Today’s Wall Street Journal included an op-ed from Delegate Jim LeMunyon calling for a new Constitutional Convention. First of all, I’m impressed that Jim was able to land an op-ed in the WSJ. That’s not an easy thing to do. Further, I’m impressed with his justifications for the Convention. He’s got a very good point – Congress is unlikely to step up and police itself when it comes to continued expansions of its power. Thus, if the states want to ensure that Congress and a willing President don’t completely destroy federalism, the only way to do so is to pass a new amendment to the Constitution – and that’s not going to happen absent a new Convention.
.
I know that the idea of tinkering with the Constitution is one that doesn’t sit well with some people, and I think that hesitation is justified. We’ve seen what kind of damage passing a poorly thought through amendment can do to the country. But given the fact that any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by at least 38 other states, the chances of something truly outrageous being adopted would be minimal. Getting people thinking and talking about the fundamental document that creates our system of government is a healthy thing. We don’t do it often enough.
.
I think this is a pretty good idea – at the very least, it has the benefit of not having been tried in the last two hundred years. While I disagree with him on the need for a federal balanced budget amendment or for federal term limits, I’d like to see a line item veto amendment, or perhaps an amendment that puts some teeth back into the 10th amendment.
.
What do you think?
.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Apr 01st by Brian S
Perhaps Le Munyon should restart his education on the constitution beginning with the Second Amendment, he has a piss poor voting record on this issue so I’m not sure I trust him with the rest.
This is a great idea! Congress will never eliminate earmarking and unfunded mandates on their own. Thank you Delegate Lemunyon for taking a leadership position on this!
Great job, Delegate LeMunyon!
A state rep having the pull to land an op-ed piece in the WSJ is impressive. Kudos to him for that.
.
As to the subject of the piece? Not so much.
.
I have said nice things about this guy in the past. This does not confirm my positive assessment of him. Better to stick to the business of trying to be an effective legislator rather than advocate for gimmicky distractions like constitutional conventions that aren’t going to happen anyway. And shouldn’t. This smacks of pandering to the lower information portion of the base who love to scream about the Constitution with all the fervor (and all the misinformation) with which they scream about keeping the government out of their Medicare.
.
Brian, I have to agree with you about the balanced budget amendment. If someone started a fiscally conservative party in this country then people could vote for its candidates and such an amendment would be totally unnecessary. Too bad such a party doesn’t exist in this country. I’d also like to ask Mr. LeMunyon what he thinks might have happened during World War II had such an amendment been in force at that time. Might we all be speaking German or Japanese? A timely question as we continue fighting two wars for which we have failed to raise a single tax dollar. Something unprecedented in our history.
.
And term limits? That is what elections are for. But Mr. LeMunyon could have a positive impact in his current position by weighing in at redistricting time for more competitive districts. That would insure more choice and likely more turnover of elected officials. I’ll be anxious to see what he does in that regard. I hope he won’t just cast a vote for a plan designed simply to elect the greatest number of Republicans while mouthing platitudes about the need for term limits.
.
A constitutional convention would be a total waste of time. It might be highly amusing. But it wouldn’t likely produce anything that would be ratified by three fourths of the states. It would be great TV though. Probably be one of the highest rated reality shows ever.
.
A better use of time might be to start a rational conservative party in America. Something we lack today. Especially if you are truly concerned about the direction of the country.
Dan, did you guys get “lower information voters” in your DNC talking points this week? I swear I’ve seen half a dozen different Democrats on different blogs use that exact term this week and I don’t recall seeing it at all before that.
.
Jim is doing his job – and part of his job is to come up with creative solutions to the problems we face today. There are a lot of people, of all “information levels” who believe that there is something fundamentally flawed with the federal government. A new Constitutional Convention made up of non-politicians, working together to craft amendments isn’t a bad idea. I agree that it isn’t something that is likely going to happen, but, frankly, if there has been any time period in our republic when unlikely things can happen, it is now – when has a former first lady ever been elected to the Senate? Or a viable Presidential contender? When has a black man every had a chance at the White House, let alone winning it? When has one party had such a solid foothold over both houses and the White House and been in exactly the opposite position in four years? We’re living in times when unprecedented things happen, so I wouldn’t be so quick to poo poo these ideas.
.
Your snark about a “true fiscal conservative party” is noted. The Republican party is the party of fiscal conservatism, even if it has not completely followed that path in recent history. If political parties cannot redeem themselves for their sins in the past, the Democrats will be damned for far more than simply straying from their ideological core for a few years.
.
LeMunyon’s idea deserve a full and frank discussion.
HELL NO!
“I’d also like to ask Mr. LeMunyon what he thinks might have happened during World War II had such an amendment been in force at that time. Might we all be speaking German or Japanese?”
*
FWIW there should be some sort of automatic tax that kicks in if we deploy > N number of troops somewhere, and gets revoked as we bring troops home.
*
If it’s important enough to put American boys into combat, it’s important enough to pay higher taxes.
Brian, “low information voters” is a fairly common term. Not a talking point. And I think it is a term that is fairly applied to people who collect benefits under Medicare with no understanding that it is a government program. Or to people whose “understanding” of the Constitution leads them to believe that state nullification of federal law or secession from the Union are viable options.
.
“The Republican party is the party of fiscal conservatism, even if it has not completely followed that path in recent history”
.
Recent history? It has been a third of a century! How many decades do we have to wait before we can accept the obvious truth that the Republican Party is decidedly NOT a fiscally conservative party? A third of a century of saying one thing and doing the opposite is a pretty strong body of evidence. It seems to me they have to show something for a sustained period of time to have any credibility on this subject. It’s kind of like a guy who has been cheating on his wife for decades and expects her to believe that he now really, really believes in marital fidelity. Unless she is a total idiot she isn’t likely to accept his word at face value.
.
“If it’s important enough to put American boys into combat, it’s important enough to pay higher taxes.”
.
Amen, Cato! For damn near a decade we have asked the same small group of young service men and women and their families to bear the entire burden for us. Over and over again. While our “leaders” have asked no sacrifice from the rest of the American people. Not even to pay for the wars. That is so wrong on so many levels.
Bring back the draft and watch how quickly something like that would pass..
I might support the idea … if I thought there were guys as smart as Madison, Washington, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Rutledge, and Pickney running around and interested in running it.
Our current fix demonstrates beyond doubt that there aren’t. Or even people half as smart.
Dan, if that’s the case, you guys are still making up for the hundred+ years of civil rights violations before and after the Civil War. I would be more forgiving if I were you.
.
It’s easy to assume that the folks who disagree with you clearly must not be informed well enough to make a decision. The folks who want “government’s hands off medicare” tend to be older folks. Regardless of whether or not they’re “low information” they are still entitled to the franchise and they vote – dismiss or mock them at your own peril.
.
I agree that there should have been some kind of a way of paying for the wars – even if it was only selling war bonds or something similar. We should have done that. But I didn’t see either side (other than Charlie Rangel and his reinstate the draft idea) rushing to raise taxes to pay for the war, either in 2004 or 2006.
Brian, the examples I gave are accurately described as low information voters. I certainly never indicated that they were not entitled to vote. It cuts both ways. There are folks who are dumb as a stump who vote your way. There are folks who are dumb as a stump who vote my way. The same is true of people who are intensely dialed in to both policy and politics. It seems to have worked out pretty well for more than two centuries. I expect it will continue to do so.
.
Make no mistake. I had little use for the dimwits who were certain that those who voted for George W. Bush were stupid. Just as I have little use for the dimwits who now insist that those who voted for Obama were “duped” or “fooled” and would surely have voted for McCain if only they were “smarter”. Both groups are merely sore losers who can’t accept that they aren’t automatically superior to anyone who doesn’t share their views. Both groups are, in short, assholes.
