Maybe it’s Dopers to the left of me, Gunnies to the right…?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week decided it was ‘ok’ to deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, who happened to possess State-issued medical marijuana cards!
I’m guessing, because BATFE Rules stipulate if one is ‘addicted’ to the maryjane, one is a prohibited possessor. Because while many States have medical mj in place, and some have legalized or decriminalized it’s possession, it’s still against Federal law.
I’ve met some folks who might have medical mj cards. And might own firearms. Who are generally responsible citizens.
As a side note, the same day the Administration reported they are NOT removing mj from the rolls as a Schedule 1 substance, was the same day the President’s daughter was reported smoking a joint.
And, of course, the President himself has been pictured in his youth doing mj and admitted using cocaine. What’s good for the goose is not good for his daughter? Isn’t he in close proximity of many firearms?
I remain a libertarian (small L). As such, I condemn drug laws for adults. As the Left is fond of intoning it’s YOUR body! If you want to eat, shoot, snort (rub-into-your-belly or whatever – G. Carlin) something, it’s your choice!
And just because someone tokes once-in-a-while, should that prohibit them from possessing a firearm? Even if they are doing so LEGALLY in their State?
How many gun folks do you know who drink more than the legally-approved quantity of alcohol and carry? I would guess more than one…
A Right is a Right is a Right. What you put in your body or what you use to protect it should not be up to government bureaucrats!
The Hardest Thing to Understand in the World is the Income Tax. – Albert Einstein(*This is part 2 of a multi-part series. For other posts in the series click on the “A Republic If You Can Keep It” category at the bottom of this post.)
The U.S. tax code is 74,608 pages long. Every man woman and child is expected to calculate the tax they have paid and/or owe the federal government at least once a year (families can choose to file jointly).
It’s common knowledge that two, individual tax accountants can look at the same person’s information and come up with different numbers; even if the person’s situation is not complex. It’s not only possible, it is likely. Even two different IRS auditors are likely to come up with different numbers.
The IRS can audit back to six years, and even further if they decide they have reason. Therefore, it is almost a guarantee that every adult in the U.S. who is over the age of 24 has some discrepancy the IRS can uncover in their tax filings. The IRS can garnish your wages. The IRS can send you to prison, just ask Dinesh D’souza. As we’ve seen with the Tea Party, the IRS can determine who can have an organization, when that organization can function, and when it can’t. The IRS can stop a business from collecting money or selling products or services. The IRS can shut down private schools, churches, clubs… The IRS can take your home.
Except for a few, brief periods, there was no federal income tax prior to 1913. The tax code was 400 pages long then. In 1940 it was barely over 500 pages long. FDR’s New Deal and World War II created some new taxes. By the end of the war it was 8,200 pages long. It is almost 10 times larger now.
We all know no one really understands it. We all know the government can accuse anyone of not complying. Page after page. April after April. Year after Year.
Eliminate the income tax! Period!
This will force the government to hone down their bloated leviathan AND lessen their petty power and control over the individual.
And, while we’re at it, let’s restore the original CONSTITUTIONAL method of choosing State Senators. And eliminate the Federal Reserve.
I know, I’m beginning to sound like Rand Paul!
I became a libertarian (small L) back in 1976. While I registered and voted many times for the party’s candidates, I never actually joined the national party.
Initially, it was because of lack of funds.
Now, it’s for other reasons.
(from Wirecutter, a fellow-traveler)
On Friday, Brian Doherty of the Libertarian flagship publication Reason scolded me, and by extension anyone else who has been turned off by some of the Johnson-Weld ticket’s public statements, that we were placing more importance on “the attitude stuff related to culture war issues about discrimination and guns” than on the really crucial issues of “spending or budgets or the growth of government.”
Then on Monday, Gary Johnson came out in favor of—drumroll, please—a carbon tax to fight global warming.
The Libertarian party lost my vote the moment Johnson picked Bill Weld as his running mate. Weld has a proven record of suppressing the People’s Rights when he was governor of Massachusetts. Disarming Americans or placing any type of restrictions on any of our God given Rights is not what I thought the Libertarians were about.
Between Bill Weld, who has waffled almost more than Donald Trump, and a belief in the global warming scam (coupled with a TAX!), I believe the national libertarian party to be a shadow of it’s former self.
The Libertarians of the 1970’s wouldn’t even consider voting for such tripe!
Now comes the big question – do I vote Libertarian Statist, or for one of the other two major party Fascists?
