Best 2nd amendment protection candidate - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Best 2nd amendment protection candidate

  1. Quote Originally Posted by weekendskp View Post
    Did you read the article? Did you read the reasoning behind the message? I guess it rings true with me because I get it! I hear the bulk of the readers of this forum saying they want their guns, but here's Ron Paul saying, "You aren't just entitled to your guns, speech, and religion. You are entitled to your freedom to choose what you do with your body.", and you call him a kook, senile, and a nutcase. He's a smart man with the courage of his convictions. His message is the salvation of this country, the greatest democracy, the United States of America, and if you value your freedom, you'll vote for Ron Paul.
    YOUR 'freedom' to swing your fist ENDS the the beginning of MY nose! DRUGS are and should remain illegal for the same reason driving drunk is illegal. Illegal drugs are a main cause of crime in this country and to legalize them in the name of freedom is to endanger the lives of the users. I have a solution. Ship every one of the addicts to a deserted island, air drop whatever they want and be done with it.
    Yes, Paul is a doddery old fool for even thinking drugs should be legalized.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by cougaram View Post
    DRUGS are and should remain illegal for the same reason driving drunk is illegal.
    Your argument is fallacious. Driving drunk is illegal; drinking is not. I agree, driving stoned should be illegal. The prohibition of alcohol killed countless people because it was being made in unsafe conditions with unsafe ingredients. The likes of Al Capone got rich on the eighteenth amendment. 16 states have passed legislation for medicinal use. If you don't like it, perhaps you should move to an island where the majority of the population believes as you do, because as of 2011, 51% of the U.S. believe marijuana should be legal. The tide is shifting, and you're the minority. Get on board, or get out of the way!
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Hey, just because the slight majority of folks think something is good doesn't make it good. Slavery was widely accepted and approved of. Not all that great an idea (at least for the slaves). I've never seen MJ as really a good thing. Maybe for a narrow amount of medical problems but that has no relationship to the "legal medical marijuana" around the country.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I've never seen MJ as really a good thing.
    Neither have I! But, the issue isn't whether marijuana is good or bad; it's whether in a "free" country, are you free? The constitution says you're entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. SCOTUS says there can be limits, ie. yelling "fire" in a movie theater. What Ron Paul advocates so strongly is that the Federal Government should not micro manage your life. He doesn't really want to smoke marijuana, but he REALLY doesn't want a government that dictates what you do in YOUR personal life. If you want to marry the same gender, so be it. If you want to own a fully automatic AR-15, so be it. If you want to have an abortion, so be it. He doesn't believe in abortion, but Ron Paul isn't going to tell you, "you can't have one.", because it isn't in the constitution.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by weekendskp View Post
    Neither have I! But, the issue isn't whether marijuana is good or bad; it's whether in a "free" country, are you free? The constitution says you're entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. SCOTUS says there can be limits, ie. yelling "fire" in a movie theater. What Ron Paul advocates so strongly is that the Federal Government should not micro manage your life. He doesn't really want to smoke marijuana, but he REALLY doesn't want a government that dictates what you do in YOUR personal life. If you want to marry the same gender, so be it. If you want to own a fully automatic AR-15, so be it. If you want to have an abortion, so be it. He doesn't believe in abortion, but Ron Paul isn't going to tell you, "you can't have one.", because it isn't in the constitution.
    I don't think it is wise to legalize a substance that often leads to a deteriorated family life. MJ often does. It's not against the law to yell fire in a movie theater (or anywhere else). It's the consequences of some action that brings the illegality. I don't think abortion is just a personal decision with personal consequences especially if the baby is viable. I think society should be encouraging the best chance for a good family life and that is a mother and a father not some alternative. It's not against the law for any number of people to live together. There is no total freedom.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  7. #46
    Wow...I see we have a good representation of faux-cons on the board...the ones who say they are conservative but want the government big enough to legislate their particular brand of morality.

    Worse than the liberals...at least the liberals admit what they are.

