Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/17/2003 8:43:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 8:47:21 PM EDT by llanero]
Col. Jeff Cooper had something interesting to say in this month's commentary, and it seems to go well with how I felt about the subject in a now-locked thread: "We note that some East Coast English professor is promoting the notion that all hunting of any kind should be forbidden, not because it endangers wildlife, but because it is immoral. Naturally, we do not agree with his position on morality. he is entitled to his opinion on that, but we feel our morality is not his business, as long as the practice to which he objects does not injure him (This matter is well covered in [i]The Federalist Papers[/i], as well as in de Tocqueville's [i]Democracy in America[/i]). But this, again, is a professor of English rather than of history or philosophy. [b]From a different viewpoint I might point out that I hold the practice of sodomy to be ridiculous, repulsive and blasphemous, but I do not feel that I have nay right to rule against it. The whole problem of public morality in a free society is a deep one not to be bandied about by political lightweights.[/b]"
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 4:28:46 AM EDT
Makes sense.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 4:36:58 AM EDT
Yep. Jeff always makes sense.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 4:40:44 AM EDT
Anyone who desires to legislate morality is as bad or worse than the Taliban. Different God, same extremist mindset.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 4:43:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Anyone who desires to legislate morality is as bad or worse than the Taliban. Different God, same extremist mindset.
View Quote
By the way Ben, thanks for changing your avatar. The other one gave me headaches.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 4:58:14 AM EDT
Anyone who desires to legislate morality is as bad or worse than the Taliban. Different God, same extremist mindset.
View Quote
Ah, the old "you can't legislate morality" argument. All legislation is based on morality. The only question is [i]whose[/i] morality you build it on.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 5:16:22 AM EDT
You guys know who Princeton professor Peter Singer is? He's an ethicist who argues in favor of the morality of bestiality. No shit.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 5:25:17 AM EDT
{quote]He's an ethicist who argues in favor of the morality of bestiality.[/quote] There's an oxymoron.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 5:49:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Anyone who desires to legislate morality is as bad or worse than the Taliban. Different God, same extremist mindset.
View Quote
Ah, the old "you can't legislate morality" argument. All legislation is based on morality. The only question is [i]whose[/i] morality you build it on.
View Quote
[rolleyes] Not in the instances of so-called victimless crimes like sodomy. Who cares where someone puts their penis if the recipient is consenting and of legal age.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 5:57:23 AM EDT
I'm not really sure what your counterpoint is there. A law making heroin illegal is based upon the morality of those who think the drug is wrong. A law making heroin legal would be based upon the morality of those who think it's OK. My point was, well, just what I said.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:00:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Brohawk: My point was, well, just what I said.
View Quote
Heh-heh-heh. Good reply. I've got to remember that one. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:17:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:20:39 AM EDT
Yep, and it's BS. If I am in a cabin on the top of a mountain around nobody else and I grow a poppy, extract active compound from its reproductive parts, refine the structure of this naturally occurring molecule, and subsequently decide to eat it, smoke it, or inject it in my vein, I am a felon because someone else believes it's immoral? Sure it might not be healthy, it might not be a good idea, but illegal on the basis of morality?immoral? Do you evangelical folks realize how big your egos are?
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:46:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Do you evangelical folks realize how big your egos are?
View Quote
Okay, Ben. I usually agree with you on most issues, but please think about this one. As an Evangelical Christian, I believe that I am bound by God's law, and that all men are also bound by it. You seem to indicate that you are bound only by what [u]you[/u] think is wrong. Now, who is egotistical?
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:51:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2003 6:56:35 AM EDT by nightstalker]
The Harrison Act 1914 The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914.  It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.      Number one is the date.  Did you hear the date, 1914?  Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something.  That is not true.  The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.      The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today.  The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf, like cocaine.  No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind.  The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf, like cocaine.      The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969.  And what was that model?      It was called the Harrison Tax Act.  You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve.  They had two goals.  They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs.  They had one problem.  Look at the date -- 1914.  1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law.  That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.      In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea.  That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax.  To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked?      There were two taxes.  The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate, but, they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors.  It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute.  Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated?  The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute.      And there was a second tax (and again, these are hypothetical figures, but, they will show you how it worked) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs.  Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition.  Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street.  What would be the Federal crime?  Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance.  What was the crime?  Tax evasion. WE REALLY HAVE ELECTED A LOT OF BLUENOSE ASSHOLES AS OUR LEGISLATORS. You get the government you deserve.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 7:12:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By llanero: Col. Jeff Cooper had something interesting to say in this month's commentary, and it seems to go well with how I felt about the subject in a now-locked thread: "We note that some East Coast English professor is promoting the notion that all hunting of any kind should be forbidden, not because it endangers wildlife, but because it is immoral. Naturally, we do not agree with his position on morality. he is entitled to his opinion on that, but we feel our morality is not his business, as long as the practice to which he objects does not injure him (This matter is well covered in [i]The Federalist Papers[/i], as well as in de Tocqueville's [i]Democracy in America[/i]). But this, again, is a professor of English rather than of history or philosophy. [b]From a different viewpoint I might point out that I hold the practice of sodomy to be ridiculous, repulsive and blasphemous, but I do not [red]feel[/red] that I have nay right to rule against it. The whole problem of public morality in a free society is a deep one not to be bandied about by political lightweights.[/b]"
View Quote
His credibility just flew the coop. Does he THINK???? "Feelings", are BULLSHIT! (and so's this guy) So he thinks fag behavior is ok?? (My Uncle was a fag BTW) Maybe he should ask all the DEAD American citizens, who died as a result of the "Civil Rights" being exercised in the San Francisco bathhouse's!! (Which no one was able to close) The Morality of a society is judged by God. Look at American streets and schools, draw your own conclusions. After you've drawn your conclusions, you may wanna get the hell out of the cities.. [:D] Shit hasen't even BEGUN to hit the fan yet!