Perhaps it’s time to consider that Cub’s manager again? Couldn’t do much worse…
PS – Is it the nature of political parties (as it seems to be with governments) to begin all pie-eyed and wondrous in their principles, only to become perverted by corruption and reality? I had such hope for the Libertarians…
I’m having a bit of an identity crisis.
I was born white, which makes me a racist.
I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which makes me a fascist.
I am heterosexual, which makes me a homophobe.
I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.
I am older than 55 and semi retired which makes me a useless old man.
I think and I reason; therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which makes me a reactionary.
I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.
I value my safety and that of my family; therefore I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right wing extremist.
I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual’s merits, which makes me anti-social.
I, and my friends, acquired a good education without student loans and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of odd underachiever.
I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland by all citizens, which makes me a militarist.
Please help me come to terms with this, because I’m not sure who I am anymore!
And now I don’t know which bathroom to use anymore….
H/T Doverthere, Theo Spark
(from The Firearm Blog)
“THIS JUST IN: We were just informed that Wells Fargo Bank would not do business with us, refusing to provide their services based on the fact that we manufacture “weapons” (aka knives). Incredibly, this refusal came after THEY initially pursued us to gain our business. Once we had decided to go with Wells Fargo, they then pulled the plug saying they could not provide their services since we manufacture weapons…Needless to say, we are shocked and confused – considering their logo is a stagecoach and driver with a shotgun too! We felt we needed to inform the firearm and knife community of this discriminatory stance Wells Fargo has taken. Please share.“
There has been a serious increase in the number of banks refusing to do business with firearms industry companies. It’s too bad the industry doesn’t have its own banking institution. I’m sure they’d do phenomenal business both within the industry itself and by opening up to personal banking accounts. What do you think?
Visit Hogue’s website (and maybe give them some business) at www.hogueinc.com
This reminds me of the short-sighted thinking of folks who boycott Chik-Fil-A, because their founder is an unabashed Christian who closes his business on Sundays, but who will promote Muslim businesses in the name of inclusion – even though the Koran preaches killing gays.
And, my credit union, who actively promotes new customers who are illegal aliens!
And, those businesses who put up the ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs.
And bakeries who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples.
I believe businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as their refusal conforms with the law.
Of course, some laws are egregious.
Businesses who refuse to serve certain customers are simply cutting their own throat, in their pocketbook. BUT, it’s their choice – or should be.
I’m also a believer in choice – if you don’t want to support a business, don’t support them. If you don’t wish to patronize a business, don’t go there.
If you want to – go ahead.
FORTUNATELY, these businesses with ‘guns be bad’ signs don’t know whether or not I’m carrying. And I’ve been known to let management know my feelings politely on the way out…
Regardless, I A.C.E. – Always Carry Everywhere
Joel posts THIS!:
Here comes a link from Landlady to further damage my calm…
State Supreme Court Finds Dogs Are “ Sentient Beings,” Not Mere Property, In Landmark Ruling
[T]he court granted legal significance to the dog’s “ sentient ”—his capacity to experience feelings, and pain.“It is really a landmark ruling,” says Attorney Lora Dunn of the Animal Legal Defense Fund—which filed an amicus brief in this case, on behalf of the winning side. “In this specific context, the animal sentience matters.”
Find me an animal, from an earthworm to a gorilla, that can’t feel pain.
“A landmark ruling?” That’s a scary ruling. “Feelings and pain?” By that definition, the rabbits currently infesting my yard and the pork currently warming my stomach are or were sentient.
I recognize that the word has such wide meaning as to be essentially meaningless. But as far as I can tell, the Oregon court just outlawed meat-eating. And for that matter, the ownership of all animals.
PETA (and their fellow four-footed travelers) must be dancing!
In homage to this well-thought-out (sarcasm) decision, I bring you the following, courtesy of Tamara:
(Now, if I could only afford a good one…😦 )
The Obama administration is pressuring the food industry to make foods from breads to sliced turkey less salty, proposing long-awaited sodium guidelines in an effort to prevent thousands of deaths each year from heart disease and stroke
By MARY CLARE JALONICK – Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is pressuring the food industry to make foods from breads to sliced turkey less salty, proposing long-awaited sodium guidelines in an effort to prevent thousands of deaths each year from heart disease and stroke.
The proposed guidelines released Wednesday are voluntary, so food companies won’t be required to comply. But the idea is to persuade companies and restaurants — many of which have already lowered sodium levels in their products — to take a more consistent approach.
