Spoken like a true Anarchist.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
And they wonder why we don't respect them ...
- Thread starter Duncan
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Some people don't need to smoke dope to get loopy. They just are.
In case you haven't noticed, 40 years of prohibition laws haven't saved society from these ills. More people are addicted now than they were in the 1960s.
It costs us billions of dollars chasing around these idiots. You may have heard this on the news... the country is going bankrupt.
Do you stand for limited government or not, Uncle Mike?
What exactly are the benefits of having them be illegal? I have been wondering this my whole life.
I stand for upholding the law.In case you haven't noticed, 40 years of prohibition laws haven't saved society from these ills. More people are addicted now than they were in the 1960s.
It costs us billions of dollars chasing around these idiots. You may have heard this on the news... the country is going bankrupt.
Do you stand for limited government or not, Uncle Mike?
What exactly are the benefits of having them be illegal? I have been wondering this my whole life.
If you don't like the law, petition the Lawmakers to have it changed.
That's been the preferred method for over two hundred years now in this country.
Of course it's a lot easier to be a Computer Commando and post volumes of drivel about the injustice done to the "innocent" DOPERS.
Enforcing the Law equals Tyranny??
You should remember that when someone decides that your possessions would look better in their digs instead of yours.
After all, they're just exercising their "personal freedoms" to ignore those laws that they disagree with.
The court ordered the money be returned. What else needs to be known?
If there is any form of federal involvement.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
We don't have a drug problem in this country. We banned them, remember?
Mike, your attitude and debate tactics are very soloist to another former cop/former ingo member. Did the job make you guys bullies or were you guys bullies before you took the job? Because I don't think pot should be illegal, I'm an anarchist? I didn't even know that you didn't smoke the leaves until about a month or so ago. Never even tried it but I guess opposing the van of it means I'm Cheech and Chong reincarnate or I'm an anarchist.
Some of us actually look at laws and try to determine if they are just or not. Apparantly an edict from a king is enough to support anything.
Mike, your attitude and debate tactics are very soloist to another former cop/former ingo member. Did the job make you guys bullies or were you guys bullies before you took the job? Because I don't think pot should be illegal, I'm an anarchist? I didn't even know that you didn't smoke the leaves until about a month or so ago. Never even tried it but I guess opposing the van of it means I'm Cheech and Chong reincarnate or I'm an anarchist.
Some of us actually look at laws and try to determine if they are just or not. Apparantly an edict from a king is enough to support anything.
public servant
Grandmaster
You thing that's a trip...spray a little formaldehyde on it first...
Carry on...
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
You thing that's a trip...spray a little formaldehyde on it first...
Carry on...
See, what kind of police force do we have when they know more about dope than an anarchist?
Seriously, I thought you ground the leaves up to smoke. I've always heard the term smoking bud but I figured it was slang like weed.
I've never tried it but if it were permissible by the king, I'd try it. Following the law makes sense when the law makes sense. I guess when they ban assault rifles again, we should all be good little boys and girls and turn them in. I'm no anarchist. I believe laws should be based on property rights. Smoking a doob on your front porch in no way infringes on my property rights. If you are driving and high and cause damage to myself or my property, you have infringed on my property rights and thus should be accountable.
Primary rule of Defense Law.
"If you can't attack the Law. Attack the Witness."
You forgot to ask if I've stopped beating my wife yet, Mr Mason.
IMO. You're an Anarchist because you don't believe that laws should restrict the "personal freedoms" of anyone.
If someone decides that they don't agree with the forgery law would you willingly allow them to steal from you in the name of "personal freedom"?
NOT LIKELY!!!
You'd squeal like a Banshee and go crying to those Cops that you dislike so much and "DEMAND" that they get your property back.
"There is no freedom without law."
Ancient Greek legal precept.
The story I read said that the money had been turned over to homeland security.
That said, that doesn't take the city off the hook. They apparently illegally seized it and they need to pay up whether they still have it or not. If they want to get it back from the feds, they can bring an action.
Taking stuff without sufficient legal grounds is bad enough. Giving that stuff to someone else is just stupid.
Joe
public servant
Grandmaster
I can guarantee you that I've never tried it...but I've seen the results. It looks to be...an experience*.See, what kind of police force do we have when they know more about dope than an anarchist?
*not all experiences are good ones...
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Primary rule of Defense Law.
"If you can't attack the Law. Attack the Witness."
You forgot to ask if I've stopped beating my wife yet, Mr Mason.
