If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.

Oh, I do. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to believe that everyone has a right to a deadly weapon but not a right to put what they wish in their own body. I also believe humans have fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly state that I am permitted to think my own thoughts. If a technology should be developed that allows people to manipulate my thoughts directly, should I enjoy no protection from that simply because the Founders foresaw my need to defend my flesh but not my mind?

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

No? Food is a substance. Water is a substance. It's hard to bear arms when you're too weak to lift them.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.

Oh, I do. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to believe that everyone has a right to a deadly weapon but not a right to put what they wish in their own body. I also believe humans have fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly state that I am permitted to think my own thoughts. If a technology should be developed that allows people to manipulate my thoughts directly, should I enjoy no protection from that simply because the Founders foresaw my need to defend my flesh but not my mind?

The Constitution is not a charter to tell the individual person what s/he can or cannot do.

The Constitution is a charter to tell the government what it can and cannot do. At least is is supposed to be.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

No? Food is a substance. Water is a substance. It's hard to bear arms when you're too weak to lift them.

Again, weak comparison and weak argument. Besides, you have the right to food. No one is allowed to prevent you from feeding yourselves.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I don't believe in confining choice or telling my fellow human what to do the vast majority of the time, but I do agree with checking guns at the door. And I mean this in a deeply philosophical sense. Socially, we need to check our guns at the door. When we know we are in a place of peace and meeting with one another, of collaboration, it is both pragmatic and a sign of respect for your fellow human to refuse to bring items whose job is to do harm into that space.

20 Years ago I would have agree with your statement, However, the facts prove that gun free zones do not work in America.

Yes I could agree it would be nice to leave our guns at the door in respect of peace, however that's what the criminals want.

Look at Sweden almost everyone owns a gun, it is mandatory that everyone goes to training and learn all the safety measures and the responsibilities of owning a gun.

Lets take a look at Switzerland on their gun culture?

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works

Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

Unlike some other heavily armed nations, Switzerland’s gun ownership is deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity. Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment’s assembly point. (Switzerland was at risk of being invaded by Germany during World War II but was spared, historians say, because every Swiss man was armed and trained to shoot.)

world.time.com...

The question is why is Switzerland not having mass shootings like the United States? It is my understanding if you are a "patriotic American", your the enemy in the United States.

In Switzerland you better be "patriotic", why is it wrong to be patriotic in America?

Do you not see something is terribly wrong here?

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.

Oh, I do. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to believe that everyone has a right to a deadly weapon but not a right to put what they wish in their own body. I also believe humans have fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly state that I am permitted to think my own thoughts. If a technology should be developed that allows people to manipulate my thoughts directly, should I enjoy no protection from that simply because the Founders foresaw my need to defend my flesh but not my mind?

That is a poor example. Recreational drugs existed back when the Founders were writing the COTUS. They were fully aware of them and still felt that it was far more important to give you a rock solid guarantee in the bedrock foundational law of the country that you would always be able to keep and bear arms without the government stepping in and telling you no.

That is because that one right helps secure all of the others. Without it, you might as well just assume that any others you hold exist only at the pleasure of the government and no other body.

Drug law should properly fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments, but as I remarked before, they have been usurped. However, those Amendments only exist as a function of the checks and balances built into the COTUS which are largely failing with the 2nd as the ultimate means of redress. But I supposed you could trade your 2nd rights for a daily government ration of Soma ... the alphas and betas in Brave New World seemed quite stoned enough to not understand why they should be horrified by the world around them.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.

Oh, I do. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to believe that everyone has a right to a deadly weapon but not a right to put what they wish in their own body. I also believe humans have fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly state that I am permitted to think my own thoughts. If a technology should be developed that allows people to manipulate my thoughts directly, should I enjoy no protection from that simply because the Founders foresaw my need to defend my flesh but not my mind?

That is a poor example. Recreational drugs existed back when the Founders were writing the COTUS. They were fully aware of them and still felt that it was far more important to give you a rock solid guarantee in the bedrock foundational law of the country that you would always be able to keep and bear arms without the government stepping in and telling you no.