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 7:16:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nightstalker: It was called the Harrison Tax Act.
View Quote
That sounds pretty familiar. Most people don't believe me that there is no federal law [i]against[/i] owning machine guns, just a tax which was meant to ban them. I'd like to see the gvt adjust that tax for inflation, or better yet, start some crazy tax on ammo. I think there'd be some well fed hogs... The tree of liberty is getting thirsty.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 7:22:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nightstalker: The Harrison Act 1914      And there was a second tax (and again, these are hypothetical figures, but, they will show you how it worked) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs.  Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition.  Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street.  What would be the Federal crime?  Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance.  What was the crime?  Tax evasion. WE REALLY HAVE ELECTED A LOT OF BLUENOSE ASSHOLES AS OUR LEGISLATORS. You get the government you deserve.
View Quote
This was also the rationale behind the NFA act. Whenever you hear of an ATF raid, where some civilian gets killed, remember, it's about payment of a $200 dollar tax!! "Machine Guns", are NOT illegal, they're a taxable item, (according to them)..
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 7:28:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: You guys know who Princeton professor Peter Singer is? He's an ethicist who argues in favor of the morality of bestiality. No shit.
View Quote
Is he the same one that says parents should be able to terminate a pregnancy "after birth"?
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 7:28:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Okay, Ben. I usually agree with you on most issues, but please think about this one. As an Evangelical Christian, I believe that I am bound by God's law, and that all men are also bound by it. You seem to indicate that you are bound only by what [u]you[/u] think is wrong. Now, who is egotistical?
View Quote
You cannot possibly disagree that in a perfect, Christian world, there are no man-made laws because everyone follows God's will and is responsible only unto God for their actions. Unfortunately, the human species is fallable, and inflicts their individual wills upon others out of greed, desire for power, ego, or other "evil" motivations. In exercising behavior in an effort to carry out the desires of their own will, the perpetrator creates a "victim" in the person who they compromise or damage in some fashion. Nowtherefore, because of the neverending dispute as to the identity of, nature of, essence of, and even the the very existence of (a) God, society must still maintain some order. Anarchy leads to a tyrranical ogliarchy, with the powerful, stong few further imposing their wills on a larger scale by subjugating the weaker masses. Therefore, some social order must be maintained because humans are not capable of a pure anarchistic, libertarian form of self-governance. Fine. I have accepted that fact. However, what I refuse to accept is any restriction on an individual's behavior (even behavior that is proven to be self-destructive) on the basis that another group finds the behavior "objectionable" in some fashion. I find many things objectionable that others would think to be unreasonable. I don't go around trying to create laws restricting that person's behavior. I find it objectionable that some Christians make a show over their piety by having a loud, extended pre-meal prayer at a restaurant on Saturday night. As distasteful as this may be to me, it's their right to behave in this manner. Of course, you have to understand that a purely anarchistic, self-governance comes with absolute personal responsibility -- which also doesn't exist. Therefore, you have the argument that "If we legalize drugs, I will have to pay more taxes because the children of those who use those drugs will starve and need assistance." In my perfect world, those kids would starve to death. That's the breaks. In nature, if you are born into a bad situation, you die - thus correcting the mistake. No, it's the legislated morality that comes about in tandem with the mitigation of personal responsibility that precludes this ideology.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 2:02:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: However, what I refuse to accept is any restriction on an individual's behavior (even behavior that is proven to be self-destructive) on the basis that another group finds the behavior "objectionable" in some fashion
View Quote
And he hits it out of the park. The crowd goes wild... We can debate "morality" until the cows come home. The real issue to me is that I don't want the government protecting me from myself. The very people who benefit from religious freedom sometimes seem hell-bent on eliminating that freedom for others.
Top Top