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 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 701-748 next last
To: Texaggie79
You have gone beyond absurd. Yes, I am aware that, unless one insists otherwise and pays for them, different people can own different rights to the same piece of property. I am also aware that governments claim the authority to sieze one's land or property for non-payment of their levies. Which does NOT abrogate one's otherwise absolute ownership of that property. They use a doctrine similar to a mechanic's lien. And WRT any other siezure of property, absent a judgement of a court, such is done in a totally Unconstitutional manner. It does NOT mean you do not own your property; it only means that your rights are routinely violated by government minions. Which seems to set really well with you and the roscoe-bot.
551 posted on 01/24/2003 7:53:46 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 542 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Refuse to go read the rights you own? Afraid it will disappoint you too much to see that it is not really the property you own, rather, certain rights to it?

As one, whos career consists of appraising real estate, I can tell you that I only appraise the RIGHTS one possesses to their property.

Want to know the difference? I'm holding a pen in my hand. I bought this pen. It is my private property. I can do with it, what I wish. I can use it, break it, burn it, or what have you. Land, I cannot own as private property. I cannot do whatever I wish with it. I may only do what I rights to do. I cannot possess the right to destroy my land. I cannot build upon, unless permitted by local zoning laws. I cannot extract minerals, unless I own mineral rights (which, BTW, does not mean that you OWN the minerals under your land, rather, you own the right to extract minerals from your land. For example oil. You own the right to EXTRACT oil from you land, even though the lake of oil may extend under someone elses land, you are still extracting from YOUR land, therefor you have the right to extract and use or sell it.).
552 posted on 01/24/2003 8:56:39 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
As one, whos career consists of appraising real estate, I can tell you that I only appraise the RIGHTS one possesses to their property.
"Want to know the difference? I'm holding a pen in my hand. I bought this pen. It is my private property. I can do with it, what I wish. I can use it, break it, burn it, or what have you."
________________________________

How confused & conflicted can you get, aggie?

'I bought this pen, 'joint', gun, whatever. It is my private property. I can do with it, what I wish. I can use it, break it, burn it, or what have you.'

Case closed as to your near terminal foot in mouth disease.


553 posted on 01/24/2003 9:45:38 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
One cannot own something as private property, if that something is illegal to own.
554 posted on 01/24/2003 6:08:08 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
As one, whos career consists of appraising real estate, I can tell you that I only appraise the RIGHTS one possesses to their property.

'I bought this pen, 'joint', gun, whatever. It is my private property. I can do with it, what I wish. I can use it, break it, burn it, or what have you.'
553 tpaine


One cannot own something as private property, if that something is illegal to own.
554 ta79

Are you contending that governments can make pens, guns, etc, 'illegal'? Why?
555 posted on 01/25/2003 1:30:09 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Are you contending that governments can make pens, guns, etc, 'illegal'? Why?

People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).

556 posted on 01/25/2003 3:22:50 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.

And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.



557 posted on 01/25/2003 3:46:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 posted on 01/25/2003 9:55:30 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Dear tpaine, how 'bout this one for a start? (Sorry I couldn't accept your invitation until tonight - no internet all day today, and now I have a cut finger so it's really hard to type.) 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.

Please expain in simple layman's language why drug use and traffic should not be regulated and/or outlawed.

I guess to be fair, I should outline my position, which is quite different than the established one. Actually I did post it on this thread earlier, but here are the essentials:

1.No selling of drugs, or, to be fair, liquor. Heavy punishment, should include public corporal punishment such as caning, since jail time is not a deterrant, is expensive, and public caning (for instance) is much more humane and rational.

2. People should be allowed to grow marijuana (and poppies for opium if they can or want to) and use it themselves freely. Also brew their own liquor freely and use it themselves.

559 posted on 01/25/2003 10:36:51 PM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pram
PS - I think I made a mistake, I didn't post anything on this thread... I 'll read it tomorrow.
560 posted on 01/25/2003 10:38:59 PM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79

Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.

