Ever Used Illegal Drugs? Then No Guns For You!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Directed to me? Huh?

I assumed your reply (two posts above) was directed at him and not at me.(???)

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Directed to me? Huh?

I assumed your reply (two posts above) was directed at him and not at me.(???)

Yup. Sorry.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

I see a leap of inference here.

There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it. To compare that to the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous.

I whole heartedly support all of the rights delineated by the Founding Fathers. Who herein has not?

So, if the specific right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right?

That is severely flawed logic.

Especially considering this:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Not that my opinion on how society should exists matters since I am not a politician, I am not a lobbyist, I am not a media personality, I am not a educator indoctrinating the next generation into my political idealology and finally and most importantly I am not a member of the Bilderberg Group. I am just like everyone else here, someone with an opinion.

It is ridiculous for soft drugs such as pot to be treated any different than alcohol. But hard drugs like crack destroy lives. For all of you who want drugs like crack to be legalized, I am on board with your decision only under one circumstance. People must take responsibility for their own health. If you people believe that it is the right of everyone to consume anything they want, then there should be no public healthcare, no public social programs for anyone. Nada, nothing. Let people deal with their actions. If someone wants to turn themselves into a "Dawn of the Dead" zombie because it was their right to feed their body with these destructive drugs, then let them deal with the consequences.

Sounds absurd doesn't it? Sounds like anarchy. Funny how a certain segment of the population demands that destructive drugs be legalized and yet these very same people are demanding their nanny state. Well you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. There is either anarchy "anything goes" or there are guidelines law abiding people must follow. If legalizing hard drugs such as crack is so important to some of you people, what are you doing here on the DorkZone. Why aren't you in Washington lobbying the messiah savior of the world to legalize them?

Yes, it does sound absurd, especially since if we legalized we could redirect our funds to education and treatment instead of imprisonment. This would give us a more free and healthy society.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Obviously alcohol is destructive. Sorry if I left you the impression where I thought alcohol was harmless. I can't recall saying anything in this thread saying alcohol was harmless and it appears that by default my opposition to legalizing drugs such as crack made some people think I thought alcohol was harmless (got to love the assumptions people make on the DorkZone).

I don't have a solution to solving the world's alcohol problems. Clearly prohibition has not worked in the past nor will it work in the future. Plus as long as humanity is producing hard drugs, people will use them. Prohibition has not worked in this regard either. But two wrongs don't make a right. Legalizing hard drugs isn't going to do anything except make them more accessible than they already are and more zombies will join the ranks down on skid row. But we can probably find some common ground here. Soft drugs such as pot while not harmless, are NOT the "boogie man" drug governments makes them out to be.

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. Legalization would not make hard drugs any more accessible. It's already shockingly easy , especially for youth, to obtain hard drugs. It's easier in the states for a teenager to get crack than it is for them to get alcohol.

I am amazed that you can admit that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, but be blind to the fact that it doesn't work for other drugs either.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

"they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." suggests that the individual is ultimately responsible for and has authority over himself.

Well... yeah, partly. That's worded closer to personal responsibility.


Its... Natural Rights.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

The Government does not exist to tell you what to do or how to live, or to create new regulations... it exists, ONLY, to protect your rights, that come from God.

Justice - The Law... is fully based on, God's Law... Natural Law.

If your rights come from God... if your life comes from God.

Than who owns your body after God?

You.

That... is a Founding Principle.



So... under a Federalist system. Where the Federal government is created by the States.
Not a National Government. (We are nearly functioning as a National Government)

National Government - Top Down - Full Ability to Regulate Anything

Articles of Confederation - A mess - too weak - No central power.

Federal Government - Only 16 powers... weak central control.... INTENTIONAL WEAK CENTRAL CONTROL



There are only 16 powers enumerated to the Federal Government. All other powers, fall to the States: as long as they do not interfere with Federal Law under those 16 powers, nor violate, Gods Law.

That is why you can have universal healthcare in Massachusetts... Go For It!


State universal health care - Legal

Federal universal health care - Illegal.


Federal Drug Laws... Illegal!!!!!!!

State Drug Laws.... Legal.

68% of Alaska consists of "Dry Counties". Localities that have passed laws against alcohol (learned from Alaska State Troopers, not Sarah Palin. )

The idea is... that you can vote with your feet. If a local community (where the Founders wanted Power to reside, with the people, locally) wants to ban alcohol... they can.

If you want to drink. MOVE! Vote with your feet.

It is the idea that if one state is being run by Idiots, (California) you can leave.

If you are a business owner, and the state you are in increases taxes 70%, you can leave.


