Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[Texaggie79]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?

Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct theats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

Now you call our founders "communitarian [sic] prohibitionists"? -ta79-

Obviously not. -- I called YOU a "communitarian [sic] prohibitionist"

Really aggie, such silly replies only make you look like a roscoe. Is that the reputation you want?

[Texaggie79]

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

[tpaine]

"However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR." ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.

[Roscoe]

JAMES MADISON, not Thomas Jefferson, wrote Federalist Paper #48.

famous Libertarian in history, George Washington.

Another example of the BIG lie.

[Texaggie79]

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct threats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

I don't care what 'many' personally considered 'threats', as I say above, I only care about the intent of our constitution.

Get a grip on your logic, little roscoe-ite.

[tpaine]

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?

- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?

[dcwusmc]

No, roscoe, old thug, nothing about slamming smack. Nothing either way, nothing that confers authority to fedgov to prohibit it, either... and if a power is NOT ENUMERATED as being for fedgov, it is prohibited to it. Geeze, how simple. The Constitution is a LIMITATION of FedGov authority for the most part, with some limitations on the States thrown in for good measure. It is NOT a limitation on we, the People, no matter how your "heart" yearns for that power. Perhaps if you would take time to read and COMPREHEND the Constitution, you'd understand how it was designed to work and you could go out and get a life of your own instead of wanting to control the lives of your betters. (which would be 99.9 percent of the civilized world)

[Texaggie79]

I only care about the intent of our constitution.

Then you must be claiming that the founders had no intention of following their own constitution... because even TJ himself supported state witchcraft laws.

[Texaggie79]

It's in the eye of the people of each state. Someone could hold sacrificing virgins as religious practice, but that does not make it a protected right.

[dcwusmc]

SOME of the FF and SOME of each generation of Americans are socialistic prohibitionists... you come straight to mind. MOST OTHERS are not, but are willing to go along with your moronic prohibitions for a while, until the burden becomes TOO onerous. SOME of us see both the futility of, and the havoc wreaked on the Constitution by, such antics. We have no interest in doing drugs, but we are such a threat to your usurped powers that we must be demonized and marginalized at once, before we disturb the sheeple. You have NEVER made a case from logic or Constitutionality; rather you bluster and bully, not unlike that jackass of a bully from "Back to the Future" and with just as little sense as he had...

[dcwusmc]

What specific rights are missing besides the right to secede? You keep changing the parameters of your arguments... And when did Texas (or any state aside from Taxachusetts and Pennsylvania) become Commonwealths?

[philman_36]

The Making of Prohibition
Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists. An interesting theme that occurred throughout the temperance movement is the notion that despair promotes drinking. This correlation certainly had credence with the colonists, for whom survival was a constant issue.
By the time Captain Sedgewick established the first brewery in Massachusetts in 1637, spirits provided governments revenue-enhancement opportunities. Legislators enacted a rule that "No person shall remain in any inn or victualing house, 'longer than necessary, upon payne of 20 Schillings for every offense'" (1). Brewers and distillers were also taxed to gain revenue for the colonies. In 1644, New York Colony approved an excise tax on beer, wine, and brandy. In 1645, Massachusetts Colony restricted drinkers by declaring, "More than half a pint at one time is excess, and tippling, 'above ye space of half an hour'" (1) was forbidden.
In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict. Despite General James Ogelthorpe's efforts to enforce a dry colony, he was thwarted by bootleggers from the Carolinas. The edict was rescinded in 1742.
My how things have changed. All things in context ol' boy, all things in context.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct threats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

I don't care what 'many' personally considered 'threats', as I say above, I only care about the intent of our constitution.
Get a grip on your logic, little roscoe-ite.
327


Then you must be claiming that the founders had no intention of following their own constitution... because even TJ himself supported state witchcraft laws. -ros-tex-coe79

See above as to what I claim.
~If~ ol TJ wanted such laws, it is immaterial to the intent of our constitution. -- States are free to write all the silly laws they want, -- as long as such laws do not violate human rights as per the constitution.

[philman_36]

You originally said...In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights.
I see you clarified your thoughts...
None, because that person hasn't any property rights to sacrifice.
...and you completely avoid the issue altogether.
Good job!

hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
Perhaps? What a hoot!
Yep, yesteryears Salem Witchcraft trials have rolled over into today's drug laws.
Those little girls wound up being found out as petty little tyrants, jealous of others and guilty before all of bearing false witness.
Which is the more direct threat?

[tpaine]

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?

- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


It's in the eye of the people of each state. Someone could hold sacrificing virgins as religious practice, but that does not make it a protected right.
331 ta79

Killing virgins is murder. - And our human rights are protected by our constitution, not as seen "in the eye of the people of each state".
You are simply denying the founding principles of our republic, aggie. -- For shame.

[tpaine]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?
-tpaine-


Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.
321 ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.
324

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.
326 -ta-

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?
- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


"It's in the eye of the people of each state."
-ta79- [shooting himself in the foot]

Just above [#326], you admitted that any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed.
NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..

Aggie, give it up. You are totally illogical on this issue.

[tpaine]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?
-tpaine-


Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.
321 ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.
324

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.
326 -ta-

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?
- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


"It's in the eye of the people of each state."
-ta79- [shooting himself in the foot]

Just above [#326], you admitted that any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed.
NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..

Aggie, give it up. You are totally illogical on this issue.

[Roscoe]

prohibitionists

Legal prohibitions date back to the earliest days of our nation and even before, your hatred of our representative forms of self-government notwithstanding.