IMO. You're an Anarchist because you don't believe that laws should restrict the "personal freedoms" of anyone.
If someone decides that they don't agree with the forgery law would you willingly allow them to steal from you in the name of "personal freedom"?
NOT LIKELY!!!
You'd squeal like a Banshee and go crying to those Cops that you dislike so much and "DEMAND" that they get your property back.
"There is no freedom without law."
Ancient Greek legal precept.
Primary debate tactic of UncleMike:
If you can't argue the point at hand, put words in the mouth of your opponent.
Did you totally ignore what I said about property rights above or do you not understand how they work? Is forgery in an attempt to steal from another not a violation of property rights? Did I say I'm against forgery laws? Put words in my mouth much?
I can't wait to willingly turn my AR15 in when they decide it is "unlawful" because I want to be a good citizen for our "rulers"
Then I will calmly petition the lawmakers to give it back because I trust that they are good Americans and will adhere to the Constitution.
O forgot the purple
Then I will calmly petition the lawmakers to give it back because I trust that they are good Americans and will adhere to the Constitution.
O forgot the purple
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
We also have jury nullification built into the Indiana Constitution .
Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination
Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
Like it or not if someone does something like uses deadly force to protect property from a police sesiure , say just some lose dollars maybe 190 k of them . IF the jury agrees with the action .. free he goes .
I don't think you understand that not all laws are just .
I believe your mindset is exactly what Frederic Bastiat was talking about :
" No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree.
The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.
These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate.
This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
Frederic Bastiat
Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination
Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
Like it or not if someone does something like uses deadly force to protect property from a police sesiure , say just some lose dollars maybe 190 k of them . IF the jury agrees with the action .. free he goes .
I stand for upholding the law.
If you don't like the law, petition the Lawmakers to have it changed.
That's been the preferred method for over two hundred years now in this country.
Of course it's a lot easier to be a Computer Commando and post volumes of drivel about the injustice done to the "innocent" DOPERS.
Enforcing the Law equals Tyranny??
You should remember that when someone decides that your possessions would look better in their digs instead of yours.
After all, they're just exercising their "personal freedoms" to ignore those laws that they disagree with.
I don't think you understand that not all laws are just .
I believe your mindset is exactly what Frederic Bastiat was talking about :
" No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree.
The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.
These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate.
This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
Frederic Bastiat
semperfi211
Master
They aren't the first ones to seize money with no charges. They need to go down to Texas and learn how to do it right.
Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars - chicagotribune.com
Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars - chicagotribune.com
Compatriot G
Expert
FINALLY!!!
The ultimate answer to all of the ills of our Society.
Legalize drugs!
Why didn't anyone think of this before??
After you come down from whatever you're smoking/drinking/shooting/snorting, tonight you might mention this revelation to the Lawmakers.
I'm sure they will give your brilliant idea all of the consideration that it deserves.
While you're at it why not mention legalizing murder, rape, arson, and all of the other "inconvenient" laws that get in the way of some peoples personal wants and freedoms.
The ACLU will likely declare you a hero.
Well, I'm glad you think you know me so well. I don't smoke marijuana or crack, shoot heroin or meth and I don't snort cocaine. Once in a great while, I might drink a beer.
Obviously, history is not one of your better subjects. Prohibition lasted from 1919-1933. It accomplished nothing. The only thing it accomplished was allowing two-bit hoodlums to become crime king-pins. The "War on Drugs" has been raging for 40 years and we are no closer to winning it than the day we started.
If you look at the history of drug prohibition, you will find that many of the laws passed were really aimed at minorities. Southern politicians clamored for cocaine to be prohibited in the early 20th Century. One of their main reasons was because of "cocaine-crazed negros" raping white women. This was really just racism because there were virtually no incidents involving "cocaine-crazed negros" and white women.
When they wanted to ban marijuana in the 1930's, the reason was the only ones that used it were Negros, jazz musicians, Hispanics and Filipinos. The head of narcotics enforcement also said smoking marijuana caused white women to have sex with Negros. Gee, no racism involved in that decision!
Before the 20th Century, most Americans believed the government had no business telling them what they could or could not ingest.
I believe the use of drugs should be left to the individual, just like the use of tobacco or alcohol. Personally, I think the use of opium derivatives and coca derivatives are bad for you. Hallucinogens are bad for you as well. I put marijuana in the same class as alcohol. Casual use probably isn't all that bad, but chronic use is probably something to be avoided.
I believe, as an adult, I don't need the government protecting me from myself.
