Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[Texaggie79]

Ultimate ownership can only go to God, when you think about it. But, in a civilized society, with laws, physical ownership is actually to the government. Otherwise they could not take your land if you didn't pay your property taxes, or if you gained in by committing felonious acts.

If you PHYSICALLY owned your property, how far would that ownership extend? How far up into the sky would you own the air over it? How far down under the Earth would you own? Could you destroy your land and make it one giant hole in the Earth? If it was TRULY yours, you could. It's not though. You simply own certain RIGHTS to that land. That is what transpires when one purchases land or a home. You are purchasing the building and RIGHTS to the land it's on. That it all. You cannot physically OWN the land.

[tpaine]

Today some folks perceive some backstreet drug addict as a THREAT to their very existence and way of life. If true, then it would seem that these folks who are fearful of some backstreet drug addict disturbing their own existence...well to me, it just doesn't say much for their own existence if it is that weak.
469 To: All
My message is this. Don't worry about what some low life on the backstreet is doing to himself. Concern yourself with what you yourself are doing for yourself, your family, your country, and your freedom as a proud American. Stand tall and steadfast for freedom. Do not allow drug addicts and terrorists to take away our freedom. When we do, we forfeit our freedom and they win. And in this case, losing is not an option.
470 takenoprisoner


You must not know any hard drug users. They do not live in the "backstreet". The ones I know even live in big expensive houses. They are ALL a threat. They cannot act responsibly, they are a danger to their children, they are not in control of themselves. They have no right to do that in my state.
480 -ta79-

It must be hell on earth to live in constant fear of imagined threats from your peers, even those who live "in big expensive houses."
Whatta life aggie, and whatta man you are.

[tpaine]

Amazing? That smoking crack in a community isn't a human right?
If you lived off in your own land, on an island, perhaps, it's your right, but you don't have that right when in a state where your fellow citizens are threatened by your activity.
437 -ta79-


No, tex, your amazing claim is that ALL land in the U.S. is owned by FedGov. Please cite that claim.
450 dcwusmc


Ultimate ownership can only go to God, when you think about it. But, in a civilized society, with laws, physical ownership is actually to the government. Otherwise they could not take your land if you didn't pay your property taxes, or if you gained in by committing felonious acts.
If you PHYSICALLY owned your property, how far would that ownership extend? How far up into the sky would you own the air over it? How far down under the Earth would you own? Could you destroy your land and make it one giant hole in the Earth? If it was TRULY yours, you could. It's not though. You simply own certain RIGHTS to that land. That is what transpires when one purchases land or a home. You are purchasing the building and RIGHTS to the land it's on. That it all. You cannot physically OWN the land.
481 -ta79-

That is quite a nonsourced, opinionated "cite" there aggie, which I'm sure roscoe will take you to task about.
But, in any case, what I find fascinating, is that you admit that abusing 'drugs' is OK, --
-- "If you lived off in your own land, on an island, perhaps, it's your right".
But that "you don't have that right when in a state where your fellow citizens are threatened by your activity".

Here you show not only your basic ignorance of criminal law, but your distain for our constitutional method of applying the law to assure individual liberty.
Your mere fears & imaginings that activities are taking place that 'threaten' you, -- are not grounds for criminal law regulating the behavior of your neighbors.

In fact, such paranoia on your part may make a case for your own commitment, if you overreact on protecting yourself from your own fantasies.

[Texaggie79]

The coke, heroine, and crack addict are probably thrilled to have someone like you to stand up for them and defend them. What knoble citizens they really are. Thanks for showing us the way.

[tpaine]

Whatever.

Thanks for showing us your 'roscoe' type reply.

[Ben Bolt]

From who I meet in my day the web is all the malcontents have tpaine . Actually if it was not for the web these people would not ever be heard from .

Like you I tend to aim my laser on the bigger picture .

[Roscoe]

And seeing useful idiots equate drugs and guns delights the left-wing gun control crowd.

[dcwusmc]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzt Wrong answer. Property ownership IS in the individual and NOT the government. In fact, FedGov is prohibited from owning land except with permission from the legislatures of the several States. Look it up. State and local gov'ts maintain the fiction that they can tell you what to do with your land... but it doesn't always wash, especially out in the country. They CAN, under the fifth amendment, take property, but must pay for it at the going rate. Your air rights go to the end of the atmosphere, but the Supremes have ruled that air traffic may pass without payment to you... however, you may build a tower of whatever size you like and compel air traffiic to detour. Your rights theoretically go to the center of the earth, but you'd find it rather hot there, like a precursor to the hell reserved for authoritarians and other thugs. If you wish to dispute this, please provide the cites for your stance. Otherwise stand exposed as a fraud.

