Interesting reading

imported post

boohickey11 wrote:

MgoBlue wrote

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right granted to us as an amendment to our Constitution. Smoking pot is not."

...Still, society has deemed smoking of pot to be against the law.

Click to expand...

The Constitution does not give Congress the right to make the laws that make Marijuana illegal. Therefore, those laws and your argument are invalid.

I believe in freedom; I believe that if what I choose to do does not hurt others then I should in no way be restricted from doing these things. Choosing to drive in a dangerous manner (DUI or whatever reason) is dangerous to others and therefore inflicts upon others freedom of life.

In 1930s and 40s German, "society" deemed Hitler a good leader and Jews to be a sub-human race that should be 'dealt with'. My point is, *bleep* society.

I'm a libertarian so I can go on forever like this. I make a habit of pointing out hypocrisy and creating simple logic.

Click to expand...

***APPLAUSE***

Great post, top to bottom. It's so refreshing to hear real Americans discussing real American foundational ideas. I never hear such philosophy in Florida. I discussed natural law with them and received this response:

"What Natural Law? Show it to us. Give us a link so we can read your " Natural Law ""

imported post

LOL.

Yeah Florida is a weird state. I don't miss it.

I don't like to use the phrase natural law though. It gives off the impression of anarchy.

Natural law doesn't mean anarchy, but until you have done enough digging to figure that out, the phrase natural law comes across as animalistic or barbaric.

The other thing I wish we could change is that my Kids are learning in school that the constitution is a list of their rights.

I hate that. It is inaccurate, and controlling, and it's a sheeple building idea. So my sons are under the impression that if it's not in the cinsitution as something you are allowed to do, then you can't do it.



That's almost exactly the opposite of the stated purpose. The constitution is really a list of compromises that we all are forced to make, so that noon ideaology Tramples on another free persons natural rights.

I know it may not sound like it, but it is a huge difference in my opinion.

Like putting a list on the fridge in your house. List A is everything you ARE ALLOWED to do in the house.

List B is everything you ARE NOT ALLOWED to do in the house. In a respectful, reasonable environment, which list is gonna be longer and more tedious???

List A right? Cause you have to list all the positives, and if it's not on list A , then it much be forbidden.

The constitution is really List B, as it pertains to the Governments interactions with the people, and the peoples interactions with each other. It's a best practice "We already know this causes problems" kind of thing.



But we aren't taught that. And I agree that this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked, but only because I agree with another poster, that the same mentality that makes it OK to ban pot, makes it OK to ban all gun ownership.



Unless there is undeniable proof that no person can live a happy, balanced, productive life while smoking pot, you shouldn't make it illegal.

Cause once that rationale sets in, you can start taking away all kinds of stuff.



The real question here though is, are YOU the reader only interested in protecting rights and freedoms that YOU are personally interested in, or is it the responsibility of ALL OF US, to look for each others rights andfreedoms even if we disagree on them?



I'm in the looking out for everyone camp, simply because if successful it drasticly increases the chance that my freedoms aren't impinged on anymore than anyone elses.

Self preservation through group collaboration!!!