That is because that one right helps secure all of the others. Without it, you might as well just assume that any others you hold exist only at the pleasure of the government and no other body.

Drug law should properly fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments, but as I remarked before, they have been usurped. However, those Amendments only exist as a function of the checks and balances built into the COTUS which are largely failing with the 2nd as the ultimate means of redress. But I supposed you could trade your 2nd rights for a daily government ration of Soma ... the alphas and betas in Brave New World seemed quite stoned enough to not understand why they should be horrified by the world around them.

It seems you're skipping the entire point. I never said that the Constitution should be amended, nor that they were equal priorities. Only that it is dubious to support one without the other. A claim you've done nothing to disarm.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm just saying that I think trying to compare the two in importance is like comparing the importance of having a fully stocked DVD collection without actually having a DVD player. You cannot really enjoy the one without the other because the one just eclipses the other that much in importance.

Or you need to maintain your right to keep and bear in order to maintain any chance you have of ever wresting your right to dope yourself silly. Otherwise, you are simply asking your tyrants pretty please with sugar on top and have no real power of your own left to make them actually listen to you.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

And for the record, I understand you point, and think it's silly because you are drawing a ridiculous comparison.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm just saying that I think trying to compare the two in importance is like comparing the importance of having a fully stocked DVD collection without actually having a DVD player. You cannot really enjoy the one without the other because the one just eclipses the other that much in importance.

Or you need to maintain your right to keep and bear in order to maintain any chance you have of ever wresting your right to dope yourself silly. Otherwise, you are simply asking your tyrants pretty please with sugar on top and have no real power of your own left to make them actually listen to you.

But the comparison of importance doesn't matter much at all, does it? I'm not asking which you would give up first. I'm saying you can't, with any real rigor of thought or philosophical honesty, support one without the other. You are presenting a false dilemma.

I support the 2nd amendment and am also for the legalization of all drugs as well as the legalization of prostitution, the removal of drinking and smoking age laws and drunk driving laws.

I believe that prosecution should occur when an actual crime of harm upon others is committed. If you shoot others with that gun or needle or hit them with your vehicle while drunk or have paid sex with them while having a dangerous STD, then by all means, you should be seeing prison time. I believe in liberty at all costs. And I believe there should be a cost for destroying others' liberties and lives.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I don't believe in confining choice or telling my fellow human what to do the vast majority of the time, but I do agree with checking guns at the door. And I mean this in a deeply philosophical sense. Socially, we need to check our guns at the door. When we know we are in a place of peace and meeting with one another, of collaboration, it is both pragmatic and a sign of respect for your fellow human to refuse to bring items whose job is to do harm into that space.

20 Years ago I would have agree with your statement, However, the facts prove that gun free zones do not work in America.

Yes I could agree it would be nice to leave our guns at the door in respect of peace, however that's what the criminals want.

Look at Sweden almost everyone owns a gun, it is mandatory that everyone goes to training and learn all the safety measures and the responsibilities of owning a gun.

Lets take a look at Switzerland on their gun culture?

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works

Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

Unlike some other heavily armed nations, Switzerland’s gun ownership is deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity. Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment’s assembly point. (Switzerland was at risk of being invaded by Germany during World War II but was spared, historians say, because every Swiss man was armed and trained to shoot.)

world.time.com...

The question is why is Switzerland not having mass shootings like the United States? It is my understanding if you are a "patriotic American", your the enemy in the United States.

In Switzerland you better be "patriotic", why is it wrong to be patriotic in America?

Do you not see something is terribly wrong here?

With all due respect, my friend, this is tertiary to the issue at best. We may not see eye to eye in this regard, but I do support the second and I would never demand law be changed in such a way that you are simply forced to give up your weapons. I would ask that we, as a society, try to find a place of mutual understanding where we feel comfortable doing so.

