Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2012, 14:45   #221
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Again, the lack of specificity in the BOR leaves generality as the only logical intention. The BOR applies to all citizens as an establishment of their primary rights.

The Congressional prohibition was clearly a double-edged sword in that it leaves Congress powerless, in specific, and therefore empowers the States. The remaning Amendments have no such limitations, when, in fact, it would have been easy enough to include them as well.

Much as going to the fair and seeing a ride that says "No one under 5'4" may get on this ride" It means that it is permissable for people over 5'4" to ride. The other 9 rides all say "Closed, unsafe" meaning that no one may ride them.
Huh? Can you explain this a bit?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:07   #222
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
You Progressives really hate him, don't you?
Not sure how the "progressives" feel about him, you'll have to ask them. You were trying to say that I only talk about RP's support of dope use, and obviously that's not the case...unless you're into selective reading, of course.

I can't help it that dopers are invariably some of his biggest supporters. I've tried to point out to them that Ryan publicly stated that medical ganja was a "states' rights" issue...and that Romney tends toward being a "states' rights" proponent. That's how he explains his involvement in "Romneycare", that the Massachusetts legislature chose it.

Gosh...I'd think that real Ron Paul "Constitutionalists" would be able to see that. I guess they're too busy over-looking his tireless blame-America-first squeakings, his affiliation with the KKK, his slime-ball pandering to Islamists for their cash, etc.

I gather that allowing medical ganja to be a states' rights issue isn't "progressive" enough.

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-06-2012 at 16:15..
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:14   #223
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Not sure how the "progressives" feel about him, you'll have to ask them. You were trying to say that I only talk about RP's support of dope use, and obviously that's not the case...unless you're into selective reading, of course.

I can't help it that dopers are invariably some of his biggest supporters. I've tried to point out to them that Ryan publicly stated that medical ganja was a "states' rights" issue...and that Romney tends toward being a "states' rights" proponent. That's how he explains his involvement in "Romneycare", that the Massachusetts legislature chose it.

Gosh...I'd think that real Ron Paul "Constitutionalists" would be able to see that. I guess they're too busy over-looking his tireless blame-America-first squeakings, his affiliation with the KKK, his slime-ball pandering to Islamists for their cash, etc.

I guess allowing medical ganja to be a states' rights issue isn't "progressive" enough.
I'm confused then. Federal regulation of marijuana requires a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause. If you support that, how can you not be described as a Progressive?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:34   #224
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
I'm not a progressive...that's your fantasy. If medical ganja is a states' rights issue, as Romney and Ryan seem to propose, then it's no longer a federal issue. I gather you're concerned with something beyond "medical" marujuana use...but then that'd explain your affinity for Ron Paul in spite of his other proclivities.
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:38   #225
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
I'm not a progressive...that's your fantasy. If medical ganja is a states' rights issue, as Romney and Ryan seem to propose, then it's no longer a federal issue. I gather you're concerned with something beyond "medical" marujuana use...but then that'd explain your affinity for Ron Paul in spite of his other proclivities.
I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:40   #226
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I'm confused then. Federal regulation of marijuana requires a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause. If you support that, how can you not be described as a Progressive?

You are completely disengenuous by automatically linking limitations on the commerce clause to a "liberal progressive" reading. That is a completely false misrepresentation.

The commerce clause has always been a stickler to CONSERVATIVES who favor State's right's.

The commerce clause has been used by progressives to expand the powers of the Federal Government.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:47   #227
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You are completely disengenuous by automatically linking limitations on the commerce clause to a "liberal progressive" reading. That is a completely false misrepresentation.

The commerce clause has always been a stickler to CONSERVATIVES who favor State's right's.

The commerce clause has been used by progressives to expand the powers of the Federal Government.
This is exactly what I'm saying.

Folks like snowman who support fed reg of marijuana, support a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause to expand the power of the fedgov.

He thinks he's conservative, and may be on some issues, but I suspect he's more progressive than he is willing to believe.

Too often "conservatives" confuse the republican party platform with conservatism. Way often, it isn't. The individual mandate was a "conservative" idea before it was a liberal one.

I don't understand the rest of your post.

The notion that the commerce clause was intended to be read this way is nonsensical. The framers set out to create a document that went to great lengths to specifically limit the power and scope of the fedgov and then inserted one clause that wiped it all out?

The commerce clause was inserted to FACILITATE trade amongst the states, not to control anything that crosses state lines.

Under a proper reading, the only concern the fedgov has with interstate trade of marijuana is that one state doesn't place tariffs on another's weed.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 10-06-2012 at 16:51..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:50   #228
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?
Mean, mean, mean...you are so mean.

Romney had pledged to end Obamacare. So I'm gonna vote for him. When someone isn't in favor of drug-legalization, that doesn't mean he or she is a "progressive". Is that the new doper word for "JBT" or "Nazi"...?

Let me know when your friends at NORML get the Supreme Court to declare drug enforcement "unconstitutional". We'll talk then.

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-06-2012 at 16:53..
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:53   #229
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Mean, mean, mean...you are so mean.

Romney had pledge to end Obamacare. So I'm gonna vote for him.

