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 10-05-2012, 18:15   #201
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."
Agree! But you know what's funny? When it comes to gun "control" the Feds say it's states righs. However, when it comes to drugs the feds say they have power over the state. I disagree! Amendment # 10.
__________________
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; 10-05-2012 at 18:19..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 18:25   #202
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."
I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 18:59   #203
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.
Yeah, if you ignore all the surrendercrat BS he has been spewing. He lost. He had his run and he failed miserably.


Reality is what it is.Get a better candidate and try to stop by in about 4 years, and we'll take a look.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 19:13   #204
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,896


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
My guess is he was busy out there in the real world, taking his message to The People, and campaigning for votes. He was probably the featured speaker at the Grand Opening of a new medical marijuana shop in some run-down strip mall.
When you have nightmares, do bongs chase you?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 19:22   #205
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
When you have nightmares, do bongs chase you?
Back atcha.

I don't care much about marijuana. I can't smoke it and don't want to.

Who cares about it more than the guys that are smoking it?
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 19:44   #206
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Back atcha.

I don't care much about marijuana. I can't smoke it and don't want to.

Who cares about it more than the guys that are smoking it?
I was a child of the 60's/70's. Smoked it! YES I INHALED!!!. I can take it or leave it. Haven't smoked any is probably 25/35(?) years. The probe I have with the law is it's Government telling ADULTS they can't do something that has no effect on anyone other than the person doing it. I'm not talking about driving under the influence or other crimes commuted while under the influence. A crime is a crime is a crime and should be treated as such but smoking marijuana like drinking alcohol in an of itself shouldn't be a crime. However, at this stage of my life I really don't care to argue about it. It's just wrong!
__________________
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; 10-05-2012 at 19:58..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 20:10   #207
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
I was a child of the 60's/70's. Smoked it! YES I INHALED!!!. I can take it or leave it. Haven't smoked any is probably 25/35(?) years. The probe I have with the law is it's Government telling ADULTS they can't do something that has no effect on anyone other than the person doing it. I'm not talking about driving under the influence or other crimes commuted while under the influence. A crime is a crime is a crime and should be treated as such but smoking marijuana like drinking alcohol in an of itself shouldn't be a crime. However, at this stage of my life I really don't care to argue about it. It's just wrong!
I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 20:41   #208
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.
I don't disagree. I'm talking about "government" intervention into peoples personal lives. I don't believe Doctors should show up for surgery drunk like the one that lead to a long, long slow death for my father did. However, it doesn't make me want to outlaw the drinking of alcohol for EVERYONE. I don't believe I should show up for work drunk or stoned. But again to outlaw the personal use of anything because someone "might" do harm is un-Americana. Now if someone causes harm let them be held accountable for causing harm... not because they're drunk or stoned on just plain stupid when they caused harm.
__________________
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; 10-05-2012 at 20:43..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 21:11   #209
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,896


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.
But you don't, any more than you have the right to know who drinks or uses prescription narcotics. But when drug or alcohol use becomes an issue professionally, licensing bodies generally step in, hospitals pull priviliges and professional reputations suffer.

Plenty of all of the people you mentioned smoke. I can introduce you to some, surgeons/physicians included. They don't even drink when on call. I'd prefer my surgeon be sober when he operates on me. If he caught a buzz the night before, I'd prefer it wasn't alcohol he used. However, I could care less if he smoked week on the weekend.

Personally, I drink seldom and I don't smoke.

I responded to Snowman because anytime Paul comes up he starts blabbering about "dopers" without even realizing he's advocating for a liberal reading of the COTUS. There is a world of difference between advocating for drug use and supporting the Constitution.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 10-05-2012 at 21:15..
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 23:52   #210
DOC44
Senior Member
 
DOC44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,339
Take a trip and never leave the keyboard.

Doc44
__________________
Have Gun Will Travel
DOC44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:51   #211
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I responded to Snowman because anytime Paul comes up he starts blabbering about "dopers" without even realizing he's advocating for a liberal reading of the COTUS. There is a world of difference between advocating for drug use and supporting the Constitution.
You must engage in selective reading, are you sure bongs don't populate your dreams? I also point out RP's endless blame-America-first carping, his affiliation with the KKK, and his slime-ball pandering to Islamic groups for campaign cash.

You have to admit, though, dopers are some of Ron Paul's most rabid supporters.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:57   #212
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
However, I could care less if he smoked week on the weekend.

.
Of course, he will still have THC in his system when he operates on you. But, that's okay. Weed makes you smarter.

Look at Obama. He smoked weed and he's the smartest man in the world.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:08   #213
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,688
Yup...our man "O" should have been preppin' for his debate instead of out back of the White House, jumpin' rope and smokin' dope.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:27   #214
onebigelf
Senior Member
 
onebigelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock30Eric View Post
Where is Gary Johnson?
Right where he's been all along. Standing under that sign over there:

"IRRELEVANT"

John
onebigelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:35   #215
onebigelf
Senior Member
 
onebigelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.
There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John
onebigelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:26   #216
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,896


Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John

Excellent.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:40   #217
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.
The Supreme Court said, basically, the only parts of the constitution that apply to states, directly, are parts that specify "states" in them.

Quote:
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.

. . .
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article.
We think, that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court.
The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the general government. Some of them use language applicable only to congress; others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.’ No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete, that it applies solely to the government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that ‘no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.’ This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.
The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the general government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the state legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the states. ‘No state shall enter into any treaty,’ &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the state government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the states.
. . .
If the original constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the general government, and on those of the state; if, in every inhibition intended to act on state power, words are employed, which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course, in framing the amendments, before that departure can be assumed.
We search in vain for that reason.
. . .
In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.

Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-51 (1833).
Basically, the opposite of what you said. Your argument is, "if it doesn't say Congress, it applies to feds and states," but the court said, "since it's a U.S. constitution, if it doesn't say 'states' it applies only to the U.S."
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 10-06-2012 at 08:42..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:45   #218
jakebrake
cracker
 
jakebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: too close to philly
Posts: 7,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock30Eric View Post
Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.
my guess is he's e mailing all 12 of his supporters, begging for another contribution.

even ross perot was in the debates.
__________________
God made man, Sam Colt made us equal, John Moses Browning made us civilized... freemasons club Number 57
jakebrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 14:15   #219
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebigelf View Post
There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John
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.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 14:42   #220
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,896


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
You must engage in selective reading, are you sure bongs don't populate your dreams? I also point out RP's endless blame-America-first carping, his affiliation with the KKK, and his slime-ball pandering to Islamic groups for campaign cash.

You have to admit, though, dopers are some of Ron Paul's most rabid supporters.
You Progressives really hate him, don't you?
__________________
“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 14:47..
certifiedfunds is online now   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 11:50.




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


Users Currently Online: 942
274 Members
668 Guests

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