oldandknew
Quote:And Big John gathers his men around him on this small island to give 'em a pep talk about how they would overcome the enemy. His opening line was, "IF YOU GOT 'EM MEN, SMOKE 'EM".
If you had been in the service you would know that statement was not so far fetched. On a march we always got 10 minute breaks and everyone would light up. If you were out of smokes you could always bum one. Of course that was when everyone smoked and it was not an enigma.
Au ---- yep you are crrect. My uncle was in the british army in ww2 -- north africa and d-day. fought alongside american troops and smokes from both sides were often exchanged. All buddies together in the same boat.
Letty -- stigma ? let the anti brigade go live in their world, I'll stay in mine. The ones who give us the most grief are those who have packed in smoking and have this holier than thou attitude.
BoGoWo wrote:And Scat;
The lack of accountability is precisely the point; it is when personal freedom is abused, to the harm of others, that government must step in and legislate.
I thas been, and they have. (The "one bad apple" syndrome.)
Um, what???
Can you be more specific? What personal freedom has been abused, how has it harmed others, and under what authority is the government empowered to "step in" in that specific case?
I looked at Bo's response several times, and I think I understand. The government should only step in and be held accountable, when one individual's rights is being usurped. Then, and only then, can that government be justified. If we can't be a majority of one, then we are the apple that makes the barrel go bad.
Yes, my meaning was when some jerk goes into a bar with pistols strapped to both hips; downs three or four Bourbons, and proceeds to shoot up the place; laws eventually get passed making it illegal for all the sane responsible "gun slingers" to calmly and responsibly sip their Glenlyvet, while their Colts hang demurely by their sides.
Bo. if that's in Paradise City then it would be a miracle, but if it was in Death Valley it would be Armagedon
In looking at LittlK's link, I was reminded of Fox Glove as well as Friar Lawerence's soliloquy in Romeo and Juliet. Some beautiful plants are deadly poison but have redeeming qualities:
http://www.tasteefoods.com/foxglove.html
I think that Dys's original post was the idea that some laws are totally paradoxical.
Hey, John. I've decided to go into the business of making scarlet letters. Every smoker will be forced by law to wear a big "T" on his tee.
Letty said "I think that Dys's original post was the idea that some laws are totally paradoxical"
bravo and thanks Letty
BoGoWo wrote:Yes, my meaning was when some jerk goes into a bar with pistols strapped to both hips; downs three or four Bourbons, and proceeds to shoot up the place; laws eventually get passed making it illegal for all the sane responsible "gun slingers" to calmly and responsibly sip their Glenlyvet, while their Colts hang demurely by their sides.
I see. Yes, I agree that what you describe is often what happens.
My question is whether or not that is a proper, reasonable and--in the specific case of the right to bear arms--Constitutional thing to do under the circumstances you describe.
Scrat; (sorry about the missing "r", but I was removing the "rat" aspect, then I realized the remains were a slang for "droppings" you just can't win with a handle like that, no slurs intended)
Not being a constitutional expert (Canajun, eh), I would simply like to say that my huge respect for the "ideas" of the American revolution, is based on the solid basis of their initiators intent, that they be founded on "good will" and "common sense"; not to be taken out of context to prove a point, or decide an arguement. The point that is sadly missed today, too often, is that the basis of your constitution is in its "wisdom", not its "detail"!
BoGoWo wrote:The point that is sadly missed today, too often, is that the basis of your constitution is in its "wisdom", not its "detail"!
Bogowo - An interesting point. I think I get what you mean--and it may be that we are in violent agreement on this point--but I like to think that the Constitution's wisdom is inherent in its detail. I do not think the framers left much out, or much to chance. The only thing upon which they did not count was the willingness of men to become blind to the meaning of the written law, when that law binds their hands from that which they desire.
For the record, this is not a blindness that attacks only those on the left. Our current Attorney General seems blind to the language within the Constitution that cedes to the states all powers not enumerated for the Federal Government. If the will of the people of the state of Oregon--as expressed through their state representatives and state government--is that assisted suicide should be legal in their state, the Bush administration should stay the f#$% out of it. It is none of their business. If California wants to allow the growth, distribution and sale of marijuana for medical use, the feds should leave them to it.
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." - Barry M. Goldwater
Some very good points;
Perhaps I should have said;
the weakness of your constitution is neither in its wisdom, nor its detail, but in abuse, and misinterpretation.