Let me know when your friends at NORML get the Supreme Court to declare drug enforcement "unconstitutional". We'll talk then.
Mean? No. The same commerce clause that permits the fedgov to prohibit your dreaded weed allows it to impose Obamacare on its citizens.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:18   #230
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Mean? No. The same commerce clause that permits the fedgov to prohibit your dreaded weed allows it to impose Obamacare on its citizens.
Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare.
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:38   #231
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare.
You're really going to take a presidential candidate at his word? You laugh at the starry-eyed fools who voted for Obama in 2008, based on promises that obviously didn't fit his profile. He turned out to break all those promises and act as his profile suggested he'd act. Romney would do the same thing. You're high on the same "hopium" that Obama's voters were. You're feeling the same fatigue they were feeling after Bush. You're as desperate to believe as they were.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:39   #232
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare.
Your political compass is more screwed up than I thought.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 19:21   #233
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".

Quote:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783
Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-06-2012 at 19:44..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 22:49   #234
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,640


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".



Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.
Precisely.

Lots of "conservative" progressives.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 05:06   #235
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
You're as desperate to believe as they were.
Sorry..."desperate" is dopers still crying because RP got robbed.
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 06:26   #236
onebigelf
Senior Member
 
onebigelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".

Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.
I have to agree with this one. The Constitution is not meant to be ignored for the sake of convenience nor personal views. It protects all of the people all of the time, or, as we have seen, none of us. I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional. The drug laws were passed with the exact same arguments that had been used 40+ years earlier to pass prohibition. However, prohibition required a constitutional amendment to give government the power to make alcohol illegal. Where is the amendment to give the government the power to make drugs illegal? There isn't one. They invented the authority and we let them get away with it because we agreed with the goal. Once we established that the government could create this new authority, however, that authority was then used in myriad other ways, not all of which we've really agreed with, have we.

We must insist that the Constitution be obeyed, fully and at all times, or that it be properly amended and ratified. Otherwise, what we get is... this.

John
onebigelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 06:46   #237
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,809
Wanna know the best way to end the War on Drugs? Stop using drugs! Cultivate some self-control instead! Has this ever occurred to you guys? Yes, I realize that it's difficult and takes time, but life isn't supposed to be all puppy dogs and marshmallows. Life is supposed to toughen you up. If a progressive dictatorship does hit our country, make sure you're ready to actually be useful.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 07:26   #238
Providence
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 552
I have thought about a lot of liberty issues this last 4 years. I guess I have to give Pres. Obama credit for that. As I have seen my liberties evaporate, I have considered them more seriously. So... I have come to the conclusion that I would be fine with cutting the DEA along with Big Bird. Then we can let people use some personable responsibility or suffer for the lack of it.

But for right now, I think we have to defeat Obama. I don't think we'll have anything left in 4 years. And if we are looking at a collapse, I'd rather have someone with more character than our sitting president.


Please vote! It's that important!
__________________
Georgia Club Member #106
Tactical Shotgun Club #58
Rimfire Club #193
Snubbie Club #18
Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 07:44   #239
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".



Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.
Some of us just don't care. I don't do dope, and I don't care much one way or the other. So I don't have any strong interest in ending the war on drugs. I'm a noncombatant.

I tell you what would get me interested though, is if they would go ahead and legalize everything, but with one small little prerequisite. Responsibility. That has been very notably absent from the call for legalization. The unfortunate thing is that we have a welfare society, and I meet people frequently that are smoking, snorting, shooting up and drinking without supporting their habits, and I (along with 49% of Americans) are footing the bill for their recreational lifestyle.

So, if you want me on board, just give me a little. This is what I'd like to see.
1. Employers (.gov and Private) still have the ability to demand a drug free workforce. Testing, not just with urine, but blood and hair too.
2. Drug related illness is not covered by normal insurance. If you want to be covered for that, you should have to have a separate policy to cover that stuff. Hospitals would have the right to refuse treatment for self inflicted injury with drugs if the patients don't have the ability to pay for drug use related illness.
3. Blood, Urine and Hair testing for ALL forms of public assistance, if positive, it's cut in half for 2 months the first positive, and cut off all together for a year on each subsequent positive test.
4. Go ahead and add tobacco and alcohol to that list.
5. Release all the drug users from jail. But if they commit another crime to support their habit, back to jail for a much longer time than they were going to serve. The hurdle for deciding that a crime is drug related should be very low. If the crime gives the criminal money, and they are buying drugs, even in a separate week, that should be enough of a nexus to count.
5. Whatever other measures are needed to place 100% of the cost onto the users.


I'm not against drug use if someone can really be responsible for it, but I don't want it to cost me or any other taxpayer a dime.

If someone wants to be free, and can afford it on their own, more power to them.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 10-07-2012 at 07:46..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 08:15   #240
marchboom
Senior Member
 
marchboom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,879
Drug use becomes a problem when the doper leaves his house, drives a car, interacts with someone else. Do your dope and stay in your house and I couldn't care less. But when the cops become involved it costs tax payers LOTS of money.

DEA? Cut them from the budget. They are not being as effective as they could be. The agents are great but they are not being allowed to do what is necessary to stop the drugs coming into the U.S.
__________________
NRA Life Member
VHA
NHRA
The obama administration and the democrat party...the ultimate in domestic corruption and dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
marchboom is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:44.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,316
380 Members
936 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31