User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 2:59:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Not even remotely so. Some of us are capable of making decisions for ourselves without fear of .gov to tell us otherwise. Sorry to hear that without laws you'd be married to a man, hiring mexican'ts, and smoking weed all day. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 3:05:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Yes I would. Inexpensive knock-offs that use lower quality materials and poor workmanship can be purchased on the blackmarket for less than the cost of actual name brand merchandise. I'm not talking about Rolez (yes, I ment to put the z in there) watches, I'm talking about watches marked Rolex that look like Rolex, but were made in a sweatshop in Taiwan. That is the type of unregulated, unlisenced narcotics using dangerous low quality ingredients that would be available on the street for a lower cost than the Bayer or Upjohn Heroine.
Actually, I was referring to the Cartel not allowing competition in the manufacture or importation of similar products. The Cartels engage in murder and intimidation to protect their business interests just as much as your rock slangin' street gangs or the Mob.
I beg to differ. Drug addicts frequently commit robberies, armed robberies, muggings, thefts and engage in prostitution to fund their habits. Have you never seen one single episode of COPS? 
Actually, I live in a nice clean fairly crime free suburb.
I'm glad you're hear to educate me Capone. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 3:07:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Crack is derived from cocaine, it is very cheap and readily available in every ghetto in this nation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 3:08:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Fine Norman,
How would roads be built? What about utilities? Schools? Hospitals? Dams etc etc etc etc Infracture is needed. Government is needed. Again, if Libertarians are so good why don't they first start on the lower offices instead of the Pres? SGatr1`5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 3:20:17 PM EDT
[#5]
I didn't realize we were discussing infrastructure, I thought we were talking about what hole you choose to stick your pecker in, and what plant you choose to smoke.
I am not really a fan, but I actually agree. They should start at the local level. I think it would benefit them greatly to win things like county commisioners and mayors, then move up to state legislators and governors. I'm more in favor of a third party, any third party, than I am specifically of the Libertarians in their current flavor. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 4:04:16 PM EDT
[#6]
you display your own ignorance of the matter you are debating. cocaine and methamphetamine are stimulants, just as nicotine and caffeine are. the difference is merely one of dosage. and, at the same dosage, caffeine is the more potent stimulant. if you would take the time to research this, you would find that neither cocaine nor "Meth Amphedamine(sic)" is hallucinogenic. until you have researched the matter, you are merely a parrot who has chosen the wrong lines to memorize. in your intellectual flailing, however, you have stumbled upon one accuracy. PCP is psychoactive. it is dangerous, just as matches are dangerous. when confronted with danger, free men choose their own path.
legal drug sales and trafficking occur quite regularly in restaurants, pharmacies, and convenience stores. we have many of these in dallas, and few are run by gangs.
the same can be said for arms dealers. thank you for trying to make a case against our ARs, 1911s, and .22s.
the word you chose was 'trafficking'. colt and bushmaster produce. they do not distribute or 'traffic'. the fact that you cannot use precise language does not change the fact that some arms dealers support terrorism. therefore, it can be rightly said that... 3. It is a known and proven fact that the funds from ARMS trafficing(sic) are often times used to fund international terrorism. this is quite simple logic, and cannot be argued. on a further note, i have heard many times that, while evil can be done with firearms, inanimate objects themselves cannot be inherently evil. therefore, it is the individual, and the individual's choices, which should be judged. unless you are prepared to state that drugs are living things, than you are being amusingly hypocritical.
you do not have the constitutional right to use matches, gasoline, or a computer. you do, however, have the moral right to do so. let me make this very, very clear for you... i have the moral right to do ANYTHING, unless by that action i am directly interfering with the rights of another individual. if i choose to use LSD at home, i am within my moral rights. if i choose to drive while on LSD, i am not. drugs don't kill people, people kill people. can you be so obtuse as to not see this?
while it is outside the scope of this thread, the bible as the 'word of god' is more than a little debateable. however, there is quite a bit of wisdom contained therein.
and how do drugs interfere with any of this? that is: DRUGS, not people. you cannot possibly make a case that inanimate objects interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. you can, however, make yourself more absurd by attempting to do so.
again, this is about people, not things. according to this board, it is the criminals, and not the objects, who should be held responsible. but yet you persist in the idea that chemicals posess some mystical sentience.
if an angry man wielding a firearm threatens my family, whose responsibility is it to defend them? mine. if a drunk driver swerves towards me, whose responsibility is it to protect my life? mine. if i am caught up in a confidence scam, whose responsibility is it to ensure that i am not stolen from? mine. if i allow my neighborhood to be overrun with criminals, who is to blame? me. if i die because i overdosed on heroin, who is at fault? me. you seem to want to shunt these responsibilities away from yourself, and onto mother government. as i am an american citizen, i AM the government, and i resent your laziness.
