Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
So, following your brilliant quote, progress over the last century should have been infinitesinal, the nuclear age never happened, the human genome never mapped, penicillin never discoved, a million ideas and dreams never realized, beause they all certainly lead to societal upheaval. Oh so many ideas, not worth a gnat versus traditionalism. Let's use the bible as our guide, is that traditional enough for you? Where petty kings raided their neighbors, killing thousands, so they could come back to their polygamist families.
Or maybe we should go back to Roman tradition, after all it is the root of out republic. I especially look forward to the reinstatement of slavery, what a great idea.
Pshaw, quoting simplistic bunk raises your standing not a twit.
Are you advocating prior-restraint laws?
People who engage in sodomy and shooting up drugs have sold disease contaminated blood and infected others.
They should be prosecuted for it.
Where does the right take a swim in a public pool come from? Where does the right to vote come from?
What are rights and how does one go about defining them. Do rights come from society? From government? How many rights are there?
Do you support alcohol prohibition?
They should be prosecuted for it.
Laws prohibiting sodomy are rare, but the manufacture, sale, possession and use of illicit drug use is prosecuted.
After a while, you learn that the cadres simply ignore any inconvenient fact that comes up, so it is like debating a brick wall. I fall for it time and again myself, doesn't matter how much cost-benefit analysis you do, how hard you nail them logically, they are stuck in a mental vise. Think of this as a useful exercise in futility, you will be dealing with these people the rest of your life. Scary isn't it.
Quid pro quo time.
The right to swim in a public pool comes from society.
Where do you contend that right comes from?
The right to vote comes from society.
Where do you contend that right comes from?
Those are cultural institutions?
Wrong.
States were given NO powers to prohibit 'substances', or any other type of property. -- In fact, the 14th specifically says that states cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process.
-- Prohibitory type law is not due process, it is a taking, - a banning of property before it can be used for 'evil'. - 267 by tpaine
The USC does not prohibit prohibition. It simply does not authorize the FED to do it. - tex
You are simply denying the constitutional facts as I posted them just above. -- Do you consider this an argument? - 269 by tpaine
The fact that ownership of hard drugs violates the rights of your neighbors is far beyond due process in order to arrest you for possesion.
You have never established that mythical, irrational 'fact'. -- And your garbled repetition of it does not make 'substance abuse' a rights violation.
-- In any case, you are trying to divert the subject. - States cannot prohibit the mere possession of property, ['substances'], without due process of law.
More people die from car accidents than from guns being fired straight up into the air on New Year's Eve.
Should we outlaw cars? Or should we legalize shooting straight up into the air on New Year's Eve?
Still no source, of course.
Also, with alcohol, it can be responsibly used, as it is every day in homes, restaurants and bars. People don't always drink to drunkenness when they consume it. Hard drugs, are another story altogether.
"The coasting trade did, indeed, exist before the constitution was adopted; it might safely be admitted, that it existed by the jus commune of nations; that it existed by an imperfect right; and that the States might prohibit or permit it at their pleasure, imposing upon it any regulations they thought fit, within the limits of their respective territorial jurisdictions. But those regulations were as various as the States; continually conflicting, and the source of perpetual discord and confusion. In this condition, the constitution found the coasting trade. It was not a thing which required to be created, for it already existed. But it was a thing which demanded regulation, and the power of regulating it was given to Congress." --U.S. Supreme Court, GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Just one question, yes or no. Should alcohol be outlawed?
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.