PST by tacticalogic (This tagline is dedicated to SheLion and family until further notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Pick any of the authors points, and make a logical rebuttal."

They've all failed miserably, what's left to rebut? -roscoe-

What's left?
--- Your complete denial of reality? That your only purpose here is to crack 'wise'?
Getta grip, or get lost.
236 posted on 01/15/2003 8:09:50 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then surely conservative philosophy will hold that a marijuana plant growing in your garden, not for sale or trade, is not "commerce".

Try selling that facile falsehood to the judge.

If a moonshiner tried to claim that the output of his still was for his personal use, United States Marshalls acting under the direction President George Washington and the 1st Congress would seize the operation.

Liberals and libertarians refuse to distinquish the right to keep and bear arms from smoking dope.

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

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

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


237 posted on 01/15/2003 9:01:46 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I take it you think not. Do you have any concept of "conservative" beyond "whatever the judge says"? You say it's a libertarian concept to consider guns and drugs both commerce. You obviously consider drugs to be commerce. Do you consider a sawed off shotgun to be commerce?
238 posted on 01/15/2003 9:25:57 AM PST by tacticalogic (This tagline is dedicated to SheLion and family until further notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
tacticalogic:
"Then surely conservative philosophy will hold that a marijuana plant growing in your garden, not for sale or trade, is not "commerce".

Try selling that facile falsehood to the judge.

Begging the guestion. Gardening for personal use is obviously not 'commerce'.

If a moonshiner tried to claim that the output of his still was for his personal use, United States Marshalls acting under the direction President George Washington and the 1st Congress would seize the operation.

And then a jury would have decided his guilt on TAX evasion. - Not on breaking a 'prohibition' on booze.

Liberals and libertarians refuse to distinquish the right to keep and bear arms from smoking dope.

Not true. - Liberal socialists, - like you roscoe, -- refuse to distinquish that the right to keep and bear arms & the drug 'war' are being fought on the same base 'principle'. that being:

"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."

239 posted on 01/15/2003 9:31:10 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Gardening for personal use is obviously not 'commerce'.

Proyect and other drug pushers trot out that pretense all the time. It's idiotic, it fails.

240 posted on 01/15/2003 9:36:43 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Blind hatred of the law and of America's principles of self-government isn't conservative.

But you know that.
241 posted on 01/15/2003 9:38:37 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"It fails", -- only with idiots like you.

242 posted on 01/15/2003 9:50:53 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Wrong again, tpaine.

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

Don't worry, if you keep trying, someday you'll be able to make a valid point.

243 posted on 01/15/2003 9:55:08 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Blind hatred of the law and of America's principles of self-government isn't conservative.

C'mon Roscoe - you're not shy about telling everyone what libertarinism or liberalism are. Tell us what conservativism is. If we are to be self-governing, then we must judge the law. What is the "conservative" criteria for what constitutes a good law?

244 posted on 01/15/2003 10:07:19 AM PST by tacticalogic (This tagline is dedicated to SheLion and family until further notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
The Founders did NOT set up the States. The Several Sovereign States were who rebelled and then established the Constitution which set up the national government. Methinks you are getting the cart before the horse. The Constitution ensures only that the powers of Government are LIMITED and that the States have a republican form of governance... They did envision a variety of styles, to be sure, but within each state the equal rights of ALL were to be protected, as that is the SOLE LEGITIMATE excuse for the very existence of governments. Yes, your gated community example is OK, but ONLY to the level of a rather smallish community, not at the level of a State. Besides, a town or even a county is a whole lot easier to know everyone and reach such a supermajority consensus as it would take to have your brand of whatever it is that you want to have.
245 posted on 01/15/2003 10:23:00 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 225 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I note that your one word "response" does not address the issue I raised in my answer. Figures. You are noted for that. IOW, you have NO logical answer and not a Constitutional leg to stand on... which means nothing to you and your crowd, as you have guns to back up your arguments... and a judiciary that will overlook your illegal use thereof...
246 posted on 01/15/2003 10:27:45 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 226 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Don't pretend. You couldn't and didn't refute any of the CSA findings.

247 posted on 01/15/2003 10:35:27 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.

Keep trying roscoe, someday, somehow, you will convince someone that you are a valid 'conservative'.

248 posted on 01/15/2003 10:46:37 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
What's to refute? That's the OPINION of a bunch of congresscritters and means less than nothing. It's as if they were to opine and then legislate that pi equals three or 2+2=15 or something. It's meaningless drivel, just as is most of what you post. The fact that it also flies in the face of the Constitution also escapes them and you. The fact that GOVERNMENT is linking guns and drugs and calling them both evil probably hasn't escaped you but you're cool with that because it'll give your heroes more doors to kick in during the wee hours... except that in THIS case, there are a whole lot of combat veterans who own firearms and know how to use them... and most of us are NOT criminals or other "unworthies" who don't get some folks' ire up on their behalf. I recall that one guy who was burned to death by LA County Sheriffs and the BATFags when they could just as easily have arrested him AWAY from home... but he was not a "nice" guy so he wasn't one to make a martyr of... yet he was vilified and demonized because he owned guns... hmmmmmmmm.
249 posted on 01/15/2003 10:53:20 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 247 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.

Wrong again. The court's "finding" was that dope doesn't get the same protections as firearms.

250 posted on 01/15/2003 10:55:09 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 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