you seem to be reasonably educated on constitutionality, but you are sadly lacking in the sphere of political science. perhaps you should begin with hobbes. what you have just invoked is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." our system of government was specifically designed to prevent such tyranny. if the people of this nation overwhelmingly agreed that a husband and wife could only have one child, would you meekly accept? evidently.
i believe that i do. furthermore, unlike you, i have a clear understanding that the concept of Liberty is a far, far greater thing than this nation, for Liberty is an eternal truth, and not the construct of men. you invoke the constitution. the constitution, however, is not Freedom. it is not a even map, for a map could show us what Freedom really is. the constitution is a compass that points us toward our goal, and prevents us from getting lost along the way. and while no greater compass has ever been made, it is nonetheless an imperfect tool. the men who built this edifice recognized this: knew that they could not define a universal truth upon a page, and knew that the truth was greater than the words. yet you venerate it as scripture, or a divine artifact. jefferson would weep. in this world, there are only three types of people. the rulers. the ruled. the free. you have made it eminently clear which position you occupy. [these tags are killing me] |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 4:08:53 PM EDT
[#7]
AGreed. SGatr15 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 4:10:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Inexpensive knock offs? That's your comparison? Sure, I guess somebody might go pay $5 less for the stuff that doesn't get you high. Or maybe they'd spend the extra ten for the high quality shit that's pure, give a good high and lasts twice as long. By the way, I'm not "capone" but I do know something about it. These are the kind of people I unfortunately grew up with. I'm sorry my firsthand knowledge and 20 years of living what you're talking about contrast with your suburban "saw it on cops" opinion.
And yes, some drug addicts do commit robberies and crimes. I wasn't trying to make a sweeping generalization that NO drug addicts steal. I was just stating that MANY of them go to a temporary/day labor place and work the day for a $40 fix and repeat daily. If every drug addict robbed for a living, crime rates would be MUCH higher than they are. I also like how you addressed the very least relevant areas of my post. Way to evade logic. You must have done this once or twice before. It actually makes no difference to me if drugs are legal or not, that's not high on my agenda. It would be nice to see my tax dollars working on more important stuff though. You know, rather than getting my $20,000 seized by cops while I'm on a business trip. Because we all know I wouldn't have that kind of money on hand if I wasn't a drug dealer right? My point that was drug users don't cause the majority of drug crime, black markets do. As I said before, you're no different than the other people out there seeking a false security rather than address the real issue. It's not something I expect to see eye to eye on with most people. No biggy, just thought I'd throw my perspective out there. Hell, ask Steyr AUG what he thinks, I'd say he's a freaking AUTHORITY on drug enforcement if anybody here is. Ten bucks says he backs my thinking too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:15:42 PM EDT
[#9]
My tags got all screwed up, and since it is late and I am tired I am simply bolding my responses.
First, your insults have succeeded in demeaning me, and I am just finished crying a river of tears. That said are you denying that Cocaine and Meth Amphedamine can induce violent paranoid behavior? I admit, I am not an expert on drugs, in fact I know very little about the technical details of any of the hardcore drugs. I do know that they make people behave violently and a person who is high on cocaine, PCP, Meth or other hard core drugs is capable of commiting acts that they would not normally commit without the influence of the narcotics. I also know that these drugs have a higher probability of inducing violent criminal behavior than most other drugs do.
We aren't talking about legalizing legal drugs. We are talking about legalizing illegal and dangerous narcotics.