And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine


Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-

Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.

-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.

561 posted on 01/26/2003 7:30:53 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: pram
I think I may have made a mistake,
also.
562 posted on 01/26/2003 7:32:52 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".

So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?

563 posted on 01/26/2003 10:20:39 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79

Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.

And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine


Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-

Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.

-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.
561

So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?
-aggie-

Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts.
-- Really aggie, -- shouldn't you start learning to use your mind before inserting foot in mouth?

564 posted on 01/26/2003 10:52:20 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts.

Oh! I see. So, anyone can get a vile of small pox and do what they wish with it. Their neighbors cant do anything about it but take them to court?

565 posted on 01/26/2003 8:47:31 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Oviously, either you are unable to 'see', and never will be smart enough to do so, - or - you think you're playing some witty word game. You may be half right.

Bug off aggie, and grow up.
566 posted on 01/26/2003 9:17:32 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat, yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.
567 posted on 01/27/2003 8:57:18 AM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat,

No, its hilarious that you think I favor unconstitutional 'prohibition' as reasonable regulation. Apparently you can't 'add' at all.

yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.

Feeble 'tar baby' reply, aggie.
My 'opinions' on what constitute criminal threats are based on historical common law, and you have no factual basis to conclude otherwise.
-- You however, have admitted on this thread that you sometimes feel your neighbors threaten you. - Get a grip, -- you have branded yourself as an emotional cry baby.

568 posted on 01/27/2003 7:19:28 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
historical common law tells us that witchcraft can be a threat, meriting prohibition. You have no base to stand on, but of those lies you spout about the USC.

As Rush Limbaugh stated last week, laws must be based in morality or society cannot be cohesive.

569 posted on 01/27/2003 7:56:53 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Dream your dreams of witchcraft, with 'rush' as your authority on law, aggie.

I need but rest my case.
570 posted on 01/27/2003 8:08:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I base my stance more on our founders, from which, you stray. Anarchy, is not 4 me.
571 posted on 01/27/2003 9:14:40 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I 'stray' from founding principles? Daft. -- How so?

You can't make that point with logic.
572 posted on 01/27/2003 10:15:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I am sorry I have not been able to commece with our discussion - had some health issues which are requiring my attention but I should be up and at'em in the next day or so....
573 posted on 01/28/2003 8:00:51 AM PST by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

Comment #574 Removed by Moderator

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."

Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;".

Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.

If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?

575 posted on 02/06/2003 6:45:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat; robertpaulsen
A tall man in a cowboy hat:
"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."

Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;". Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.

If used under their powers to "provide for the common defense", emergency prohibitions on commerce ~could arguably~ be justified. But bans hardly qualify as a method of peaceful 'regulation'.
I doubt the goverment was granted this much power over our rights to trade in property.

If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?

Big 'IF', and I would say that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property pretty well cover the right to engage in commerce without unreasonable regulations.
Prohibitional decrees 'stopping' commerce, and 'banning' possession of goods are unreasonable violations of such rights on quite a number of constitutional grounds.

576 posted on 02/06/2003 9:24:45 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; freedomlover; ...
An oldie but goodie, and worthy of close study.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

577 posted on 06/07/2005 4:25:00 PM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Yes, it is. It saddens me that many of the people here at FR will proudly calim their support for freedom in one thread and in the next they will talk about how the government needs MORE power to fight the WOD.


578 posted on 06/07/2005 4:34:32 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Bump To The Top!!!!!!!!


579 posted on 06/07/2005 4:50:24 PM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

There's a lot of my old friends on this one .... some banned ... some not


580 posted on 06/07/2005 7:15:37 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?"

Our Founders supplied us with Amendment IX:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

There's an entire amendment, one tenth of the Bill of Rights, insisting that you do not do what your are doing; that is, claim that there is any significance to the ommission or non-enumeration of a right.

