Supreme Court rules in DC gun case

[mikec]

Maybe some of the political folks will now try to use common sense. I doubt it but just maybe. I have never read a gun control law that addresses WHY or the cause of a criminal action.

Maybe we need to start looking at families, lack of a parent, schools and other reasons why some are willing to injure or kill for no real good reason.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

People, let's keep this civil

[quix]

I tend to side more with the dissenting justices who think that the gun ban is constitutional.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The majority of people who own guns aren't part of a well regulated militia and own guns for sport and self-defense, neither of which is mentioned by the amendment. Whether or not the ban is effective policy is another matter, but Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are simply wrong about the Constitution.

[pandrogas]

I think this is a good development to give weaponry back to the people in Washington D.C. given that it has one of the highest crime rates in the country and it was one of the places with a full gun ban in effect...

Makes you think sometimes. Does a ban on weapons increase crime because the people capable of committing crimes have access to weapons when the populace do not?

Or do we all just get a little crazy because of a phobia of guns due to a knee jerk reaction or personal tradgedies at the hands of our own creations?

People will find a way to kill people no matter what they use. Guns are merely tools in this case as they could easily be replaced by other weapons. Swords used to be popular once upon a time. ;)

Whether you think a militia being the technical term for a state run forrce of volunteers is the correct usage or not, we cannot deny that there may come a time where the population of this country may well need to be armed and capable of fighting in extreme circumstances. Should our country be invaded, should our government impose martial law without need, should a draft for the military be enacted, we need to know how to defend ourselves in daya to day situations and maintain the skills needed to be effective fighters should the time require it. Obviously this might not apply to everyone, but we should have the choice of defending ourselves instead of letting other make those choices for us.

There should be a debate over acceptable personal defense if anything. The tricky part however is the use of force and it's appropriate use. Such a subject is alas, not a clear one that can be ruled on as a cut and dry black and white case.

I know it's cliche, but guns don't kill people, people kill people.

"And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back! You got the right same as anyone to live and try to kill people." - Malcolm Reynolds

[quix]

Oh, I think there's certainly a case to be made in defense of guns and gun ownership and I think you made that point eloquently. It's just that I think the case which the Supreme Court made isn't the best one.

[darknessgp]

...
I know it's cliche, but guns don't kill people, people kill people.
...

Actually, guns don't kill people, bullets moving really fast kill people.

Honestly, I'd agree with Quix. The Constitution doesn't say that we have the right to just have guns laying around. I'm not saying I'm for a gun ban, I just don't think the Constitution should be misrepresented for people's own desires. Meaning, I don't like it when a pro-gun person uses it as the reason they need 3-4 automatic rifles around their house.

The only way to completely get rid of the problem of guns would not only to ban them, but melt down every last one of them. Make it so no one gets guns, not citizens, police, soliders, etc... but like Pandrogas said, guns are only a tool. And most people don't realize that almost everything can be used as a weapon.

[mikec]

Meaning, I don't like it when a pro-gun person uses it as the reason they need 3-4 automatic rifles around their house.


Considering that a fully automatic civilian legal M16 costs about $15,000 I doubt many can afford one. I will not pay that price, even though I live in a state where I could own one.

The only way to completely get rid of the problem of guns would not only to ban them, but melt down every last one of them. Make it so no one gets guns, not citizens, police, soliders, etc...

Ask the Brits how well things are. They banned guns, then they went after swords and now pocket knives. They even started giving kitchen knife makers grief because they made knives with sharp points. A kitchen knife could be used to hurt someone... Well, if the person owning that knife doesn't want to hurt anyone then the knife will not injure, right? Same with my firearms.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Maybe some of the political folks will now try to use common sense. I doubt it but just maybe.

People, let's keep this civil

Fine, but only if I can call you out on that hilarious irony.:D

[quix]

I can't believe I missed that.

[guytheninja]

I had no idea they had such a law. Of course its unconstitutional.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The second part of the amendment is very clear. You don't want a government taking guns away from its citizens.

This is what Noah Webster said about the second amendment (found this at the above url)

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."[31]

31. Young, David E. (2001). The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, 2nd Ed., Golden Oak Books, 38-41. ISBN 0-9623664-3-9. “A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution”

Its all about checks and balances. The second amendment keeps the government in check. The government cannot become a tyranny without being in danger of attack from the governed.

