Replies

Learn something every day. On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

Learn something every day.

So you claim, yet your posts belie you.

On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

Big of you. Thanks.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Try the 9th, where it says rights need not be enumerated. - Or the 14th, where it says we have a right to life, liberty and property.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

He did just that in a lengthy letter filled with logical points. - You offer a simple denial. Emphasis 'simple'.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

And you offer a buffoons retort. - Thanks.

"According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere."

The Bill of Rights doesn't CONFER rights. There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so. It's called the "reserved powers" part of the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to pass the "Prohibition amendment" to have the fedgov regulate liquor in the first place.

You need to read for content, not for targets, the WOD assaults all the rights. This erosion of our rights is happening because of the it. Stop this WOD, which will end the violence, thereby lessening pressure to ban weapons. The fear of an armed populace by liberals, is matched by the fear of addicts and the possibility that ones children will become one, by conservatives. Of course, it is easier for a child to procure drugs, than it is for the average adult. This is seen as proof, that as it becomes easier for an adult to legally buy or use drugs, kids will be more greatly affected. The way I see it, there is a small percent that cannot handle alchohol, drugs, gambling etc. That percentage is a steady and unchangeable figure, whether drugs are legal, (look at addiction numbers before prohibition, for both alchohol and drugs, and after). Legalizing, or criminalization, changes the figure very little. Of course more people may use, but rates of abuse will change very little.

Thank you for making that point.

Your feigned ignorance is quite cute. I believe that you are aware of the link and the erosion of basic and essential rights (ALL related to the concept of self-ownership and control) AND that your smarmy responses are the product of a "mind" that feels that YOU'LL never be affected by them, either because you are part of the problem or you are so ignorant that you can't comprehend that YOUR vices are fixing to come under gooberment scrutiny and control. After all, it is NOT ABOUT drugs or guns or fast foods or tobacco, per se. It is totally about control over others, about bending them to your will. I am not a drug user or one to encourage others to do them, but I am also not one to wait until MY door comes crashing down before I try to stop the madness. By then my only option is to take as many of the bastards with me as I can, which is not the nicest thing to contemplate... so unless you are one of the thugs who does the door kicking, I would suggest you get your cranial-rectal inversion problem resolved and start looking at reality instead of fantasy.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Since he didn't put the numbers in, you can't keep up. Is that it? The author specifically stated that all of the articles of the Bill of Rights are under attack. (He's wrong about this, by the way. I know for a fact that the 3rd Amendment is still held sacred by the Drug Warriors!)

While we're on the specifics of what is or isn't spelled out by name in the Bill of Rights, what gives you the right to post on the internet? And don't give me that 1st Amendment drivel. That only applies to printing presses and actual speech. Clicking "Post" on a web page does not involve a printing press; nor does it compare to speaking in a public square. Since this activity isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, any more than ingesting drugs is mentioned, what makes you think that you have a right to do so?