I suggest you refer to Amendment XIX. There you will find pretty convincing evidence that at one time the nation operated under the principle that a substance could not be outlawed by the federal government without a provision of the Constitution permitting it to do so. What changed? It was not the Constitution. It is the people who refuse to use it.

581 posted on 06/07/2005 7:35:15 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist

Billions of our dollars are wasted each year on this,... anobectivist

billions of dollars are spent on controlling americans because of the war on drugs... continuing the prohibition allows for the prohibition of certain freedoms detrimental to big governments goals.

teeman


582 posted on 06/07/2005 7:41:01 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

so far so good... you are winning and they are losing...
they will inevitably see the error of their socialistic tendancies.

teeman


583 posted on 06/07/2005 7:42:30 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
It saddens me that many of the people here at FR will proudly calim their support for freedom in one thread and in the next they will talk about how the government needs MORE power to fight the WOD.

Bingo, and they don't even see it. I am always very optimistic about America, but I am bothered by this and the reactions from many FReepers.

584 posted on 06/07/2005 7:46:39 PM PDT by eyespysomething (Peace - that brief moment in history where everyone stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
(It was the 18th amendment. I know you know it.)

"There you will find pretty convincing evidence that at one time the nation operated under the principle that a substance could not be outlawed by the federal government without a provision of the Constitution permitting it to do so."

Sure they could. But the temperence reformers wanted a more durable amendment, rather than simply a statute.

585 posted on 06/07/2005 8:21:45 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "Sure they could. "

You could save us some time if you clarified your own opinion here. The WOSD proves that they COULD. That there is no marijuana commerce possible that is not interstate commerce is ridiculous. It suggests that there is no commerce that is not interstate commerce.

I claim that the federal government SHOULD NOT involve itself in the control of drugs which cannot be proven to move in interstate commerce. I claim that there is no enumerated power which justifies what they are doing.

Other posters who claim that we don't want to be like countries which have legalized drugs because then our parks would be filled with drug users have obviously not visited Golden Gate Park in San Francisco recently. The place is effectively OWNED by druggies and other jobless elements.

In another post you stated: "You give me the moral, responsible society that we had back in 1776, and I'll vote for any drug law you want."

The only reason we don't have the moral, responsible society of 1776 is because we don't insist on it. We don't insist that people use firearms responsibly. Instead, there are attempts to disarm. We don't insist that people ingest substances responsibly. Instead, we criminalize possession and provide "treatment". We don't insist that eight-year-old school boys use pocket knives responsibly, as was done when I was eight. Instead, we exercise "zero tolerance" to suspend students for possession of a butter spatula simply because it is commonly called a "knife".

We are raising generation after generation of people who are not allowed to exercise responsible judgement and then some decry their lack of responsibility.

586 posted on 06/07/2005 8:48:34 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
Perhaps not everyone has seen this recent ad - but it shows two teenage type boys in the family den getting stoned (smoking a bong) and handling a firearm. One of the boys comments that the gun is not loaded, then blam - the gun goes off and the editing implies that the one stoner shot the other dead. This ad represents a blatant example of the propaganda as discussed by the author where the government connects the issue of drugs and guns in a single advertisement, and plays on both the drug and gun fears to which your average American is now conditioned.

The association of guns and drugs in advertising is not new, nor accidental. The underlying concept is one of drug crazed maniacs wielding guns coming to a neighborhood near you--and no one is safe.

That is the fulcrum (safety) by which the lever of such propaganda is applied to even the most conservative psyche: drug related gang war, drug related killing, drug related crime...no one is safe.

While many would concede that the drug war is an abject failure, (something I will not), the inevitable answer to fighting that war more effectively has been a continuing erosion of the rights of all against unreasonable search and siezure, not just in the venue of controlled substances, but in the realm of firearms as well.