But the core of my point is: if I can't dictate that I live in a neighborhood where I know my neighbors cannot wake up in a sleep-walking fit of craziness and kill me where I lie in my bed without a struggle, from where does anyone's right to tell me what I can put in my body come?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.

Oh, I do. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to believe that everyone has a right to a deadly weapon but not a right to put what they wish in their own body. I also believe humans have fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly state that I am permitted to think my own thoughts. If a technology should be developed that allows people to manipulate my thoughts directly, should I enjoy no protection from that simply because the Founders foresaw my need to defend my flesh but not my mind?

The Constitution is not a charter to tell the individual person what s/he can or cannot do.

The Constitution is a charter to tell the government what it can and cannot do. At least is is supposed to be.

I've read many of your words here, and disagreed with many of them, but I've never thought you lacking in cleverness.

Of course you're right about the Constitution. But the Constitution is a literal, technical, legal description of ideals. The fact that the Founding Fathers did not enumerate a right does not mean that it should not be protected. In fact, it is easily legally arguable that the Constitution explicitly denies government the power to restrict rights beyond the restrictions declared therein.

And I am saying:

1) Our rights are not only those delineated by our Founding Fathers;

2) That our right to control our own bodies is tantamount to the spirit of those rights specifically enumerated;

3) That it is philosophically absurd in the most obvious of ways to buttress the notion that we all have a right to be primed to do deadly damage to our neighbors at a moment's notice while also arguing that we do not have the right to ingest what we will to put us in the mind-state that we please

And as intelligent as I know you to be, I doubt that you can upset these arguments in a logically satisfying fashion.

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

No? Food is a substance. Water is a substance. It's hard to bear arms when you're too weak to lift them.

Again, weak comparison and weak argument. Besides, you have the right to food. No one is allowed to prevent you from feeding yourselves.

And should I choose to feed myself psilocybin mushrooms? I should be locked up? How do you figure? I think it's your argument that is weak.

originally posted by: gottaknow
I support the 2nd amendment and am also for the legalization of all drugs as well as the legalization of prostitution, the removal of drinking and smoking age laws and drunk driving laws.

I believe that prosecution should occur when an actual crime of harm upon others is committed. If you shoot others with that gun or needle or hit them with your vehicle while drunk or have paid sex with them while having a dangerous STD, then by all means, you should be seeing prison time. I believe in liberty at all costs. And I believe there should be a cost for destroying others' liberties and lives.

Most young Libertarians lack such clarity. You've either traveled an unusual path in life and remained true to those ideals as you've acquired wisdom, or you're an unusually insightful young one. Either way, your words are wise ones. Your rights end where my nose begins and all that.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I am not disagreeing with your assertions about individual sovereignty.

I am merely saying that you cannot look to the Constitution to say what you can and cannot do.

While nothing in the Constitution says that the Federal Government has any right to say you cannot indulge in drugs, it does not prohibit the state you live in from passing legislation to that effect. If the majority of the People living in your state agree with that legislation, then you are stuck with their decision.

Regardless, referencing the Second Amendment does not weaken or bolster your argument. They are apples and horseshoes.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

No? Food is a substance. Water is a substance. It's hard to bear arms when you're too weak to lift them.

Again, weak comparison and weak argument. Besides, you have the right to food. No one is allowed to prevent you from feeding yourselves.

And should I choose to feed myself psilocybin mushrooms? I should be locked up? How do you figure? I think it's your argument that is weak.

I'm not the one making an argument, you are. You've yet to provide a decent one at that. You think that gun owners are hypocrites if they don't think drugs should be legal.

You will never have the right to use hallucinogens publicly. Ever. Addictive substances will never be socially acceptable either. It shouldn't be criminal to be an addict, but don't expect anyone reasonable to ever agree that crack should be free to use by anyone in modern society.

Psilocybin is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

Prove this wrong and you still won't have a case because there are obvious reasons why the second amendment exists and "right to get high" doesn't.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

So youre a Libertarian.

Welcome.

Gary Johnson 2016.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Quite right.