“The problem with gun laws is they limit the ability to defend yourself, one. But number two is the people who are going to commit a crime or are going to do something crazy, aren’t going to pay attention to the laws in the first place.”

Wow! A politician with some common sense.

“Instead, Coburn wanted the real problem to be fixed: preventing only mentally ill people from getting a gun.”

So no conservatives could buy a gun? Sucks for you guys.

BFD said:
“Instead, Coburn wanted the real problem to be fixed: preventing only mentally ill people from getting a gun.”

So no conservatives could buy a gun? Sucks for you guys.

Oh come on man you can do better than that… my 12 year old could have come up with that one. Dig deep you can come up with a better line, I know you can.

I believe in gun control. The steadier you hold the firearm, the better chance you have of hitting the target.

Of Course, it doesn’t. Untill and unless u coin the term, “urban gun control” no body is going to touch the issue. u cant tell a guy in the country he can’t go shootin’ hogs and deer on a pleasant Sunday afternoon after church.

“but we are talking about assault rifle and killing machines, nice_thought,” u might say. I agree. That’s why u don’t go out and say, ” gun control” and expect the law to pass. Ask frank luntz.

These laws won’t cover my rocket launcher, right?

“What about politics? It’s hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors – the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

The question, writer, is, “if they passed the gun law in Gaza city will they include rocket launcher?”

GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! Screams from the left. Never let a tragedy go to waste. hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Dejavu

I don’t know about Gaza, but they’ll have to pry mine from my dead, cold….uh, cold fingers,…..dead cold…..well, you know what I mean.

Moderate said:
“The problem with gun laws is they limit the ability to defend yourself, one. But number two is the people who are going to commit a crime or are going to do something crazy, aren’t going to pay attention to the laws in the first place.”

Wow! A politician with some common sense.

Yes, and actually it’s a major success. Basically, the Right has forced people like Chucky to face the facts. Normally, Liberals ignore any facts that are opposed to their preconceived notions.

Who would have thought that Chucky would utter the truth?

Pokerdude777 said:
GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! Screams from the left. Never let a tragedy go to waste. hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Dejavu

“The dysfunctional modern debate over firearms was born out of this struggle and has nothing to do with the original Second Amendment. The notion that regulation is antithetical to the Second Amendment has no basis in history or law. As long as there have been guns in America, guns have been regulated. Even at the height of the Wild West in Dodge City, gun regulation was a fact of life.”

http://www.salon.com/news/gun_control/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns

More lunatic-left “logic” from a d-crat socialist: People do not kill people, ONLY guns kill people.

…and yet, in spite of hilarious gems like this, many say that the lunatic-left doesn’t display a sense of humor !

Why does the gun control issue always have to be portrayed as an all or nothing issue? Oh wait, the gun lobby makes sure of that. They would have you believe that one can be either for totally unrestricted gun sales or for repealing the second amendment. Like in so many issues, the reasonable debate is skewed by those in power who emphasize the extremes.

I absolutely support gun rights, and I have a gun in my bedroom, however I find it incredible how little scrutiny people have to go through to purchase a firearm, and the ridiculous extremes of firearms available to us. There is no purpose to a 30 round clip other than to kill many people in a short amount of time. Don’t try to tell me this has anything to do with hunting or even a reasonable approach to home defense.

There is a big difference between “they wanna take away mah gun!” and raising our national standards of what it takes to get a gun and what kinds of guns we sell legally.

adastra said:
Why does the gun control issue always have to be portrayed as an all or nothing issue? Oh wait, the gun lobby makes sure of that. They would have you believe that one can be either for totally unrestricted gun sales or for repealing the second amendment. Like in so many issues, the reasonable debate is skewed by those in power who emphasize the extremes.

I absolutely support gun rights, and I have a gun in my bedroom, however I find it incredible how little scrutiny people have to go through to purchase a firearm, and the ridiculous extremes of firearms available to us. There is no purpose to a 30 round clip other than to kill many people in a short amount of time. Don’t try to tell me this has anything to do with hunting or even a reasonable approach to home defense.

There is a big difference between “they wanna take away mah gun!” and raising our national standards of what it takes to get a gun and what kinds of guns we sell legally.

Very nice assessment…

If Coburn wants the ‘real problem’ to be fixed then Congress should be concentrating on Gov’t Control, not Gun Control which the 2nd Amendment forbids.