.
I believe the reinstatement of the draft is a sound idea. When the burden of fighting our wars is shared widely it is harder to embark on wars for which there is not broad popular support. Having that broad popular support is an essential component for the successful prosecution of the war. And, as Cato points out, when the soldiers fighting have been drafted (meaning they aren’t just the kids of coal miners and truck drivers) people will be more willing to pay for the war.
“And, as Cato points out, when the soldiers fighting have been drafted (meaning they aren’t just the kids of coal miners and truck drivers) people will be more willing to pay for the war.”
*
Actually, that wasn’t exactly the point. Eliminating exemptions and exposing everyone to a combat draft and additional taxes would make everyone from POTUS on down think twice about the immediate political price involved in committing combat resources.
*
I’m no dove. Sometimes there’s no other way, but as both a student and a participant (as I’m sure numerous other folks reading this thread are) I can tell you that war is nasty shit, and if you’ve been there it’s a chapter of your life you’d like to pretend never happened. Today mainstream America is completely insulated from the consequences, and that ain’t right.
Who would trust members of Congress who were seriously considering that they could “deem” the health care bill passed without a direct up or down vote on the measure just as House democrats recently did with the debt limit increase?
Also, at present there is no statute limiting the call of a constitutional convention or even prescribing the process for organizing one.
Lastly, those who lack self control cannot be trusted to exercise it in providing for a Constitutional Convention.
And we should not forget that the suggested convention could propose a different mens of ratification of a new amendment or series of amendments just as the convention of 1787 did with respect to the then prevailing Articles of Confederation.
Brian, Dan is right about that term “low information voters.” In the period before the November 2008 election,there were seemingly endless debates over that terminology and how it applied to the electorate on either side. Much of it came down to the belief that voters with lower education and little time to study the issues simply accepted remarks from commentators of persuasions across the spectrum in making their voting decisions. Others argued that these voters knew damn well the things which affected their own lives and, the more esoteric political subjects aside, made decisions based on what they thought would work for them. One interesting argument was that the whole premise was false because it could be apllied both ways. You take a fellow who is a third-year law student and an avid politico and a set of questions with which he would be comfortable and the other guy becomes the low information” chap. On the other hand, you take a fellow who knows how to tear a car apart and fix it, and the third-year law student becomes the “low information” guy. So, Dan is spot on here. Some of the self-annointed psychologists/sociologists amongst us got so hung up on the concept that you wanted to drown ‘em in a turd pond.
“Today mainstream America is completely insulated from the consequences, and that ain’t right.”
.
Exactly!
.
My previous comment about the draft assumes a draft law that is not the abomination that was in place during the Viet Nam War. Which, in my opinion, was little better than the draft law in place during the Civil War.
.
I am no dove either. I have no problem with the projection of American military power in order to secure our interests when appropriate. But I object strenuously to the misapplication of American military power. Which is made far too easy by the lack of consequences to all but a few. The consequence being shared by all necessitates more sober reflection and the making of an honest case to the American people before embarking on a military expedition.
While I’m a supporter of the notion of a Constitutional Convention to address some specific issues, I think the problem isn’t the language but the enforcement. Virginia passed a law that makes texting while driving illegal. Everyone who’s paying any attention knows this because it was one of those big deals in the newsrooms. However, I’ve personally seen people continue to do it and some of those are people I *know* know about the law. What’s going to make the impact to them and get them to obey the law is that, someday, they’re going to get pulled over and busted.
.
The Constitution is absolutely explicit that the federal government is only empowered to do some very specific things. Over my lifetime the federal govt’s actions have expanded their authority many times and they are now regulating areas they have no specific authority to touch. That’s against the Constitution – against the law, that is – and yet they do so. The issue isn’t that there’s no law restricting their abilities, it’s that there’s no enforcement mechanism that smacks their hands when they do. There’s the ballot box, of course, but merely removing people from office doesn’t halt the violation or repair the damage caused.
.
So while the line item veto would likely do what we intend – we’re granting the a branch of the federal govt more power, after all, the real problems are in the federal government’s overreach. What are we going to do? Re-adopt Article I, Section 8 again?
.
That said, I’m not against convening such a Convention. Perhaps some real progress toward doing that will motivate Congress to start listening for real.
Bob, I think the point of the Constitutional Convention would be to get non-politicians on the Convention – otherwise the same problem we face in the Congress would be present there. The Congressmen would not support amendments that might reduce their power. I am confident that we have enough citizens who don’t hold federal elected office to propose amendments that we wouldn’t risk being captured by sitting office holders.
.
Congress doesn’t have to provide for the Constitutional Convention – it can be proposed by 2/3rds of the states petitioning for one. And I don’t believe that the Convention could alter the ratification process. That’s explicit in Article V. The problem with the Articles was that they did not include an amendment process at all. That was one of the reasons why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place – there was no way to amend the Articles.
I don’t think you can limit the scope of a Constitutional Convention once it is convened. So you are truly opening Pandora’s box by doing so. I seriously doubt that a sufficient number of states will vote to convene one, so it is probably a moot point. I am sure we could count on South Carolina to go for it. They are so delightfully crazy down there. But, even though I have made disparaging remarks about several state legislatures in the past, I think most state legislatures are mostly sane and would not wish to go this route.
.
Not to get off on a tangent about a line item veto amendment, but I think it is ill advised. I understand the attractiveness of it from the standpoint of deleting items an executive thinks are budget busters. But it might have the unintended consequence of destroying any future essential compromises between different regions or interests on important issues that require such compromise to arrive at a reasonable public policy that is good for the country. It could further paralyze us.
.
For instance, energy legislation. The interests of Northeastern states that consume a lot of energy may be quite different than the interests of energy producing states. And compromise on those differences may produce a bill that everyone can live with and that is good for the country as a whole. But then enter the line item veto wielded by a president from, let’s say, Texas or Louisiana. He uses that authority to gut the provisions of the carefully crafted compromise that were favored by the net consumer states and leaves a bill that is totally favorable to his region and screws everybody else. Suddenly the line item veto isn’t such a swell idea. And future compromise becomes unlikely.
.
Instead of all these gimmicks, why don’t we elect higher quality folks to represent us within the perfectly marvelous system we have inherited. Let’s start by addressing partisan gerrymandering of districts by both parties. Competitive districts will yield better representation. Which should yield better public policy.
It’s not necessary to limit the scope of the Convention. No matter what they propose, none of the amendments will be adopted until they are ratified by 3/4s of the state. So no matter what wacky ideas may get adopted by the Convention, they won’t actually change anything unless enough states ratify them.
.
We all need to trust that the founders designed a system with all of these concerns in mind, and they wouldn’t have set us up to fail. They anticipated all of these problems. The system works – trust it.
.
In terms of the line item veto, as long as there are provisions for overriding the veto, I think a lot of those issues can be resolved. I doubt highly that a line item veto would somehow bring back sectionalism.
I agree with Dan’s comments just above. Sure, a constitutional convention is a great idea as long as our ideas are the ones that make it into the amended constitution. Keep in mind, however, that such a convention would not be composed strictly of Republicans. Things could very well work out radically different. For example, look at the last time they did this. The founding fathers intended to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up with smoething that, in fact, gave MORE control to the central government. Consider carefully the compromises that would need to be made.
That said, I do very much believe in the need for several amendments. Top among them are term limits. While Brian and I disagree on that, I also disagree with Brian on the notion that the founding fathers “designed a system with all of these concerns in mind.” Simply put, they didn’t. First of all, the founding fathers were just men and not some all knowing deity. Secondly, they realized, in many writings, that they didn’t have all the answers. And, hence, the amendment provision of the Constitution.
