Government Against the People

Words of Truth ^ | Aaron Armitage

[Texaggie79]

...laws that cannot be enforced within the constraints of the Anglo-American tradition.

Of course they can! How hard can it be to not allow CVS pharmacy to sell cocaine on it's shelves? How hard is it to arrest someone that is publicly using, holding, or buying hard drugs? I have not one single problem with drug stings. No constitutional right is violated just as with prostitution stings. No-knock raids are not the only way to enforce drug laws. Drug laws can be applied QUITE constitutionally, and effectively.

[A.J.Armitage]

They need to pass a declaration of war for the Constitutional proprieties to be observed. Their unwillingness to do so could be our undoing.

I agree.

[A.J.Armitage]

How do we elect officials then, without violating anyone's rights?

Are you trying to miss the point?

That is a stupid question, and so is the assertion that a state prohibiting drugs out of a majority decision is violating people rights.

Contrary to what you might think, the mere fact that a majority wants to violate a right, such as the right to get and use property, does not end the right, it merely violates it.

They can move, if they don't like it

Specious, because you should not have to move to use your rights, and because every other jurisdiction in America has related drug laws.

If you eliminate EITHER of the choices from the decision, you are THEN violating rights.

You have no right, either by yourself or with others(however many others), to violate a right. None. Not letting you have a choice in the matter doesn't violate your rights, because you've got no right to make that choice to begin with.

By your strange argument, the First and Second Amendments are massive violations of rights, becayse they take a away one of the choices in two separate political issues. And I say that's a good thing.

But that's not even what I'm proposing. No one has suggested an amendment to prevent the prohibition of drugs(although that wouldn't be a bad idea). I'm merely pointing out that only one of the two choices in just.

[Ligeia]

Nice job, A.J. Thanks for the ping.

[Texaggie79]

This is not rocket science. Let me simplify it for you. Child porn is property, do you have the RIGHT to own it? No? Why?

Perhaps because by owning it, buying it, selling it, ect, you violate other's rights. The same goes for hard drugs. You have no right to endanger your neighbors when they have specifically voted to prohibit such an activity.

[Askel5]

So we should take away their profiting off of selling death to millions and give that profit to legit businesses that have sway with out government?

I don't really understand your point here and would appreciate your clarifying.

In the meantime, given the ballsy way we've immediately pintpointed and FROZEN their assets (much like those of Nazis were "frozen" in WWII), chances are we've been fairly comfy with their making hay while the sun shines -- sans the dust of two World Trade Towers -- over Wall Street.

Go figure.

[A.J.Armitage]

Perhaps because by owning it, buying it, selling it, ect, you violate other's rights. The same goes for hard drugs.

I didn't know doing drugs involves raping children. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Huck]

There is a flurry of bills being proposed - everything from carte blanche wire tapping to national ID - which, if passed would make the "freedom" we fight for in this conflict against those who make war on civilization pretty much moot.

You think so? I happen to think that even with those things you mentioned, we would still have freedom worth fighting for. By the way, maybe you can help me out with something I don't get. I thought we already had national ID cards. Isn't that what a SS card is? We all get one, it's a unique identifier, and it is required information when getting all sorts of permits, licenses, etc. So two things: why do we need another one, and what difference does it make if we get one?

Maybe this sounds like a foolish question, but I am hearing lots of folks saying they are opposed to this ID card, and I am having trouble figuring out what specific ills will derive from it.

Anyway, I'll take our country over Afghanistan, even with ill conceived legislation. Because in our country, the people can reverse any of that stuff whenever they get the will. And they can amend the constitution any time they have the will. Which means, as always, we get the government we deserve. That may not always be pretty, but it is freedom.

[Huck]

They need to pass a declaration of war for the Constitutional proprieties to be observed. Their unwillingness to do so could be our undoing.

I saw Joe Biden on tv yesterday, and he said, "we have." He says the powers given to the President are the "constitutional equivelant" of a declaration of war. Explain to me what difference it makes.

[SullaFelix]

Your point is well taken.

Today, on my way home on the Henry Hudson Parkway, the police set up "random" checks on SUV's and other "suspicious" cars. No probable cause, just "consensual" searches.