3. It is a known and proven fact that the funds from ARMS trafficing(sic) are often times used to fund international terrorism. this is quite simple logic, and cannot be argued. Illegal arms trafficing that provides a source of funding for international terrorism should also be stopped. I see no inconsistency in my statements of position. on a further note, i have heard many times that, while evil can be done with firearms, inanimate objects themselves cannot be inherently evil. therefore, it is the individual, and the individual's choices, which should be judged. unless you are prepared to state that drugs are living things, than you are being amusingly hypocritical. This is not hypocritical at all. A firearm does not alter your mood or induce delusions or halucinations, illegal drugs do. You don't have a constitutional or moral freedom to use drugs. I'm sorry if you feel that is oppresive. you do not have the constitutional right to use matches, gasoline, or a computer. you do, however, have the moral right to do so. let me make this very, very clear for you... i have the moral right to do ANYTHING, unless by that action i am directly interfering with the rights of another individual. if i choose to use LSD at home, i am within my moral rights. if i choose to drive while on LSD, i am not. drugs don't kill people, people kill people. can you be so obtuse as to not see this? One you have made the decision to use that LSD, you cannot guarantee what your actions will be once the LSD has taken effect. The LSD will alter your mood, alter your heart rate, breathing and body temperature. The LSD will also create halucinations in your mind. While on that LSD you may blow your wife's brains out to prevent her from reading your mind, while you would not consider such a thing without LSD. Think it doesn't happen? I know for a fact that it does! I find it completely laughable that you would use the word of God to try and justify opening the flood gates of illegal narcotics! while it is outside the scope of this thread, the bible as the 'word of god' is more than a little debateable. however, there is quite a bit of wisdom contained therein. You are correct, there is substantial wisdom in the Bible. Most of it would completely contradict your views on liberty. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that liberty should only be excercised with the welfare of your fellow man in mind. It was Paul's opinion that if your actions taken in liberty would even lead another person to think about sinning against their conscience, then you must not do it! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," The meaning of this paragraph is threefold sir! 1. All people have a god given right to live, be free and pursue happiness and how do drugs interfere with any of this? that is: DRUGS, not people. you cannot possibly make a case that inanimate objects interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. you can, however, make yourself more absurd by attempting to do so. The types of hardcore drugs that we are discussing have a known track record of leading people to commit acts that they normally would not commit. If you shoot something up and then microwave your baby, you are no longer merely excercising your liberty, you are now infringing on the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2. It is the role of government to protect these rights from those who would rob us of them again, this is about people, not things. according to this board, it is the criminals, and not the objects, who should be held responsible. but yet you persist in the idea that chemicals posess some mystical sentience. Chemicals have the ability to alter the behaviors of the people who take them. Illicit drugs have a track record of leading people to commit some of the most henous acts I have ever heard of. 3. The people determine which steps and which restricions government is allowed to enact to protect those rights! if an angry man wielding a firearm threatens my family, whose responsibility is it to defend them? mine. if a drunk driver swerves towards me, whose responsibility is it to protect my life? mine. if i am caught up in a confidence scam, whose responsibility is it to ensure that i am not stolen from? mine. if i allow my neighborhood to be overrun with criminals, who is to blame? me. if i die because i overdosed on heroin, who is at fault? me. you seem to want to shunt these responsibilities away from yourself, and onto mother government. as i am an american citizen, i AM the government, and i resent your laziness. That is a step too far! I am equally capable of defending myself and defending my family, and I take an active role in doing so. I am not seeking government protection for myself or my family. I do however, refuse to leave those who are not capable of defending themselves to the mercy of your deluded vision of liberty! You don't know me! The people of this nation overwhelmingly agree that restrictions on certain drugs are accecptable and necessary to ensure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all! you seem to be reasonably educated on constitutionality, but you are sadly lacking in the sphere of political science. perhaps you should begin with hobbes. what you have just invoked is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." our system of government was specifically designed to prevent such tyranny. if the people of this nation overwhelmingly agreed that a husband and wife could only have one child, would you meekly accept? evidently. Why do you believe that because I support the restriction of illegal narcotics, that I would also support forced abortion? Do you honestly feel that I am that incapable of distinguishing the completely seperate moral implications of the 2 different issues? Or is it that you are incapable of viewing different issues from a different perspective based on the different ethical principles of each situation? Are you that married to your vision of consistency that you cannot view separate issues separately? You have no understanding of the foundations of your own country! i believe that i do. furthermore, unlike you, i have a clear understanding that the concept of Liberty is a far, far greater thing than this nation, for Liberty is an eternal truth, and not the construct of men. you invoke the constitution. the constitution, however, is not Freedom. it is not a even map, for a map could show us what Freedom really is. the constitution is a compass that points us toward our goal, and prevents us from getting lost along the way. WRONG! The consititution is the foundation of our Republic. In the context of freedom for this nation, the Constitution is the basis for that freedom. The constitution puts limits on specific freedoms that the government can and cannot restrict, and it defines the manner in which this nation should be run. and while no greater compass has ever been made, it is nonetheless an imperfect tool. the men who built this edifice recognized this: knew that they could not define a universal truth upon a page, and knew that the truth was greater than the words. yet you venerate it as scripture, or a divine artifact. As I stated above, the constitution is the first and last word in freedom and liberty for this nation. It is a document that can be amended when necessary to fit the times, and it some ways it is imperfect. However, I believe in it 100% and I would readily die to defend it. It is THE definition of this nation, and the liberty and freedoms that this nation represents. jefferson would weep. Who cares? Thomas Jefferson was a great leader, but he was not Jesus Christ. He was not even George Washington or Thomas Paine. He didn't sign the US Constitution, and he did not particpate in the creation of the US Constitution, in fact he was not even in the country when the constitution was created, signed or ratified! He was one man who played a role in the developement of this nation, but he was only one voice and one opinion is a crowd of great men who helped to found this nation. BTW...Were you aware of the fact that John Kerry is currently touting the Jerffersonian policy on taxation? Tax the rich, they can afford it! in this world, there are only three types of people. the rulers. the ruled. the free. you have made it eminently clear which position you occupy. Seeing as how we both live in the same country, and I don't see you revolting either, guess what that makes you! [these tags are killing me] +1 |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:20:36 PM EDT
[#10]
I you are a Libertarian, you are either a complete idiot....