But if we are to have a constitutional convention, make sure that my new favority congressman, Hank Johnson, is included. With his piercing intellect, shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&feature=player_embedded, I’m sure that he’ll shown himself to be the next Jefferson. (And by Jefferson, I mean George Jefferson)
Lloyd, what I mean by saying that they “designed a system with all of these concerns in mind” I meant the concerns of balancing competing interests and ensuring power is not capable of being wielded by any one group without a check. The system itself is designed to ensure that no runaway convention could completely revamp the Constitution. The founders could not have anticipated the changes that have occurred since 1789, but they did anticipate the myriad ways we could try and hijack the system. And they designed safeguards to make it next to impossible to amend the Constitution without widespread support.
.
They weren’t deities – they were men who had fought a long war and were determined not to allow anyone to put themselves in a position where their children would be forced to fight another one. And they did a pretty good job of it.
Well, this has certainly kicked off an exchange of ideas! I am very happy with my new delegate, and not surprised to see him writing in the WSJ.
One thing beneficial about even discussing this is that it will cause greater examination of the Constitution, which many of our elected reps seem thoroughly ignorant on, which is where the problems get started in the first place.
Something I heard discussed at a LeMunyon town hall during the session (he made some flying visits up to the district–drive up, hold a meeting, drive back for votes–to discuss and take input on specific issues from constituents–Go Jim!) was the possibility of the Governor kicking off an effort to clean up our own laws, where they differ, conflict, are unclear, or made mott by subsequent legislation yet are still on the books.
Discussion of an effort like this would seem to be in line with that spirit–clean up our own books, then encourage the Fed to do the same.
Interesting sideline re the state healthcare plan suits–apparently Congress is unaware of the law passed some years ago regarding unfunded mandates? Brian, perhaps you could elucidate on that where appropriate?
The people representing the states at this Constitutional Convention would be the same hyper partisan a**holes from both sides who keep anything worthwhile from being accomplished now. I doubt they’d be able to reach consensus on anything.
Rather than fearing an Article V convention, Americans should fear the two-party plutocracy status quo where voting no longer has a chance of producing deep, needed reforms. Also, what should anger patriots is that Congress has refused to obey the Constitution because over 700 applications for a convention from all 50 states more than meets the one and only requirement for a convention. More evidence of how corrupt the political system is. What Congress fears is exactly what Americans need. Learn all the facts at foavc.org.
But it would make great TV! We could sell advertising time and clean up. Now that would be the ticket. Put on a political freak show and contribute the proceeds to paying down the national debt.
.
We have got to get Alaska to send Sarah Palin and Georgia to send Cynthia McKinney. All the states must send the biggest crackpots they have. That is essential to the success of this venture.
.
This could be huge!
I find it funny that anyone who doesn’t vote LL’s way with the 2nd Amendment is a ‘piss poor’ voter. I guess she doesn’t stop to think that maybe she is in the wrong once in a while. Of course who can be in the wrong when allowed to carry an AK47 down the streets?
All this talk about the dangers of getting a bad Amendment is ironic considering that the only really ‘bad’ Amendment to be passed was the 18th. Of course we all know that it was only passed because of the political pressure placed on the nation by the religious right wing sects that, like pro lifers, were forcing their religious morals down the nation’s throat. Guess that makes me a liberal too :/
“the only really ‘bad’ Amendment to be passed was the 18th”
.
Some would contend that the 19th Amendment was also ill advised.
“I find it funny that anyone who doesn’t vote LL’s way with the 2nd Amendment is a ‘piss poor’ voter. I guess she doesn’t stop to think that maybe she is in the wrong once in a while.”
.
Repeal of the 19th Amendment would remedy this situation.
A constitutional convention is a horrible idea. The only reason it worked so well the first time was the talent in the room and a willingness to meet in private. There is no way that we would ever be able to make this work in the current environment. Who should be there? How many delegates should there be? Will it be based on population like the House or on the States like the Senate? How many cameras will be required in each room? What will the legal limits be on the delegates opportunities to receive financial support? Is there a time limit? What happens in the mean time? What happens to the states that choose not to adopt the new Constitution? Would we need 100% acceptance or would they be forced to live under the new rules or would they no longer be part of the nation? What would the rules be about lobbying? (you think there are a lot of issues with Congressmen being lobbied, you haven’t seen anything yet!) How would delegates be selected? Would there be demographic requirements that would need to be met?
These are just a few of the millions of issues that make a Constitutional convention a bad idea.
Someone mentioned the damage of one poorly written amendment – imagine a poorly written, committee approved, politically expedient passage.
In the end, elections have consequences. Far too often people forget this. Perhaps now that they have lived with Obama, they will remember and pay more attention. Change the system and you will still have politicians and lawyers coming up with ways to make the rules work for them.
The people we elect are the problem – not the system.
“Some would contend that the 19th Amendment was also ill advised.”
*
Careful Dan, if we repeal that one your party would never win another election.
“Some would contend that the 19th Amendment was also ill advised.”
*
Careful Dan, if we repeal that one your party would never win another election.
Yep. He’s got you there, Dan.
I hate those darned Catch-22 situations.
Low information voter is the definition of a typical Democrat.
low-information voters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama
I prefer the term “Intellectual Proletariat.”
Heck, even Joe Biden thought (probably still does) that the VP was part of the Executive Branch. Ted Kennedy thought it was the Senate’s job to determine whether an offense “rises to the level of Impeachment.” The democrat OFFICIALS do not even understand their own roles under the Constitution, how can we expect democrat voters to?
And Loudoun Conservative chimes in to reinforce the point I made above about arrogant people who assume the only way people could possibly hold opposing political opinions to their own is if those other people are either uninformed or stupid.
.
Thanks for the assist.
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Your off the hook LC. Jack has shown up to lower the level of discourse.
.
Don’t you have some Easter eggs to dye or something?
Ever do those who cannot refute the evidence resort to ad hominem attacks.
Don’t get ahead of yourself Jack. Don’t you want to repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments first?
Jack, you would be a perfect delegate to send to the Constitutional Convention that Mr. LeMunyon is proposing. I don’t know how delegates will be chosen, but if it requires submitting petitions I will be more than happy to sign yours.
No. Thank you for asking.
However, I would not mind modifying the bit about “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”
If you would go with me, Dan, I will accept.
BTW, Dan, did you know that the 14th Amendment puts rather a big crimp into the First?
I find it funny that anyone who doesn’t vote LL’s way with the 2nd Amendment is a ‘piss poor’ voter. I guess she doesn’t stop to think that maybe she is in the wrong once in a while. Of course who can be in the wrong when allowed to carry an AK47 down the streets?
local gop
on April 2nd, 2010
Hey genius, you might want to actually look at the bills in question. he was in the vast minority on ALL of these votes. If my memory serves me one of the Gun Bills passed the house 87- 14 or some such numbers. Lemunyon was in the Minority. These numbers tell you that the vast number of Democrats are to his right on Gun Owners Rights. He is either very weak on guns
( a C rating from the NRA ) or he was confused on the language in the bill. I suspect he is simply clueless on the issue of gun rights.
Statements such as this make you even more clueless than Delegate Lemunyon.
” Of course who can be in the wrong when allowed to carry an AK47 down the streets?”
“I find it funny that anyone who doesn’t vote LL’s way with the 2nd Amendment is a ‘piss poor’ voter.”
You may want to stop sparring with LL. She eats your lunch on a daily basis.
G, I was wondering who the lunch-eating referee was. Thanks for clearing that up.
I wouldn’t hold LeMunyon’s “C” rating with the NRA against him. That hardly indicates he is weak in defense of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA often supports some pretty hair brained stuff that has little or nothing to do with defense of 2nd Amendment rights.
.
