LIBERTARIANS; THE SOCIALIST'S BEST FRIEND

Chicken Rapists? -- Good God -- Must be that diseased mind of yours operating CJ. Too many sins, kiddo.

By my analysis, those flagged above have "never been" conservatives.

By my analysis, libertarians are "sometimes" conservatives.

Yes, some.

And the right to keep and bear arms comes from the same place as the right to swim in government swimming pools, right?

You want the government to give you a free gun?

TANSTAAFL

States With Right To Bear Arms Provisions In Alphabetical Order:

Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26

That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare... That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19

A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 32

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Kentucky Constitution Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

Maine Constitution Article 1, Section 16

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Massachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12

The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Montana Constitution Article VI, Section 13(2)

The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Nevada Constitution Article 1, Section 11, [1.]

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 13

No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto.

New Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

North Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1

All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

South Dakota Constitution Article VI, Section 24

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Texas Constitution Article I, Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

185K voters wanted to repeal gun-control laws.

So they helped elect a Democrat with an F rating from the NRA?

You want the government to give you a free gun?

You want the government to give you a "free" education?

How about "free" prescription drugs?

So they helped elect a Democrat with an F rating from the NRA?

The Republican failed to earn the necessary votes. Why should somebody who believes in limited govenment throw his vote away on a candidate who is going to support all of the president's spending increases and federal intrusions?

You want Libertarians to go away? Reduce government, cut spending, repeal gun-control, get the US out of the UN, end the War on Drugs, end foreign-aid, get government out of education, end corporate welfare, end farm subsidies, and close the hundreds of government agencies which serve no Constitutional purpose.

I predict that at the end of Bush's first term the federal budget will be $2.3 trillion. You know, the federal budget was only $600 billion when Reagan took office in 1981. The federal government has spent $30 trillion since then.

Answer me this, Roscoe. How big does the federal budget need to get before you quit supporting big-government Republicans? When it reaches $3 trillion? How about $4 trillion?

So? - Nice list. Too bad CA has no such provison.

California communitarians, just like you roscoe, are quite busy writing unconstitutional 'regulations' prohibiting OUR rights to bear arms.

You have written previously, in one weasel worded form or another, that this is fine with you, because the 2nd amendment does not apply to state laws.
-- Sorry my boy, but you are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme "Law of the Land".

Read it sometime.

How about "free" prescription drugs?

Free dope, hypodermic syringes for heroin, and reparations for being busted during the WOD?

Libertarians complain about theother piggies, but they have their own favored teat on the nanny government sow.

Read it sometime.

Understand it sometime.

You guys are still here fighting it out, eh? Some comments from one of Mr. Curry's your previous posts.

The libertarian conceit is that the dope world comprises a few addicts and abusers scattered among a great majority of mature, rational, well-balanced adults who can indulge casually and responsibly, that can choose to take drugs or not.

Not really. The libertarians simply seek to ask the right questions. Instead of asking, "Should drugs be banned? Are drugs harmful to a culture? Are drugs morally wrong?" libertarians ask, "Do laws that seek to prohibit the use of certain substances decrease the use of said substances, and do these laws strengthen the culture so that people resist such destructive behavior?"

Much evidence indicates that the answer is a resounding "NO". Though prohibition alone should provide a wonderful model, I suspect that even if it could be shown that the drug war exacerbated the problem, you'd still oppose legalization. Like all collectivists, you speak for "the children", "our culture", "the nation" etc. but your true love is the exercise of authority and the associated control over others whose behavior you detest.

The biggest pile of BS in the pro-dope argument is that drug use harms no one but the user.

The claim is not that there is never a consequence - the argument is that there is no CLEAR VICTIM. That is, if you argue that drugs are to blame for a host of secondary effects, then you MUST also seek to ban cholesterol, tobacco and pornography for their secondary effects. Your other quote, Seventy percent of all arrestees for crimes of violence or force against other people or their property have illegal drugs in their blood at the time of arrest. if true, is irrelevant. This entire argument is no different than a "liberal" blaming crime on guns. A "leftist" might say "70% of all crimes committed were committed with a handgun". So what?

The law can only apply to the harm you cause to others, not the harm you might do, could do etc. Anything else is misapplied force which will create unintended consequences.

