Previous 11 - 20 Next
I understand where you're coming from, Joseph, but your same argument can be made for alcohol. Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed drunk? Or maybe he had a natural chemical imbalance. Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed suicidal? Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed held hostage at gunpoint? That gives me the right to tell you that we can't own guns.
I understand where you're coming from, Joseph, but your same argument can be made for alcohol. Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed drunk? Or maybe he had a natural chemical imbalance. Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed suicidal? Is the guy barreling toward the red light at break neck speed held hostage at gunpoint? That gives me the right to tell you that we can't own guns.
Jose Guerena
In my (once) great state of NJ, it is still legal to brew up to 200 gallons of spirits a year for your own personal use.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

Damien4 Wrote: Mar 04, 2014 9:58 AM
I believe that's why our government was set up the way it was- a constitutional republic to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. If you think being aggressive is the way to go, go for it. Just be careful who you're aggravating. As to your last paragraph, you do have those rights- employers are currently exercising them. It is completely within the scope of NAP- nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to work there- it was a voluntary choice.
Well, they did mash Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays together to make the one 'president's day' holiday, MLK only gets one too.
"Under the current ROE, U.S. troops cannot fire without first confirming that a Taliban fighter is armed, even if they are sure the target is the enemy." Can we get the same protection for law abiding gun owners over here? Since the NDAA declared the mainland US to be a battlefield, after all...
'I'm going to lie to you and it's up to you to decide if it's true or not' Thanks for the heads up in your first sentence...
You must not have played in a band or seriously tried to become adept at an instrument. What they did is completely plausible, especially from a practicing musician's standpoint.
I think we're warmed up from the past six years. Bring it on, and punch back twice as hard.
In response to:

DEA Official Loses it Over Marijuana

Damien4 Wrote: Jan 19, 2014 1:25 PM
So according to Mr. Capra- the DEA is concerned not with US citizens smoking pot, but the people that want them to smoke it- so they can traffic and make money. I believe it is too much to bridge the gap between 'legalization' and 'now I can grow it in my yard'. So once said citizen starts supporting their habit with a little extra effort- THEN the DEA will be concerned with them.. (Effecting interstate commerce by not buying anything! Wickard V Filburn)
Previous 11 - 20 Next