Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[Texaggie79]

Simply because hard drugs are prohibited does not, in no way, mean that unconstitutional searches and seizures will take place. If you are caught selling, go to jail. If you are caught buying, go to treatment or jail. If you are caught (in a constitutional manner such as probable cause and warrant) possessing then you go to jail or treatment. Nothing unconstitutional.

[tpaine]

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

You have a real problem with logic.
The reasonable regulation of dangerous substances are permissible by states. -- This is a given.
Outright prohibitions on 'dangerous' property by any level of government, have been well demonstrated on this thread as being against the very principles of our free republic, & our constitution.

Your inability to acknowlege that this fact works against your own freedom is telling.
Only fanatics for a 'cause' are so blind. What is your cause aggie?
-- Are you rational enough to tell us, to explain?

[Roscoe]

Outright prohibitions on 'dangerous' property by any level of government, have been well demonstrated on this thread

Question begging isn't demonstrating. You have yet produce so much as a single case, law or authority of any kind in support of your bogus assertion.

And you never will.

[tpaine]

Your attempts to play word games with the issue are truly pitiful.
Get real or get lost.

[Roscoe]

Liberals make equivalent arguments for guns and drugs. The drug legalization fanatics make equivalent arguments for guns and drugs.

Blind fanaticism yields useful idiots.

[Roscoe]

NO cites, ever. Beg, beg, beg.

[Max McGarrity]

High crime justifies ever more effort to control society

And if there is no crime...by Jove, we'll INVENT one! (Smokers kill those around them, babies are dying because parents smoke, workers smoke the equivalent of 8 packs of cigarettes in an 8 hour shift, etc., ad nauseum.)

And then there's Charlton Heston, who backed Robber Reiner's obscene money-grab in Kookiefornia, even after he KNEW Reiner was lying and admitted it, because he is as blinded by smoke as any of the other busybody meddlers.

After that, I have little use for the NRA, though I wish them well in their fight. Any organization I support now with my hard-earned money MUST understand and support private property rights and individual liberties.

[tpaine]

Slavery was a matter of state, not federal, law. Read a book.
440 -roscoe-

Read the constitution, 'the law of the land' refutes your silly claim.
In any case, slavery was used as an example of how congress & courts can be wrong on basic principles. Thus, your 'point' is just another dodge & an attempt to divert the issue.

[Roscoe]

Read the constitution, 'the law of the land' refutes your silly claim.

I'll call that cheap bluff. Quote it.

[dcwusmc]

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

[tpaine]

Outright prohibitions on 'dangerous' property by any level of government, have been well demonstrated on this thread


You have yet produce so much as a single case, law or authority of any kind in support of your bogus assertion. -roscoe lies-

Our constitution and its supporters have been amply quoted. You are simply in denial as to the facts of the issue.

[dcwusmc]

Yes, but only with FedGov permission and the use and possession of unapproved substances is subject to getting the user either killed in a botched raid or sent to gooberment rape camps. Even NON-users/possessors are endangered, as we frequently see. You are aware of this and applaud it. You are a large part of the problem. Eventually the problem will be resolved, period.

[tpaine]

Art I Sec 9
Art. IV Sec 2.

[Roscoe]

Art I Sec 9

No support for your false assertion there, which is why you couldn't bring yourself to quote it. In fact, Art I Sec 9, disproves your entire thread.

The Constitution contains one, and ONLY one, limit on prohibitory laws.

Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Founding Fathers weren't idiots. Poor tpaine.

[Roscoe]

Art. IV Sec 2.

Which also disproves your assertion.

Article. IV., Section. 2.,Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Under the STATE laws, not federal law. Unbelievable ignorance.

[tpaine]

Unconstitutional search and seizures are not permissible by any government.
Prohibition of dangerous substances are permissible by states.
-ta79-

You have a real problem with logic.
The reasonable regulation of dangerous substances are permissible by states. -- This is a given.
Outright prohibitions on 'dangerous' property by any level of government, have been well demonstrated on this thread as being against the very principles of our free republic, & our constitution.
Your inability to acknowlege that this fact works against your own freedom is telling.
Only fanatics for a 'cause' are so blind. What is your cause aggie?
-- Are you rational enough to tell us, to explain?
438 tpaine


Simply because hard drugs are prohibited does not, in no way, mean that unconstitutional searches and seizures will take place. If you are caught selling, go to jail. If you are caught buying, go to treatment or jail. If you are caught (in a constitutional manner such as probable cause and warrant) possessing then you go to jail or treatment. Nothing unconstitutional.
441 ta79

As I've said before aggie, your defense of prohibitionary laws, -- laws on drugs, guns, - whatever the 'dangerous property' is alleged to be, boggles the rational mind.
These laws are unconstitutional by our basic principles, thus any action to enforce them are unconstitutional.
Only fanatics for a 'cause' are so blind. What is your cause aggie?
-- Are you rational enough to tell us, to explain?

[Roscoe]

Yes, but only with FedGov permission

Is there a point to your point?

[tpaine]

Slavery was a matter of state, not federal, law. Read a book.
440 -roscoe-

Read the constitution, 'the law of the land' refutes your silly claim.
In any case, slavery was used as an example of how congress & courts can be wrong on basic principles. Thus, your 'point' is just another dodge & an attempt to divert the issue.
448 tpaine

I'll call that cheap bluff. Quote it.
449 -roscoe-

Art I Sec 9:

No support for your false assertion there, which is why you couldn't bring yourself to quote it. In fact, Art I Sec 9, disproves your entire thread.
The Constitution contains one, and ONLY one, limit on prohibitory laws.

Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The law of the land, supported by congress & the USSC, clearly has laws on the matter of slavery.

Poor roscoe. Wrong again

[tpaine]

Slavery was a matter of state, not federal, law. Read a book.
440 -roscoe-

Read the constitution, 'the law of the land' refutes your silly claim.
In any case, slavery was used as an example of how congress & courts can be wrong on basic principles. Thus, your 'point' is just another dodge & an attempt to divert the issue.
448 tpaine

I'll call that cheap bluff. Quote it.
449 -roscoe-


Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Article. IV., Section. 2.,Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The law of the land, supported by congress & the USSC, clearly has laws on the matter of slavery.

Poor roscoe. -- Aways wrong.

[Roscoe]

clearly has laws on the matter of slavery.

Quote one. Slavery was a matter of state regulation.

Article. IV., Section. 2.,Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Shot yourself in the foot again.