Where in the wide world of sports does the federal government get the authority to pass drug laws and to have the DEA? Don't you think it strange that in the early part of last century, long before the public de-education system had taken hold and people were generally more aware of the concept of a government of limited powers, that the feds had to pass a constitutional amendment to begin alcohol prohibition? They then had to repeal said amendment after the experiment failed. Any explanations as to why such as amendment was never passed for prohibiting some drugs? I guess that's not necessary - government can now do what is for "the general welfare", or whatever Kevin Curry and Cultural Jihad want to do.

The rest of your post is simply dishonest. You've been libertarian bashing long enough to know full well that libertarians are not people who want other people to pay for their dope. Ditto with the idea the libertarianism = drug culture, which I spoke of in a previous post. You didn't respond to that either. Go figure. I know it is intellectually much easier to put up strawmen but can't you do so without lying?

Do you and the rest of the drug warriors truly believe that the reason you are not drooling crack addicts is because Nancy Reagan told you to "Just Say No!"? What a cynical view of humankind you truly must have.

What would you say to all those that are imprisoned or to those whose property is stolen, unjustly, without evidence of drugs on their person or on their property? I suppose it might be something like what the communist party members of the former Soviet Union said to their citizens. "Thank you, comrade, your property and labor had to be stolen for the good of "the nation". You have high honors in party......"

"Your father didn't go to jail on trumped up charges in vain, and those missionaries who died when their plane was shot down in the jungle for being suspected "drug traffickers" didn't die in vain. The nation's drug policy and resolve was strengthened." Thank you for presenting your sacrifice at the altar of The State.

Bottom line - it's your drug war, and you're next.

Free dope, hypodermic syringes for heroin, and reparations for being busted during the WOD?

You'd have to pay for your own dope out of your weekly allowance, Kevin.

Libertarians complain about theother piggies, but they have their own favored teat on the nanny government sow.

Which is what?

The law can only apply to the harm you cause to others

Says who besides humanist ideologues? Try to explain the term 'Banned in Boston' within its historical context.

Explain the evolution of the moral-liberal college professor's mantra of the past 40 years: "Do What You Want To So Long As It Doesn't Hurt Anyone" was uttered before the AIDS plague disproved their dictum, causing it to be rewritten into a more cynical social-Darwinist tenet which slaps the whole foundation of the Bill of Rights in the face of the people who Thomas Jefferson imagined were worthy of human rights: "Do What You Want To So Long As It Doesn't APPARENLY Hurt Anyone ELSE RIGHT AWAY." To applaud the self-destruction of others is to plow under their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The next small step is to plow under universal sufferage and institute the feudal enslavement of the less-valued. Thanks, but normal people veto your ideologue humanist schemes, and the tyrants waiting in your wings will just have to lump it.

So my claim that the law can only apply to the harm you cause others, necessarily means that I advocate doing what you want so long as it harms no one? No. Unless, of course, you assume the purpose of government is to enforce all kinds of morality outside of natural law, (which will depend of course on the moral code of whoever finds himself at the helm).

Why does my belief system make me an "ideologue", while yours presumably does not?

My belief system is based upon Reality. Yours is based upon science fiction fantasy.

Thanks for the working definition. So, in the end, all the questions and reasoned arguments come to that - my view is based on science fiction fantasy. And here I was, expecting to get something to challenge me, cause me to think, broaden my views........and I've received the usual single line put-down. I thought Curry had taken over that job........

A VERY demented 'Reality', CJ:

"It is sound Christian doctrine that the presense of unneeded suffering in the world is caused by one thing, and one thing alone: sin.
War, famine, drought, flood, pestilence, disease, all are caused by sin.
But we are not able to judge individual human souls. That is the prerogative of God alone.
A pregnant mother who was crushed in the WTC suffered and died because of sin, but not necessarity because of HER sin. She may have suffered and died for the sins of someone else. Perhaps for my sins, perhaps for yours, perhaps for the sins of the terrorists, perhaps for the sins of Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer.
Immorality brings unneeded suffering and death. Sure, we can pinpoint some individual instances, and perhaps deduce whose sin is being punished.
A man who consents to step out of an airplane without a parachute: he may not suffer and die right away, but certainly down the road because of his action."
- Cultural Jihad

... get something to challenge me, cause me to think, broaden my views........

Ah, there's always hope, mb. Today you defend a failed ideology, but it isn't the same ideology you might have defended yesterday, and tomorrow might see a new dawn of something else for you to defend; hopefully something defensible. Just try not to be so wrapped up in the ideology du jour lest you turn into someone as dour, bitter, and world-weary as tpaine.