Murder in St. Inigoes

[happyazz]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Opinion? Or do you know?

Part opinion and part

[Dakota (Premo)]

...

[officeguy]

Originally Posted by happyazz

She killed him.

Wouldn't be the first time that a story of masked home invaders ends up being a good old fashioned domestic. Looks in this case though that witnesses saw the focus parked at the trailer and drive away after the event.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nutz

You believe someone with a criminal history has the right to own and possess firearms? Could you please explain, other than 2A, why that would be a good thing?

If he can't be trusted to have his full rights restored, he shouldn't be out yet. If you've paid you debt to society, you've paid in full, not just an installment.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Dakota

...

[Monello]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

did anyone else notice that the photo of the victim is a mugshot?

Does this fact surprise anyone?

I love the comments in the article by people that knew him. Funny how people are able to justify illegal/criminal behavior, they cry a river when the SHTF.

You reap what you sow

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Monello

I love the comments in the article by people that knew him.

You mean the illiterate douchebags who are trying to say what a great guy this POS was?

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

You mean the illiterate douchebags who are trying to say what a great guy this POS was?

Larry commented on the article?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I see no benefit in legalizing drugs. Theoretical freedom means nothing to me, given the state of our union and the various lack of freedoms we currently enjoy.

Originally Posted by Tilted

I'm not talking about theoretical freedom, I'm talking about actual freedom.

And I think I've been clear as to what I think the primary benefit of legalization would be: Freedom. There are surely others, but I need not rely on them as that one should be sufficient. People should be free, certainly with regard to what they put in their bodies. If we don't even have control over that, how can we consider ourselves free? Is there anything more personal, more intimate?

We shouldn't take everyone's freedom away because some people do bad things. We shouldn't punish good people because bad people exist. That goes against every concept of justice that's worth articulating.

You should be free to smoke cigarettes on your property and on any property where the owner wishes to allow it. I don't know that anyone can make a compelling argument that society benefits, on net, from people being allowed to smoke and, at any rate, we can surely make an argument that it would benefit from people not being allowed to. Yet, people should be allowed to smoke if they want to. Freedom is its own benefit. I can think of all kinds of reasons why people would be better off if they didn't love others, but I'm still convinced we're better off for loving others - love is its own reward, a life without it is not full. A life without freedom is also not full, and every measure of lost freedom represents a measure of life diminished.

Either you believe that freedom in itself represents great value added or you don't. I'm not sure what else to say about the matter. But if you're okay with limiting the freedoms of others - especially such intimate freedoms as what they put in their own bodies - how can you complain about other people wanting to limit the freedoms that you care about? They can make the case that those freedoms are deleterious just as you can regarding other freedoms. Freedom comes with costs, otherwise it would always have been and would always be the way of society.

You can't have it both ways. I mean, you can of course have it both ways if you want to - lots of people seem to fall in that freedom for me, but not for thee category. .

There is the crux of the matter. Vrail is articulating the 'misery loves company' human behavior view whereby because her freedoms have already been attacked, smoking being the most convenient example, then everyone elses should be, too.

This is understandable because it's kinda tough to stand for some worthless druggies rights when no one, not enough people anyway, were standing up for hers when it mattered on the things she cares about. Why should they get anything when she already has lost much?

And this is where government can be so insidious, dividing and conquering, eroding, here, there, a little bit at a time, attack a vulnerable issue when the time is right, again, smoking, and thereby slowly dissipate the will of the people to resist in other areas. This is what the Constitution was meant to protect; the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This is understandable because it's kinda tough to stand for some worthless druggies rights when no one, not enough people anyway, were standing up for hers when it mattered on the things she cares about. Why should they get anything when she already has lost much?

The smoking thing was more about restricting business owners and had nothing to do with restricting me personally. But you are on the track of what I'm thinking: we have lost so many freedoms in this country and THIS is what we want to go to the mat over?? Where we finally want to make a stand?

What about government requiring you to have a permit to hold a Bible study in your home? Or fining a grocery store for selling milk below market cost? How about duking it out over overzealous eminent domain? Crazy taxation? Cracking down on little kids' lemonade stands?

On and on, there are a million lost freedoms we could be taking on and instead we're talking about....legalizing drugs?? That is absurd to me.

Not to mention that legalization will cause more problems than it will solve. IF they would lock up nuisance druggies, I'd go for it. IF they would lock up people who rob others to support their habit, I'd go for it. IF my tax dollars weren't going to be paying for rehab treatment, I'd go for it. But they are not going to do any of those things, and I am absolutely not interested in making someone else's drug problem my problem.

You're talking about government condoning the sale and use of addictive substances. Crack down on tobacco, but legalize marijuana, heroin, cocaine... That is ridiculous.