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 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-748 next last
To: Drammach
"The commerce clause, concerning regulating commerce "among the several states" was meant to encourage free trade, not prohibit commerce.."

Sure. At the time, that was the primary concern.

But the courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to ban". As early as 1884, Congress banned the interstate shipments of infected cattle.

601 posted on 06/08/2005 11:26:13 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Thanks for that info..

Any references you have on the commerce clause and it's history would be appreciated..

I will readily admit, I don't know a lot about it, and what I remember is some 40 years old, from elementary and high school history classes..
I have found the commercel clause doesn't come up very often during normal social converstations.

602 posted on 06/09/2005 9:44:22 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; William Terrell
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.

I can find no evidence that drug prohibition, begun in the early 1900's, has helped.

The addiction rate to opiates dropped by over 60% from 1880 to 1900 while still legal. Since 1900, the number of people addicted to either opiates or cocaine has tripled.

603 posted on 06/09/2005 10:15:31 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Meant to ping you, not Willam Terrell, to post #603


604 posted on 06/09/2005 10:18:44 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
The commerce clause, concerning regulating commerce "among the several states" was meant to encourage free trade, not prohibit commerce..

I'm sure James Madison would agree.

"Yet it is very certain that it [the power to regulate commerce among the several States] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government"

--James Madison

605 posted on 06/09/2005 10:37:12 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Great supporting quote.. Thanks..


606 posted on 06/09/2005 10:48:00 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Gibbons v Ogden:

Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."

"No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."

Somehow, we have nuanced our way from Gibbons to Wickard.

I have found the commerce clause doesn't come up very often during normal social converstations.

Are you kidding me? All I have to do is mention Gibbons v Ogden and I get transformed into a chick magnet.

607 posted on 06/09/2005 10:50:25 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Chick magnet... LOL !!!


608 posted on 06/09/2005 11:01:35 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
IF that is the raw number of people, it should be corrected for population growth and presented as a rate (i.e. 1.35/100000) in order to have a valid comparison.

If the actual rate of addiction is up, it may well be a combination of factors.

Availability, certainly, could be one. More likely, though, is that the behaviour of addicts, once obvious to any who could see, is now relegated to areas not travelled by many who might become addicted, thus parents cannot point out the down side of addiction to their children as effectively as before. Pictures on the internet do not strike home like a sweating shaking junkie with the jones'.

Anonymity (gained largely with the demise of the more rural environments--small towns) has no doubt contributed as well, along with the erosion of the supoport of extended family as the culture has become more 'mobile'.

The previously unthinkable can be done without fear of sullied reputaion or familial retribution.

Children (adolescents) used to rebel in more tame ways, and one of the fruits of a society where the merely outlandish and dangerous has been replaced by progressively more extreme variants of 'extreme', is that rebellion now takes forms either unthinkable or unheard of a mere 40 or 50 years ago.

WHat prohibition has done, is drive the use, sale, and distribution, of drugs underground, create tremendous profits for the most ruthlessly lawless, and cause the deaths of both active participants, law enforcement personnel, and innocents caught in the crossfire.

At some point our society must weigh that toll against the presumed toll of deregulation, and decide.

609 posted on 06/09/2005 11:35:29 AM 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 603 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

WHat prohibition has done, is drive the use, sale, and distribution, of drugs underground, create tremendous profits for the most ruthlessly lawless, and cause the deaths of both active participants, law enforcement personnel, and innocents caught in the crossfire.
At some point our society must weigh that toll against the presumed toll of deregulation, and decide.
609Smokin' Joe


______________________________________

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts


610 posted on 06/09/2005 12:17:37 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; Drammach; Ken H; yall

WHat prohibition has done, is drive the use, sale, and distribution, of drugs underground, create tremendous profits for the most ruthlessly lawless, and cause the deaths of both active participants, law enforcement personnel, and innocents caught in the crossfire.
At some point our society must weigh that toll against the presumed toll of deregulation, and decide.
609Smokin' Joe


______________________________________

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts


611 posted on 06/09/2005 12:20:16 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Good pick up on rate vs number. I meant to write that the rate tripled from 1900-2000. I made another error, which I need to correct. The addiction rate to opiates alone in 1880 was 0.8%, so the drop from 1880-1900 was greater than 37.5%. The census of 1880 counted about 50,000,000 Americans.

The addiction figures are from the USDOJ, including the following mistitled article:

Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.

~snip~

It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse.

In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 [=0.8%] opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.

By 1900, about one American in 200 [=0.5%]was either a cocaine or opium addict. [end excerpt]

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

My calculations show that opiate addiction dropped from 0.8% in 1880 to at least 0.5% in 1900. If you toss out cocaine addicts included in the 1900 figure, the drop would be even greater. Now on to 2000:

_______________________________________

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992." [980,000 is about 0.33% of the population]

--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm

_______________________________

Using year 2000 figures from the USDOJ, and a population of 290,000,000, the rate of addiction to either cocaine or heroin is about 1.5%, or triple the rate in 1900.