The fact that the guy doesn’t piss in his pants at the threat of getting a poor rating from the NRA and jump to support whatever they do is a refreshing show of backbone. Some of these guys would vote to allow suburbanites to set up machine guns with interlocking fields of fire on their front lawns if the NRA told them to vote that way.
What’s wrong with interlocking fields of fire?
G, I was wondering who the lunch-eating referee was. Thanks for clearing that up.
edmundburkenator
on April 2nd, 2010
In that you have had your lunch snagged on occasion, I too would want to know who was referring the game.
“I find it funny that anyone who doesn’t vote LL’s way with the 2nd Amendment is a ‘piss poor’ voter. I guess she doesn’t stop to think that maybe she is in the wrong once in a while. Of course who can be in the wrong when allowed to carry an AK47 down the streets?”
*
Local, read what I typed: “he (lemunyon) has a piss poor voting record on this issue so I’m not sure I trust him with the rest” – I didn’t say anything about his entire voting record, I called into question his knowledge of the Second Amendment. I find it disturbing when our elected officials get something so elementary wrong. I said nothing about AK47’s – which are legal btw. It’s a rifle, and there are a shit load of rifles all over the country – but where are the mass AK47 murders? Please provide some links, or if you have a problem with AK47’s specifically – call LeMunyon’s office and maybe he will help you.
*
Do you know the meaning of the phrase “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Mouth off all you want about me, you seem willing to live at the barrell of a gun. I am not.
Dan and Local agreeing again. Take the hint Local – your true party awaits you!
The fact that the guy doesn’t piss in his pants at the threat of getting a poor rating from the NRA and jump to support whatever they do is a refreshing show of backbone. Some of these guys would vote to allow suburbanites to set up machine guns with interlocking fields of fire on their front lawns if the NRA told them to vote that way.
Dan
on April 2nd, 2010
Dan, guns, gun rights, the 2A and those who protect and advocate for it, are not exactly in your wheel house. As a matter of fact, your statements simply underscores your ignorance. Stick to stuff you know, I know this may take some intense reflection and time, however there has to be something for which you can comment on with a modicum of authority.
Loudoun Lady, I am just stunned that you so admiringly quote Chairman Mao. I have always suspected you might be a closet commie. All that right wing talk is just a cover. You are a leftist!
Actually G it is very much in my wheelhouse. The Bill of Rights is what makes America America. Including the 2nd Amendment. I often wish I could persuade some of the folks who are so red hot in their defense of the 2nd Amendment to show the same passion for the entire Bill of Rights. So many of them can regularly be heard to refer to the 4th Amendment as a “technicality”. And they frequently show a great deal of weakness toward the 1st Amendment as well.
.
And being skeptical of the NRA does not indicate what you would call a “weakness” on the 2nd Amendment. Decades ago it was a fine organization that I supported. Today. Not so much. Its motivations and its agenda are hardly what they were when it was an organization worthy of admiration and support.
.
You equate being a sucker for the NRA with a commitment to defending the 2nd Amendment. You are wrong. They are not one and the same. But I’m sure the NRA will be happy to keep taking your money. That’s what they are all about.
On this, Dan, we agree. Some years back, when the Republicans were pushing through a crime bill, some Democrat proposed an amendment which said, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The outcry that this amendment would “completely gut the bill” was deafening.
However, I must say that it is the left in this country that has beaten the snot out of the Bill of Rights. They have turned the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on establishing a national religion to a “separation of Church and State,” a phrase which was in the SOVIET Constitution, not ours. The 2nd, 9th, and 10th, the leftists dismiss out of hand as outdated and irrelevant.
I find it frustrating when Democrats act as though politicians are afraid of the NRA and their rating system. They aren’t. What they are afraid of are the millions of life-long Second Amendment supporters like myself who belong to the NRA, find the NRA’s rating system valuable, and use it to determine whom to support in November. Politicians aren’t afraid of the NRA. They’re afraid of the voters.
.
The NRA does far more than politically advocate for the second amendment. I live within walking distance of NRA headquarters, and I enjoy having their range so close by. They aren’t an evil organization, and they don’t deserve to be vilified.
.
At the same time, while Local disagrees about the expansiveness of the 2nd amendment, I don’t think he’s saying we should repeal it either. I think his issue is not one of Democrat vs. Republican, but one of urban/suburban vs. rural. Anyone who grew up around guns or has taken the time to learn to shoot and become knowledgeable about them is no more afraid of someone wielding a civilian AK-47 than they are someone wielding a Remington 798 deer rifle. But to folks who aren’t aware, the former looks far scarier than the latter. And given the media’s love of trumpeting the use of “assault rifles” (defined as ‘a scary looking gun’) in crime, or the use of semi-automatic handguns (I guess as opposed to a black powder handgun or single-action cowboy revolvers) it’s easy for folks who don’t know to assume those types of guns are unnecessary. You hear something in a negative context enough, you’re going to think of it that way.
.
I can’t blame him for that.
Brian: I’m a Second Amendment supporter. But not an NRA supporter. They lost me years ago when they refused to support a ban on “cop killer” bullets. They are the biggest pro-criminal lobby in America.
Jack: I don’t know about other “leftists,” but I’m damned fond of the 9th Amendment. I wish conservatives liked it as much as they like the 10th. Of course, usually when “state rights” are invoked, it’s to deny someone their individual rights. And I guess if conservatives took the 9th seriously, they’d have to agree that there lies the “right to privacy” they want to pretend isn’t in the Constitution.
Steve, they fought the ban on “cop killer” bullets because the ban was not rational – it was like the attempted ban on “plastic guns.” The “cop killer” ban was on Teflon-coated bullets – which didn’t have anything to do with piercing body armor. The Teflon was on the outside skin of the bullet which usually peels off during flight. It’s the core that matters when it comes to penetration. The Teflon was added to reduce damage to the gun bore.
.
Armor piercing ammo was banned in the 1994 Crime Bill, and the NRA did not oppose it.
.
The NRA has gone out of its way to stop politicians from passing nonsensical laws based on misinformation. This was no different.
Brian, Didn’t the NRA oppose the entire 1994 crime bill? Why yes, a quick Google shows me that they did.
Get back to me on what a great organization the NRA is when they oppose allowing any weapon, any weapon at all, into the hands of the public….rocket launched grenades, nukes, ballistic missles, machine guns, automatic cannons…find me one instance of the NRA going “Okay,we support the right to bear arms, but that goes too far.”
Steve, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=69
Looks like a solution in search of a problem. This is what we have elections for. If the people are concerned about earmarks or unfunded mandates or a balanced budget, they can either write their congressmen or replace them if they are unresponsive. They could form a coalition and take over the county conventions of one party or both parties and build their way up. The Christian Coalition has shown that this can be done most effectively.
Tx2vadem, our system is designed so it is impossible to replace everyone at one time. And considering that the laws are written by Congress and the largest concern of the American people is with how Congress is performing its duties, it makes little sense in letting Congress police itself, especially given how unwilling it has been to do so.
.
Democrats don’t really seem to be big fans of either no regulation or self-regulating organizations, like the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure why you seem to think its possible that Congress could somehow regulate itself.
Brian,
No go buddy. I looked at your link. I agree with the NRA that I don’t want felons to have rocket launched grenades. But, as fine a fellow as I think you are, I don’t want you to have them either. And I don’t see anything there that says the NRA agrees with me about that.
Brian, that is not what I said. The people are perfectly capable of regulating Congress. There are many outlets for them to do so. That was what I said.
Is it necessary to replace everyone at one time? When Republicans came in 1994, they changed a number of the rules. The whole Congress did not need to turn over in order to accomplish that.
The Roman Catholic Church is a SRO?
