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: tpaine

My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic. Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.

So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can. So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?


651 posted on 03/31/2006 1:39:37 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
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.

My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.

Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.

Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.

Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':

"-- 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

So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.

Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]

So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?

Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.

Can you agree on those basics?

652 posted on 03/31/2006 2:26:15 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"?

Who get's to decide what is reasonable?

Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.


653 posted on 03/31/2006 2:28:14 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
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.

My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.

Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.

Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.

Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':

"-- 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

So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.

Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]

So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?

Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.

Can you agree on those basics?

Tex can't even agree:

So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?

Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?

Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.

Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.

654 posted on 03/31/2006 2:46:18 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I didn't say gun, I said crack. And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable. Who get's to say?


655 posted on 03/31/2006 3:08:37 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process. [see Harlan above on due process]

So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?

Back to basics tex?
In our system: -- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
You can't even agree on those basics?

So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?

Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?

Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.

Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.

I didn't say gun, I said crack.

Read the posted article; -- It's an excellent essay on why prohibitions on guns & cocaine are unreasonable.

And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable.
Who get's to say?

In our system this is "who gets to say", tex:

-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.

We are all responsible for being "reasonable" about each others Constitutional liberties.
Now and then of course, we find people like you who believe in prohibitions on liberty. -- Which is a weird choice, one you can't even understand.

656 posted on 03/31/2006 4:01:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; tpaine
tpaine's standard is (to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart), "I know unreasonable when I see it".

Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He refuses to answer a direct question because he has no answer.

657 posted on 04/01/2006 6:47:07 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen. -- You can't debate that point directly, because you don't even agree that we have inalienable rights.

I suspect you have a catch 22 problem with our rights to life, liberty & property.

You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty, and that anyone who protests this power is crazy, which proves your point.
658 posted on 04/01/2006 8:02:09 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

"Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen".

RP likes nothing better than seeing individual liberties restricted.

He don't want no steenkin' free country.


659 posted on 04/01/2006 8:03:34 AM PST by Supernatural (A 1,000 lies can be told, but the truth is still the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen."

Reasonable ones do not? And you know the difference?

"You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty"

Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.

"and that anyone who protests this power is crazy"

Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.

Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.

660 posted on 04/01/2006 12:10:55 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen.

Reasonable ones do not?

Correct. They regulate the public aspects of objectionable behaviors. Criminal law covers other aspects of harmful behaviors.

And you know the difference?

I think most of us do. You communitarians however, want restrictive prohibitions:
-- You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.

Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.

Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.and that anyone who protests this power is crazy.

Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.

As I said, you are using catch 22 'reasoning' in claiming that protesters are crazy. Your bureaucratic ploy is very relevant. -- It's a main part of your communitarian agit-prop on the issue.

Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.

Nice twist, right from the Communitarian Manifesto playbook.
Yes, the government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process of constitutional law.

661 posted on 04/01/2006 1:29:11 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You cannot see the forest for the trees buddy.

I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.

Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.

Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries? And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.

Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?


662 posted on 04/01/2006 3:14:43 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; robertpaulsen
Paulsen claimed:

"-- government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process. --"

Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

Tex opines:
I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.

Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.

The problem with you is, you cannot 'see'/understand that we have established Constitutional standards, the 'Law of the Land'.

Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?

They can. They can set reasonable standards for public behaviors, using due process under Constitutional law.

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?

Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land. -- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc. -- Feel free, as long as you don't violate individual rights in doing so.

And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.

Exactly. - Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally.
But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.

Private associations are run by whoever owns/controls them. -- Within reason.

Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?

Nope, our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.
Get the difference yet, texbaby?

-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

663 posted on 04/01/2006 4:16:03 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
They can jail you for lawbreaking. Get the difference yet, texbaby? And if crack is against the law.... that's exactly what they do. You say.... well they can't prohibit any drugs because that is liberty and property, but when it comes to nukes, you say, well that's reasonable. Why aren't drugs? Because you say so? Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical....
664 posted on 04/01/2006 4:41:08 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical...."

Give me a line in the Constitution that says government can prohibit anything? In fact in the 1920s they had to pass an ammendment to ban alcohol, and it was repealed. Why 80 years later do you claim that government has always had the power to do that.