But if the Federal government raises business taxes 70%... YOU... ARE... SCREWED!

It is the fear of central power. Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


NO... nowhere in the constitution, does it specifically say that you have the right to drink alcohol.

However, the Federal government can not ban it... without Amending the constitution, as they did.

However, if you own your body... than you can do anything with it or put anything in it you please.

And in the process of repealing an Amendment... it is crossed out, never erased, to remind us of the scars of the past.


The Founders knew the American people were good people at heart, and that they would make mistakes, but they would eventually get it right. With the amendment process things can be changed, legally, if they are needed to be changed as times change.

THEY DID NOT... want the constitution to be reinterpreted, nor develop precedents off those reinterpretations. Using the commerce clause for healthcare, is manipulation of the constitution.

The commerce clause exists so the Federal Government can protect states, under the law, in dealing with each other.

During the days of the Articles of Confederation... states WERE cheating other states. It was a mess!


To regulate commerce between states...means to uphold the law.

Regulate, to our Founders... meant, to maintain regularity... under the law... to maintain the law.


The government exists to protect God given rights.

Justice, under the law... is an unalienable rights.


And if anyone disagrees with the definition of, Regulate... as I stated. Please, tell me what the second definition of Happiness is, as i spoke about previously.

Nancy Pelosi.... is a liar.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3980210;search_string=pursuit%20of%20happiness;#3980210

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"What do you mean, I can't wave my gun at my teenage daughter's boyfriend? That's BULLSHIT! He's not going to get her pregnant and dump her." That may indeed be a valid point of view - but it also means he's more likely to brandish his gun, which is illegal in most places.

so now you're comparing assault to recreational drug use? Yeah, those are about the same...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Especially considering this:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You're citing the Declaration of Independence. Since it's convenient, Quade is going to play the strict constructionalist today and say that it means nothing. Only the Constitution counts.

Other days, he'll believe in the right to privacy and other stuff that no strict literal reading would ever find.

[dmcoco84 5]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hd6UaGytyt
Dem. Rep.: ‘Pursuit of Happiness’

Lies...



EDIT TO ADD:

Quote

Only the Constitution counts.

This Democrat doesn't seem to agree...

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

"they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." suggests that the individual is ultimately responsible for and has authority over himself.

Well... yeah, partly. That's worded closer to personal responsibility.


Its... Natural Rights.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

The Government does not exist to tell you what to do or how to live, or to create new regulations... it exists, ONLY, to protect your rights, that come from God.

Justice - The Law... is fully based on, God's Law... Natural Law.

If your rights come from God... if your life comes from God.

Than who owns your body after God?

You.

That... is a Founding Principle.



So... under a Federalist system. Where the Federal government is created by the States.
Not a National Government. (We are nearly functioning as a National Government)

National Government - Top Down - Full Ability to Regulate Anything

Articles of Confederation - A mess - too weak - No central power.

Federal Government - Only 16 powers... weak central control.... INTENTIONAL WEAK CENTRAL CONTROL



There are only 16 powers enumerated to the Federal Government. All other powers, fall to the States: as long as they do not interfere with Federal Law under those 16 powers, nor violate, Gods Law.

That is why you can have universal healthcare in Massachusetts... Go For It!


State universal health care - Legal

Federal universal health care - Illegal.


Federal Drug Laws... Illegal!!!!!!!

State Drug Laws.... Legal.

68% of Alaska consists of "Dry Counties". Localities that have passed laws against alcohol (learned from Alaska State Troopers, not Sarah Palin. )

The idea is... that you can vote with your feet. If a local community (where the Founders wanted Power to reside, with the people, locally) wants to ban alcohol... they can.

If you want to drink. MOVE! Vote with your feet.

It is the idea that if one state is being run by Idiots, (California) you can leave.

If you are a business owner, and the state you are in increases taxes 70%, you can leave.


But if the Federal government raises business taxes 70%... YOU... ARE... SCREWED!

It is the fear of central power. Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


NO... nowhere in the constitution, does it specifically say that you have the right to drink alcohol.

However, the Federal government can not ban it... without Amending the constitution, as they did.

However, if you own your body... than you can do anything with it or put anything in it you please.

And in the process of repealing an Amendment... it is crossed out, never erased, to remind us of the scars of the past.


The Founders knew the American people were good people at heart, and that they would make mistakes, but they would eventually get it right. With the amendment process things can be changed, legally, if they are needed to be changed as times change.

THEY DID NOT... want the constitution to be reinterpreted, nor develop precedents off those reinterpretations. Using the commerce clause for healthcare, is manipulation of the constitution.

