Assault Rifle Owners Have Tiny Penises!

[Yodes]

Everyone knows a loser resorts to vulgarity and sensationalism.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Everyone knows a loser resorts to vulgarity and sensationalism.

Indeed so, and ridicule is the last refuge of a scoundrel who does not have a defensible argument.

 

[mtomaro]

That article is hilarious... who writes that stuff?

 

[JNG]

I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying the arguments to regulate it are the same. It's for the children! And how did we get 17,170 incidents? It's against the law.

I must be missing the part of the Constitution that prohibits government regulation of drug use.

Now, if you wanted to argue that drug regulation ought to be left to the states, you might get somewhere.

 

[NYFelon]

LOL. It's always an attack on your "manhood." Had numerous similar claims when I had my Corvette. Get them because of my motorcycle too. It's like Kindergarten with these people. You have property or engage in an activity they don't like, so you must have a tiny winky. I just smile, agree and walk/drive/ride away laughing.

 

[NathanJefferson]

I read this the other day, I laughed. Then I got to thinking... He might be right.

Now I have to save up my pennies for a .50... or more likely a 20mm... humph, this is going to be expensive.

 

[NYFelon]

I must be missing the part of the Constitution that prohibits government regulation of drug use.

Now, if you wanted to argue that drug regulation ought to be left to the states, you might get somewhere.

The part where they aren't given an enumerated power to regulate what citizens consume. The Constitution doesn't take power away from government, it spells out exactly what powers they have. Where in the Constitution is the government given authority to regulate what a citizen consumes?

Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol, but just a law to outlaw "drugs?"

 

[JNG]

The part where they aren't given an enumerated power to regulate what citizens consume. The Constitution doesn't take power away from government, it spells out exactly what powers they have. Where in the Constitution is the government given authority to regulate what a citizen consumes?

Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol, but just a law to outlaw "drugs?"

So your argument is that there is no expressly enumerated power for the federal government to regulate drug consumption? The obvious answer is the commerce clause, since drugs or their components commonly pass in interstate commerce.

Even accepting your argument--and I'm partial to it--it addresses only the federal government. Unlike the federal government, the job of state governments is to pass laws for the general health and welfare of citizens--like prohibitions on drug use. The State of Indiana can and should make the use of drugs like meth illegal, and there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with it doing so.

Guns are a different story. BOTH the federal AND Indiana Constitutions prohibit infringement on the right to bear arms. No matter what judgment Indiana politicians may make about whether guns are good for the health and welfare of Indiana citizens, the Indiana Constitution limits the laws they can pass on that subject. Not so with drugs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So your argument is that there is no expressly enumerated power for the federal government to regulate drug consumption? The obvious answer is the commerce clause, since drugs or their components commonly pass in interstate commerce.

Even accepting your argument--and I'm partial to it--it addresses only the federal government. Unlike the federal government, the job of state governments is to pass laws for the general health and welfare of citizens--like prohibitions on drug use. The State of Indiana can and should make the use of drugs like meth illegal, and there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with it doing so.

Guns are a different story. BOTH the federal AND Indiana Constitutions prohibit infringement on the right to bear arms. No matter what judgment Indiana politicians may make about whether guns are good for the health and welfare of Indiana citizens, the Indiana Constitution limits the laws they can pass on that subject. Not so with drugs.

First, abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause needs to be reined in such that the federal government is doing what it is authorized to do, which is to regulate commerce between the states. Wickard v. Filburn was one of the greatest travesties of justice and constitutional law ever invented. Short version, the Supreme Court ruled that even if Filburn's wheat grown in violation of federal quotas never left his farm, it could prevent him from needing to buy wheat which may be imported from another stated, making it a matter of interstate commerce even though, again, it never left his farm--and this has been the standard interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause for a very long time. Now go read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and get back with us.

 

[Bummer]

Then what does my `81 Suzuki GS550LX say about me?

That you hadn't seen this yet?

My daughter, who grew up on the back of an '85 Venture Royale, immediately fell in love.

 

[JNG]

. Now go read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and get back with us.

Yeah . . . if that's addressed to me, you might want to consider re-reading the parts of my post talking about state laws prohibiting drug use, then get back with me.

 

[pitbulld45]

Its actually funny that this douche thinks he has the power to make us all feel bad. He is a nut if he really buys into any of his own crap.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah . . . if that's addressed to me, you might want to consider re-reading the parts of my post talking about state laws prohibiting drug use, then get back with me.

Yes it is. There is no need for me to re-read what you said about state laws. You said that the Interstate Commerce Clause justifies federal regulation as follows:

So your argument is that there is no expressly enumerated power for the federal government to regulate drug consumption? The obvious answer is the commerce clause, since drugs or their components commonly pass in interstate commerce.

As I previously stated, the Wickard V. Filburn decision was a gross distortion of the Interstate Commerce Clause and since you apparently did not bother reviewing them, the Ninth Amendment states that the specific enumeration of some rights does not disparage against any others, and the Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. You held to the notion that the federal government has authority to regulate a plant/product that often never crosses a state line (although it may) under the interstate commerce clause. Interstate commerce means that it is commerce crossing state lines. Last time I checked, there were several drugs which could be produced without them or any components thereof crossing a state line. That said, you, sir, are cordially invited to stand corrected.