[Texaggie79]

Fraid not my friend. It's the dirty little secret of true real estate. Go get an abstract for your property. It lists the RIGHTS you have to it. As for your little statement about building a tower.... try it in a city....

Your right to build as high as you want is at the whim of your local legislature.

I work in appraisal and land title insurance. If want "cites" for my stance, simply read your full abstract. For all you know, someone may own certain rights to your land that you haven't a clue about.

[Texaggie79]

I still am amazed at how many people are unaware of mineral rights. Jed Clampet would probably never happen. Someone that ignorant would not have mineral rights.

[Texaggie79]

hehe. the joys of REAL estate

[takenoprisoner]

"You must not know any hard drug users. They do not live in the "backstreet". The ones I know even live in big expensive houses. They are ALL a threat. They cannot act responsibly, they are a danger to their children, they are not in control of themselves. They have no right to do that in my state."

No I don't know any hard drug users nor do I care to know any. And any that might live someplace in a "big expensive house" is not my problem either.

Yes, I can conceive how a hard drug user could be a threat to him/herself and his/her immediate family. But that's a personal and family matter and none of your nor my business.

If a child is being abused or neglected because the parent is a hard drug user, then other family members need to step in first. Meantime, you, I, and all the rest take a backseat until all else fails. In that case, with no others stepping forward, then and only then should the state step in when there is a clear and present danger to the child/ren. And then only to rescue the abused and neglected child while offering assistance to the drug abusing parent/s to get back on the right track.

But to burst into their home locked and loaded risking death and/or injury to the child/ren? You can't be serious.

I give you Waco. Allegedly the fed went there to "save the children." What did they do? They killed the children. Good plan. When the parents refused to surrender, they just killed them all, parents and children alike. Is this your justice? Is this what you want? Is this what you are?

[Texaggie79]

Not just to their immediate family, but their neighbors as well. People are living next door to someone who has purposefully put themselves in a state where they cannot act responsibly or on sound judgment. No one wants to live next to any hard drug addict, and if visible, they would bring down the value of properties around them. They are addicted to a substance that has taken away their ability to choose to use it or not. They are a slave to that drug and will do anything and harm anyone for it.

[dcwusmc]

As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth. Nor would I want to buy in a city where zoning laws would be a nuisance. But your contention that all land is OWNED by government is ludicrous on the face of it. Show me where THAT exists in this country.

[takenoprisoner]

No one wants to live next to any hard drug addict, and if visible, they would bring down the value of properties around them

This is an interesting propostion. My mother in law is in her eighties and living with us. Because of her degenerative and painful back condition her doctor has put her on morphine (a "hard drug")to relieve the pain. I guess I can't tell the neighbors though right? Less all our property values decline should this get out right?.

Whatever, I grew up with people and got to know people. All kinds of people from different walks of life...still just people with this or that difference from me of some sort. That's life.

My recommendation is that you get out sometime to experience life without worrying so much about your stupid property value. IOW's, give life and the people around you a chance. Besides,chances are your property will be a heap of rumble a hundred years from now...so what?

Now if you and your neighbor have some sort of rock solid granite home that will last a thousand plus years, then I would still say you both (regardless of addictions if any) have the right to be secure and safe in your home and property in the here and now.

The difference here between you and I is that you don't believe people have a right to be secure and safe in their homes while I do. To go further, I believe folks have a right to smoke, drink, and do whatever drugs they want in the privacy of their homes.

Moreover, I believe folks who want to snoop under the neighbor's bed rationalizing their perversion that it is to "protect" their property "values," are a pathetic breed of miscreants not worthy of human status.

[takenoprisoner]

If I forfeit my own freedom to prevent a drug addict, do I and society win? If I forfeit my own freedom to prevent a terrorist, do I and society win?

Or in the end does the drug addict and terrorist actually win since in the process of protecting myself I forfeit my own freedom?

[Texaggie79]

Then find a state where others share your lack of foresight. Allow cocaine and heroine and all their tweeked versions to be sold at Krogers. I have the right to live with others who share my common sense and do not wish to watch our state become a sh!*hole. WE DO have a right to be secure in our homes, and that requires that drug addicts are not allowed to freely pursue their destructive behavior in our neighborhood.

[takenoprisoner]

WE DO have a right to be secure in our homes, and that requires that drug addicts are not allowed to freely pursue their destructive behavior in our neighborhood.

I've been secure in whatever home I have been in for 50 plus years. Do you live in an insecure neighborhood? If so, then follow my lead, and move.