Our founding fathers gave us the second amendment so that we could avoid the fate of Rome (a republic turning into a tyrannical empire).

[phatlip12]

Its all about checks and balances. The second amendment keeps the government in check. The government cannot become a tyranny without being in danger of attack from the governed.


Eh, thats not really true anymore considering the government can simply release some sort of bio warfare against us (some sort of sickness) and kill us all if they REALLY wanted to.

[quix]

I had no idea they had such a law. Of course its unconstitutional.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The second part of the amendment is very clear. You don't want a government taking guns away from its citizens.

This is what Noah Webster said about the second amendment (found this at the above url)

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."[31]

31. Young, David E. (2001). The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, 2nd Ed., Golden Oak Books, 38-41. ISBN 0-9623664-3-9. “A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution”

Its all about checks and balances. The second amendment keeps the government in check. The government cannot become a tyranny without being in danger of attack from the governed.

Our founding fathers gave us the second amendment so that we could avoid the fate of Rome (a republic turning into a tyrannical empire).

That very wikipedia page outlines the controversy which still exists about what bear arms means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #.22To_keep_and_bear_arms.22

Also, handguns, rifles, and shotguns won't keep a government in check in the modern age. If we're going to bring law into line with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment we'd need to legalize shoulder-mounted rockets, grenades, and other weapons which are capable of dealing with tanks and aircraft.

[mikec]

T
If we're going to bring law into line with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment we'd need to legalize shoulder-mounted rockets, grenades, and other weapons which are capable of dealing with tanks and aircraft.

Those are legal as long as they are properly papered and purchased. They are classified as "destructive devices". Each individual round of ammo also must be properly papered and they are classified as destructive devices as well. Of course, folks in CA can no longer legally own them. At one time you could. The actual number of live rounds out in the public's hands, I don't know but I know two dealers near me that could legally handle the sale and transfer. There is a $200 tax stamp that has to be obtained to make it legal plus a $10 state fee/form.

BTW, I have a few vocal Libertarian friends who believe that you or I should be able to buy any weapon that the government has. Yes, Stinger missiles/ etc would be on the exempt list because of classified technology, but they think you should be able to go buy an M240 machine gun, assuming you can pay for it and you have no criminal record.

[guytheninja]

That very wikipedia page outlines the controversy which still exists about what bear arms means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #.22To_keep_and_bear_arms.22

Also, handguns, rifles, and shotguns won't keep a government in check in the modern age. If we're going to bring law into line with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment we'd need to legalize shoulder-mounted rockets, grenades, and other weapons which are capable of dealing with tanks and aircraft.

Well, having a rifle, handgun etc is better than nothing. Its easier to enslave a populace which has no chance, whatsoever, of fighting back. Fortunately, no president has tried to usurp power and become a dictator. And hopefully, we will never have to fight the government. But this situation could happen (like in the Star Wars movies).

And as for heavy weaponry, some of it is legal. How do the machine gun enthusiasts get their hands on them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6-Lvm2QPDg

and here is another one (and it is crazy :D).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

[gonzooo]

Fortunately, no president has tried to usurp power and become a dictator. And hopefully, we will never have to fight the government. But this situation could happen (like in the Star Wars movies)
I like how you're dead serious, yet you bring in "Star Wars" to stand as some kind of reference.

Personally, I doubt guns would help you in any kind of way at all against the government (you can say your good byes when trained professional killers, or perhaps less dramatically, soldiers, come to your house), and I doubt even more that the situation will ever arise.

It seems like a stupid excuse to own a gun. People should just be honest; they like guns. There is no reason to make up excuses when it's legal. Seems to me like people are quick to research some borderline retarded excuse to learn krav maga or some other "self-defense" system, or own a gun, because they either aren't OK with themselves just liking the power that comes with either knowledge of anatomy and training or owning a gun, or they're afraid of what other people would think if they were honest.

Edit: Obviously, I don't know why people own guns, but it seems so often people just regurgitate some old line they heard somewhere about how owning a firearm, for example, is preferred or OK, or make some vaguely fair point about their safety while most of them will probably never be in a situation where their firearm or training saves them, and probably shouldn't assume they ever will be.

[mikec]

And as for heavy weaponry, some of it is legal. How do the machine gun enthusiasts get their hands on them?