Steve, I don’t think the NRA needs to argue that it should remain illegal for me to own nuclear weapons. I don’t see anyone trying to change that law, and I certainly don’t see the NRA doing that. I don’t see them trying to repeal the National Firearms Act either, which made machine guns and other weapons of that type illegal too. If the NRA starts doing that, I will join you in questioning them. But I can’t prove a negative.
tx2vadem, I agree that they are able to regulate who they send to Congress. However, one thing that cuts across party lines is that folks elected to Congress make up the Congress. And it’s exceedingly difficult to elect a majority of people at the same time all of whom are equally willing to accept curbs on their own power. You’d have to see a wholesale replacement of Congress – hundreds of seats in the House and all of the seats up at one time in the Senate (only 33/34). The system simply isn’t designed for that kind of regulation.
.
And, yes, the Catholic Church is self regulating. Canon law and all that.
Del. Marshall, why weren’t you in favor of an “up or down vote” to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes?
Brian, Assume what you want about local, but someone who doesn’t even comprehend the argument against gun registration is lost to me. Ultimately what local thinks is acceptable is the govt being the tracker of private firearms. Our founding father’s knew better and so do I.
LL,
your argument is ‘i shouldn’t have to’, not much substance there, and not in the constitution. all the constitution says is that you have a right to own guns, not that you dont have to register a gun. filling out a form to get a gun doesn’t prevent you from owning it. does it? your paranoia about government tracking is evidence of your fringe political views. As for Brian’s point about growing up around guns or not, doesn’t matter if I am a walking gun encyclopedia or not, I don’t want a bunch of college students wielding pistols on a college campus. As I said earlier, I own a gun, have no problem with others owning guns, but not registering with a state at minimum is a bad scenario to get into, especially for NO other reason than ‘i shouldnt have to.’
Local, if the state is registering firearms, that list is going to be floating out there somewhere. It could be stolen. It could be FOIAed. Guns are welcome items for thieves. And with a list out there floating around, the deterrent value for home invaders drops dramatically, as all they need to do is get a hold of the list to ensure there isn’t a legal firearm in the house (or that there is, if that’s what they’re interested in).
.
People already fill out forms to get guns – do you not recall the ATF, state police and (if you bought in Fairfax) local police forms you filled out when you bought your gun? And your background check? This isn’t the wild west. People are vetted when the buy guns in the Commoonwealth. Registration is not necessary.
.
College students are old enough to vote, to drink, to serve in the military, to serve on juries, and to get the death penalty. They can be trusted with multi-ton automobiles. There’s no reason why they can’t be trusted with guns. Millions of gun owning college students have passed through Virginia universities without incident – one crazy student who shouldn’t have been able to get a gun in the first place does not negate that record.
Viewing their recent history up on the Holl….I’m content to side with Bob Marshall’s views on this one. As much as it pains me to agree…Dan is correct on the Pandora’s Box angle on this one.
“Del. Marshall, why weren’t you in favor of an “up or down vote” to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes?
Stewart
on April 2nd, 2010″
Stewart, was it a motion to discharge from committee?
All that does is send it to up or down, with no discussion, etc
Depending on the state of the bill, that may not be the best way to address the issue.
That’s the same stunt Miller pulled with Rust on the autism bill that didn’t make it out of committee the session before.
Voting on things without fully addressing them is how we got the healthcare bill.
Such a GOOD thing!
Local, I am “the fringe” only to decmocrats, thanks for proving my point.
*
I am not dancing around with you on 2A issues anymore – everytime you open up your mouth on the issue you dig yourself deeper into a hole. Your mini-rant on college srudents is sad – as Brian printed out, these “kids” can fight for our country in foreign lands – but don’t let them carry on a college campus! Of course, democrats think people are “kids” till they are 27, as evidenced by the healthcare legislation which allow them to stay on their parents insurance till 26. Further evidence that you fit in with our “friends” on the left.
*
BTW, Did the light in the bat cave go off again?
Barbara, this was before the full House on the floor. Instead of allowing every delegate to take an “up or down vote” on the amendment, he made a motion to pass it by. I’m just curious what issues deserve an “up or down vote” and which are okay to avoid. Conservative ones? Controversial ones?
OK, we first need to address some MAJOR misunderstandings:
.
1) Only armor-piercing HANDGUN ammunition is illegal. Armor-piercing rifle ammunition is perfectly legal.
.
2) Fully-automatic weapons are not illegal. They are Class III firearms, and require a $200 tax to purchase. Manufacturing is severely curtailed, and import is illegal.
.
I would support the repeal of the manufacturing and import restrictions.
.
I would also support concealed carry (and open carry) on college campuses. When my daughter goes to college, and some guy will not take NO for an answer, I want her to be able to say, “Just let me get some protection,” go to her purse and pull out her .380 “protection.”
Jack, thanks for the correction. I should have been more clear when I was speaking about the NFA.
Thanks to all for the comments on the constitutional convention article, both pro and con. I value both kinds, and I’m delighted by the discussion it generated.
You’re welcome, Jim. I think it’s a good idea. I’m glad we could help flesh it out with some debate.
Well, here are a few ideas (aside from the obvious, “We really mean it this time”).
.
First, as I said, the 16th and 17th Amendments should be repealed, as should the last part of the 14th. The 16th allows Congress too much access to our personal information — how many children we have, how much money we make, etc. It’s none of their business. The 17th ended the federal government. We still call it federal, but with no input from the States, as we had with appointed Senators, it is not really a federal government. Finally, the 14th: that we cannot question the validity of a federal debt that is sending us to national bankruptcy is ludicrous.
.
1) Some updated wording is necessary, since people have abused the term “regulate,” it needs to be changed to “make regular.”
.
2) We have too few (yes, too few) congressman. The Constitution currently says, “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” There should be a minimum of one for every 50,000. That would give us about 6000 congressman, none having a whole lot of power, and spreading out the special interest contributions so widely that a congressman’s own pocket change would be of more value.
.
3) Line-item veto. The Republican Congress passed that when Clinton was President, and the court shot it down.
.
4) Supreme Court justices are appointed for 18-year, non-repeating terms. The most senior justice is the Chief Justice. Thus, each President will get at least two nominees, and none will be in power too long.
.
5) 12-year term limits for congresscritters. Six terms in the House or two in the Senate. After those 12 years, you’re DONE.
.
6) Two months prior to a general election, the sitting congresscritter is subject to a no-confidence vote. If he loses that vote, his party may put up another nominee, but the incumbent may not run in that election.
………………..
One thing that does not need a Constitutional Amendment to change: get rid of the election of presidential electors. Have the state legislators appoint the electors. That will stop this silly cult-of-personality presidents, and end much of the vicious partisanship.
LL,
not even going to honor your deeply uninformed comments on college students are equal to those in the military so they should be able to carry weapons on campus. isnt that like saying “well you can be a cop so you can carry a gun.” ok, so you ‘can’ be in the military, doesnt mean you are….
Local, I said that. College students are adults. They have the same rights any other adult has, including the right to bear arms. You don’t need to be a cop or a soldier to be able to exercise those rights.
‘Tis a strange thing — the same people who oppose college students’ carrying on campus are the same as those who wanted them to have the vote, and want to allow minors to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge.
.
So much for logical consistency.
Brian,
The point about military/guns wasnt that you have to be one to exercise those rights, it was to point out that the ability to be something does not entitle someone to be able to do something. Basically, me being able to be a cop doesn’t mean that I can carry a pistol wherever I want, or that I can put lights on my car and drive through a stop light. Same with the military, me being able to be in the military doesn’t mean that I have the authority of someone who is in the military. The argument that “well college students can be in the army so they should be able to carry a gun” doesnt hold water. Those in the military undergo months and years of extensive training to be responsible with the role they are given. Me walking into walmart and getting a pistol doesnt come with any training. Say what you want about training, but there is a reason they have it.