The Anti-Federalists have been vindicated! There are now more than 500 Federal Agencies and less than 5% are within the scope of the LIMITS defined in Article 1 Sec 8. If ‘we’ started doing our job and enforced those LIMITS then there wouldn’t be a GD reason for anyone to even think about assaulting Federal Officials.

In fact, there wouldn’t be a reason for any Federal Official or Rep to be a D or R since neither actually have a position on any of the ‘true’ Federal Responsibilities other than ignoring them.

The sooner we reclaim responsibility for our own lives the sooner people can stop being mad at the dimwits in DC for doing a bad job at things they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

What they really should do is pass a law against murder…...Oh wait.

This needs to be handled at the State level, not the Federal Level.

Greg said:
Even at the height of the Wild West in Dodge City, gun regulation was a fact of life.”

Precisely, it was a LOCAL issue and they handled it LOCALLY. It didn’t take an act of Congress then and nor should it today. Local events require LOCAL solutions, not National.

NeoKong says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)
0  1
What they really should do is pass a law against murder……Oh wait.

Should I laugh now?

Should I laugh now?

Only if Sarah Palin has instructed you to laugh.

Moderate said:
“The problem with gun laws is they limit the ability to defend yourself, one. But number two is the people who are going to commit a crime or are going to do something crazy, aren’t going to pay attention to the laws in the first place.”

Wow! A politician with some common sense.

Nope. It’s Chuck Schumer, fer Crissake. He’ll be saying something exactly the opposite by next week. Key word here is, “politician,” and to make it even worse, Schumer’s a “Democrat Politician.” Never trust a Democrat’s intentions when they seem logical.

theendisfar said:
This needs to be handled at the State level, not the Federal Level.

Precisely, it was a LOCAL issue and they handled it LOCALLY. It didn’t take an act of Congress then and nor should it today. Local events require LOCAL solutions, not National.

Then how do you respond to conservatives using the federal system to dismantle local regulations (D.C.- Chicago)?

adastra said:
Why does the gun control issue always have to be portrayed as an all or nothing issue? Oh wait, the gun lobby makes sure of that. They would have you believe that one can be either for totally unrestricted gun sales or for repealing the second amendment. Like in so many issues, the reasonable debate is skewed by those in power who emphasize the extremes.

I absolutely support gun rights, and I have a gun in my bedroom, however I find it incredible how little scrutiny people have to go through to purchase a firearm, and the ridiculous extremes of firearms available to us. There is no purpose to a 30 round clip other than to kill many people in a short amount of time. Don’t try to tell me this has anything to do with hunting or even a reasonable approach to home defense.

There is a big difference between “they wanna take away mah gun!” and raising our national standards of what it takes to get a gun and what kinds of guns we sell legally.

While appearing reasonable on the surface, the problem found with your assessment when it’s thought through is that when we allow someone else to decide what our “needs” are, then they inevitably at some point make it about THEIR needs instead.

Just look at how last week’s murderer is excused by the anti-American Left as they blame guns, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Tea Party, or presumably Santa Clause if necessary to make their argument. Nope. These people should NEVER be given the power to decide ANYTHING about what others need.

Here’s a novel idea: punish the guilty instead of the innocent.

Greg said:
Then how do you respond to conservatives using the federal system to dismantle local regulations (D.C.- Chicago)?

Well the 14th Amendment sure F’s things up there now doesn’t it? In other areas too, no? Ignoring the 14th, Dodge City did not outlaw owning a gun, just carrying in certain areas. If Govt’s could create areas that were completely free of criminals, then it may seem like a good idea to outlaw the means to protect oneself, however this is impossible. However, I do agree with Private business owners not serving alcohol to those that carry firearms.

If an area has a crime by gun problem, then appropriate punishment seems a better remedy than infringing upon the rights of those who obey the Law because a few of their neighbors do not. How about executing those that commit violent crimes?

The Anti-Federalists were quite concerned about the Feds overreaching their vested authorities and we can see today just how F’ed up things can get when authority is in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Libs are very strange, they are losing every issue and they still think they are winning.

The gun control debate is over. It ended when most of the democrats that supported it were defeated.

The spending debate is over. 78% of the people support spending cuts.

The debt debate is over. 71% of the people don’t want to increase the debt limit.

In spite of these numbers there are loon commentators keep saying the “republicans had better be careful they better not go TOO FAR.”

When you vote for what the people want, you have NO worries.

The dems voted against the people and they lost.

Davo said:
Here’s a novel idea: punish the guilty instead of the innocent.

Odd how civilization grew out of damning the sons for the sins of the father and has now grown into damning the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, no relation needed.