And now the talk of National ID cards.

None of this would be necessary if the government did its job and secured the borders, as it is constitutionally required to do. Further, if we didn't extend so many "rights" to non-citizens, we wouldn't need to infringe the liberties of Americans.

And don't get me started on how we give Pell Grants to non-citizens when I still am paying off University loans...

Frankly, I don't understand why there is still a single non-citizen Arab student in this country. I can almost hear the forces of Jihad chuckling from here...

Anyone know where I can obtain a Sarin-proof gas mask?

[nopardons]

Don't you know yet ? There are people here, who don't believe that they have to have a driver's liscence or a marriage liscence, but they think that the Congress must declare war , or the president is forbidden to do anything at all.

Do we even know that Congress HASN'T granted that ? Oh well.

[tpaine]

Sorry, you of all people, with your insane view on the constitution cannot touch my argument. You guys were beaten the first time anyone mentions the founders supporting sodomy laws. The rest is just for fun. You have no argument behind the constitution, so you must revert to anarchical sources such as Ayn Rand.

=====================================

--- Telling. -- You mention insane & sodomy in the same slur.

Then you go on to refute your own view on my 'insane' view, by claiming I have no argument 'behind' [backing up] the constitution. -- There is no real need, is there?
However, if YOU need one, check out AJ's words above on inalienable rights being beyond/behind the constitution.

[max61]

Maybe this sounds like a foolish question, but I am hearing lots of folks saying they are opposed to this ID card, and I am having trouble figuring out what specific ills will derive from it.

When you get deported because you could not find your national ID card, then you'll know.

---max

[DAnconia55]

anarchical sources such as Ayn Rand.

Man calls black white. Pigs fly. Film at 11.

[Texaggie79]

I was commenting on what would happen if we legalized drugs.

[Texaggie79]

I didn't know doing drugs involves raping children. Thanks for clarifying that.

I didn't know raping children was the only way to violate others' rights. Thanks for clarifying that.

[A.J.Armitage]

Well, we're back to where we started. Exactly which right is it that drug use violates? And don't give me some crap about a right to tell other people what to do.

[Askel5]

We've legalized homicide "for the children" ... why not drugs?

I'm all for the speedy execution of anyone caught bringing red cocaine or heroin into the country. I'm also for 'states rights' in that a drug-producing state would bear all costs of keeping said drugs confined within their borders.

Other than that, I find it hard to believe -- speaking strictly in terms of debilitating and destructive Substance-Abuse -- that alcohol would not be the greater source of carnage, litter, absenteeism, withdrawal, addiction, clenched fists and venomous tongues than Cannabis.

Doesn't add up.

Speaking strictly within 'moral' terms, if you can make bathtub moonshine, no reason you shouldn't grow pot on your sill. Where that activity endangers or actually hurts another, the FULL measure of the law. Allows folks to decide for themselves what they will and will not abide in their own community.

A fake "War on Drugs" wherein it's abundantly clear our TRUE defenses against the REAL ENEMY (the marxist destruction from within that is the corruption of our leadership, agencies and military and the destruction and addiction -- or idolatry -- of our people) do not exist ... is absurd and intolerable.

All "get tough" measures on drugs have served only to imprison and punish the weak while NEVER addressing those truly responsible for the scourge.

Drugs DOES NOT WORK LIKE ANY OTHER COMMODITY.

It is SUPPLY that drives DEMAND for drugs.

Think about it.

[Texaggie79]

To endanger your neighbors against their will. It is as simple as that. Potential for harm is a violation of other's rights when high enough.

[Antoninus]

Our government has declined from its original position under the Constitution, but our old liberty can be restored or even improved upon, if enough people have the will to do so.

Here, here! Surely, the Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that we have outlawed crack, heroin, and PCP. Why, we're no better than Afganistan after all!

Don't you people ever get tired of this stupid charade? I understand that addictions seem like the most important things in our lives while we're addicted. Heck, they're even important enough for some of us to try to use the current crisis to score political points. But to those of us who are not addicted, it just sounds ... well, lame.

There is no 'right to get loaded' and there never was. Sorry.