The concept has crept into the groupthink that some drugs are all right for personal self-medication, but others are too dangerous to allow the general public to use unsupervised, if at all. That same concept is being used to promote the ban of certain types of firearm, just substitute "guns" for "drugs" in the previous statement.

There are salient differences between the two.

First, people have used firearms on a daily basis and suffered no ill effects, even after many years.

Second, although a definite firearm enthusiast, I cannot honestly say I know anyone "addicted" to firearms. The physical dependency is not there.

No one is knocking over liquor stores to get their next box of .22s.

Babies born to households under the "influence of firearms" but where illicit drug use is absent seldom suffer birth defects at any rate greater than that of the general population, and are no more likely than the general population to be abused, neglected, or slain in acts of senseless violence, perhaps less so.

It would be disingenous to attempt to say the same of households where the parent(s) are drug addicts, even in the absence of firearms.

As for cheaper drugs, there is no guarantee that this would happen. When alcohol use was relieved of prohibition, alcoholic beverages were taxed. It would be highly uncharacteristic of Governmnet to ignore such a source of revenue, and while the result might be cheaper drugs, it is unlikely that prices would ever approach "cost".

If you advocate "state supplied" drugs, you are advocating my tax dollar supporting other people's bad habits, something I am as likely to condone as the average non-smoker would condone the Government picking up the tab for my La Gloria Cubanas.

It already galls me to be paying for "treatment" programs which have recidivism rates as high as 90+%.

While there is no easy solution, I cannot agree with the use of hyperbole to promote the "anything goes" approach to fighting the uncontrolled distribution and use of dangerous drugs. "No knock" dynamic entry, warrantless searches, the use of paid informants, and the erosion of due process all belie an increasing laziness on the part of law enforcement which used to rely on good police work. We have become so inured to such tactics that we have cast aside Constitutional protections on the false altar of "effectiveness", much as we have given up the ability to carry so much a a fingernail clipper on an airplane: all offerings to the false god of "Safety".

You mention compelling social interest, and aside from the public safety, there would be none if the Government had not already made its collectivist inroads into the family, making what would have been personal tragedies the collective responsibility (in financial terms) of the general public through welfare programs and taxation.

SO what's a mutha to do? For those who want to consume certain drugs of choice, licensure?

"Sign here, kid, you know you can get the buzz you want, but you will never drive the bus, the plane, the train, or hold public office. You forfeit your right to own a firearm, to hunt, or operate a motor vehicle. You may not work as a fireman, a policeman, a soldier, or in the medical profession. Forget being a cowboy, High on the Range was just a movie. If you ever wish to have children, you must test 'clean' on every random test for a period of 5 years, and are subject to genetic screening prior to reproductive approval. Just sign here, on line 3, 27, and 42, produce ID, and press hard, you are making several coppies...."

One last point, and I'll get off the page. Just because something was legal is not necessarily a good argument for making it legal again. Slavery was legal for nearly a hundred years after the Declaration of Independance was signed, and few would advocate its return.

587 posted on 06/07/2005 8:55:37 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
The incentive to push drugs would immedialtely disappear and we'd be on the way, over time, to almost entirely eliminating drug addiction in America.

THere would always be that contingent who would conceal their drug use, and thus, the underground market would remain, even if substantially diminished.

While I agree with much of your sentiment, the program is all carrot and no stick.

Add in execution for drug traffickers and addicts/users who try to subvert the system and it might be more effective. Harsh, you might say, but definite incentive to go with the program or not go at all.

588 posted on 06/07/2005 9:00:23 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

posted at #6






Logical core bump.


589 posted on 06/07/2005 9:13:53 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Amen.


590 posted on 06/07/2005 9:42:01 PM PDT by wingnutx (Seabees Can Do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"You could save us some time if you clarified your own opinion here"

What I meant was that Congress could have banned alcohol without an amendment.

"I claim that there is no enumerated power which justifies what they are doing."

You of course agree that Congress does indeed have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs? Well, that's all they're doing.