The commerce clause exists so the Federal Government can protect states, under the law, in dealing with each other.

During the days of the Articles of Confederation... states WERE cheating other states. It was a mess!


To regulate commerce between states...means to uphold the law.

Regulate, to our Founders... meant, to maintain regularity... under the law... to maintain the law.


The government exists to protect God given rights.

Justice, under the law... is an unalienable rights.


And if anyone disagrees with the definition of, Regulate... as I stated. Please, tell me what the second definition of Happiness is, as i spoke about previously.

Nancy Pelosi.... is a liar.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3980210;search_string=pursuit%20of%20happiness;#3980210

excellent post

[thrillstalker 0]

Quote

>bullshit laws are still bullshit.

That's fine. People who obey all laws are not going to use their gun illegally. People who think some laws are bullshit are more likely to use their gun illegally.

"What do you mean, I can't wave my gun at my teenage daughter's boyfriend? That's BULLSHIT! He's not going to get her pregnant and dump her." That may indeed be a valid point of view - but it also means he's more likely to brandish his gun, which is illegal in most places.

>guns dont kill people, people kill people. if they outlaw guns, only
>criminals will have them.

Yep. And if you let criminals have guns, then criminals will have them, too.

criminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally.

and no one obeys all laws. have you ever driven over the speed limit.

"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

I see a leap of inference here.

There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it. To compare that to the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous.

I whole heartedly support all of the rights delineated by the Founding Fathers. Who herein has not?

So, if the specific right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right?

That is severely flawed logic.

Especially considering this:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You need to go back and read. Read it all this time.

In the first quote, I was responding to a rant that people herin are not violenting defending the ranter's idea of rights he holds, such as ingesting whatever he wants. He was making a direct parallel between the enumerated second ammendment and his right to get high. I protested the parallel.

I agreed in a subsequent post that there are rights that are not enumerated. I went a step further and said that the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights were seen by the initial citizens of this country as necessary to secure a free state.

In the second post you quote of mine, someone asked if I own my body or the government does. I took a document written by one of my favorite founding fathers and put forth that viewpoint.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 906]

I've honestly never been quite clear on the meaning of 'unalienable' rights my parents may have endowed upon me.

[quade 4]

Quote

criminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally.

Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street?

Or are you saying that because most people can't buy any handguns at all at a Walmart?

Specifics are important if you're going to be making claims.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,132]

>so now you're comparing assault to recreational drug use? Yeah, those
>are about the same...

Sounds like you have a difference of opinion with the person in my example, then. Why should your definition of a "bullshit law" be any more valid than his? In neither case was anyone harmed.

[thrillstalker 0]

Quote

Quote

criminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally.

Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street?

Or are you saying that because most people can't buy any handguns at all at a Walmart?

Specifics are important if you're going to be making claims.

as far as i know no one can buy a handgun at walmart (they dont carry ones that fire). i dont need an illegal gun, i can get one legally all day. so no i have never tried to buy a gun, but its just a phone call and a few sketchy folks away. this i know for a fact.

edited to add: i was a bit strong when i said easier, how about not any more difficult than getting one on the street.

"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>so now you're comparing assault to recreational drug use? Yeah, those
>are about the same...

Sounds like you have a difference of opinion with the person in my example, then. Why should your definition of a "bullshit law" be any more valid than his? In neither case was anyone harmed.

Assault is not a victimless crime. That's why it's a felony.

I can't believe it's necessary to explain this to you.

[Airman1270 0]

Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This is insane. If this logic stands, why limit this policy to drug use? What about traffic violations, which pose a far greater threat to public safety than a bunch of people sitting around smoking dope & enjoying music together.

It is one thing to violate a law for petty personal reasons. It is quite another to aggressively cause harm to someone else.

In the 70's & 80's I ran with a circle of folks who frequently smoked pot and played music together. This was our only offense against society. We were otherwise very nice people who lived quiet lives, held jobs, & didn't cause trouble. We all have clean records. Regardless of our moral imperfections we didn't hurt people or take their stuff.

Liberals (mostly Democrats) are obsessed with using any excuse to prevent people from owning guns because they are the ones who keep imposing policies which erode liberty & freedom while forcing "free" Americans to do things they otherwise would not choose to do. They know that if they keep provoking people they will eventually prompt a defensive reaction.

Gotta wonder what it is about Democrats that makes it impossible for them to simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I've honestly never been quite clear on the meaning of 'unalienable' rights my parents may have endowed upon me.

