GlockTalk.com
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 10-07-2012, 08:48   #241
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
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
Bravo!!
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 11:17   #242
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional.
No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 11:57   #243
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.
Well that applies to guns too
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:06   #244
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
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.
Someone please tell me I'm seeing things and that I didn't really read that. I've say before that something someone posted was the most "stupid" thing I've ever read but that has to take
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:20   #245
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Well that applies to guns too
We've always had some legal restrictions on who is allowed to own and possess firearms. It's been a constant fight to keep them from encroaching on our liberty, and it always will be...Jefferson warned us to jealously guard our freedoms...but there have always been some restrictions.

I find it hilarious that you equate the RKBA to your imagined right to stayed stoned.

Thankfully, the rest of us can take comfort in the knowledge that there are so few Americans who think that way. Otherwise Ron Paul would have fared better in the primaries.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:21   #246
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,792
It's the people knowingly creating a problem who are complaining about how much it's costing to try to fix the problem. It's like people committing insurance fraud and then complaining about how insurance keeps getting more expensive or shoplifters complaining that there are cameras in dressing rooms. It's ridiculous.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:22   #247
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
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

Society draws lines between two similar things all the time and creates laws for the good of society. Somethings are "OK" and some aren't.

We draw a line in the violence continuum between "Castle Doctrine" and "Honor Killings"

(watch as some half wad now says "are you comparing recreational drugs to murder?)
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:27   #248
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.
So why was a COTUS amendment required to prohibit alcohol but not a plant?
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:55   #249
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
We draw a line in the violence continuum between "Castle Doctrine" and "Honor Killings"

(watch as some half wad now says "are you comparing recreational drugs to murder? )
That's okay...we've already heard that doing recreational drugs equates to the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.

You know...that whole "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to stay stoned, shall not be infringed", and all that.

Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 12:58   #250
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Actually that post wasn’t only about drugs. It was about many things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
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.


This sounds harsh because it’s just written matter of fact. Read my whole post before taking offense. Many feel the same way. Until they become unwilling “innocent victims” in the illegal combat. Just one example… No nock warrants, wrong door kicked in people shot. But it doesn’t concern you…. unless one day it happens to you or a loved one. That is EXACTLY why the government gets away with what it gets away with. People with attitudes like you’re displaying right there, “Some of us just don't care”. I’ll bet you scream to high heaven about the things that do affect you. And that‘s the difference between you and me. I care about government abuse in all forms and fashion.

Quote:
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.
Evidently you have missed the parts of my posts where I’ve stated that peole showing up with drug related ailments should be shown the door. And that leads me to another “government abuse”. Making US pay for welfare. Posted this before but perhaps you’d like to read it http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html If you have the money to pay for treatment you receive treatment… you don’t, you don’t.

Quote:
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.
Before hiring? OK! After and on an ongoing basis? NO! That’s an infringement of people’s privacy rights. If a person is hurt or causes damage or injury they will be tested to see if they are UNDER THE INFLUENCE. If the guy/gal had a drink or smoked weed or had a snort of cocaine last week it’s none of your business.
Quote:
. 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.
See above post about treatment.
Quote:
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.
BINGO! We agree! Public ASSISTANCE should also be for a limited time. After that let your family support you get a job or starve.
Quote:
4. Go ahead and add tobacco and alcohol to that list.
The treatment falls under my previously mentioned conditions (no pay no play) and I’m with you.
Quote:
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.
I believe in the death penalty. Release them. If they then meet one of your criteria... Hang um!

Quote:
5. Whatever other measures are needed to place 100% of the cost onto the users.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
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.
We’re now on the same page.
__________________
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; 10-07-2012 at 13:05..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:03   #251
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
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
Spot on, now all the statist and progressive republicrats will chime in in disagreement......Ooops, looks like they already have.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:07   #252
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 34,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
So why was a COTUS amendment required to prohibit alcohol but not a plant?
Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.

In 1934 they didn't ban NFA weapons, they just placed very strict tax requirements on them. Notice that federal marijuana regulation started the same way, with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 10-07-2012 at 13:07..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:15   #253
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.
What's really sad about that is the Constitution, with regards to such matters, HAS NOT changed but the government has learned how to do end runs around it and WE'VE allow it.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:18   #254
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.

In 1934 they didn't ban NFA weapons, they just placed very strict tax requirements on them. Notice that federal marijuana regulation started the same way, with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
But the document remained the same (with regard to applicable federal powers and restrictions).

This *IS* a glaring example of Progressivism.
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:24   #255
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
But the document remained the same (with regard to applicable federal powers and restrictions).

This *IS* a glaring example of Progressivism.

Just like ending slavery and giving women the vote. This Countrty is going to hell I tell you. To many dag nabbed changes since the good old days of 1776
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:30   #256
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Just like ending slavery and giving women the vote. This Countrty is going to hell I tell you. To many dag nabbed changes since the good old days of 1776
You're referring to amendments that followed the Constitutional process and thus became part of the COTUS. Perhaps you can point me to the one that permits the fedgov to regulate marijuana?
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:34   #257
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
You're referring to amendments that followed the Constitutional process and thus became part of the COTUS. Perhaps you can point me to the one that permits the fedgov to regulate marijuana?
Or healthcare.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:37   #258
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,070


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Or healthcare.
Precisely.

Once you lay down and accept the government seizing power it wasn't granted in areas you agree with you have to be prepared to accept it doing the same in areas you don't.

You reap what you sow. The conservatives here who support the WOD deserve to have Obamacare shoved down their throats.
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 13:40   #259
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Precisely.

Once you lay down and accept the government seizing power it wasn't granted in areas you agree with you have to be prepared to accept it doing the same in areas you don't.

You reap what you sow. The conservatives here who support the WOD deserve to have Obamacare shoved down their throats.
I agree.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 14:12   #260
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Or healthcare.
You must have missed the memo. They aren't regulating healthcare... it's a tax. and I still have some swampland in Arizona if anyone is interested.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry 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 20:05.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,601
418 Members
1,183 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42