....or an enemy who wishes to see the United States in ashes. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:16:32 PM EDT
[#11]
I am neither and yet I am a Libertarian. I fail to see how wishing to return to the freedoms and intentions of the Constitution makes me either. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:24:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Well they seem to breed more in Kalifornia and Newjork. F'nmmmm
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:38:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Ahh, but there is still one major advantage you overlooked... And you of all people should know it, TAX_monster... Yup, the illegal trade doesn't have to pay any... TAXES... That, alone gives them an artificial edge in production... Oh, and another one... None of the major drug companies would touch recreational drugs with a 10ft pole... They get sued enough for legit medical products, immagine the damages done when someone has a bad drug trip on a 'commercial, clean' product? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:39:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Ok, anarchy, in the common usage, means life with no law/govt... And that is basically what you're proposing, a government so small it's useless... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:49:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Cinci is referring to the LP platform, and the devistating effects it's implementation would have on the country... They claim we 'spend too much' on defense, yet we can barely manage to occupy one 3rd-world sandbox without running out of troops... Immagine Iraq on a 250Bn defense budget.,.. They advocate the elimination of all prohibitive law, trusting people to be respojnsible & do the right thing with their new-found liberties, rather than run amok like a bunch of animals. They even go as far as to advocate a world wide libertarian 'commune' as the eventual goal, where all governments have been reduced to minimums, and everyone lives in hunky-dory harmony... Oh, and they generally hypocrytically oppose 'free trade' (NAFTA, etc), calling for protectionisim & tarrifs... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:56:50 PM EDT
[#16]
I just come here for the guns, I learned last year not to try to talk politics with these government lovers / freedom haters (couldn't decide which phrase was more apropos)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:57:58 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:59:01 PM EDT
[#18]
I noted that in the Lib platform doesn't specifically represent me any more than the current GOP platform acurately represents most Republicans. I also noted how the current Republican policies are no more worse than the stated policies of the LP. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 8:01:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Well I would debate you on the last line (there's nothing 'dangerous' about current GOP policy EXCEPT for the expansion of Medicare), the point was that Cinci was not referring to those who hold 'libertarian' views... He was referring to those who support the LP platform. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 8:03:21 PM EDT
[#20]
AGREED! I libertarian is a fancy word for LIBERAL! And in a lot of ways libertarians are worse than liberals. And the only good liberal is a dead liberal. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 8:40:02 PM EDT
[#21]
You agree with the Immigration Proposal, our current WIDE OPEN borders and the ultra sensitive war being conducted in Iraq? |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 10:55:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Too many people are getting caught up in details that aren't relevant. The fact that there is a market for illicit drugs does not cause violence, it's the fact that they must be bought on the black market.