 

[JNG]

Yes it is. There is no need for me to re-read what you said about state laws. You said that the Interstate Commerce Clause justifies federal regulation as follows:

As I previously stated, the Wickard V. Filburn decision was a gross distortion of the Interstate Commerce Clause and since you apparently did not bother reviewing them, the Ninth Amendment states that the specific enumeration of some rights does not disparage against any others, and the Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. You held to the notion that the federal government has authority to regulate a plant/product that often never crosses a state line (although it may) under the interstate commerce clause. Interstate commerce means that it is commerce crossing state lines. Last time I checked, there were several drugs which could be produced without them or any components thereof crossing a state line. That said, you, sir, are cordially invited to stand corrected.

I guess I'll take that as a "not interested" on the attempt to have an adult conversation on whether regulation of guns really is the same as the regulation of drugs.

If you're determined to have a pissing contest, I suppose I can oblige. I did review the 9th and 10th amendments, and the Wickard decision, at length. In my first year of law school. Where I also reviewed the new federalism commerce clause jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court, including the Lopez, Morrison, and Seminole Tribe decisions, which put sharp limits on the reasoning of Wickard, and the Gonzalez decision, which addressed this very issue in the context of applying federal drug laws to marijuana grown and consumed in one state, and found that the commerce clause permits the regulation of intrastate non-economic goods provided that the regulation is necessary to an overall regulatory scheme that is addressed directly to interstate commerce.

You may, like Justice Thomas did in dissent in Gonzalez, disagree with this application of the commerce clause. But your disagreement--or even Justice Thomas's (in dissent)--doesn't mean that it's not the currently binding interpretation of that part of the Constitution. Disagree all you want, but it is a fact that Congress can and is regulating drugs.

If we're going to talk about the law, let's talk about the law as it is, rather than the law as you think it should be. Your individual opinion on a mostly-abrogated New-Deal era Supreme Court case isn't really all that relevant to a discussion of whether there is a principled basis to argue that guns should not be heavily regulated, but drugs should be, either at the federal or at the state level.

The difference between drugs and guns--to make a minor effort to drag this back on point--is that guns enjoy express Constitutional protection at both the state and federal level. Drugs do not. I myself think the state, not federal level is the right place for those laws to be passed, but I do think that there should be laws, and I don't think there's any double-standard in thinking so.

 

[actaeon277]

I thought this was a thread about assault rifle owners have small penis.
Maybe we can start a thread on comparing regulating firearms to regulating drugs?

 

[cobber]

I thought this was a thread about assault rifle owners have small penis.
Maybe we can start a thread on comparing regulating firearms to regulating drugs?

Or that drug users have small penises?


Or a thread that encompasses every single liberty issue broached since the inception of INGO?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I guess I'll take that as a "not interested" on the attempt to have an adult conversation on whether regulation of guns really is the same as the regulation of drugs.

If you're determined to have a pissing contest, I suppose I can oblige. I did review the 9th and 10th amendments, and the Wickard decision, at length. In my first year of law school. Where I also reviewed the new federalism commerce clause jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court, including the Lopez, Morrison, and Seminole Tribe decisions, which put sharp limits on the reasoning of Wickard, and the Gonzalez decision, which addressed this very issue in the context of applying federal drug laws to marijuana grown and consumed in one state, and found that the commerce clause permits the regulation of intrastate non-economic goods provided that the regulation is necessary to an overall regulatory scheme that is addressed directly to interstate commerce.

You may, like Justice Thomas did in dissent in Gonzalez, disagree with this application of the commerce clause. But your disagreement--or even Justice Thomas's (in dissent)--doesn't mean that it's not the currently binding interpretation of that part of the Constitution. Disagree all you want, but it is a fact that Congress can and is regulating drugs.

If we're going to talk about the law, let's talk about the law as it is, rather than the law as you think it should be. Your individual opinion on a mostly-abrogated New-Deal era Supreme Court case isn't really all that relevant to a discussion of whether there is a principled basis to argue that guns should not be heavily regulated, but drugs should be, either at the federal or at the state level.

The difference between drugs and guns--to make a minor effort to drag this back on point--is that guns enjoy express Constitutional protection at both the state and federal level. Drugs do not. I myself think the state, not federal level is the right place for those laws to be passed, but I do think that there should be laws, and I don't think there's any double-standard in thinking so.

OK, I understand now. Your position makes perfect sense from the perspective of application of cumulative case law. It does not make sense in terms of accepting the Constitution as meaning exactly what it says regardless of the efforts of three or four generations of scoundrels twisting and/or ignoring it in order to concentrate power in the hands of the federal government. You are correct that one would encounter exactly what you described in the event of landing in federal court; However, that argument is predicated on the same reasoning which brings us the idea that possession is nine tenths of the law. Just because those who have shaped this idea of 'correct' interpretation are in the position to make it the de facto law does not make it right. I could use the same logic to defend a car thief on the grounds that if it is in his possession, it is his.

The bottom line is that we were addressing two different points. On application you are correct about how the law is presently applied. If you believe that to be right and proper, you are morally and ethically bankrupt. In any event, thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding as I generally discuss the matter assuming the Constitution to the be final authority, as opposed to being subservient to cumulative error introduced incidentally or deliberately by those who have sworn to follow it.

 

[WyldeShot]

Rather have a teenie weenie than a metro-mangina

LOL!!

 

[Willie]

As long as I can please my wife.....and me that is all I care about.

I also do wonder how he would know or not? Was he hanging around the men's restroom at a gun show and peaking over the stall doors? Maybe doing a little toe tapping?

What does he say about women gun owners??

 

[CarmelHP]

"The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people." --Freud