Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[Texaggie79]

NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..

Common sense. What substances are needed for firearms can be proven. Religious issues are faith based and rooted in no scientific fact. Where a substance comes into being a threat towards others, such as hard drugs, that out trumps you claiming it for religious purposes.

[Roscoe]

If you want to know what rights you own to the property you think you own, go to the courthouse and pull an abstract.

What!? You mean I can't cut down the telephone pole sitting on my land and use it for firewood?

It's socialism I tells ya!!!

[tpaine]

Yes, of course aggie.
We are all well aware that you consider yourself an expert in contractural/property/title matters.
We can only hope your customers get/have good insurance.

But tell me. -- If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?

[Texaggie79]

Condos are simply a purchase of a smaller amount of rights of a certain property. If you buy rights to a condo while the assoc. retains the right to searching the property at any said time, they can. Now, rummaging through your PERSONAL property, such as bags, boxes, ect is not permissible, because that is truly personal property.

The government, however, is bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant.

[JimRed]

And, if you made bank robberies legal, no one would be killed in the attempt of a bank robbery. The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind. Legalization is not the way.

How about decriminalization, but (as with alcohol) strict enforcement of laws broken as a result of the activity. Public imbibing = shooting up/toking in a public place; public drunkenness = public narcotic intoxication; impaired driving (regrdless of cause of impairment), etc. Tax the stuff and limit the use of the taxes to repairing the damage it causes; any excess to reduce the public debt.

No, I don't want a horde of stoned individuals staggering around my streets, but the same goes for drunks!

[tpaine]

States are free to write all the silly laws they want, -- as long as such laws do not violate human rights as per the constitution.

WOW! You are coming around tpaine. You finally admitted it. Hard drug prohibition laws by states are not violations of human rights, therefore, are not unconstitutional.

WOW! You are coming around full circle again aggie, - reducing your arguments to total absurdity.
States cannot make prohibitional laws on the right to own property [guns, drugs, etc], nor can the feds.
They can only 'reasonably regulate', the use & sale of such property.

[tpaine]

Just above [#326], you admitted that any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed. NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..
Aggie, give it up. You are totally illogical on this issue. 338 tpaine

Common sense. What substances are needed for firearms can be proven.
Religious issues are faith based and rooted in no scientific fact.

Freedom to practice religion is guaranteed. Wine is part of that practice, & I can prove it. Wrong again, aggie.

Where a substance comes into being a threat towards others, such as hard drugs, that out trumps you claiming it for religious purposes.

We are not discussing card rules, aggie. Constitutional law 'trumps' your silly made up opinions about "hard drugs".

[Roscoe]

as long as such laws do not violate human rights

Human rights like smoking crack?

[Roscoe]

If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?

Ever hear of CC&Rs?

[tpaine]

If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?
403 tpaine


Condos are simply a purchase of a smaller amount of rights of a certain property. If you buy rights to a condo while the assoc. retains the right to searching the property at any said time, they can. Now, rummaging through your PERSONAL property, such as bags, boxes, ect is not permissible, because that is truly personal property.
The government, however, is bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant.
-ta79-

Yes aggie, invading your home, "rummaging through your PERSONAL property"; -- guns, drugs, "bags, boxes, etc. is not permissible, because that is truly personal property", as you admit.

The condo association and fed/state/local governments, are "bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant." - Just as you admit.

Its getting close to game, set, match, aggie. Time for you to concede?
- Or will you scuttle off again, as usual, hoping that your odd views on our constitution are not noted?

[tpaine]

Human rights like smoking tobacco?

[tpaine]

Yes, roscoe I have.

Can you answer that whole scenario?
If not, shut up.

[Roscoe]

The condo association and fed/state/local governments, are "bound by the 4th amendment.

The usual sourceless, citeless, meritless ignorance.

[tpaine]

You are only showing off your distain for our constitutional principles roscoe. - Thanks.

[Roscoe]

A condo association has contractual rights. Your cluelessness is pretty pitiable.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[tpaine]

"A condo association has contractual rights."

Of course they do roscoe, but such contractual arrangements cannot violate our constitution.



Thus, it is ~your~ cluelessness that is pretty pitiable.

[Roscoe]

such contractual arrangements cannot violate our constitution.

They don't, question beggar.

[tpaine]

tpaine
If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]
-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?
Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?
403 tpaine



Ever hear of CC&Rs?
409 Roscoe


Yes, roscoe I have.
Can you answer that whole scenario?
If not, shut up.
412

A condo association has contractual rights. Your cluelessness is pretty pitiable.
415 Roscoe


Of course they do roscoe, but such contractual arrangements cannot violate our constitution.
Thus, it is ~your~ cluelessness that is pretty pitiable.
417 tpaine

"They don't, question beggar." -roscoe-

"Condo contracts, as per the scenario, can violate our constitution", claims roscoe, in a fit of absolute insanity.

[Roscoe]

A condo association doesn't need a warrant to exercise rights to it in record CC&Rs. You're still batting zero.