Posted on 08/04/2004 3:05:34 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
They were paying me good money at the time.
You quote Thomas Jefferson in your tagline. You DO know what he said about sodomy, don't you?
Any power not explicitly given to the federal government under our constitution is reserved to the states and their communities.
I have no problem with 'community standards' reasonably regulating the zoning of 'red light' type business.
I have a lot of problems with an entire State decreeing prohibitions on the sale of any damn thing. -- CA's prohibitions on private weapons sales opened my eyes.
Do you agree that a State can 'regulate' the sale of guns between private individuals?
Thanks for beating me to it. "Case closed"? I think not.
Do I believe they can regulate it. Now that's a loaded question. Sure I do. The state does have the right to ensure that guns are not being sold outright to felons. Beyond that, I think the Constitution applies with full force.
I have been a gun owner. I have also been on the recieving end of abuse by the community. When I was 19 and trying to get ahead with a part time job and barely able to pay my bills, I horsetraded and wheeled and dealed my way into owning 5 motorcycles and a 1966 VW Beetle I was restoring with any spare change I could scrounge. Someone stole the tarp off my VW on my own property, and then just so happens someone called in a complaint about my vehicles. The city came in and took away all my vehicles including my transportation while I was at work. I coulnd't afford to get them back. So, if you want to scream about possible abuse, you're preaching to the choir.
The state is within it's rights on this issue as a community obscenity standard issue. I have to come down that way because that is the legally responsible place to be on it no matter what you think your rights are. The law and the constitutional points herein have been defined. They are saying they have a right to protect themselves and their children from obscenity and they are correct in that position. And it has been upheld elsewhere. The court did the right thing.
You are comparing apples and oranges here IMO.
No, I don't care what Ol Jeff said about sodomy.
He was a quite typical politician, and at times said what his supporters wanted him to say.
He was brillant about Constitutional principles, and I support those views.
tpaine:
Why do you cooperate with those do want to control your private life?
______________________________________
They were paying me good money at the time.
61 havoc
_____________________________________
Havoc wrote:
Do I believe they can regulate it. [Private sales of guns]
Now that's a loaded question. Sure I do.
-havoc-
______________________________________
Case closed.
Par35 wrote:
And when Alabama wants to use that reserved power in a way you don't like, you say that the state is violating an unwritten fundamental right.
______________________________________
Thanks for beating me to it. "Case closed"? I think not.
-L.N. Smithee-
______________________________________
I have no problem with 'community standards' reasonably regulating the zoning of 'red light' type business.
I have a lot of problems with an entire State decreeing prohibitions on the sale of any damn thing. -- CA's prohibitions on private weapons sales opened my eyes.
Do you agree that a State can 'regulate' the sale of guns between private individuals under its "reserved powers", smithee?
1) I never said anything about anyone paying me good money for anything. So you might want to correct your bloody post - Now.
2) If you want to misquote me, you might be smart enough to do it where people can't see it. You can fix that now to. Or do you wish to go on record right now as saying you sell weapons to felons? Because that's the part you left out - my statement that I believe they have the right to regulate weapons sales to the extent of keeping them out of the hands of felons. Now. Are you that stupid and dishonest or do you correct the record. Or do we just let the record show you a liar.
Havoc wrote:
1) I never said anything about anyone paying me good money for anything. So you might want to correct your bloody post - Now.
______________________________________
At #58, I posted top you:
Obviously you have 'illusions' that your peers can Constitutionally violate your privacy.
Why is that? Why do you cooperate with those do want to control your private life?
58 posted on 08/04/2004 8:12:07 PM PDT by tpaine
______________________________________
You replied at #61:
_________________________________________
To: tpaine
Why do you cooperate with those do want to control your private life?
They were paying me good money at the time.
61 posted on 08/04/2004 8:16:36 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 |
Why are you putting eords in my mouth? I never stated that I agreed with it. I just stated the fact that the sale and advertising of any product cannot be considered a privacy issue.
You're mixing up your bloody conversations, sir. You misquoted me from one conversation and attributed a comment to me that was made by Par35. Are you awake and bothering to even read anything before you respond?! Fix it.
2) If you want to misquote me, you might be smart enough to do it where people can't see it.
I didn't misquote you. As you say, your post is available for anyone to read.
You can fix that now to. Or do you wish to go on record right now as saying you sell weapons to felons?
I can't even sell a weapon to my brother, -- or ~give~ one to my grandson, in the 'great' State of CA.
Because that's the part you left out - my statement that I believe they have the right to regulate weapons sales to the extent of keeping them out of the hands of felons. Now. Are you that stupid and dishonest or do you correct the record. Or do we just let the record show you a liar.
You're out of control. Sober up and call me in the morning if its the booze talking. If its not booze, don't call at all.
eords = words
______________________________________
They were paying me good money at the time.61 havoc
__________________________________
Havoc wrote:
Do I believe they can regulate it. [Private sales of guns]
Now that's a loaded question. Sure I do.
-havoc-
______________________________________
Case closed.
67 tpaine
They can have our vibrators when they pry them from our cold, dead . . . .
Didn't something similar happen in Mississippi
not too long ago?
I expect to see your legal expertise, bourbon.
WKB, wardaddy, and Yudan...you might have
some "comments" on this subject.
Okay, bourbon...you can "comment", too. ;o)
You and I can observe the masters, onyx. ;o)
foflmao....
pretty funny eh?
Jefferson said a lot of things about a lot of things in his lifetime... he was after all, a politician of the first degree.
Can't KNOW all he may have been reported by YOU to have said about anything or everything. WE do know a lot about what he did.
We know he practiced slavery.
We know he had what was considered to be pornography by the religous folks of HIS day in his library collection.
We know his dna is found in black offspring of women who worked in and on his estate... as slaves.
What we do or don't know about his public statements on sodomy, kinda pales in the light of what we DO know.
Regardless, if he did not codify your purported account of his alleged "statement" on sodomy in the constitution, it no doubt is pointless in this discussion.
It's not constitutional law.
And he did not have his buddy Franklin arrested.
Franklin and other founders were known consorts of prostitutes.
Men did that back then too.
Just as they do now.
the moralizing power of religious fanatics was specifically excluded from codification in the national AND state constitutions.
sorry to inform you of this well known fact of eternal truth...
politicians seldom live in full accordance with their moralising public rhetoric, when they are trying to maintain political office.
You could take it up with your buddies on the church board... maybe they can help you out if you don't understand this.
OK. Well, since you don't care, heeeeere's Jeffy!
He was brillant about Constitutional principles, and I support those views.
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.But no one shall be punished for Polygamy who shall have married after probable information of the death of his or her husband or wife, or after his or her husband or wife hath absented him or herself, so that no notice of his or her being alive hath reached such person for 7. years together, or hath suffered the punishments before prescribed for rape, polygamy or sodomy.
So you are saying that Jefferson was brilliant about shaping Constitutional principles, but he cared not one whit about subverting those same principles for political purposes. Yeah, that makes sense.
Have you ever considered that what Jefferson actually meant and the way folks like you interpret what he said and wrote aren't as close as you would like to think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.