Governing to the Least Common Denominator is a Crime against the Able.

Davo said:
While appearing reasonable on the surface, the problem found with your assessment when it’s thought through is that when we allow someone else to decide what our “needs” are, then they inevitably at some point make it about THEIR needs instead.

Well, that is how a representative democracy works. We elect leaders to create and enact policy. Does it work perfectly? Of course not. But that doesn’t change the basic fact that our laws are flawed on this issue. It seems like your argument is that because you don’t trust your leaders then nothing should be done. Sounds like a good way to never progress as a society.

adastra said:
Well, that is how a representative democracy works.

Pardon your ignorance, but we do not live in a Representative Democracy. We live in a Republic based on the Rule of Law. In a Representative Democracy, the Majority can vote to ENSLAVE the Minority.

adastra said:
We elect leaders to create and enact policy.

Hello? Congress is LIMITED by Article 1 Section 8 to its scope. We elect REPRESENTATIVES who Constitutionally are LIMITED to the Laws (not policy) that they can create.

adastra said:
It seems like your argument is that because you don’t trust your leaders then nothing should be done.

No, because we don’t trust our leaders, then we should do for OURSELVES in the areas that we do not entrust them. You sound as if you are incapable of running your own life.

Curious, have you ever read the Constitution? I may sound rude here, but if you have you have no understanding of it. If you wish to understand, start with Federalist 45 and then read the others as you wish until you’ve read them all. Madison, a Federalist had too much Faith in the Separation of Powers and had no clue what kind of machine the Democrats and Republicans would create to Rule our Nation rather than Represent it.

gordonbloyershow said:
Libs are very strange, they are losing every issue and they still think they are winning.

The gun control debate is over. It ended when most of the democrats that supported it were defeated.

The spending debate is over. 78% of the people support spending cuts.

The debt debate is over. 71% of the people don’t want to increase the debt limit.

In spite of these numbers there are loon commentators keep saying the “republicans had better be careful they better not go TOO FAR.”

When you vote for what the people want, you have NO worries.

The dems voted against the people and they lost.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pwUsH-ung84/TSb4QDx4j8I/AAAAAAAAD0U/Lfd4jaXHgCM/s1600/DogCartoonAlexGregory.gif

Can’t add anything to that, theendisfar. You took the words right out of my mouth……………….err………my Constutution. LOL)

Adastra seems young and still influenced by the anti-American indoctrination that’s replaced our education system. I’ll keep hope that he (she?) continues to think until he realizes that our founders knew that good intentions can have evil consequences. Our government was NEVER intended to supply our “needs.” but to protect our right to determine them for ourselves.

Meaningful gun controls cannot occur as long as the gun manufacturer-dominated NRA continues to hold sway over both it’s own members and Congress.

Gun makers don’t care who buys their products – criminals, crazies or common folk – as long as they make money. And, boy, do they make MONEY.

Innocents may die, but profits are paramount.

Davo said:
Can’t add anything to that, theendisfar. You took the words right out of my mouth……………….err………my Constutution. LOL)

Adastra seems young and still influenced by the anti-American indoctrination that’s replaced our education system. I’ll keep hope that he (she?) continues to think until he realizes that our founders knew that good intentions can have evil consequences. Our government was NEVER intended to supply our “needs.” but to protect our right to determine them for ourselves.

“If democratic legitimacy is the measure of a sound constitutional interpretive practice,” the Columbia law professor Jamal Greene has written, “then Justice Scalia needs to give an account of why and how rote obedience to the commitments of voters two centuries distant and wildly different in racial, ethnic, sexual, and cultural composition can be justified on democratic grounds.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore#ixzz1BExhKKDv

Davo said:
Our government was NEVER intended to supply our “needs.” but to protect our right to determine them for ourselves.

Here here. It fascinates me that human Beings would allow themselves to devolve to the point that other Human Beings must care for and handle them. They are truly domesticated animals. Not only have Humans learned how to Domesticate plants and animals for their use, they have also figured out how to Domesticate other humans (little h) for political and economic gain.

This human Domestication is little more than Slavery. They (Human Domesticators) have created a sort of Ranch that supplies most of the human (little h) needs and the domesticated humans (little h) have unlearned how to fend for themselves just as sheep and cattle cannot survive without the Rancher, little h humans cannot survive without the Gov’t.

Quite sickening if you ask me. I truly object to being forced to participate (via taxes, etc) in the Domestication of the Human Species. I do not however object to little h humans voluntarily subjugating themselves to arbitrary rule, that is their business. I just think that they and their masters should take care of the bill themselves.

To each their own. The End is Far.

theendisfar said:
Here here. It fascinates me that human Beings would allow themselves to devolve to the point that other Human Beings must care for and handle them. They are truly domesticated animals. Not only have Humans learned how to Domesticate plants and animals for their use, they have also figured out how to Domesticate other humans (little h) for political and economic gain.

This human Domestication is little more than Slavery. They (Human Domesticators) have created a sort of Ranch that supplies most of the human (little h) needs and the domesticated humans (little h) have unlearned how to fend for themselves just as sheep and cattle cannot survive without the Rancher, little h humans cannot survive without the Gov’t.

Quite sickening if you ask me. I truly object to being forced to participate (via taxes, etc) in the Domestication of the Human Species. I do not however object to little h humans voluntarily subjugating themselves to arbitrary rule, that is their business. I just think that they and their masters should take care of the bill themselves.

To each their own. The End is Far.

You must be a ton-o-fun at social gatherings…

Greg said:
“If democratic legitimacy is the measure of a sound constitutional interpretive practice,” the Columbia law professor Jamal Greene has written, “then Justice Scalia needs to give an account of why and how rote obedience to the commitments of voters two centuries distant and wildly different in racial, ethnic, sexual, and cultural composition can be justified on democratic grounds.”

Greg, can you put this in your own words? I’m reading the article now, but I’m curious as to what you consider ‘democratic legitimacy’ is, and what you think a ‘sound constitutional interpretive practice might be.

Jamal is a clever writer, but a poor thinker. He appears to not understand how a Limited Gov’t (not a Democracy) can serve Human Beings, no matter what flavor, but I will withhold judgement till I complete the article.

Greg said:
You must be a ton-o-fun at social gatherings…

Never a dull moment :) The Domesticated pay little attention to grown up talk, just as long as there is plenty of beer and snacks.

theendisfar said:
Greg, can you put this in your own words? I’m reading the article now, but I’m curious as to what you consider ‘democratic legitimacy’ is, and what you think a ’sound constitutional interpretive practice might be.

Jamal is a clever writer, but a poor thinker. He appears to not understand how a Limited Gov’t (not a Democracy) can serve Human Beings, no matter what flavor, but I will withhold judgement till I complete the article.

One of the principals of the Constitution is popular sovereignty, the idea that policy reflect the will of the people and thereby is legitimate. We also honor the independence of the judiciary as interpretive arbritrar of constitutional compliance. I chose this selection from the larger piece because it seems to point to a flaw with originalist thinking. If constitutionalism includes core principals like popular sovereignty and judicial independence then decisions by a few appointed federal judicial officials that undermine the popular will of the citizenry do so by virtue of an illogical fetichism of distant understanding. Originalism trades adoration of the past for the continuation of our most prized principals.

gordonbloyershow said:
Libs are very strange, they are losing every issue and they still think they are winning.

The gun control debate is over. It ended when most of the democrats that supported it were defeated.

The spending debate is over. 78% of the people support spending cuts.

The debt debate is over. 71% of the people don’t want to increase the debt limit.

In spite of these numbers there are loon commentators keep saying the “republicans had better be careful they better not go TOO FAR.”

When you vote for what the people want, you have NO worries.

The dems voted against the people and they lost.

Yes. When you say “…they are losing every issue and they still think they are winning”, I think it’s more that they can’t believe that we could win. They have contempt for American values, Conservatism, etc. and they don’t even went to admit that we are here.

I don’t think they’d get the Fairness Doctrine passed either.

Could there a environmental connection in the Arizona shooting tragedy?

Something that would call for Green legislation so the whole thing won’t go to waste?

theendisfar said:
Never a dull moment :) The Domesticated pay little attention to grown up talk, just as long as there is plenty of beer and snacks.

But only as long as someone ELSE paid for them.

Greg said:
Justice Scalia needs to give an account of why and how rote obedience to the commitments of voters two centuries distant and wildly different in racial, ethnic, sexual, and cultural composition can be justified on democratic grounds.”

Judge Scalia needs to give no such account to anyone, especially one writing as a counter-revolutionary with an agenda of re-inventing America in his own image. A “rubbery” Constitution is no constitution at all, and that’s exactly what the anti-American Left needs in order to “legitimize” the illegitimate.

Hang in there, Judge. America depends on patriots like you.

Alz said:
Yes. When you say “…they are losing every issue and they still think they are winning”, I think it’s more that they can’t believe that we could win. They have contempt for American values, Conservatism, etc. and they don’t even went to admit that we are here.

How could we not believe that conservatives might win elections? How could we not notice conservatives? What do your comments mean? In no way way could they be taken literally… Some sort of metaphor?

Greg said:
One of the principals of the Constitution is popular sovereignty, the idea that policy reflect the will of the people and thereby is legitimate

I like ‘Consent of the Governed’ better, a negative liberty. ‘Will of the people’ (positive liberty) has a ‘majority rule’ taste that can more easily ignore the Rule of Law.

Greg said:
We also honor the independence of the judiciary as interpretive arbritrar of constitutional compliance.

Sort of for me, I’m educated and experienced enough to interpret the Constitution for myself. With regards to the 3 Branches, yes the Judicial Branch should be determining whether laws or actions are Constitutional (within the scope of Art 1 Sec 8).

Greg said:
I chose this selection from the larger piece because it seems to point to a flaw with originalist thinking. If constitutionalism includes core principals like popular sovereignty and judicial independence then decisions by a few appointed federal judicial officials that undermine the popular will of the citizenry do so by virtue of an illogical fetichism of distant understanding. Originalism trades adoration of the past for the continuation of our most prized principals.

This is a common flaw amongst those that have failed to read the Federalist Papers and other works of the period. The Constitution is a Contract. If you take a piece or two and attempt to apply them to reach the same ends as the whole, you will certainly fail. I do agree with the Author that it is somewhat complicated and certainly misunderstood, but there are several good resources which clearly define the intent.

Complex systems, first should be made a simple as possible, and second require clearly defined core principles from which all other mechanisms must be born. Going to grab some food, but will finish my thought a bit later.

Davo said:
Judge Scalia needs to give no such account to anyone, especially one writing as a counter-revolutionary with an agenda of re-inventing America in his own image. A “rubbery” Constitution is no constitution at all, and that’s exactly what the anti-American Left needs in order to “legitimize” the illegitimate.

Hang in there, Judge. America depends on patriots like you.

There is nothing patriotic about an unelected official operating under the impression that his political philosophy trumps both legislative authority and the will of the people. The constitution was not written upon high and passed to the mortals at mountain peak. Our tradition of constitutionalism is what makes us great. Popular Sovereignty, Rule of Law, Independence of the Judiciary, Separation of Powers, Federalism, Individual Rights… these things make us great, not reverence for a long gone people and words they placed on paper.

Greg said:
There is nothing patriotic about an unelected official operating under the impression that his political philosophy trumps both legislative authority and the will of the people.

Scalia has never imposed “his political philosophy” where it may vary from that of the Constitution. In fact, the very job of a Supreme Court Justice is to function SEPERATELY from the whims of the people, the legislature, and the President. His job is to enforce the Constitution, especially against the will of the anti-American Left. That’s EXTREMELY patriotic.

The framers made it possible to change the Constitution, albeit with intended difficulty to prevent just the kind of faddish whims you demand. So far, in the 200 plus years of our history, the Constitution has only been changed 17 times (the Bill of Rights is merely redundant to the body of the document and constituted no “change”). America has not only survived, but thrived on the limitations of government guaranteed in the Constitution…………….an inconvenience to the anti-American Left to be sure.

As I stated before, flexibility of a “living, breathing document” means no Constitution at all, and would subject America to whatever whims occur to whomever finds themselves in power.

jrcmi said:
Gun makers don’t care who buys their products

Well now that’s just silly. No manufacturer of any product wants people to buy their product, and then go out and murder someone with it, and there is no proof to your claim. There are plenty of gun collectors, law enforcement members, hunters, and law-abiding citizens to keep gun manufacturers in business for a loooooonngg time and they know that. In fact, criminals are the ONLY people giving gun ownership a bad rap and that hurts their business.

Davo said:
Our government was NEVER intended to supply our “needs.” but to protect our right to determine them for ourselves.

So, why regulate anything then? Why stop at failing to regulate firearms? Why not allow me to develop my own enriched uranium in my basement (in the name of the 2nd amendment)? Why not allow people to sell child pornography? Should it be up to the individual to determine if they need those things?

Of course I’m sure you similarly supported deregulating the financial sector and we all see how well that worked out.

If you think the people don’t need laws, I recommend visiting a failed state. If you’re brave enough to leave the nest.

Greg said:
If constitutionalism includes core principals like popular sovereignty and judicial independence then decisions by a few appointed federal judicial officials that undermine the popular will of the citizenry do so by virtue of an illogical fetichism of distant understanding.

This is a hypothetical that ignores the constant and critical attention of the Governed (limited) that is Required of those charged to Self-Govern. I’m a Systems Architect by trade and I can tell you that complex systems can be made to work both effectively and efficiently. Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) are a key part of Auditing and Optimizing the system. Distant Understanding is little more than a very good excuse to come together and clarify the SLA or Contract.

Currently the Federal Gov’t is failing miserably at successfully holding up its end of the deal (Art 1 Sec 8) and at the same time failing miserably at the responsibilities that it has usurped from the States and Individuals. If we were to Audit the Feds and grade them on their effectiveness and efficiency, I personally would give them (collectively) an F for both what they have been mandated to do and what they have usurped.

Greg said:
Originalism trades adoration of the past for the continuation of our most prized principals.

Not so if you are paying attention to the Mission. While innovation opens doors to new methods, one must always pay particular attention to the Mission. It is a common fallacy for organizations to confuse their methods for the Mission and in many cases the Methods become the Mission and over time the Mission is forgotten.

Forget for moment that we are burdened by the Domesticated, what are ‘our’ most prized principals?

adastra said:
So, why regulate anything then? Why stop at failing to regulate firearms? Why not allow me to develop my own enriched uranium in my basement (in the name of the 2nd amendment)? Why not allow people to sell child pornography? Should it be up to the individual to determine if they need those things?

You seem young, adastra. Our nation was founded upon principles I believe in, and have proven to be the best principles any nation has ever adopted based on our growth, morality, and prosperity. Our trouble begins at the disregarding of those principles, even if well-intentioned as I now give you the benefit of the doubt.

America was founded on the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property. That “pursuit of happiness” is a flowery and subjective notion with no objective meaning. It replaced the “property” reference because the framers didn’t want anyone to misinterpret that as condoning ownership of slaves, and they needed to establish a nation before taking on the slavery issue.

The rights to life, liberty, and property end where anothers’ rights to the same are infringed upon. Simple. Pollution, exploitation of minors, and the other overly dramatic examples you mentioned are properly dealt with BECAUSE of our Constitution, not with it’s perversion or elimination. Our financial disaster we now suffer from started as Democrat Congressmen Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd overstepped their Constitutional authority in blackmailing banks to force them to make vote-buying loans to unqualified borrowers. Because regulation always encourages and rewards corruption between business and politicians, it should always be kept to a minimum…………..as the Constitution clearly indicates.

As I stated, the guarantees in our Constitution have proven to provide the best system for everyone……………..except for the anti-American Left.

Greg said:
How could we not believe that conservatives might win elections? How could we not notice conservatives? What do your comments mean? In no way way could they be taken literally… Some sort of metaphor?

You may have missed some of the other things I’ve written over time and some of this is based on that.

With that said, I’m alluding the peculiar way Modern Liberals/Progressives deal with some problems: they ether assume the problem doesn’t exist or that the problem isn’t really a problem.

The Right is becoming a bigger problem for them (because we are fighting back) and they want to think we don’t exist or that they are winning when they are losing.

It’s part of their mental disorder.

You may like the video “How Modern Liberals Think” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c. I love it. It’s not short, but it’s well wroth the time. It;s by a guy named Evan Sayet who used to be a writer for Bill Maher.

Hey Alz, remind me of the name and position of the guy mentioned by Sayet as the “father” of modern “history” books.

adastra said:
So, why regulate anything then?

Regulations are for the ‘benefit’ of all that they affect. Whenever a regulation favors a party, it becomes a bounty for those in the party and a burden for those who are not. Regulations are almost always associated with Monopolies. They should be evenly payed for by all, and evenly applied to all, but this is rare today.

adastra said:
Why not allow me to develop my own enriched uranium in my basement (in the name of the 2nd amendment)?

:) Why is it that this argument always comes into play with the 2nd? If personal defense costs the GDP of a State or large community, then it is applicable to say that it is no longer personal defense and instead a community’s defense. This is where wisdom, experience, and reason come into play.

adastra said:
Why not allow people to sell child pornography?

You must be young and without experience. This is a bit more grey than owning your own nuclear weapon, however it boils down to a child being the ward of their parents yet having rights to their own person. An adult cannot enter a child into pornography without their consent, however Western Laws prevent children from giving their consent for such things. Eastern customs are quite different. Children are often sold into sex slavery.

adastra said:
Should it be up to the individual to determine if they need those things?

Certainly, however if they have to infringe upon the Life, Liberty, or Property of another to obtain their desires, then it is unlawful.

adastra said:
Of course I’m sure you similarly supported deregulating the financial sector and we all see how well that worked out.

:) What you fail to recognize is that when the Financial Sector was Regulated, it was Regulating Financial instruments that would have otherwise been outlawed (derivatives), so when Clinton signed the Law (1999) that made void the portions of the Glass Stegal Act that prevented Banks from insuring their investments with YOUR money, they only removed the regulation, not the instrument that was being regulated.

This is why you must be careful to make sure Regulations, which have the Force of Law, are few and well understood, because otherwise the system becomes too complicated to keep up with.

Davo said:
Hey Alz, remind me of the name and position of the guy mentioned by Sayet as the “father” of modern “history” books.

Howard Zinn…

Some links on him advocating revisionist history:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22Howard+Zinn%22+revisionist&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=f478bdfafcb0c911

Davo said:
America was founded on the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property.

Signing off to that! http://endisfar.com

No time to waste, the end is far . . .

Davo said:
You seem young, adastra. Our nation was founded upon principles I believe in, and have proven to be the best principles any nation has ever adopted based on our growth, morality, and prosperity. Our trouble begins at the disregarding of those principles, even if well-intentioned as I now give you the benefit of the doubt.

America was founded on the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property. That “pursuit of happiness” is a flowery and subjective notion with no objective meaning. It replaced the “property” reference because the framers didn’t want anyone to misinterpret that as condoning ownership of slaves, and they needed to establish a nation before taking on the slavery issue.

The rights to life, liberty, and property end where anothers’ rights to the same are infringed upon. Simple. Pollution, exploitation of minors, and the other overly dramatic examples you mentioned are properly dealt with BECAUSE of our Constitution, not with it’s perversion or elimination. Our financial disaster we now suffer from started as Democrat Congressmen Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd overstepped their Constitutional authority in blackmailing banks to force them to make vote-buying loans to unqualified borrowers. Because regulation always encourages and rewards corruption between business and politicians, it should always be kept to a minimum…………..as the Constitution clearly indicates.

As I stated, the guarantees in our Constitution have proven to provide the best system for everyone……………..except for the anti-American Left.

Other than making assumptions about who I am (I’ll spare you the same), I think you make valid points about the scope of lawmaking as laid out by our founding fathers. Getting back to the original point of the discussion however, I’ve already stated that I support the 2nd Amendment and I believe in and personally practice the right to bear arms. But I think you are ignoring the subtleties of the issue. I’m not suggesting the outlawing of firearms, I’m suggesting there are extremes that need regulation. For the same reason that I cannot enrich uranium (it clearly oversteps the concept of “self defense”) I feel that things like assault rifles, exploding rounds, and 30-round clips cannot be justified on the basis of self-defense, but are clearly built for the purpose of mass killing. Its easy to paint the issue as one of “for or against” second amendment rights, but the reality is more complicated.

If you feel that any taxpaying citizen should have the right own an assault rifle with armor piercing rounds, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, I simply disagree. I would love to see that discussion taken seriously, but instead it is always reduced to the extremes.

Alz said:
Howard Zinn…

Some links on him advocating revisionist history:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22Howard+Zinn%22+revisionist&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=f478bdfafcb0c911

Yep. That’s him. I first saw him on the HIstory Channel spewing anti-American vitriol thinly disguised as “history,” on a series attempting to re-write American history. He made me sick enough to change the channel.
I just now made the connection.

Davo, Alz, et al, pleased to know there are more Sons and Students of Liberty out there.

And for the others, Happy Domestication, may your leaders (masters) have the cash to support you once we figure out how to stop contributing.

adastra said:
I feel that things like assault rifles, exploding rounds, and 30-round clips cannot be justified on the basis of self-defense, but are clearly built for the purpose of mass killing. Its easy to paint the issue as one of “for or against” second amendment rights, but the reality is more complicated.

Personally, I couldn’t care less about even a 22 cal, But maybe those weapons are simply collected and admired the same as a 200 mph Ferrari that must be restricted to local speed limits. The reasons one might wish for either? The short answer is: none of your business.

Giving someone else the power to make your personal decisions is the first step toward oppression…………..it simply isn’t avoidable no matter how ‘noble’ the intent. Your way encourages individuals to shun responsibility for their actions, and instead transfer culpability to inanimate objects. It also bolsters the insane agenda to punish the innocent rather than the guilty…………….the Liberal’s creado.

im starting to love coburn more these days..

Davo said:
Personally, I couldn’t care less about even a 22 cal, But maybe those weapons are simply collected and admired the same as a 200 mph Ferrari that must be restricted to local speed limits. The reasons one might wish for either? The short answer is: none of your business.

Giving someone else the power to make your personal decisions is the first step toward oppression…………..it simply isn’t avoidable no matter how ‘noble’ the intent. Your way encourages individuals to shun responsibility for their actions, and instead transfer culpability to inanimate objects. It also bolsters the insane agenda to punish the innocent rather than the guilty…………….the Liberal’s creado.

While I disagree entirely with your logic, I do appreciate your comments. I wanted a better understanding of your rationale and I think you explained it quite clearly and managed to avoid childish namecalling.

adastra said:
If you feel that any taxpaying citizen should have the right own an assault rifle with armor piercing rounds, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, I simply disagree. I would love to see that discussion taken seriously, but instead it is always reduced to the extremes.

You need to get your brain unwashed. Automatic weapons are illegal and they have been since 1937. Assault rifles are automatic weapons and they are illegal. LOOK it up.
Ignorant libs like to label guns that are made to LOOK like assault rifles as automatic when they are not.
You have to pull the trigger for every shot you take.
They also like to scare people with the word SEMI-Automatic. That means you have to pull the trigger for every shot you take. Just like my revolver.
The American people have been educated to that hoax and that is why the gun debate has been won by the NRA.
You didn’t get the memo.

Davo said:
Yep. That’s him. I first saw him on the HIstory Channel spewing anti-American vitriol thinly disguised as “history,” on a series attempting to re-write American history. He made me sick enough to change the channel.I just now made the connection.

Howard Zinn’s book on American history is one big lie after another. Many of the left has adopted it as their history book. Zinn is dead and buried. We can all be thankful.

gordonbloyershow said:
the gun debate has been won by the NRA

I think you mean “purchased”

adastra said:
I think you mean “purchased”

You are delusional. NO ONE has to purchase what the people WANT. You have to purchase ObamaCare because it is NOT wanted by the American people.

State Firearms Laws and Statistics, a new brochure that analyzes and compares firearms laws and statistics in all 50 states. States were ranked from 1 to 50 based on 25 different policy areas. The brochure provides a map that displays each state’s rank and whether the state’s gun death rate is above or below the national average. The brochure explains that many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates and vice versa. For example, the 10 states with the strongest gun laws are California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island and Florida. More than half of these states are in the bottom ten states for gun death rates. The brochure also lists the ten best and worst states for rates of gun deaths, gun ownership and crime gun exports (in addition to gun laws); best and worst practices and which states have implemented them; and details the laws in the state with the strongest gun laws (California), and the weakest (Arizona).
http://www.lcav.org/Gun_Laws_Matter/Gun_Laws_Matter_Brochure.pdf

Violence Policy Center, Safe at Home: How D.C.’s Gun Laws Save Children’s Lives (July 2005), at http://www.vpc.org/studies/dcsuicide.pdf

The gun lobby has perpetuated a myriad of myths about guns and gun violence in this country, successfully thwarting efforts to enact common sense laws to reduce gun deaths and injuries. In this publication, LCAV exposes ten of the gun lobby’s myths, providing evidence that regulating firearms is a necessary and effective way to curb our nation’s epidemic of gun violence.
http://www.lcav.org/publications-briefs/reports_analyses/Ten_Myths.pdf

Realpan said:
providing evidence that regulating firearms is a necessary and effective way to curb our nation’s epidemic of gun violence.

Even MORE effective at curbing ALL our nation’s epidemics is to lock up new born babies in padded cells and never let them out. Now, THAT’s safe! I mean, why just putter around when you can solve so many problems that silly ol’ FREEDOM allows.

Sen. Chuck Schumer: Major Gun Control Legislation Doesn’t Have The Votes

and that’s because there are still many more people who respect and honor our Constitution than do not.

RealPan:

If your statistics are fair, why then does the District for Columbia, which until recently enforced a strict hand gun ban, which was overturned by the Supreme Court, have the highest amount of deaths per 100,000 population, by guns? A percentage that is 11% higher than the state of Wyoming which has the most gun owners.
As usual, the anti-gun, or anti- 2nd Amendment crowd, want to base their objection to guns on the amount of crime, and deaths do to the use of firearms. Never do you hear them quote the number of crimes stopped, and lives saved by the use of firearms. Never, do you hear them mention the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it’s continued validation.