IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[SheLion]

The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"

Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".

In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.

 I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, guess what? We were wrong.

There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.

They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.

 They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.

To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:

"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".

Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.

You simply wouldn't go. Get it?

I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.

It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.

 

Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/

[tpaine]

"When the mob rule of Democracy succeeds in renaming restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys as public places, we are all doomed."


We're all doomed. -- The states power to regulate, tax, and license has been subverted into a form of total control by majority rule.
- The principle that reasonable due process must be used in the writing of law, - laws that restrict individual rights to life, liberty, and property, - are being ignored nearly totally by all levels of government.

[Roscoe]

"or"?

The actual quote:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

[tpaine]

Roscoe, in the "actual quote", taken in context, Adams is defending the constitutions 2nd amendment, and elaborating on the role of a 'well regulated' milita:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

         ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms in the 'private self-defense' line.
However, his opinion is that militia units must be controlled by state/local government and the rule of law, - that they be well regulated.

As usual roscoe, you 'cite' quotes out of context in order to shade their meanings to reflect upon your anticonstitutional agenda. You're a typical gungrabber at heart.

[Roscoe]

Roscoe, in the "actual quote", taken in context, Adams is defending the constitutions 2nd amendment, and elaborating on the role of a 'well regulated' milita...

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Your ignorance is a bottomless well. The Second Amendment didn't even exist in 1787-1788. It was ratified in 1791.

Read a book.

[tpaine]

Roscoe, in the "actual quote", taken in context, Adams is defending the concept of what was to become the constitutions 2nd amendment, and elaborating on the role of a 'well regulated' milita...

[Roscoe]

Roscoe, in the "actual quote", taken in context, Adams is defending the concept of what was to become the constitutions 2nd amendment, and elaborating on the role of a 'well regulated' milita...

More than that. The actual quote:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams

[tpaine]

Exactly, as you can see, John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms in the 'private self-defense' line.
However, his opinion is that militia units must be controlled by state/local government and the rule of law, - that they be well regulated.

As usual roscoe, you 'cite' quotes out of context in order to shade their meanings to reflect upon your anticonstitutional agenda. You're a typical gungrabber at heart.

[Roscoe]

John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms in the 'private self-defense' line.

Quit twisting, keep reading:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams

[tpaine]

Twisting what?
We've read & reread that quote to death.
-- Why can't you post it in further context to buttress your own apparent 'twist' that Adams was anti-individual gun rights ?

[Roscoe]

We've read & reread that quote to death.

And in your willful ignorance, you still don't get it.

[tpaine]

On the contrary, I've proved that you are spinning it to read as though Adams was against the individual ownership of arms.

You are a 'well regulated' type of gungrabber, roscoe.
You approve of Californias 'prohibitive regulations' of semi-auto assault style weapons, for instance, just like your buddie texasforever.

[Roscoe]

you are spinning it to read as though Adams was against the individual ownership of arms.

False. As usual.

[tpaine]

Flat denial of reality from roscoe, as usual.

[Roscoe]

Backwards.

[tpaine]

Whatever. - Gungrabber.

[Protagoras]

No group of people can rightfully collude to restrict or deny individual rights..

True or false Herr Whilom?

[Protagoras]

Can a law be rightfully passed by the majority or their representitives to make it legal to kill you for whatever reason they make up?

[Whilom]

Can a law be rightfully passed by the majority or their representitives to make it legal to kill you for whatever reason they make up?

By "rightfully" do you mean legally? Justly? Equitably? Legitimately? Morally? If you mean legally, then you have described the death penalty, both state and federal. Those representatives can pass legislation imposing the death penalty for "whatever reason they make up." That's why our representative democracy, guarding against absolutism, contains checks and balances. The legislature may pass a death penalty statute, but can they get the executive to sign it into law? Or override the executive's veto? Or will it meet the test of the judicial process? If all of those occur, it becomes law and will be enforced. Thirty-eight states, mine among them, have death penalty statutes for "reason(s) they make up." There is a federal death penalty statute also.

[Whilom]

No group of people can rightfully collude to restrict or deny individual rights... True or false Herr Whilom?

Collusion means "secret agreement or cooperation esp. for an illegal or deceitful purpose." If "rightfully" means legally, then it follows that no group of people can legally use a secret agreement or cooperation to illegally restrict or deny individual rights. Hence, the statement is true. It does not follow, however, as you German-speaking "objectivists" seem to think, that no group of people can use the constitutional process to legally restrict what any particular individual may see as his "rights." If that were the case, each individual could decide for himself whether to obey or ignore any particular law, including constitutional law, created and applied by our representative democracy through the institutions provided by the Constitution. All laws restrict an individual's conduct or provide for punishment if that conduct violates the law.

[Protagoras]

Nice try. We aren't talking about the death penalty, but it is a typical tactic to change the subject.

OK,,,,I'LL,,,,GO,,,REAL,,,SLOW,,,FOR,,,,YOU.

Is it your belief that it would be right, morally (if you understand the concept), for legislation to kill you for being fat, or skinny, or for having the bizarre beliefs you have?

I don't expect a direct answer because of your track record. The truth is you think that the majority can rightfully do whatever they want. It's called ochlocracy, and you subscribe to it.