Local, you’re missing my point with the voting/drinking/car driving/military analogies. The point isn’t that they can do one thing so they can do something else. The point is that the law allows them the right to engage in activities that require a certain level of responsibility – a level that is sufficient to restrict the rights to those who have attained a certain age. All of those things require the same kind of maturity and responsibility – in fact, I think voting requires more – than gun ownesrhip. And it’s pretty key to note that gun ownership isn’t regulated by age, and I haven’t seen any serious efforts by the gun control activists to do that.
.
Fifty years ago, it was common for kids as young as 10 and 12 to be proficient enough with firearms that they were capable of using them to hunt and supplement their families food stores. If that’s the case, I can’t see why you seem to think that college students are so completely immature that they cannot be trusted – if they care enough to learn – with a firearm.
.
It’s all a question of responsibility. College students are adults. They should be treated like adults – given all of the same rights and responsibilities of adults, including firearms ownership. Otherwise we’ll just be creating another generation of basement dwellers, and I don’t want to see that. I’m only 32 and spend quite a bit of time with college students and while there are some whom I wouldn’t trust with a firearm (and I likely wouldn’t when they’re 50, either), the vast majority are responsible and smart enough to handle themselves. I don’t know how old you are or how long it was since you left college, but I think you’re doing a disservice to a pretty large segment of the population simply because you don’t personally see the need for folks to own guns.
Brian,
you must have more faith in college students than I do. as john mccain would say, “i think [you] are being naive.”
Also, you do realize that there is nothing limiting college students from owning guns, right? the restriction comes into play when they attempt to take them onto campuses. further, it is not illegal for them to be taken onto campuses, it is just against most policies. this can result in them being kicked off the campus. it is no different that a grocery store manager kicking a person with a handgun out of their store, it is perfectly legal, and well within their rights to do so. in the university case, the right of the university, trumps the right of the student gun owner.
Sure, LG, they can OWN guns, they just cannot have them where they live, learn, and work.
.
While the rights of PRIVATE colleges MAY trump those of the citizens, PUBLIC universities have no such rights. And since it has been ruled that any private college that accepts any federal money must comply with federal non-discrimination laws, I would expect them to be held to a similar standard with regard to the 2nd Amendment as they are to the 14th.
First off, private universities are private property, federal grants or not. Carrying a gun on campus is not equitable to discrimination. Public universities, at least in Virginia, are private property as well. In fact, most buildings owned by the Commonwealth are considered private for the purposes of limiting activity that takes place in anr around those buildings. At universities, there are only restrictions placed on students, faculty, and staff. If Joe Schmoe drives through a campus with a gun, there is nothing illegal done. If Joe Student walks through campus then it is a violation of university policy and the university takes its own internal action. nothing illegal about that.
Either a person has rights that cannot be curtailed by private universities that accept government money, or he does not. You cannot have it both ways.
Jack,
hate to break it to you, but you’re wrong.
Jack,
I wonder if you would also assert that states that receive an ounce of federal support are also subservient to the federal government? The economies of many states are being held together right now by Social Security, and stimulus funds. Would not the same principle be applied? The all or nothing approach? Just like universities who receive federal monies, they are either all in or not in at all, right? Since you are supporting that the university is essentially the state institution, and since you just said that a state institution that receives any federal dollars is subservient to federal law, then are you saying that any state that receives federal money is subservient to federal law? Of course not, because receiving federal dollars doesn’t equal federal subservience.
> I wonder if you would also assert that states that receive an ounce
> of federal support are also subservient to the federal government?
.
I would rather have the opposite, that even those private colleges that receive federal money are not subject to such silly laws. If a student gets a government grant, he should be able to take that money to any college he chooses.
.
> Would not the same principle be applied? The all or nothing approach?
> Just like universities who receive federal monies, they are either all
> in or not in at all, right?
.
States should have the right to refuse such federal money, and their citizens’ federal taxes reduced proportionally.
.
> Just like universities who receive federal monies, they are either
> all in or not in at all, right?
.
That would be just fine, so long as those states’ citizens would not be forced to pay the taxes that support those programs.
.
> Since you are supporting that the university is essentially the state
> institution…
.
Uh, no. State colleges and private colleges are different beasts.
.
> since you just said that a state institution that receives any federal
> dollars is subservient to federal law
.
That is a fact, but it is not how I would have things.
.
The question is, WHY are States getting money from the federal government at all?
This is a good discussion…
Here’s how you handle the guns on campus thing…raise the age of majority back to 21 where it oughta be. Sorry to any 18-20 year olds out there but I was too stupid to pour piss out of a boot with directions on the heel when I was 18. Also, I suspect we’d see a huge decline in credit card debt since a 21 year old with a credit card would probably be a bit more responsible than an 18 year old with one. We can allow for 18-20 year olds to join the military with some kind of parental consent allowance.
I think there’s a couple of reasons why a constitutional convention won’t solve our problems. First of all, I don’t know how a constitutional convention is going to keep politicians out of the process as Brian argues. Even if we have state legislatures appoint its state’s delegates to the convention, you’ll have politicians appointing at the very least political activists, i.e. party activists. So you’re gonna be getting the hard core leftists who will want to amend the Constitution so that everyone has a right to clean air and free healthcare. On my side you’ll get the hard core social conservatives who think the 1st Amendment should be amended to tell non-Christians don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out and I don’t even need to go into their obsessive/compulsive fascination with all things gay. Second, because of the extremist nature of politics today if you compromise one iota then you’re not a real Republican/Democrat. One of the main reasons the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was successful was the willingness of the delegates to compromise. I just don’t see that happening in this day in age. When each delegate views the tiniest bit of compromise as a wholescale abandonment of principle you just can’t have compromise. Third, who would chair the proceeding? Another reason the C.C. of 1787 was successful was the “honest broker”, non-partisan leadership George Washington brought to the table. Not sure you can find someone with a real non-partisan reputation but possessed of strong leadership such that would be needed to run what would be a strongly partisan event.
Having all the students on college campuses walking around with guns strapped to their hips? How could anyone possibly think that is a crazy idea?
.
And why stop there? Shouldn’t K-12 students have the right to go to school armed too?
.
And really, isn’t this whole civilization thing overrated? Think of all the tax money we could save that is currently wasted on law enforcement and courts. Heavily armed citizens could handle that perfectly well. Dispute resolution would be quick and inexpensive.
.
Let’s arm those college kids. Who are these folks who don’t think heavily armed campuses are just what the doctor ordered? Damned leftists!
Terrible idea!! There’s nothing wrong with the present constitution except that nobody obeys it!
What good are new laws, when the problem is that politicians break laws?
http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/a-constitutional
D> Shouldn’t K-12 students have the right to go to school armed too?
.
If they are emancipated adults, yes.
Jack, aren’t they citizens? Why do they need to be emancipated? Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment? It doesn’t say anything about emancipation of minors being a requirement to keep and bear arms.
.
Give the kids guns. So they will be safe. We all know that everyone carrying guns around everywhere they go makes us oh so much safer.
.
Why do you hate children? Don’t you want them to be safe?
“If a student gets a government grant he should be able to take that money to any college he chooses.”
*
He can. Unless the grant is program specific ie a grant to study X at University Y.
*
“States should have the right to refuse such federal money, and their citizens’ federal taxes reduced proportionally.”
*
If states want to refuse federal funds they can. But you and I know that they won’t. Additionally, if states were to refuse federal money, that does not alleviate citizens’ federal tax burdens because the federal government must still function. Gov. McDonnell foolishly refusing to accept federal highway funds (theoretical situation obviously) does not mean the military shrinks proportionately and Virginia doesn’t get federal military protection.
