Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

A baseless, silly opinion, well refuted by the article, and most respondents.

Only a few of you well known FReeker gun-bashers rant otherwise. - Telling.
-- We may have found a 'tipping point' in defining conservatism, in the drug/gun connection.

[tpaine]

Roscoe is high on the illusion of power & control the state gives him.
He, no doubt, is a minor level bureaucrat, hunched over his terminal, pretending to work at the peoples business, as he envisions his dreams of socialistic triumph.

[Texaggie79]

Apparently, our 'aggie' has this weird concept about home as a castle/private property.

Oh contrare...

If you will read up on the fee simple, bundled rights on your property, you will see that you do not own all the rights to your property. You bought in willingly not having those rights. It was 100% consensual.

[dcwusmc]

Yes, well, roscoe's positions on this rather remind me of that old saying about a politician (or in his case, JBT) being like a dead fish in the moonlight, "shining and stinking at once." And we know that gun-grabbers and WODDIES both perform best in the dark because they abhor daylight which would expose their actions for what they are: CRIMES committed on AMERICAN CITIZENS by their own national (and state) government... What a sick bunch these buffoons are...

[dcwusmc]

I would not buy a piece of land without ensuring that I owned ALL the rights to it. Would you? I would not tolerate ANYONE coming on my property for ANY reason without my permission. If YOU would do that, then you deserve what happens to you.

[dcwusmc]

Look here and see what fee simple means: http://www.iown.com/glossary/FeeSimple.htm

Anything ELSE and you don't own all the rights...

[tpaine]

Yes, of course aggie.
We are all well aware that you consider yourself an expert in contractural/property/title matters.
We can only hope your customers get/have good insurance.

But tell me. -- If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?

[Texaggie79]

Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own. It is not ALL. Walk up to your courthouse and tell them you are creating your own country with your land. Tell them you are seceding. Or try building a nuclear power plant on it. Tell me how they treat those "rights" of yours.

In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.

[tpaine]

We don't live in 'functioning commonwealth', we live in a disfunctional constitutional republic, --- primarily thanks to communitarians like you and the freeker roscoe-ites among us.

[Roscoe]

A REPUBLICAN form of government... wherein the GOVERNMENT is reined in by the bit and bridle of the CONSTITUTION...

Nothing about slamming smack in there. Don't confuse our Constitution with one of the Libertarian Party's endless press release rants.

[Roscoe]

Libertarians and liberals are in bed together spewing their loathsome equation of our right to keep and bear arms with slamming smack. Just when I think they've touched bottom in their rejection of reason, they reach new lows.

[Roscoe]

Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own.

Funny, isn't it?

Pretending to be defenders of property rights, they are astoundingly ignorant of its nature.

[tpaine]

How weird you are roscoe. You spew loathsome invective here at FR day in, day out, against those taking constitutional positions on the drug & gun wars.

It is hard to imagine what your agenda here favors, but your distain for constitutional debate is quite evident. -- Thus:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[Roscoe]

Poor Yappy.

[tpaine]

Yip! Yip! --- Barks our pitiful little roscoe.

[Texaggie79]

Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty? Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?

[Roscoe]

Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was a bit too rational for their cult to understand.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

to roscoe: Your pathetic attempts to justify FedGov's war on Americans means one of three things:
a.) you make your "living" as a JBT feeding off the misery you cause your fellow citizens;
b.) you are seriously misguided and need to have your eyes opened by a nocturnal visit from your local drug goon squad; or
c.) you suffer from terminal tongue-on-jackboot disease because you have never seen a FedGov prohibition you don't like or a Storm Trooper's a$$ you won't kiss.

No matter the problem you have, you are somewhere between despicable and pitiable

Whether he is a knavish Bootlegger promoting narco-terrorism for profit or a duped Baptist committing narco-crimes in the name of false "morality," the lesson in personal responsibility that Roscoe will be taught at the Final Judgement will be the same.

Unless they repent and ask the victims of their crimes for forgiveness, both knaves and dupes will pay for their crimes in the Lake of Fire.

[philman_36]

In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.
What if a person owns no property? What rights must be "sacrificed" then? Where does your logic take you in that instance?

[philman_36]

Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
I like your questions.