Now, in order to effectively regulate that interstate commerce, Congress uses the Necessary and Proper Clause (In Article I, Section 8) to write laws which control anything that has a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts.

You don't like that. You say Congress shouldn't/can't do that. Well, what if Congress didn't?

Well, that would allow states and individuals to undermine and subvert Congress' legitimate interstate regulatory efforts. If that's what the Founding Fathers intended, then why give the commerce clause power to Congress to begin with?

Maybe Congress shouldn't regulate drugs. Maybe that should be left to the states to decide. Fine. Pass an amendment, similar in wording to the 21st amendment, just as we did with alcohol, removing that power from the federal government and returning it exclusively to the states.

"We are raising generation after generation of people who are not allowed to exercise responsible judgement and then some decry their lack of responsibility."

Keep in mind that the irresponsible behavior came first. Nobody's going to pass a law against cellphone use in the car until enough irresponsible people cause enough accidents. Then the law will pass.

The first laws against drugs were passed because there were problems associated with those drugs. Be it opium or heroin or morphine or cocaine or elixirs ... or marijuana.

591 posted on 06/07/2005 11:34:22 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

I was saying the same thing here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417459/posts?page=20#20


592 posted on 06/08/2005 1:38:44 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Tancredo and I wanna know what you believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

593 posted on 06/08/2005 8:01:41 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

Too bad tpaine was bounced.


594 posted on 06/08/2005 9:29:28 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "You of course agree that Congress does indeed have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs? Well, that's all they're doing."

I don't agree that there is no such thing as NON interstate commerce in drugs or any other commodity. Please explain how there is any limit whatever to claims of federal jurisdiction over all trade given the decision that there can be no NON interstate commerce in some drugs?

595 posted on 06/08/2005 12:24:54 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

So, you don't get it. I guess it doesn't make you a bad person. Just less of an American than the Founders were hoping for. Buckle up, and Don't forget your helmet.

596 posted on 06/08/2005 1:24:28 PM PDT by FreeRadical (That's no Open Container, that's My Beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeRadical
"So, you don't get it."

Oh I get it -- I simply don't believe it.

"Just less of an American"

You're the one who doesn't support the U.S. Constitution, and I'm less of an American? That's rich.

The USSC has ruled the Controlled Substances Act constitutional. Is the Court wrong?

"Buckle up, and Don't forget your helmet."

If I'm forced to pay for the health care of those involved in traffic accidents, then excuse me if I try to minimize my costs. If these idiots had their own insurance, they could ride naked for all I care.

597 posted on 06/08/2005 4:01:24 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

I've no problem with harsh measures for those who choose to remain underground. My only concern, as I'm certain you recognize, is for those who haven't been lured into the drug culture or those who are victimized to support an addict's habit.


598 posted on 06/08/2005 6:48:01 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The drug warrior socialists among us could care less. -- High crime justifies ever more effort to control society. This is socialisms goal

Likewise, the recent Patriot Act extensions and Senate approval to make them permanent..

This is all tying in together..
Border control.. = National ID cards..
Why is it that government says we can't control Illegal immigration?? Insufficient paperwork..
Solution?? National ID cards..( conforming to International ID card standards ) DNA testing.. etc...

Although the obvious solution of More border guards, use of the military to guard the borders, hiring of more INS employees and rigorous enforcement of existing immigration law, are typically ignored..
Why use existing law, when a new law can be created, further restricting citizen's rights??

599 posted on 06/08/2005 10:40:05 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; A tall man in a cowboy hat; robertpaulsen
The commerce clause, concerning regulating commerce "among the several states" was meant to encourage free trade, not prohibit commerce..

Historically, the several states began instituting protective tariffs and excise taxes on products entering their state in order to protect local producers..
The commerce clause was instituted to end such practices, and allow "free trade" without restriction or protectionism..

600 posted on 06/08/2005 10:53:17 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 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