I don't know how literally the Founding Fathers intended this to be. To 'alienate' something in legal terms means to sell, give away or otherwise divest yourself of. When you sell a piece of property, you technically alienate the title thereto. If something is unalienable, they might have easily meant that it is innate to each person. Obviously, this can't be complete. Liberty (life and happiness, too) is taken from people by the government for crimes. But governments ARE instituted among men to protect these rights to the extent that is possible.

I think Thomas Jefferson would have seen these unalienable rights as inherent to the individual and of the highest priority for preservation by the individual, society and government.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This is insane. If this logic stands, why limit this policy to drug use? What about traffic violations, which pose a far greater threat to public safety than a bunch of people sitting around smoking dope & enjoying music together.

It is one thing to violate a law for petty personal reasons. It is quite another to aggressively cause harm to someone else.

In the 70's & 80's I ran with a circle of folks who frequently smoked pot and played music together. This was our only offense against society. We were otherwise very nice people who lived quiet lives, held jobs, & didn't cause trouble. We all have clean records. Regardless of our moral imperfections we didn't hurt people or take their stuff.

Liberals (mostly Democrats) are obsessed with using any excuse to prevent people from owning guns because they are the ones who keep imposing policies which erode liberty & freedom while forcing "free" Americans to do things they otherwise would not choose to do. They know that if they keep provoking people they will eventually prompt a defensive reaction.

Gotta wonder what it is about Democrats that makes it impossible for them to simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone.

Cheers,
Jon S.

HUH ... you gotta be shittin me have you actually missed the last 30 years or something????

Now where did I put my chest waders... so I can wade thru that post effectively

Perhaqs there is something to what they say about dope smokers and memory after all.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

criminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally.

Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street?

Justice Dept. studies show that 79% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources.

Are you going to tell us next that it's difficult for illegal drug users to buy dope on the street?

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Politicians are the ones who keep imposing policies which erode liberty & freedom while forcing "free" Americans to do things they otherwise would not choose to do. They know that if they keep provoking people they will eventually prompt a defensive reaction.

Gotta wonder what it is about politicians that makes it impossible for them to simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone.

Cheers,
Jon S.

Tried to fix it for you.

Democrats try and keep us from owning guns and doing things they perceive to harm the environment. Republicans try to keep us from doing things that are personal decisions. Both parties use the reasoning that these things are bad for society as a whole.

Dems typically believe that having access to guns and burning a lot of fossil fuels is bad for society so they try and take away our personal rights to have guns and drive big trucks. Republicans think that if some guy gets high on X and fucks their boyfriend that society will collapse, so they try and ban drugs and fight the gay lifestlye. It's all bullshit, and is really nothing more than trying to push their personal opinions on others.

Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats.

Can you say patriot act?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Politicians are the ones who keep imposing policies which erode liberty & freedom while forcing "free" Americans to do things they otherwise would not choose to do. They know that if they keep provoking people they will eventually prompt a defensive reaction.

Gotta wonder what it is about politicians that makes it impossible for them to simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone.

Cheers,
Jon S.

Tried to fix it for you.

Democrats try and keep us from owning guns and doing things they perceive to harm the environment. Republicans try to keep us from doing things that are personal decisions. Both parties use the reasoning that these things are bad for society as a whole.

Dems typically believe that having access to guns and burning a lot of fossil fuels is bad for society so they try and take away our personal rights to have guns and drive big trucks. Republicans think that if some guy gets high on X and fucks their boyfriend that society will collapse, so they try and ban drugs and fight the gay lifestlye. It's all bullshit, and is really nothing more than trying to push their personal opinions on others.

Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats.

Can you say patriot act?

I would say the Patriot Act by the Ashcroft crowd, but what has destroyed personal liberty more than anything else are all of those who wish so desparately to be trickled on. Its hard, reallly hard to pursue happiness for a very large segment of our population that has fallen farther and farther into poverty while hoping for just a little trickle from the 1%.

Voo Doo Doo economics as practiced since 1981 has done far more to erode liberty than ANY possible external threat has ever caused.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats.

Can you say patriot act?

# Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
# Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

The Bush Administration lead the charge, but you don't see a lot of protest here. Only Feingold voted no in the Senate.

And you only have to look up Reno/Clinton (start with Carnivore) to doubt that it would have been much different with a Gore Administration.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

criminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally.

Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street?

Justice Dept. studies show that 79% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources.

Are you going to tell us next that it's difficult for illegal drug users to buy dope on the street?

"Illegal sources" is not the same thing as "the street."

"The street" implies some shady character standing next to a drug dealer and a hooker on the corner, when in fact, most of these illegal gun sales are taking place via "gun shows."

Now, do you want to talk about the "gun show" loopholes?
http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver