davjohns

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.

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: 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.

Got lots of feelings bottled up in there, Bloom? 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.

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.

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

Directed to me? Huh? 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.

Yes there is, that's why I said earlier the Federal drug acts are Unconstitutional. I am curious to hear your explanation of this. I have read the US Constitution many times. I'm afraid you will need to point out the part I keep overlooking. It's not actually very long. 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.

Everything can be taken to extremes. Prior to Y2K, I put up extra food and such. I wasn't worried too much about the computers. I was concerned that some people would use the tension as an excuse to riot. The riots might cause temporary shortages. If I lived in someplace like LA, I would have been much more concerned. After Y2K fizzled, I kept on buying canned goods and such when they were on sale and having a nice store on hand. I figured if money was tight, got snowed in or such, I was covered. 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.

Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten. The Bill of Rights is the term used for the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. By definition, they are a modification / elaboration on the Constitution. I think it fair to say that they enumerate rights that the first Americans knew to be vital to a free nation. This was based on their recent need to wage war in protest of these rights being trampled by the previous 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.

Can I just look until I need glasses? 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.

Just tumbling this around in my head - So basically, a guy is paying for sex. The form of payment is dinner, movie, etc., but it is still consideration for a personal service. If the woman does not perform that service by the time the man considers it paid in full, the man will find another vendor. Other than the fact that the service is not guaranteed at the outset, how does this vary from regular ol' prostitution? I'm sure it is just me, but I would think some women would find this train of thought offensive. 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.

I stopped a moment to consider your argument. I will continue to consider it. I think (as a libertarian) it has merit. However, to lump these unenumerated 'rights' with the enumerated rights such as the second amendment guarantees, is preposterous. That was my point. Nonetheless, I will admit that people should have greater rights than those enumerated. Personally, I think much of the US Code is extra constitutional and government at all levels has long since overstepped the bounds envisioned by men such as Thomas Jefferson. Sadly, the US Supreme Court does not agree. 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.

The Founding Fathers participated in duels, had children out of wedlock with slaves, owned slaves, ran around drunk and participated in lots of things that are not rights and are not mentioned in the constitution. Are you really suggesting that if Founding Fathers participated, there is a constitutional right to that activity? Really? 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.

Boobies Bet From 01/16/2010 Megan, I wanted to send you an email regarding a bet we made 1 year ago at RP Murphy's bar in Oakley. My calendar had a reminder or I would have forgotten about it completely. You bet me a boobies shot that the Bengals would be in the super bowl this year. Guess what? I win! What say you? Bonfire Boys 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.

Dangit! I'm at work. Somebody please check youtube and post a link to Alan Shores doing his courtroom routine about scientology on Boston Legal! It's fantastic! 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.

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? 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.

Seems like our current president admitted to illegal drug use. Alcohol is a drug that is abused quite a bit. Would a prior DUI (proof of abuse) disqualify you for a firearm? I would bet large sums of money that many on capital hill did illegal drugs in their youth. I am one of the very few people I have ever known that has never done an illegal substance. How far would you like to step down this slope? 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.

Incidents like this always seem to get people up in arms about the second amendment (like the pun?). Sadly, the event is only barely related. This guy made preparations to do something. He bought a gun and magazines. It was not illegal and nobody here has proposed reasonable safeguards that would have stopped him. He could have just as easily built a suicide vest. And all the arguments here would be moot. More suicide vests would not have stopped him. There are no licensing plans for suicide vests or all their possible components. Once someone has decided to commit violence, the tools available are not terribly important. 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters and education. Should we ban / license them? I think everyone should be involved enough to raise a flag when they think someone is going to commit an act of violence. But once the act is accomplished, using it as a basis to take away the rights of law abiding citizens is reprehensible in the extreme. 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.

And you can walk through a metal detector at the airport with a gun and go to jail...without doing anything else wrong. What's your point? 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.

You worked pretty hard to miss my point. I seem to recall something about prohibition. I'm an attorney. There were a couple of amendments to the US Constitution in there somewhere. There are no serious efforts to outlaw alcohol. There are no serious efforts to require people to become trained, licensed and have secure facilities before they can possess alcohol. Your very esoteric examples rather prove my point. 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.

You are absolutely right. And as soon as someone does something wrong, those remedies kick in against that person. We don't take away everyone else's quiet enjoyment of their rights because of the actions of one or a few. 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.

According to the article, this was at a range. It was advertised as an opportunity for people to come experience fully automatic firearms. The child's father is mentioned as a medical doctor. Somehow, he, the Police Chief and anyone else around, failed to recognize that an eight year old should not be given an automatic weapon. In this case, it was a mini-uzi. That is a seriously small and light weapon. The recoil of the automatic fire makes it difficult for anyone without experience to handle. Giving it to an eight year old was ridiculous. Still, I have known of people giving alcohol to young children. People drink, drive and kill every day. Where is the outcry against alcohol? It is not constitutionally protected and serves no utilitarian purpose. Why is there no call to outlaw it? To require people to be trained in it's use before being allowed to drink? Why don't they have to keep it locked up so children can't reach it? 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.

It doesn't and shouldn't change anything. To restrict the rights of many due to the actions of one or a few would be anathema to the democratic process. What happened was tragic. But people drink, drive and kill others every day. I don't see anyone claiming we need to get rid of alcohol. And it has no constitutional protections or even a utilitarian purpose. Using this event to further political agendas against public rights is disgusting. 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.

This is the kind of argument that really bothers me. I read the article. This was not a gun show. Gun shows do not allow loaded weapons. All weapons have devices to prevent them firing at all times. This child's father (an educated man) and a police chief failed to recognize the child did not have the strength or skill to handle a small automatic weapon. It was a tragedy in the making and ended predictably. This poster has misconstrued the facts and wishes to take away my rights because of someone else's errors and his own misinterpretations. Dangerous beyond description. People have abused their right to free speech and prompted terrorist actions. Perhaps we should limit this poster's first amendment rights? 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.

"We as a society are only as stable as the least stable individual roaming our streets. " We have to be careful with this. We use to lock them up when they were perceived as dangerous. We still do with some. The really rotten thing is that mentally ill people tend to get to feeling better on meds and decide to quit taking their meds. This goes back to my argument that communities and family need to handle most problems. When we look to the government, it just doesn't go well. 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.