Plus the Constitution limits the governments power, it in no way limits the rights of a person. It cannot limit the rights of the people, because our freedom doesn't come from the Constitution, its ours with birth.
665 posted on 04/01/2006 5:03:52 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texbaby asks:

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?

Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land.
-- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc.
Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally. But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.

Our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.

Get the difference yet, texbaby?
-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

And if crack is against the law.... that's exactly what they do.

Yep; - such prohibitions are the issue here.

You say.... well they can't prohibit any drugs because that is liberty and property, but when it comes to nukes, you say, well that's reasonable. Why aren't drugs? Because you say so?

You're going in circles again tex. You asked that question yesterday, and I answered. Remember?

Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical....

Again, -- the 'line' is in the 14th. We discussed it yesterday. -- You left that discussion about cocktail time.
-- Now here you are, - its deja vu all over again.

Get help kid.

666 posted on 04/01/2006 5:12:23 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

It is appropriate your post should be "666"...


667 posted on 04/01/2006 5:26:59 PM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer
jjbrouwer wrote:

It is appropriate your post should be "666"...

The devil that wrote this made me do it:

"-- You are an extremely rude little man (or woman.)
I couldn't give a damn what anyone here thinks I stand for. It's interesting that on a thread about free speech, I have to put up with little pipsqueaks like you jumping on all my posts.
Now please run along. I am sure there are people to squeak at on other threads.

668 posted on 04/01/2006 5:37:54 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Well, to be fair, he was an extremely rude little man (or woman.)


669 posted on 04/01/2006 5:44:44 PM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer

Takes one to know one.


670 posted on 04/01/2006 5:48:27 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You know him?


671 posted on 04/01/2006 5:55:26 PM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer; Texaggie79; Mojave

How clever you are. However, even you could think about taking lessons from texaggie79, or mojave/roscoe, -- past masters of wit.


672 posted on 04/01/2006 6:18:59 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer

L M A O!!!! PWNZORED!


j/k tpaine. we still love you crazy man!


673 posted on 04/01/2006 6:37:07 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

But back to the issue. You still are required to give another reason why we can prohibit nukes and bioweapons from private citizens other than "it's reasonable". Because see, I say prohibiting crack is "reasonable". So your argument is moot until you give another argument for why it's ok .


674 posted on 04/01/2006 6:39:04 PM PST by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You still are required to give another reason why we can prohibit nukes and bioweapons from private citizens other than "it's reasonable".

That will be the day.


675 posted on 04/01/2006 6:48:24 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Nope, our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of state Constitutional law."

There. I fixed it. The citizens of each state decide how they will live together. Condos and communitarian communities are not necessary.

676 posted on 04/02/2006 6:09:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Correct. They regulate the public aspects of objectionable behaviors."

Which restricts individual liberties. Which is what I said.

"Government has the power to jail convicted criminals"

More than that. They can jail, fine and execute.

"but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law."

Government is only required to use individual due process when life, liberty, or property is at stake in the enforcement of constitutional laws. Government is not required to use individual due process when writing laws. They may set the drinking age at 21, for example, even though an individual 20-year-old can prove himself to be more responsible than those older than he.

677 posted on 04/02/2006 6:31:53 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
But back to the issue. You still are required to give another reason why we can prohibit nukes and bioweapons from private citizens other than "it's reasonable".

There you go again, misreading my position. We can reasonably regulate use/storage of nuclear/biological/chemical materials, [much is privately owned] but we can't constitutionally prohibit possession.

Because see, I say prohibiting crack is "reasonable".

And I've explained why your prohibitions on drugs & guns are unconstitutional.

So your argument is moot until you give another argument for why it's ok.

Neener neener. - Grow up.

678 posted on 04/02/2006 7:01:07 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
"Give me a line in the Constitution that says government can prohibit anything?"

The federal government? Well, the federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and "to regulate" includes "to prohibit". Or so the U.S. Supreme Court says:

"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin."
-- Brooks v. US, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)

"In fact in the 1920s they had to pass an ammendment to ban alcohol ..."

Yes, an amendment was passed. But it was desired, not required.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html

"... and it was repealed."

Yes. Section 1 of the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. That returned everything to where it was.

But then Section 2 was added, removing the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government and returning that power exclusively to the states.

"It cannot limit the rights of the people, because our freedom doesn't come from the Constitution, its ours with birth."

The Constitution protects your freedom of speech, but it is limited -- it is illegal to libel or slander someone, for example, or yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Congress may reasonably regulate your constitutionally protected rights.

679 posted on 04/02/2006 7:03:56 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You dream for the day that I'll be required to answer correctly.

How telling.


680 posted on 04/02/2006 7:04:50 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land.
-- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc. -- Feel free, as long as you don't violate individual rights in doing so.
Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally. But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.
-- Our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.

Get the difference yet, texbaby? -- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it. Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

paulsen blindly replies:
The citizens of each state decide how they will live together. Condos and communitarian communities are not necessary.

Dream on. Our Constitution stands.

681 posted on 04/02/2006 7:15:37 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"You dream for the day that I'll be required to answer correctly."

We all do, tpaine.

682 posted on 04/02/2006 7:27:16 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Government has the power to jail, fine, and execute convicted criminals but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

Government is only required to use individual due process when life, liberty, or property is at stake in the enforcement of constitutional laws.

Justice Harlan answers you best:

     "-- [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, . .

Government is not required to use individual due process when writing laws.

Constitutional due process is required in the writing of laws. Laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from inception.

They may set the drinking age at 21, for example, even though an individual 20-year-old can prove himself to be more responsible than those older than he.

"-- broadly speaking, [due process] includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"

683 posted on 04/02/2006 7:37:37 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Authoritarians/communitarians dream of required/correct answers paulsen.

Your slip is showing.
684 posted on 04/02/2006 7:43:04 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Justice Harlan answers you best:"

Yes he does, especially when you quote the preface:

"Due process ... has represented the balance which our Nation ... has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing."

685 posted on 04/02/2006 7:59:25 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Well, if you agree with Harlan on due process, than you concede my point.

Fat chance of that.





686 posted on 04/02/2006 8:06:14 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

No, no, due process means whatever is reasonable and not prohibitionary. Get it?


687 posted on 04/02/2006 9:42:38 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Weird little troll roscoe. -- It's evident you're incapable of making an argument on your own.

Why is that?
688 posted on 04/02/2006 9:49:46 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We can reasonably regulate use/storage of nuclear/biological/chemical materials, [much is privately owned] but we can't constitutionally prohibit possession.

Then how is it that I am prohibited from buying a nuclear weapon?

689 posted on 04/02/2006 11:15:48 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

You would have to store it away from the water heater pilot light.


690 posted on 04/02/2006 11:56:47 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

Then how is it that I am prohibited from buying a nuclear weapon?

Are you? Let's say you own an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific. -- Cite the Constitutional prohibition that applies.

691 posted on 04/02/2006 12:26:44 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Don't forget that the 1.7 gallon flush toilet law may also apply in this case. [Check with your local building official]


692 posted on 04/02/2006 12:33:31 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Ok, so if condition were so isolated, in an unrealistic way, I could have a nuke. Ok fine, same goes for crack.


693 posted on 04/02/2006 4:36:13 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
There you go tex, connecting the war on weapons with the war on crack, which makes my point.


" -- 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.
694 posted on 04/02/2006 6:10:24 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Well you want to legalize pot, I'll vote to do so. But regulating Crack Cocaine is "reasonable" in my book, so no help there.


695 posted on 04/02/2006 7:29:14 PM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Exactly, you're of "no help there" when it comes to fighting anti-constitutional forces, the neo-prohibitionists among us.

At best, you're a fellow traveler.
696 posted on 04/03/2006 7:11:57 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes? You traveler?


697 posted on 04/03/2006 9:36:34 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Texaggie79 wrote:

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?

There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns. -- People like you.

698 posted on 04/03/2006 9:59:14 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
"""No, no, due process means whatever is reasonable and not prohibitionary. Get it?"""

Why do people keep replying to this guy.

He's provided over and over again that he doesn't or refuses to understand that people will do drugs whether they are legal or illegal and no laws will change that. The best we can do is damage control and minimize it's impact on the majority that don't.
699 posted on 04/03/2006 10:17:31 AM PDT by commonerX (n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I think we have fairly reasonable regulations

Think..... fairly.... reasonable. Such sound facts you have on this issue.

700 posted on 04/03/2006 11:09:21 AM PDT by Texaggie79 (Did I just say that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | 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