Dealers and suppliers must work out differences through violence and intimidation - not mediation and the courts. Production is done haphazardly and is often dangerous to the environment. We pay an awful lot of taxes to hunt down drug dealers, clean up meth labs and imprison those involved. All of those expenses would GO AWAY if these were made legal. Dave_A - your arguments about why crack is $5 and Viagra is $10 or $20 or whatever it is don't hold water. Pfizer (or whoever markets Viagra) spent an awful lot of money developing the drug and getting it approved by the FDA, they have a patent so of course they're going to charge as much as they can get away with until the patent runs out. At that point you'll be able to buy it for 50 cents a pop (pun intended). Cocaine, marijuana, meth, heroin all are known chemical compounds and can't be patented, but can be produced cheaply and sold cheaply just like aspirin. Phillip Morris doesn't get FDA approval for a new cigarette, so they could easily add on the new PM Reefers brand (or Menthol Reefers for our Detroit friends  )If there's a market, companies will produce it. $100 billion lawsuits against the tobacco companies didn't seem to put them out of business - in fact, they're doing better than ever. Just slap whatever gov't approved "this will probably kill you or screw you up" logo on the box and Tax_Monster brand Premium Heroin is up for sale. (Kids! Look inside for free needle!) Put these things on the above ground, legitimate market and the violence and crime will go away. Why is that so hard for people to understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 11:04:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Well anarchy would be nice in a perfect world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 11:40:38 PM EDT
[#24]
and now we come to the crux of the matter. yes, i have (quite deliberately) gone too far. i do not doubt your courage or sincerety. but if you attempt to tell me what i can or cannot do, when these actions do not directly affect you, then you have gone too far. and far too often, the feinsteins and schumers of the world have done exactly this. you are right. i do not know you. but i do trust that you are a man capable of trusting his own strength, and demanding that those around him trust theirs. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 11:54:35 PM EDT
[#25]
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 12:00:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Thats pretty ignorant. I do believe drugs should be legalized, but not so I can do them. I haven't done any illegal drugs since I was 18. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=270276&page=5 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 4:35:36 AM EDT
[#27]
I fail to see how wishing to return to the freedoms and intentions of the Constitution would lead one to the Libertarian Party. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 4:37:33 AM EDT
[#28]
If implimented, the US would be doomed (as in dead). What part of the Republican Platform would have similar reesults? Refresh my memory... I'll refresh yours: Planks in the Libertarin Platform 1) "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol" 2) "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons" 3) "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice" 4) "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above." (...in other words, our defense starts at our border. See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders) Some Libertarians claim, "Oh no, we'd bring the troops home, and use THEM to defend the border". Nonsense. The promise to eliminate all controls at the border shows their true intent. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 5:38:09 AM EDT
[#29]
Have you ever bought the generic equivalent of a drug that's lost it's patent protection as opposed to the name brand drug? They're identical in every way but price. Secondly, do you think a drug user who runs the risk of ingesting rat poison with his cocaine would choose a product from Baer or from Paco on the street corner? Of course, the real issue here is "would the drug companies be interested?" The big companies make their money from the drugs they patent. It's the smaller, though well funded, companies that make their money on the drugs no longer governed by patents. I'm a libertarian who thinks the LP party platform got screwed. Open borders is suicide. But the reason why the LP is so against the War on Drugs is because it's been the signle biggest cause of the erosion of our civil rights in the last 30 years. It's been used to justify countless erosions of the 4th and 5th Amendments, not to mention the 2nd. No knock warrants, seizure of property without just compensation or probable cause, etc. And I think we're all tired of hearing "These guns are the weapons of choice for gangs, terrorists, and drug dealers." Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 6:25:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Won't fix everything but they are closer to the ideas of Liberty than all the other parties, and that includes the Constitution Party. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2004 6:41:18 AM EDT
[#31]
No I have read that. And honestly I'd rather have open immigration with NO SOCIAL PROGRAMS for new arrivals than the current situation of basically open borders with MASSIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS. If there were not free handouts I don't think we would get flooded as bad. And as I stated I don't agree with the entire platform but I do agree with much of it. Here is some of the stuff I tend to agree with... www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html 1. Freedom and Responsibility The Issue: Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility. The Principle: Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Solutions: Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions. Transitional Actions: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life. Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services. Enforce laws against fraud and misrepresentation. 2. Crime The Issue: The continuing high level of violent crime -- and the government's demonstrated inability to deal with it -- threatens the lives, happiness and belongings of Americans. At the same time, governmental violations of rights undermine people's sense of justice with regard to crime. Victimless crime laws themselves violate individual rights and also breed genuine crime. The Principle: The only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens. Solutions: The appropriate way to suppress crime is through consistent and impartial enforcement of laws that protect individual rights. We applaud the trend toward private protection services and voluntary community crime control groups. Transitional Action: We call for an end to "hate crime" laws that punish people for their thoughts and speech, distract us from real crimes, and foster resentment by giving some individuals special status under the law. Laws pertaining to "victimless crimes" should be repealed. We support institutional changes, consistent with full respect for the rights of the accused, which would permit victims to direct the prosecution in criminal cases. 3. The Right to Property The Issue: We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade, especially those done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, risk, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers. The taxation of privately owned real property actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location. The Principle: There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights. All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of -- or in any manner enjoy -- their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. Solutions: We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners. Transitional Action: Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees. 4. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens' right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These "gun control" laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society. The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms. Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices. |
|||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
