[Texaggie79]

Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty? Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

[Roscoe]

Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was a bit too rational for their cult to understand.

[philman_36]

Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
I like your questions.

[tpaine]

Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

The intent of your question puzzles me aggie. Have I ever given the impression that the RKBA's is just some 'arbitary' right? -- Are any rights capricious or discretionary [arbitrary] in your view? Again, - you reveal a strange attitude toward rights with your use of that word.

Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

The same they would have given for the smoking of tobacco, I have no doubt. -- And, -- I think they'ed have thought you a very strange person for even implying that the state should have power to prohibit the smoking of ANYthing. ,