The law that regulates machine guns and other "things" is called the National Firearms Act of 1934. In 1986 there was another law passed that stopped the manufacture of new machine guns for civilians. As a result a firearm that might cost your police department $1,000 costs a civilian $15,000 now. (M16 rifle)

Some of those weapons in the videos are what are called "dealer samples", can't be sold to a civilian but they can be made and shown to a police department or government agency. Some were legal for you or I to buy.

As for those who might think people owning these means crime, please read this: While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous, their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have only been used in two murders since 1934, and one of the murders was committed by a police officer. A previous director of the ATF testified before congress that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such as bank robbers North Hollywood shootout, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons.

[rabidbadger]

I'm a crazed lunatic knee jerk leftist yellow dog democrat liberal, but in the case decided today, I totally agree, even if the majority of the majority are repubub neocon lapdogs.

[guytheninja]

I like how you're dead serious, yet you bring in "Star Wars" to stand as some kind of reference.

Personally, I doubt guns would help you in any kind of way at all against the government (you can say your good byes when trained professional killers, or perhaps less dramatically, soldiers, come to your house), and I doubt even more that the situation will ever arise.
.

Thats because you don't know your history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

"The precise event which signaled the transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed the appointment of Julius Caesar as perpetual dictator (44 BC), the Battle of Actium (2 September 31 BC), and the Roman Senate's grant of Octavian's extraordinary powers under the first settlement (January 16, 27 BC), as candidates for the defining pivotal event."

It happened in the past, why do you think it could not happen today?

The law that regulates machine guns and other "things" is called the National Firearms Act of 1934. In 1986 there was another law passed that stopped the manufacture of new machine guns for civilians. As a result a firearm that might cost your police department $1,000 costs a civilian $15,000 now. (M16 rifle)

Some of those weapons in the videos are what are called "dealer samples", can't be sold to a civilian but they can be made and shown to a police department or government agency. Some were legal for you or I to buy.

As for those who might think people owning these means crime, please read this:

Thanks for the info. I have to admit, I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun.

[pandrogas]

I like how you're dead serious, yet you bring in "Star Wars" to stand as some kind of reference.

Personally, I doubt guns would help you in any kind of way at all against the government (you can say your good byes when trained professional killers, or perhaps less dramatically, soldiers, come to your house), and I doubt even more that the situation will ever arise.

It seems like a stupid excuse to own a gun. People should just be honest; they like guns. There is no reason to make up excuses when it's legal. Seems to me like people are quick to research some borderline retarded excuse to learn krav maga or some other "self-defense" system, or own a gun, because they either aren't OK with themselves just liking the power that comes with either knowledge of anatomy and training or owning a gun, or they're afraid of what other people would think if they were honest.

Edit: Obviously, I don't know why people own guns, but it seems so often people just regurgitate some old line they heard somewhere about how owning a firearm, for example, is preferred or OK, or make some vaguely fair point about their safety while most of them will probably never be in a situation where their firearm or training saves them, and probably shouldn't assume they ever will be.

1. Emergency powers of the president to suspend habeus corpus and institute martial law. These things can occur, even if they aren't as dramatic. Consider the current abuses of power by the executive branch and it's not too far away. Luckily...

2. Soldiers are trained to protect the people. I have faith that in a situation where the entire country goes up in arms, the military will not in fact, defend the government, but will aid in bringing order back to it and the country. Those types of situations do not necessarily go over too well and thank God it hasn't happened, but at the end of the day, yes, a country can in fact rise up and take on a powerful government entity. If this were not true, our country wouldn't exist, and we would have finished with Iraq a long time ago. Do not underestimate the human spirit, ingenuity, and intellect because if you do, you'll pay dearly for it.

3. Yes, we like things that go boom. But also, training to fight so we do not have to fight is kind of the underlying principle. By the way, not everything being equal, a firearm can give some people a fighting chance in some situations. Krav Maga is a martial art designed to keep you alive until help arrives or you get away. The flaw in your reasoning is that people should be trained in this because without training, they can't rely on basic anatomy know how to win a fight against someone who is trained to use that know how effectivly.

4. Probably doesn't cut it. The moment you are not prepared is the moment you'll need to be. I don't want to live out my days thinking I'll never need to know how to defend myself either armed or unarmed just because it'll "probably" never happen. This crap does happen and it happens every day. Look at a newspaper sometime in any medium to large city in the US.

[mikec]

Thanks for the info. I have to admit, I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun.

Your posts say you live in TN, a state that allows it's citizens to purchase a machine gun if you wish. Of course, if you are a convicted felon or have a restraining order against you or you abuse drugs or booze, you can't. If you are a law abiding person, you have that right if you wish. Oh, and if you can afford it.

That is what today is about, rights. If one wants to change the Constitution of the United States there is a procedure to do that. Anyone remember the attempts at changing the Constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment? Don't change the document by going around the legal method of amending the Constitution.

[phatlip12]

Thanks for the info. I have to admit, I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun.

I personally know two people. I'm not even sure if it's legal in my state or not, but they have them. ;)

[mikec]

phatlip, I also live in MD and yes they are legal IF the person jumped through the hoops with the Feds and paid the MD state police $10 and got a permit.

What is interesting is that in MD I can own a machine gun or a gun with a silencer but I can't get a concealed carry permit.

[quix]

Those are legal as long as they are properly papered and purchased. They are classified as "destructive devices". Each individual round of ammo also must be properly papered and they are classified as destructive devices as well. Of course, folks in CA can no longer legally own them. At one time you could. The actual number of live rounds out in the public's hands, I don't know but I know two dealers near me that could legally handle the sale and transfer. There is a $200 tax stamp that has to be obtained to make it legal plus a $10 state fee/form.

BTW, I have a few vocal Libertarian friends who believe that you or I should be able to buy any weapon that the government has. Yes, Stinger missiles/ etc would be on the exempt list because of classified technology, but they think you should be able to go buy an M240 machine gun, assuming you can pay for it and you have no criminal record.

Huh, I had no idea that they were legal(probably since as you say they aren't in CA.) Of course, given some states' interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I suppose I should have been able to extrapolate that in some states they were.

Well, having a rifle, handgun etc is better than nothing. Its easier to enslave a populace which has no chance, whatsoever, of fighting back. Fortunately, no president has tried to usurp power and become a dictator. And hopefully, we will never have to fight the government. But this situation could happen (like in the Star Wars movies).

And as for heavy weaponry, some of it is legal. How do the machine gun enthusiasts get their hands on them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6-Lvm2QPDg

and here is another one (and it is crazy :D).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

The point about a despotic government is why I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. Guns can cause problems in a society that is civil, but they would be critical if everything fell apart. I think the possibility of ever seeing the day where violent resistance is necessary is very low, but still.

[mikec]

Huh, I had no idea that they were legal(probably since as you say they aren't in CA.) Of course, given some states' interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I suppose I should have been able to extrapolate that in some states they were.

I believe the number of states that allow ownership is something like 35 or 37. Some states allow a person to own anything as long as they get the Fed tax stamp, others have restrictions. It takes some time to figure out what is OK and what is not.


The point about a despotic government is why I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. Guns can cause problems in a society that is civil, but they would be critical if everything fell apart. I think the possibility of ever seeing the day where violent resistance is necessary is very low, but still.

As for guns causing problems, I don't see that. I see some people who use a firearm as a way to show others that they are stronger, when in fact they aren't. If the gang banger didn't have a gun, he probably would use a bat or piece of wood to beat the person, maybe a brick. England has some issues now because of that. No guns but crime is still occurring. They, like us, have not addressed WHY. Remember, people killed with tree branches before the sword or spear were created.

As for the evil government, I hope that that scenario never comes true because it truly would be ugly.

[guytheninja]

phatlip, I also live in MD and yes they are legal IF the person jumped through the hoops with the Feds and paid the MD state police $10 and got a permit.

What is interesting is that in MD I can own a machine gun or a gun with a silencer but I can't get a concealed carry permit.


In Tennessee you sure can get a CCW permit. You could go around with a 44 magnum like dirty Harry if you wanted. (Theoretically anyway) :D
http://www.ehow.com/how_2064619_get-permit-carry-concealed-weapon.html

[gonzooo]

It happened in the past, why do you think it could not happen today?
Yes, because the world was so globalized in 44 BC. If the US president would ever move in that direction it'd be the opportunity every other country in the world has been waiting for to give the US an asskicking; at that point the least of your problems would be a dictator.

[bigshotprof]

A Well-Regulated Militia is more important now than ever!

We all have to have guns and they shouldn't be registered. As pointed out in the groundbreaking 1980s documentary "Red Dawn" when the Commies came streaming over the borders and attacked Colorado, the first thing they did was go to the court house and grab the recipe box full of gun registration cards. As someone said (I think it was Lou Dobbs)" He who does not learn quickly enough from history is doomed to may late fees!"

[phatlip12]

A Well-Regulated Militia is more important now than ever!

We all have to have guns and they shouldn't be registered. As pointed out in the groundbreaking 1980s documentary "Red Dawn" when the Commies came streaming over the borders and attacked Colorado, the first thing they did was go to the court house and grab the recipe box full of gun registration cards. As someone said (I think it was Lou Dobbs)" He who does not learn quickly enough from history is doomed to may late fees!"

"Wolverines!"

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Yes, because the world was so globalized in 44 BC. If the US president would ever move in that direction it'd be the opportunity every other country in the world has been waiting for to give the US an asskicking; at that point the least of your problems would be a dictator.

Indeed. The US needs to be humbled, but who will be the ones to do it?

[quix]

I believe the number of states that allow ownership is something like 35 or 37. Some states allow a person to own anything as long as they get the Fed tax stamp, others have restrictions. It takes some time to figure out what is OK and what is not.

Huh, the sheer variance is fairly interesting. Guns are definitely an issue where I think states' rights comes into play because guns have a different effect in states like California than they do in states like Kansas.

As for guns causing problems, I don't see that. I see some people who use a firearm as a way to show others that they are stronger, when in fact they aren't. If the gang banger didn't have a gun, he probably would use a bat or piece of wood to beat the person, maybe a brick. England has some issues now because of that. No guns but crime is still occurring. They, like us, have not addressed WHY. Remember, people killed with tree branches before the sword or spear were created.

Right, but the person being attacked has a greater chance of being able to defend themselves against an assailant with a bat or wood than against an assailant with a gun. More people also end up in the crossfire with guns than with a more personal weapon.

As for the evil government, I hope that that scenario never comes true because it truly would be ugly.

Well, the evil government I'd say would be far more likely than the totalitarian evil government. It would be a slow transition at any rate given that a slow and steady withdrawal of rights goes unnoticed(as we've learned over the past 7.5 years.)

Indeed. The US needs to be humbled, but who will be the ones to do it?

Well, I'd assume the Belgians would want to get back at the idiots who called French Fries "Freedom Fries."

[georgia_tech_swagger]

Anybody who thinks the gun ban is a good idea is naive. DC is half as dangerous just in annual murder count as IRAQ IS. Clearly the gun ban HASN'T WORKED. Just like drug bans ... gun bans will not stop those who want the illicit thing from getting it. It merely creates black markets subject to higher levels of illegal activity and danger, and makes the average citizen defenseless.

[guytheninja]

Indeed. The US needs to be humbled, but who will be the ones to do it?

I would like to see the US pull its military bases out of every foreign country out there and stop giving aid to other countries. The US debt is astronomical, we frankly cannot keep operating like this.

The US was isolationist before WW2, I would like to see it be that way again. Let the rest of the world handle the world's problems.

[tokenuser]

The US was isolationist before WW2, I would like to see it be that way again. Let the rest of the world handle the world's problems.There was a time when nations could get away with that ... either by choice or sanctions. Not any more. Just ask North Korea and Cuba.

If you want resources from the rest of the world, or to trade with the rest of the world, you need to be a good citizen in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[quix]

Anybody who thinks the gun ban is a good idea is naive. DC is half as dangerous just in annual murder count as IRAQ IS. Clearly the gun ban HASN'T WORKED. Just like drug bans ... gun bans will not stop those who want the illicit thing from getting it. It merely creates black markets subject to higher levels of illegal activity and danger, and makes the average citizen defenseless.

Point, but one could argue that the concept of a gun ban is fine and that the implementation has just been very flawed.

I would like to see the US pull its military bases out of every foreign country out there and stop giving aid to other countries. The US debt is astronomical, we frankly cannot keep operating like this.

The US was isolationist before WW2, I would like to see it be that way again. Let the rest of the world handle the world's problems.

I think World War II showed the folly of isolationism. Hitler only got as far as he did because we didn't stop him earlier. I'd be in favor of less unprovoked dumb wars like the one in Iraq but, I think stepping in(with the United Nations) in places like Darfur could be justified(but, only if we actually had an exit strategy.)

[bigshotprof]

Indeed. The US needs to be humbled, but who will be the ones to do it?

That would be us--we will humble ourselves. we have already begun the slide. One example in fact is the set of priorities demonstrated by this issue. Freedom of speech and assembly are under assault, the right to a fair trial is disappearing, etc etc, but the only member of the bill of rights that seriously generates a national level strident movement is the one that protects our favorite little toy.

[mikec]

prof, hopefully people will now take another look at the Bill of rights and start pushing to take back the territory lost in the others. Maybe the Court's ruling can act as an anchor. Pie in the sky? Maybe. Hopefully not. Am I naive? I don't know.

Perhaps what we need is a step back from the post Cold War "we are the world's police" attitude to letting others deal with crap. Hey, let's cut back all foreign aid 50% and tell the other countries to pick up the slack. We could use the money to help our schools and fund a public health system. Of course, once we cut the aid, we will be called names and in some places our flag will get burned. Can't win can we.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

I don't know about cutting back on foreign aid.

I'm definitely for getting rid of bases on foreign soil. I don't think there's a need for that.

I don't want to be an isolationist nation. I've never really been one to "take care of my own before anyone else", with the exception of my family.

[quix]

That would be us--we will humble ourselves. we have already begun the slide. One example in fact is the set of priorities demonstrated by this issue. Freedom of speech and assembly are under assault, the right to a fair trial is disappearing, etc etc, but the only member of the bill of rights that seriously generates a national level strident movement is the one that protects our favorite little toy.

Agreed.

[guytheninja]

That would be us--we will humble ourselves. we have already begun the slide. One example in fact is the set of priorities demonstrated by this issue. Freedom of speech and assembly are under assault, the right to a fair trial is disappearing, etc etc, but the only member of the bill of rights that seriously generates a national level strident movement is the one that protects our favorite little toy.

This is because the founders did not intend for the USA to be a superpower. They designed the federal government to influence the the affairs of the states only.

However, currently, the federal government has influence throughout the entire world (yet another Roman empire similarity). This bad for the health of the federal government. Its like putting a 4 cylinder engine in an 18-wheeler truck. No wonder we have ample corruption, loss of liberties, and pork-barrel politics on capitol hill. There is simply too much power concentrated in the federal government.

This is why when you vote one set of clowns out of office, you get yet another set of clowns to deal with.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

This is because the founders did not intend for the USA to be a superpower. They designed the federal government to influence the the affairs of the states only.

However, currently, the federal government has influence throughout the entire world (yet another Roman empire similarity). This bad for the health of the federal government. Its like putting a 4 cylinder engine in an 18-wheeler truck. No wonder we have ample corruption, loss of liberties, and pork-barrel politics on capitol hill. There is simply too much power concentrated in the federal government.

This is why when you vote one set of clowns out of office, you get yet another set of clowns to deal with.
Because we put them there. I guess we'll never learn, eh?

[quix]

It's also because the system is set up to favor the clowns over the statesmen.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I'm sad it was as close as it was. 5-4, are you kidding me?

[rabidbadger]

I'm sad it was as close as it was. 5-4, are you kidding me?

Yeah, sooo shoulda been the other way around, +1 or 2 :D

(just kidding, i'm fine with gun ownership, and totally unfair that not only could they not have guns, but that they aren't represented in congress. disgraceful in America.)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

(just kidding, i'm fine with gun ownership, and totally unfair that not only could they not have guns, but that they aren't represented in congress. disgraceful in America.)Can you rephrase that? I can't understand what you're trying to say, and I also can't tell if you were being sarcastic? What were you trying to say with that, er, what did you mean?

[ryudo]

What happened to BB? she has the ghost account thing in all her posts now? :(

[phatlip12]

What happened to BB? she has the ghost account thing in all her posts now? :(

She wanted her account deleted.

[ryudo]

Also gone from twitter..damn.

Anyway sorry to get off topic.

[quix]

She wanted her account deleted.

Aww, I always thought her points were interesting and thought out even when I disagreed with them.