612 posted on 06/09/2005 12:56:30 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

How the hell did tpaine get banned but Roscoe(while not posting since 2004) and CJ still exist?


613 posted on 06/09/2005 2:40:41 PM PDT by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

I considered tpaine a friend ... and i do miss him


614 posted on 06/09/2005 4:05:50 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
615 posted on 06/09/2005 4:19:33 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999 ..."

Where did the DOJ get that number?

616 posted on 06/09/2005 7:49:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Where did the DOJ get that number?

As I said before, you'll have to ask the DOJ, but it is the agency which should know. Do you have a more authoritative source?

617 posted on 06/09/2005 9:49:50 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; Smokin' Joe
One would have thought that the DOJ would have footnoted where it got the number. As far as we know, it could simply be an estimate.

"Do you have a more authoritative source?"

More authoritative than a DOJ estimate? Of course.

"The estimated number of current heroin users was 216,000 in 1996, 325,000 in 1997, and 130,000 in 1998."
-- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, p. 18.

Wow! What a difference from your undocumented guess of 980,000. That really throws off all your comparisons, doesn't it?

618 posted on 06/10/2005 5:57:23 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Smokin' Joe
"Cautious evaluation of this data is necessary because the NHSDA cannot accurately measure rare or stigmatized drug use, relying as it does on self-reporting and on people residing in households. In alternate research, the number of hardcore* users of heroin in 1998 was estimated to be 980,000,"

Since the USDOJ chose the 980,000 figure to put on its website, is it not reasonable to conclude it thinks the figure more accurate?

619 posted on 06/10/2005 10:03:01 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
What's "alternate research" mean? Where's the details on that? Where's the disclaimer for those numbers?

"Since the USDOJ chose the 980,000 figure to put on its website, is it not reasonable to conclude it thinks the figure more accurate?"

IMO, the DOJ used those numbers for the same reason you did -- to support some previously reached conclusion.

620 posted on 06/10/2005 9:26:17 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
IMO, the DOJ used those numbers for the same reason you did -- to support some previously reached conclusion.

What conclusion did the DOJ previously reach?

621 posted on 06/10/2005 10:17:49 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
That heroin use was a problem -- therefore they need more money.

100,000 addicts won't get you as much money as a million addicts. So they grabbed the larger number. As did you.

Ah, here's the footnote:

"As with cocaine, estimates for the size of the hardcore heroin using population are derived from mathematical models rather than probability-based population survey estimates."

A mathematical model. Well, color me convinced. Especially by this:

"As expected, given this alternative criterion for truthful reporting, truthfulness by heroin users is greater than truthfulness for cocaine users."

"Thus, let TRUTH = 0.73 for heroin and 0.61 for cocaine. Then an adjusted estimate for the number of heavy users equals:"

See, they compensate for truthfulness. (With some random number.) MUCH better than an actual survey. Sure it is.

622 posted on 06/11/2005 1:05:20 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

If you are going to indict the DOJ numbers, then isn't the whole DOJ guilty? And if the DOJ is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our justice system in general? I put it to you, robertpaulsen, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!


623 posted on 06/11/2005 8:44:12 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"If you are going to indict the DOJ numbers, then isn't the whole DOJ guilty? And if the DOJ is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our justice system in general? I put it to you, robertpaulsen, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!"

One of my favorite films.

624 posted on 06/11/2005 9:01:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Everybody
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 above is 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.


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


Logical core bump.
625 posted on 03/30/2006 12:08:01 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

by your arguement, abortion cannot be outlawed.


626 posted on 03/30/2006 12:31:25 PM PST by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
"...by your arguement, abortion cannot be outlawed."

At the FEDERAL level, that's probably true. At the STATE level, it certainly was not (at least not until the Supreme Court invented "abortion rights" out of thin air---it's certainly not in the Constitution).

627 posted on 03/30/2006 12:46:14 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
WOW, blast from the past. Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local. I can see the federal argument, as always, but you have yet to prove that STATES are prohibited from criminalizing material that they see as harmful enough to violate the rights of other citizens.
628 posted on 03/30/2006 12:48:01 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

WOW, blast from the past.

Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

I can see the federal argument, as always, but you have yet to prove that STATES are prohibited from criminalizing material that they see as harmful enough to violate the rights of other citizens.

Article VI clearly says that State laws & constitutions notwithstanding, our US Constitution is the "Law of the Land".

The 10th says that powers are prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States. -- Powers to deprive people of rights to life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Thus, police powers that infringe on individual rights are Constitutionally prohibited.

Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

629 posted on 03/30/2006 1:10:24 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Wonder Warthog wrote:

the Supreme Court invented "abortion rights" out of thin air--

The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; --
--- during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; --
--- and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus.

Justice Harlan comments on due process:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777 --

630 posted on 03/30/2006 1:26:32 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR. However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.


631 posted on 03/30/2006 2:57:24 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR.

However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.

Where in the Constitution is it specifically stated that those not 'numerated' are left respectively to the states?

You're wrong kid, as usual. I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem.

632 posted on 03/30/2006 3:09:25 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I believe I have quoted that to you directly out of the US Constitution about 50 times now my friend. :D
633 posted on 03/30/2006 3:12:47 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

I keep forgetting to use the < p> tags. friggen html


634 posted on 03/30/2006 3:13:21 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR.

However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.

Where in the Constitution is it specifically stated that those not 'numerated' are left respectively to the states?

You're wrong kid, as usual. I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem.

"-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --"

I believe I have quoted that to you directly out of the US Constitution about 50 times

And every time you quote, I remind you that the power to write legislation that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property [property like guns] without due process of law, -- is prohibited to the States by the 14th Amendment. - Just as it says in the 10th.
-- Will you ever 'get it'?

Read Justice Harlen on due process, [posted just above] and give it a good old texaggie try to understand the very simple principles involved.

635 posted on 03/30/2006 3:34:58 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And every time you quote, I remind you that the power to write legislation that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property [property like guns] without due process of law, -- is prohibited to the States by the 14th Amendment. - Just as it says in the 10th. -- Will you ever 'get it'?

So a Nuclear warhead is property? What about eboli virus? If I wan't to keep that in my basement, is that "property" that the government can't deny me?

636 posted on 03/30/2006 4:27:34 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

As I said---out of thin air.

637 posted on 03/30/2006 6:01:40 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

So a Nuclear warhead is property? What about eboli virus? If I wan't to keep that in my basement, is that "property" that the government can't deny me?

Sophomoric argument tex. -- Its a given that all levels of government can legislate reasonable regulations about the storing & handling of dangerous nuclear & biochemical materials.

638 posted on 03/30/2006 9:28:02 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; tpaine

Roscoe: George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?

tpaine: The whiskey rebellion was mainly about taxes. - Read a book.62

Here's what Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has learned from community leaders.

"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."

?After making more than nine hundred presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs‹legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth; After we talk with them, 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same." LEAP

Police officers know that their job is to keep the peace. ...To protect people from one another. They know they cannot stop people from harming themselves.

The purpose of government is to protect people from harming one another. It cannot protect people from themselves.

639 posted on 03/30/2006 9:34:36 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

The above is 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.

Agreed.

Check this: Gun prohibition would only apply to citizens. The premise: citizens can't be trusted with guns. Government would still have guns. Supposedly government agents can be trusted with guns. They're seemingly made of some morally superior fiber than citizens. What  Frederick Bastiat chimes in. My edits in  [ ].

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free [keep and bear arms], how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.

"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)


640 posted on 03/30/2006 9:53:56 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Its a given that all levels of government can legislate reasonable regulations about the storing & handling of dangerous nuclear & biochemical materials.

A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!

641 posted on 03/30/2006 9:55:04 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sophomoric argument tex. -- Its a given that all levels of government can legislate reasonable regulations about the storing & handling of dangerous nuclear & biochemical materials.

A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!

Sophomoric argument again. You're playing the same childish games you played three years ago, tex. - Grow up.

642 posted on 03/31/2006 5:31:36 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: Zon; robertpaulsen; Mojave; Texaggie79
--- certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." --
Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)

FR's "organizers" show us what they are made of with every juvenile comment posted.
-- Proof enough of Bastiat's point.

643 posted on 03/31/2006 5:45:30 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

No you simply want to have your cake and eat it to. You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".

Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense".

So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.


644 posted on 03/31/2006 9:43:11 AM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance

Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.

-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.

You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".

Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.

Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.

Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.

645 posted on 03/31/2006 10:27:24 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.

So your entire argument here is: Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.

646 posted on 03/31/2006 10:49:15 AM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance

Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.

-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.

You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".

Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.

Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.

Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.

So your entire argument here is:

Their you go again, inventing my "entire argument".. You're an amusingly juvenile troll.

Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.

How many ways can you mischaracterize my position, tex-baby? -- Troll on.

647 posted on 03/31/2006 11:47:08 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

It's pretty simple bro. Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do. There's no "only what tpaine thinks is dangerous".


648 posted on 03/31/2006 12:28:13 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.

Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one?
-- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.

649 posted on 03/31/2006 12:38:45 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79


"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --"


Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.

Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins
Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html


650 posted on 03/31/2006 1:27:05 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]


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