home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: vlj@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Victor Johnson)
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:33:55 GMT
- Subject: Re: Here's the problem
- Message-ID: <8110302@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
- Organization: Dances with Hawks
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!vlj
- Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
- References: <slfrm3p@dixie.com>
- Lines: 31
-
- In talk.politics.guns, jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:
-
- > This brings to mind (for no obvious reason) a discussion I had a few nights
- > ago with an obvious -- shall I say it? Ok.. the L-word... -- liberal who
- > was trying to justify legalizing drugs to make the problem go away. Somehow,
- > I still don't understand the exact case he made, he used the pro-gun reasoning
- > to justify his position. The basics were the belief that if you outlaw guns,
- > only outlaws have guns, and the same thing applies to cocaine and other
- > illegal drugs. I was stunned, but after seeing Clinton elected, this was
- > by far easier to grasp, I had been immunized to such obvious stupidity.
- >
- > My response was simple.. "I see no Right to Bear Drugs in the Bill of Rights,
- > so I don't think the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to drugs.
-
- As other posters to this thread have eloquently pointed out, the
- Constitution and Bill of Rights only list a subset of your Rights, not
- all of them.
-
- To illustrate the point:
-
- "I see no Right to Procreate in the Bill of Rights, so I don't think
- the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to procreate."
-
- Most resonable people I know would agree that the absence of this Right
- in the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not mean that States or the
- Federal Government are free to create all manner of legislation to
- regulate procreation as they see fit.
-
- Cheers,
- Victor Johnson
- --------------
-