It’s the first time the government has recommended such limits. Sodium content already is included on existing food labels, but the government has not set specific sodium recommendations. The guidelines suggest limits for about 150 categories of foods, from cereals to pizzas and sandwiches. There are two-year and 10-year goals.
“The totality of scientific evidence, as reviewed by many well-respected scientific organizations, continues to support lowering sodium consumption from current levels,” said Susan Mayne, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “In fact, it’s very difficult in the current marketplace not to consume too much sodium.”
Americans eat about 1½ teaspoons of salt daily, or 3400 milligrams. That’s about a third more than the government recommends for good health and enough to increase the risk of high blood pressure, strokes and other problems. Most of that sodium is hidden inside common processed foods and restaurant meals.
I’m overweight and diabetic. And have high blood pressure and cholesterol. Much less than I used to, in all respects, fortunately. :-)
NOT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MY DIETARY CHOICES!
I don’t always make the ‘correct’ decisions with regard to the type of foods, or portions or ingredients – but, Hell, it’s my body and my choice!
(Where have I heard that before?)
Worst case scenario – IF the government controls how much salt is in commercially-produced products and restaurants (removing shakers from tables ala Bloomberg), and I feel the need, I’ll just bring my own!
Damn government control freaks!
When it rains, it pours…
…or your mustache or surfboard. Your choice. :-)
(from Free North Carolina)
Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.
Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.
What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.
Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.
I’ve asked this question previously. What is the function of political order? (government?) Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government? Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them? Or not? THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care. And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door. Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay? And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media? Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?
and other minor questions…
By Walter E. Williams @ Townhall
Last month, I celebrated the beginning of my 81st year of life. For nearly half that time, I have been writing a nationally syndicated column on many topics generating reader responses that go from supportive to quite ugly. So I thought a column making my vision, values and views explicit might settle some of the controversy.
My initial premise, when looking at all human issues, is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are your private property. If you agree with that premise, then certain human actions are moral and others immoral. The reason murder is immoral is that it violates private property. Similarly, rape and theft are immoral, for they, too, violate private property. Most Americans will agree that murder and rape violate people’s property rights and are hence immoral. But there may not be so much agreement about theft. Let’s look at it.
Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?
Self-ownership can offer solutions to many seemingly moral/ethical dilemmas. One is the sale of human organs. There is a severe shortage of organs for transplantation. Most people in need of an organ die or become very ill while they await an organ donation. Many more organs would become available if there were a market for them. Through the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Congress has made organ sales illegal. Congress clearly has the power to prevent organ sales, but does it have a right? The answer to that question comes by asking: Who owns your organs? One test of ownership is whether you have the right to sell something. In the case of organs, if it is Congress that owns our organs, then we have no right to sell them. That would be stealing from Congress.
People have the right to take chances with their own lives. People do not have a right to take chances with the lives of others. That is why laws that mandate that cars have brakes are consistent with liberty and seat belt laws are not. You might say, “Aha, Williams, we’ve got you there because if you don’t wear a seat belt and you have an accident and turn into a vegetable, society is burdened with taking care of you!” That’s not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives. When I was a rebellious teenager, my mother frequently told me, “As long as you’re living in my house and I’m paying the bills, you’re going to do as I say.” That kind of thinking is OK for children, but not for emancipated adults.
I have only touched the surface of ideas of self-ownership. The immorality associated with violation of the principle of self-ownership lies at the root of problems that could lead to our doom as a great nation. In fiscal 2015, total government spending — federal, state and local — was about $6.41 trillion. That’s about 36 percent of our gross domestic product. The federal government spent $3.69 trillion. At least two-thirds of that spending can be described as government’s taking the property of one American and giving it to another. That’s our moral tragedy: We’ve become a nation of people endeavoring to live at the expense of others — in a word, a nation of thieves.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM
Just thought I’d bring a little light reading to your Saturday morning! – Guffaw
(from Joe @ The View From North Central Idaho)
An attack on abortion rights, for example, produces a far greater outcry and resistance than the successful attack on habeas corpus and due process. President Obama was able to declare his power to execute citizens by executive branch decision alone without due process and conviction in court, and it produced barely audible protest.
*Historically, a government that can, without due process, throw a citizen into a dungeon or summarily execute him is considered to be a tyranny, not a democracy. By any historical definition, the United States today is a tyranny.
Paul Craig Roberts
Does The United States Still Exist?
An address delivered to the Libertarian Party of Florida on March 23, 2016 in Destin, Florida
Remember: Why Boomershoot? Insurance against tyranny.—Joe]
Re: *Historically (above)
SOMEONE had to say it! – Guffaw