  8. #47
    Hmmmm. If you don't like the word Communist, maybe Pinko would suit you!:):)Just joking, really.

    The difference between R's and D's carrying guns, R's are carrying to defend Life and D's, well, we know their stand on Life.

    From what I have seen, nobody is talking civil war in reality except the Occupy Wallstreet gang. It amazes me how they, the OW gang can be destructive, rude and disgusting during their rallies and they get the 'Oh, what a beautiful spontaneous gathering' speech yet the Tea Party rallies have yet to have one TP'r arrested or have any destruction of property, let alone rape, at one of their rallies.

    Also, between all the interviews I've seen of OW folks, I have not seen two that have the same idea of what is actually being protested, they seem to be protesting just to protest. But yes, it is so beatifully spontaneous.

    KK

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I don't think it is wise to legalize a substance that often leads to a deteriorated family life. MJ often does.
    You STILL don't get it!If MJ were legal, would you, all of a sudden, run out and buy a bunch, and smoke weed until your work and family life were in the dumps? I think not. The message here is very simple, and I will type slow so you can understand it. CHOICE. If you choose wisely, you are rewarded with a loving wife, smart children, good careers, or whatever in life you WANT. But then along comes big government that, like PaxMentis points out, legislates morality, props up poor choices by people too stupid to make it under normal circumstances, and voila', you get welfare and food stamp recipients, out of work derelicts, and criminals.
    It's not against the law to yell fire in a movie theater (or anywhere else).
    It may not be an actual statute, but it is the example the SCOTUS uses as the benchmark for all constitutionally protected speech.
    It's the consequences of some action that brings the illegality.
    As it should be. Everyone should be responsible for their actions, but NEVER has there been a case where a law criminalizing an action, prevented the law from being broken. And therein lies the whole enchilada, baby. Quit passing so darn many laws. If I want to own a fully automatic machine gun, I should be able to. But, don't make it illegal just to make yourself sleep better at night. Criminals will still get them if they choose, break into your home at night and riddle you with a bazillion bullets, . . . or . . . just one, placed ever so smartly in the center of your brow. The criminal has choices too.
    I don't think abortion is just a personal decision with personal consequences especially if the baby is viable. I think society should be encouraging the best chance for a good family life and that is a mother and a father not some alternative. It's not against the law for any number of people to live together. There is no total freedom.
    What defines "good family" is only what YOU determine it to be? Finally, live and let live. Keep your nose out of everybody else's business, and hopefully, natural selection will weed out the lesser able in the population.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    Wow...I see we have a good representation of faux-cons on the board...the ones who say they are conservative but want the government big enough to legislate their particular brand of morality.

    Worse than the liberals...at least the liberals admit what they are.
    I've never understood this concept of "conservativism with compasion". Liberals don't have any compasion, why do conservatives need it? Government is not a very compasionate entity.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    "would you, all of a sudden, run out and buy a bunch, and smoke weed until your work and family life were in the dumps?"

    No, but a lot of impressionable young people would. There is no reasonable doubt that usage (and consequentially problems) would go up.

    "I will type slow so you can understand it."

    Type as fast as you can, your snottiness won't be missed.

    "legislates morality, props up poor choices by people too stupid to make it under normal circumstances, "

    Therein lies the problem. I don't care what idiots do, as long as it doesn't affect others including paying for their consequences with taxpayer's money.


    "It may not be an actual statute, but it is the example the SCOTUS uses as the benchmark for all constitutionally protected speech."

    It's a bad example because it isn't true. You may be prosecuted or civilly sued if some damage results but you won't be charged with "yelling fire". As a result it is not an example of "limits" on the First Amendment.


    "What defines "good family" is only what YOU determine it to be?"

    Nope, there is more than adequate evidence that the best family structure is a father and a mother in the home.


    "Keep your nose out of everybody else's business,"

    Unfortunately that isn't followed. The fact is the government largess with the taxpayer's money and damages caused by folks under the influence, makes a whole bunch of things everybody's business, even when they don't want it to be.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast