Skip to comments.
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS
^
| 1/11/03
| Amicus Populi
Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 741-748 next last
To: Texaggie79
People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79
Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.
And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine
Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-
Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.
-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.
561
posted on
01/26/2003 7:30:53 AM PST
by
tpaine
To: pram
I think I may have made a mistake,
also.
562
posted on
01/26/2003 7:32:52 AM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights". So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?
563
posted on
01/26/2003 10:20:39 AM PST
by
Texaggie79
(seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
To: Texaggie79
People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79
Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.
And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine
Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-
Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.
-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.
561
So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?
-aggie-
Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts.
-- Really aggie, -- shouldn't you start learning to use your mind before inserting foot in mouth?
564
posted on
01/26/2003 10:52:20 AM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts. Oh! I see. So, anyone can get a vile of small pox and do what they wish with it. Their neighbors cant do anything about it but take them to court?
565
posted on
01/26/2003 8:47:31 PM PST
by
Texaggie79
(seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
To: Texaggie79
Oviously, either you are unable to 'see', and never will be smart enough to do so, - or - you think you're playing some witty word game. You may be half right.
Bug off aggie, and grow up.
566
posted on
01/26/2003 9:17:32 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat, yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.
567
posted on
01/27/2003 8:57:18 AM PST
by
Texaggie79
(seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
To: Texaggie79
tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat, No, its hilarious that you think I favor unconstitutional 'prohibition' as reasonable regulation. Apparently you can't 'add' at all.
yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.
Feeble 'tar baby' reply, aggie.
My 'opinions' on what constitute criminal threats are based on historical common law, and you have no factual basis to conclude otherwise.
-- You however, have admitted on this thread that you sometimes feel your neighbors threaten you. - Get a grip, -- you have branded yourself as an emotional cry baby.
568
posted on
01/27/2003 7:19:28 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
historical common law tells us that witchcraft can be a threat, meriting prohibition. You have no base to stand on, but of those lies you spout about the USC.
As Rush Limbaugh stated last week, laws must be based in morality or society cannot be cohesive.
569
posted on
01/27/2003 7:56:53 PM PST
by
Texaggie79
(seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
To: Texaggie79
Dream your dreams of witchcraft, with 'rush' as your authority on law, aggie.
I need but rest my case.
570
posted on
01/27/2003 8:08:22 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
I base my stance more on our founders, from which, you stray. Anarchy, is not 4 me.
571
posted on
01/27/2003 9:14:40 PM PST
by
Texaggie79
(seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
To: Texaggie79
I 'stray' from founding principles? Daft. -- How so?
You can't make that point with logic.
572
posted on
01/27/2003 10:15:31 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
I am sorry I have not been able to commece with our discussion - had some health issues which are requiring my attention but I should be up and at'em in the next day or so....
Comment #574 Removed by Moderator
To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;".
Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.
If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?
To: A tall man in a cowboy hat; robertpaulsen
A tall man in a cowboy hat:
"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."
Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;". Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.
If used under their powers to "provide for the common defense", emergency prohibitions on commerce ~could arguably~ be justified. But bans hardly qualify as a method of peaceful 'regulation'.
I doubt the goverment was granted this much power over our rights to trade in property.
If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?
Big 'IF', and I would say that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property pretty well cover the right to engage in commerce without unreasonable regulations.
Prohibitional decrees 'stopping' commerce, and 'banning' possession of goods are unreasonable violations of such rights on quite a number of constitutional grounds.
576
posted on
02/06/2003 9:24:45 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; freedomlover; ...
An oldie but goodie, and worthy of close study.
577
posted on
06/07/2005 4:25:00 PM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: Joe Brower
Yes, it is. It saddens me that many of the people here at FR will proudly calim their support for freedom in one thread and in the next they will talk about how the government needs MORE power to fight the WOD.
578
posted on
06/07/2005 4:34:32 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Joe Brower
579
posted on
06/07/2005 4:50:24 PM PDT
by
t_skoz
("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
To: Joe Brower
There's a lot of my old friends on this one .... some banned ... some not
580
posted on
06/07/2005 7:15:37 PM PDT
by
clamper1797
(Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 741-748 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson