You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AFN
- Thread starter AllanHampton
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AllanHampton:
A person cannot commit a crime against themselves, contribution to someone else may be illegal. I see nothing wrong with laws against contribution. Personal use or possession does not involve anyone else. And any law against personal possession and use of anything violates individual freedom.[/quote]
So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal, even if they contribute directly to the violent purveyor of the product. What about all the middlemen? I wonder if you could ellucidate your position for me. I am trying to keep an open mind.
Oh yeah, one more thing to all.
Keep it civil folks! NO personal attacks!
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
A person cannot commit a crime against themselves, contribution to someone else may be illegal. I see nothing wrong with laws against contribution. Personal use or possession does not involve anyone else. And any law against personal possession and use of anything violates individual freedom.[/quote]
So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal, even if they contribute directly to the violent purveyor of the product. What about all the middlemen? I wonder if you could ellucidate your position for me. I am trying to keep an open mind.
Oh yeah, one more thing to all.
Keep it civil folks! NO personal attacks!
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
AllanHampton
New member
John/az2 & Coinneach, what is your problem? Why are you telling me to stop my posts? Sounds to me like someone may learn something for my posts. I do hope to wake up someone, anyone.
Surely you are not against the suggestion of reading the Constitution, are you?
Surely you are not against the suggestion of reading the Constitution, are you?
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBluesMan:
So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal, even if they contribute directly to the violent purveyor of the product. What about all the middlemen? I wonder if you could ellucidate your position for me. I am trying to keep an open mind.
[/B][/quote]
I think what Allan is expressing is the typical libertarian view on this issue, which is that the product itself -- be it porno, dope, guns, whatever -- isn't the problem. If I read porno, smoke dope, own guns, etc., and am not infringing on anyone else's rights, then why should the government or anyone else want to stop me? Now, if I molest young girls, steal to support my drug habit, or use my gun to hold up a bank, then I've crossed the line and am infringing on others' rights, in which case the force of law should indeed be used against me. But the guy who sold me the porno or the dope or the gun isn't responsible for my abuse of the product.
So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal, even if they contribute directly to the violent purveyor of the product. What about all the middlemen? I wonder if you could ellucidate your position for me. I am trying to keep an open mind.
[/B][/quote]
I think what Allan is expressing is the typical libertarian view on this issue, which is that the product itself -- be it porno, dope, guns, whatever -- isn't the problem. If I read porno, smoke dope, own guns, etc., and am not infringing on anyone else's rights, then why should the government or anyone else want to stop me? Now, if I molest young girls, steal to support my drug habit, or use my gun to hold up a bank, then I've crossed the line and am infringing on others' rights, in which case the force of law should indeed be used against me. But the guy who sold me the porno or the dope or the gun isn't responsible for my abuse of the product.
AllanHampton
New member
TheBluesMan,
I see no problem in separating an action toward someone (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) and keeping it to oneself. The problem is at the end result and there is where the law should apply. If the law is applied at the beginning of personal use and/or possession then it is a restriction of individual liberty.
"So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal"
Yes, if no one else is involved. Maybe a good question is what is illegal for a free person to own, use and have in possession? Who has authority to criminalize the ownership of any readily available substance or object?
I see no problem in separating an action toward someone (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) and keeping it to oneself. The problem is at the end result and there is where the law should apply. If the law is applied at the beginning of personal use and/or possession then it is a restriction of individual liberty.
"So you are saying that the person at the end of the line that uses the illegal product in private is not a criminal"
Yes, if no one else is involved. Maybe a good question is what is illegal for a free person to own, use and have in possession? Who has authority to criminalize the ownership of any readily available substance or object?
Coin & John,
I'm sorry for the way I directed my replies but I don't like it when in order for someone to prove their point they have to make remarks about other peoples judgement and belittle them.
I believe most of what he was saying but the America we live in now is not the same one that elected Lincoln.
This will be my last reply on this thread.
Thanks for pulling me up for air guy's.
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited April 26, 2000).]
I'm sorry for the way I directed my replies but I don't like it when in order for someone to prove their point they have to make remarks about other peoples judgement and belittle them.
I believe most of what he was saying but the America we live in now is not the same one that elected Lincoln.
This will be my last reply on this thread.
Thanks for pulling me up for air guy's.
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited April 26, 2000).]
sensop,
AFN = American Freedom Network http://www.americanewsnet.com
- a buncha crazie-type radio personalities here in NE Colorado who actually believe in freedom. Crazy, huh? You can pick up their RealAudio broadcasts off a link on the main page.
Harry B was interviewed on Rob Noel's show a coupla days back. Rob Noel also is site owner for http://www.trteam.com - home of the Tyranny Response Team.
Some damned good stuff comes outa the whole 5K watts of ear-splitting power. Bit funnky at times - but what ain't. As with anything else, you have to sort the chaff for the wheat & there's more wheat there than chaff, at least compared to most any other station I've listened to.
AFN = American Freedom Network http://www.americanewsnet.com
- a buncha crazie-type radio personalities here in NE Colorado who actually believe in freedom. Crazy, huh? You can pick up their RealAudio broadcasts off a link on the main page.
Harry B was interviewed on Rob Noel's show a coupla days back. Rob Noel also is site owner for http://www.trteam.com - home of the Tyranny Response Team.
Some damned good stuff comes outa the whole 5K watts of ear-splitting power. Bit funnky at times - but what ain't. As with anything else, you have to sort the chaff for the wheat & there's more wheat there than chaff, at least compared to most any other station I've listened to.
In reference to the first part: Who is to define non-violent? Is it a crime to conspire? Is it only a crime to conspire if the topic is violent? Should it never be a crime to conspire? Is a crime like rape only a crime if physical violence is used?
The way I see it, the idea (free non violent offenders) would have little merit, less chance to succeed and great potential to bankrupt the country with a wholesale rewriteing of laws,and retrials.
The way I see it, the idea (free non violent offenders) would have little merit, less chance to succeed and great potential to bankrupt the country with a wholesale rewriteing of laws,and retrials.
AllanHampton
New member
David Roberson, exactly, except;
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
But the guy who sold me the porno or the dope or the gun isn't responsible for my abuse of the product.[/quote]
Perhaps that "guy" is guilty of contributing. And a law against self abuse is unenforceable, therefore useless.
Porno and dope are not specifically mentioned in the Constitutional, but the gun (arms) is protected. Government is constitutionally forbidden to "infringe" on a constitutional protected Right. Legislation, or court decisions, cannot legally change the Constitution. Any change of/in the Constitution must be done by ratification.
It is a very dangerous slippery slope into despotism when We, the People, believe government can legally legislate away the Constitution. Such is the complete destruction of this Republic.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
But the guy who sold me the porno or the dope or the gun isn't responsible for my abuse of the product.[/quote]
Perhaps that "guy" is guilty of contributing. And a law against self abuse is unenforceable, therefore useless.
Porno and dope are not specifically mentioned in the Constitutional, but the gun (arms) is protected. Government is constitutionally forbidden to "infringe" on a constitutional protected Right. Legislation, or court decisions, cannot legally change the Constitution. Any change of/in the Constitution must be done by ratification.
It is a very dangerous slippery slope into despotism when We, the People, believe government can legally legislate away the Constitution. Such is the complete destruction of this Republic.
AllanHampton
New member
RAE, I believe the Constitution is the best and most accurate source to the questions you ask. I have a copy of the Constitution with very good imbedded interpretation prepared by Joanne Campbell that I will email to anyone who wants it; ahampton@tcainternet.com
Here is an excerpt from it:
Article of Amendment #10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
* delegated (given; granted)
* reserved (kept back or set aside)
* respectively (individually)
1.. Demands that any power not given to the central or federal government, within this Constitution, and any power not expressly prohibited to the State governments by this Constitution are kept back, or set aside (permanently) to the States or to the people.
2.. There is no constitutional mandate as to which powers belong to the individuals and which to the State, (except those declared within the Constitution, including this Bill of Rights) because this document does not pretend to declare the States or the people to be under its jurisdiction, except in the specified matters listed within this Constitution.
3.. NOTE: Remember, the people are granting rights (powers) to a governing body with this Constitution. The governing body does not yet exist, and so is incapable of granting rights.
4.. The first 8 Articles of Amendment attempt to preserve specific rights of the people. The last two Articles of Amendment attempt to clarify the fact that these are not rights that ever belonged to the (any) United States government, and therefore are not under that government's jurisdiction. Got It?
Here is an excerpt from it:
Article of Amendment #10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
* delegated (given; granted)
* reserved (kept back or set aside)
* respectively (individually)
1.. Demands that any power not given to the central or federal government, within this Constitution, and any power not expressly prohibited to the State governments by this Constitution are kept back, or set aside (permanently) to the States or to the people.
2.. There is no constitutional mandate as to which powers belong to the individuals and which to the State, (except those declared within the Constitution, including this Bill of Rights) because this document does not pretend to declare the States or the people to be under its jurisdiction, except in the specified matters listed within this Constitution.
3.. NOTE: Remember, the people are granting rights (powers) to a governing body with this Constitution. The governing body does not yet exist, and so is incapable of granting rights.
4.. The first 8 Articles of Amendment attempt to preserve specific rights of the people. The last two Articles of Amendment attempt to clarify the fact that these are not rights that ever belonged to the (any) United States government, and therefore are not under that government's jurisdiction. Got It?
Nestor Rivera
New member
To all 3rd 4th 5th etc... party supporters let me explain why I can not vote for any of them (as long as a Republican is in the race) a long time ago here in the Great State of Texas we had a 1 party system, heck we invented the term yellow dog democrat but a few stalwart souls (including my gradparents) worked hard and made a state republican party which did not make the big show of just running a Gov. race but also lots of state house and senate, school board, city council, County Judges etc.. races and even started winning them from time to time untill now we have a Rep Gov. and Supreme Court as well as haveing a swaping parity with the dems in both houses (we Texans have a lot of elected offices comes from reconstuction).
My point is when Party X starts running and winning City/County/State elections then and only then will I even concider them as anything but pretenders. Also an open nomanation system (like a primary) is kind of important too.
My point is when Party X starts running and winning City/County/State elections then and only then will I even concider them as anything but pretenders. Also an open nomanation system (like a primary) is kind of important too.
AllanHampton
New member
Nestor Rivera, I'll vote for the candidate I feel will honor the oath of office and not because of the political party. I am a native Texan myself but now live in Arkansas and this State is controlled by members of the democrat party, for many years. We have a republican governor now too. This present governor is as much socialist as the democrats. History proves neither republican nor democrats honor the oath of office. The oath of office is the reason citizens elect representatives to public office in this Republic. Voting for any other reason is a wasted vote and not in the best of the Republic.
Have you read the new Texas Constitution? http://www.tcrf.com
How long has in been since you read the United States Constitution? constitution.org
Introduction to the Constitution, Prepared by Joanne Campbell:
The United States Constitution is a document that was written to grant specified powers to a centralized authority. Any thing, any power, not specified within the Constitution as being granted to this 'federal' government, or specifically denied to the individual States, remains within the authority of the individual States and of the people. In reality, the United States Constitution was written to govern "government(s)" And also in reality, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the government(s). When the United States, or any one of the States violates the Constitution without reprisal they, for all intents and purposes, make it null and void.
The Constitution was not written to control the people, nor to give any rights to the people. It is written to control the centralized government that the people felt they needed in order to defend themselves and their States from foreign influences and invasion, and to dispel certain disagreements between the States.
All words have meaning. It is often too easy to overlook the meaning of the most simple, most common words in the English language. But without a full understanding of the meaning of the words, within the context of their usage, it is impossible to understand the true intent of any written document. The following pages repeat the complete text of the Constitution along with a study of the words that give it its meaning. It is urgent that every American citizen understand exactly what their centralized government is empowered to do. This Constitution is hanging on a precipice of extreme danger. If we don't reclaim it now, it will be gone forever.
Benjamin Franklin said the Constitution would be a "blessing to the people if well administered, and (believed) farther that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." (Convention notes of James Madison) Of Article 1 Section 9, James Madison wrote, in The Federalist, #44: "--legislative interference is but the first link in a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." Courts of law refer to this as setting a precedent. Once Congress is allowed to usurp the powers that belong to the people or to the States, it is seen as grounds for the next usurpation.
Apparently his warning applies to the entire Constitution! If we remember this warning as we study just what it is that the United States government is allowed to do, and look at just what it, in all three of its branches is doing, we might understand just what a perilous time it is for our Constitution, and for We The People.
As you study, remember, the people are granting rights (powers) to a governing body with this Constitution. The governing body does not yet exist. A nonexistent entity has no power, and therefore is incapable of granting rights, or anything else.
I will email the complete document to anyone who wants it. ahampton@tcainternet.com
Have you read the new Texas Constitution? http://www.tcrf.com
How long has in been since you read the United States Constitution? constitution.org
Introduction to the Constitution, Prepared by Joanne Campbell:
The United States Constitution is a document that was written to grant specified powers to a centralized authority. Any thing, any power, not specified within the Constitution as being granted to this 'federal' government, or specifically denied to the individual States, remains within the authority of the individual States and of the people. In reality, the United States Constitution was written to govern "government(s)" And also in reality, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the government(s). When the United States, or any one of the States violates the Constitution without reprisal they, for all intents and purposes, make it null and void.
The Constitution was not written to control the people, nor to give any rights to the people. It is written to control the centralized government that the people felt they needed in order to defend themselves and their States from foreign influences and invasion, and to dispel certain disagreements between the States.
All words have meaning. It is often too easy to overlook the meaning of the most simple, most common words in the English language. But without a full understanding of the meaning of the words, within the context of their usage, it is impossible to understand the true intent of any written document. The following pages repeat the complete text of the Constitution along with a study of the words that give it its meaning. It is urgent that every American citizen understand exactly what their centralized government is empowered to do. This Constitution is hanging on a precipice of extreme danger. If we don't reclaim it now, it will be gone forever.
Benjamin Franklin said the Constitution would be a "blessing to the people if well administered, and (believed) farther that it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." (Convention notes of James Madison) Of Article 1 Section 9, James Madison wrote, in The Federalist, #44: "--legislative interference is but the first link in a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." Courts of law refer to this as setting a precedent. Once Congress is allowed to usurp the powers that belong to the people or to the States, it is seen as grounds for the next usurpation.
Apparently his warning applies to the entire Constitution! If we remember this warning as we study just what it is that the United States government is allowed to do, and look at just what it, in all three of its branches is doing, we might understand just what a perilous time it is for our Constitution, and for We The People.
As you study, remember, the people are granting rights (powers) to a governing body with this Constitution. The governing body does not yet exist. A nonexistent entity has no power, and therefore is incapable of granting rights, or anything else.
I will email the complete document to anyone who wants it. ahampton@tcainternet.com
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nestor Rivera:
My point is when Party X starts running and winning City/County/State elections then and only then will I even concider them as anything but pretenders. Also an open nomanation system (like a primary) is kind of important too. [/quote]
Excellent news, Nestor. Since the Libertarian Party has almost 300 members holding office nationwide, and an open primary system, I'm glad you'll be considering voting for them instead of one of the socialist candidates.
Here in NC, by the way, there's even a primary contest for the Libertarian nomination for governor this year.
My point is when Party X starts running and winning City/County/State elections then and only then will I even concider them as anything but pretenders. Also an open nomanation system (like a primary) is kind of important too. [/quote]
Excellent news, Nestor. Since the Libertarian Party has almost 300 members holding office nationwide, and an open primary system, I'm glad you'll be considering voting for them instead of one of the socialist candidates.
Here in NC, by the way, there's even a primary contest for the Libertarian nomination for governor this year.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.