*
The university I was referring to in the theoretical was a state school. Typo on my part.
*
States receive federal dollars because states need federal dollars. It a zero sum game unfortunately. If you cut the Federal transportation funds to NoVA and make the state make up for it all, then the state would be forced to raise taxes. It merely shifts the burden from the Federal government to the state. The net effect is a smaller check to the federal government and a bigger check to the state government.
Jay,
agreed on raising the age.
If a 12th grader can legally own a pistol, they are 21. if you are 21 and still in the 12th grade, you are too stupid to be allowed to own a gun. Sorry, but it’s true.
Those under 18 are not full citizens, no.
.
LG, a student with a federal grant who attends a college obligates that college to adhere to federal Title IX laws, non-discrimination laws, etc. So, no, he cannot take that grant anywhere.
.
“Gov. McDonnell foolishly refusing to accept federal highway funds (theoretical situation obviously) does not mean the military shrinks proportionately and Virginia doesn’t get federal military protection.”
.
What does highway funding have to do with the military? If Virginia refuses highway funds, then Virginia citizens should not have to pay the portion of their taxes that go to the Highway Trust Fund. That has nothing to do with the portion that goes to defense, since money is not given to the States for defense.
.
“States receive federal dollars because states need federal dollars. It a zero sum game unfortunately.”
.
It is NOT a zero-sum game. If the States have to raise taxes, fine. We’ve just cut out a useless middle-man, the U.S. government.
Jack,
I am not sure you know how the federal grant program works. It doesnt matter which school I go to, if I qualify for a federal grant, I get the money. Where I go to school has nothing to do with the VAST majority of federal grants. Additionally, the federal government doesnt just write the student a check, the money is typically deposited right into the student’s tuition account. the student doesn’t see the money. so, yes, location of school has no bearing on federal grants. with very few exceptions. Like Bob Jones University.
.
You are saying that states should be able to opt their citizens out of federal taxes by refusing to accept federal dollars. how do you opt a state out of receiving the benefits of the federal army? thats the point. Taxes arent charged on a line item basis. you pay taxes then the federal government decides how to apportion them, that’s specifically given to congress by the constitution. you cant cherry pick what you do and dont want to fund because then you are turning states into the Congress. thats the same virtually as the line item veto. states cant unilaterally decided what they want the Congress to fund and not to fund and what they pay for and what they dont pay for.
“LL,
not even going to honor your deeply uninformed comments on college students are equal to those in the military so they should be able to carry weapons on campus. isnt that like saying “well you can be a cop so you can carry a gun.” ok, so you ‘can’ be in the military, doesnt mean you are….
*
Why are people arguing with this person? Who makes comparisons between rights of citizens and trained law enforcement/military and citizens? Only someone that has no way to argue their point so they obfuscate. It’s really sad when members of the republican party are advocating that only SOME citizens have certain rights. Your next logical argument is that only cops and the military should have the right to own guns. That’s called a police state – it’s what I warned about.
You know, don’t you, that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a coup, a power grab? The delegates were authorized to only amend the Articles of Confederation.
With our entire history comprised of deceit and power struggles (all human history…not just American history), just who do you think will rewrite the rules – some people posting here on this site, or those who’ve already got us where they want us?
How do you imagine this will turn out? Just what laws do you want that aren’t already law and already ignored?
LL,
dispense with the fear mongering. I didnt even mention the words police state, nice try though.
Fear mongering? Local, I am following your own logic.
LL,
Your claim was that “well if you can join the military you should be able to have a gun.” What does me being able to join the military have to do with me owning a gun? I never said only military/police should have guns, never said that no one has a right to guns, never said police state. these are figments of your imagination that you have created in your own head for whatever reason. and you never showed how registering a gun is unconstitutional. you just kind of danced around it, called me a liberal, said i am stupid, said that i cant be argued with, but still you never answered the question.
Andrew:
Point taken. But nonetheless the states did send delegates to the convention knowing full well the convention’s intent to scrap the existing A of C into something completely new and more centralized. Therefore, the states via the legal concept of “ratification” authorized the action taken the Const. Convention of 1787.
V/r,
> You are saying that states should be able to opt their citizens
> out of federal taxes by refusing to accept federal dollars.
.
Only that portion of tax money that does to that program. For instance, if a program is 5% of the federal budget, and a State opts out of that program, then that State’s citizens would reduce their taxes by 5%.
.
I am speaking, of course, only of programs that are State-administered. Defense is not.
LG, if you do a little research, you might discover that CCW holders have a lower crime rate, and a higher percentage of shots hitting the target, than police officers do.
If I may ask, LG, what is the purpose of requiring guns to be registered?
Andrew, please spare all of us the pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The 1787 Convention was not a power grab. The entire point of the convention was to develop ways to fix the problems inherent in the Articles. The Articles themselves contained no provision for their amendment. The members of the convention did what they came to do – fix the Articles. The best way to fix them was to replace them.
.
No laws are being ignored. The fact that you seem to ignore the last seven hundred years of Anglo-American law making and have adopted a hyper-cynical approach to dealing with issues of government strikes me as a bit odd.
.
Constitutional conventions for the proposal of new amendments was something the founders anticipated and welcomed – that’s why the Constitution includes both the ability of Congress to propose amendments and the states themselves to call for a convention to do so absent Congressional action. That’s a good thing. Not some kind of harbinger for more “deceit.”
Brian, don’t spoil the fun. If you don’t pretend that we are in some sort of uniquely terrible situation and are completely at the mercy of sinister forces over which we have absolutely no control then you ruin everything. What is the point of dressing in camouflage and playing soldier in the woods and yapping about the need for violent revolution if we acknowledge the fact that we have durable institutions that afford us, as individual citizens, more power over our own lives than more than 99% of the humans who ever lived on this planet?
.
It is much more fun to talk about coups and power grabs and deceits than it is to point out that in seven months we have an election in which we can replace all 435 Congressmen and a third of the Senate if we so choose.
.
To the barricades!
Jack,
Contrary to LL’s rants, I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. COncealed or otherwise. I simply believe that registration is the proper thing to do, for a whole host of reasons to include the integrity of public safety. The constitutionality of ths issue of gun registration isnt based in whether or not the Constitution specifically says it can be done, but in whether or not the Constitution specifically or interpratively prohibits it. I asserted that it does not prohibit registration requirements because filling out a piece of paper doesn’t keep you from owning that gun. Also, it wouldnt fall under the 10th Ammendment because registration is administered by the states.
You did not answer my question, LG. I will give you another shot.
.
What purpose do you think would be served by requiring people to register their guns?
Like I said, “I simply believe that registration is the proper thing to do, for a whole host of reasons to include the integrity of public safety.”
Local, what are those “whole host” of reasons?
local gop, I may be misinterpreting, but I believe Jack may be worried about the “gun grabbers”. Talk to anyone who sells firearms and they will tell you that business has never been better. The only thing selling at a brisker pace than weapons themselves is ammunition. This is apparently due to the rather large number of very credulous people who have been convinced (in the absence of any evidence) that Obama is going to come take their guns away.
.
I’m sure the NRA has done its part in stoking the paranoia. It is good for the success of the NRA’s primary mission. Making money.
.
The guys selling guns are smiling broadly these days. I am sure they will all vote for Obama in 2012. I’m surprised they don’t advertise on Glenn Beck and the shows of the other prophets of the apocalypse. If you have any money left after buying gold and non-hybrid seeds you need to buy more guns!
Brian the biggest reason is, and has always been, public safety. You CANNOT make a legitimate argument that no one knowing how many guns are on the streets and where they are is not a hazard to public safety. It also prevents, or atleast is aimed at preventing, illegal weapon trafficking and sales. Further, gun registration aleviates the gun dealers from liability if the gun he/she sold is used to commit a crime or in accidentally discharged because when you register you certify that you know how to use a gun, what it is, and the safety measures regarding its use and upkeep. Finding out who the gun is registered to is not a simple thing to do and there is a lot of hoops to jump through to include the ATF, the manufacturer, wholeselers, distributors, and the seller. The notion that the government is going to use lists to round up guns is about as accurate a statement as the government using voter registration lists as a means to round up voters. I believe it has happened one time in modern history in New Orleans in the aftermath of a natural disaster when the national guard and police were both struggling to control the city, and that was ruled illegal and the guns were ordered returned. You would have an argument is if wasnt ruled illegal, but it was.
Brian,
People are crazy, and you need to only step out of your upper middle class neighborhood to see it (and I am referring to a 3rd party you, not you in particular Brian). They have a right to own guns, and that cannot be abridged, but walking into walmart and walking out with guns just as you would with milk is dangerous. I mean you have to fill out a form to get some over the counter drugs because crazy a$s people make narcotics with them. Same principle. it’s unfortunate, but it’s a reality.
Local, you’re assuming that every gun owner is going to register their firearms. That’s not going to happen, even in a perfect world. Criminals aren’t going to register their guns. Gang members aren’t going to register their guns. So all you’ve done to “curb crime” is increase a layer of bureaucracy on law abiding citizens. That doesn’t make much sense. As for tracking the guns down, again, the chances of the guns that are registered actually being used in crime is minimal compared to the guns that will be unregistered. I don’t see how registration is going to make a significant different in deterring crime. New York has some of the toughest registration laws, and I don’t see New York being the poster child for low gun crime.
.
Some people are crazy. Is that a good excuse for restricting the rights of the vast majority of the population who aren’t? And if it is a good excuse, shouldn’t we be restricting a whole bunch of stuff to stop them?
Brian,
A few bad apples (so to speak of course, im not implying that gun owners are bad apples),is better than a free-for-all grab at weapons. Obviously I dont expect the registration practice to work 100% of the time, you have gun shows that are an exception, albeit a bad exception but none the less.
..
“Is that a good excuse for restricting the rights of the vast majority of the population who aren’t?”
..
What right is being restricted? Who says that you cant own a gun? Where did I say that? You and LL have this warped view that filling out a form “restricts” my right to own a gun. Guess what. When I bought my gun, I filled out a form, and I still own that gun, filling out that form didnt stop me. No secret police showed up at my door to take it away or harass me. That’s my entire point, we can debate the merits of registration all day and still won’t cover all the points, but at the end of the day, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL reason that filling out a form to get a gun is illegal.
..
Now, cool down periods, other restrictions on types of guns and ammo purchased, etc do, in my opinion, restrict gun rights. but registering the gun doesnt.
“So all you’ve done to “curb crime” is increase a layer of bureaucracy on law abiding citizens.”
..
If your only reason to oppose registration is that ‘Well I’m too lazy to fill out a form.’ you need to seriously check your priorities. With regards to New York, I am not a crime analyst, nor are you, but I can tell you that New York in 2010 is much better than New York 1990 in a whole lot of ways. As you pointed, one of the changes was a crackdown on illegal guns and making it harder for suppliers to sell them and distribute them. Just sayin’.
Further, your point about it not stopping all crime is absurd. So you are willing to not track guns because it doesnt work 100% of the time? Then why register voters? It doesnt work 100% of the time after all. If a gun is used in a crime now, atleast it is easier to figure out where it came from. At least there is a serial number that criminals have to work to get rid of. At least there is a possibility to track it back to the original owner and maybe that owner might know who had it at the time of the crime. With tracking there is a possibility, with out it, there is no possibility. You want to throw out possibility for convenience. Goob job.
In fact, Brian, the Supreme Court has ruled that crimials do not have to register their firearms, because their having them is illegal, so registration would be self-incrimination.
.
So, LG, back to you. How would registration, which applies only to guns legally possessed, help public safety?
.
If I own one gun or a hundred, how does that affect public safety. (BTW, my guns are not on the street, they are in my safe.)
Jack,
I just explained it. Read above. You’re not looking at this from a constitutional standpoint, you are looking at it from a political standpoint. Where does the constitution say that registering a gun is unconstitutional? It doesnt. Like I said, we can debate the merits of registration itself all day long, but the constitution still doesnt outlaw it.
You must excuse our concern, LR. We have seen registration turn to confiscation too many times. Germany is the most egregious example, but it also happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, California, New York, and DC.
.
“It can’t happen here” is not reassuring.
Local, if someone says that I have to register in order to start a blog, or that I have to go down to the courthouse and file a piece of paper to have a political discussion in my home, would you argue that my first amendment rights weren’t being restricted? Well, the Supreme Court would – it’s called prior restraint, and it’s not tolerated. Why shouldn’t that also be the case for the second amendment? No one is arguing that filling out the form is wrong, but keeping that form forever and requiring that I update it as I move, sell the gun, etc. goes too far for no good reason.
.
I believe in a cost benefit analysis for something like this, and the cost to the rights of law abiding citizens is too high in my opinion. Registration accomplishes little in the way of crime prevention or crime detection, but it does cost a lot to administer and those costs will be passed on to the consumers and the tax payers.
do blogs/conversations kill people? no. not equitable.
Never heard of inciting a riot?
Name 1 blog that incited a riot Brian. Name 1 discussion ‘in [your] home’ that led to death. your being absurd and grasping at straws if thats all you have. guns, unlike blogs and conversations, were specifically besigned to easily inflict harm and death upon people and animals.
Brain, Jack, etc – Why are you arguing with this person? You are wasting your time.
Because there are lurkers who read this stuff, and who need to see the logic behind our arguments and the illogic behind his.
Whats the logic? Every argument and point you have made I have shown the opposite side….seems to me that there is nothing else out there and you have nothing else to defend your position with aside from “you’re just a stupid liberal” I was actually waiting for LL to show up and say that, I guess she has a bell in her cave too.
.
As of yet, the only attempt at showing the constitutionality of the situation was Brian. Thank you for at least mentioning the legal aspect of it, Brian.
And Brian, you do have to register your blog and website. When you signup for any website, it is registered with the federal government. So I guess that abridges your free speech, right?
.
It is interesting that the only points against registration went from constitutionality, to convenience, then eventually dwindled to “well it just costs too much.” Running out of arguments are we?
.
So changing your address for the post office is okay, but changing the address with a gun is too hard for you? Really? That’s your argument?
Local, I check back on this thread once a day just to see if you are continuing down the path of illogical arguments and typical drivel, and you are! Congrats on being consistently illogical.
*
Jack, No one is reading this thread anymore. There have been a couple earlier threads where Local has displayed a complete lack of knowledge on 2A and other constitutional rights (which he continually confuses with priveleges) – so he is his own worst enemy. Local also likes to troll the blog for my posts, so add your name to his list – you’ll be the recipient of further illogical discussions and black holes of time.
LL,
yet again we find ourselves hearing, or rather reading, you defend your views with ad hominem attacks (and no i did not just learn that word). If you have some divine insight into the 2A that no one else does, please share it. if not, dont use it to defend something that it doesnt say anything about.
.
and what is illogical? perhaps if you actually explain it instead of just saying I will see your infinite wisdom and change my opinion.
Here is my logic, LG:
.
1) Gun registration only applies to LAW-ABIDING citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled that criminals cannot be punished for not registering firearms.
.
2) Whether a law-abiding citizen has one gun or one hundred does not impact public safety.
.
3) Registration has led to confiscation in the U.S. and elsewhere.
.
4) Registration has NOT helped solve any crimes in Canada, where every firearm must be registered (”Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray admitted that the gun registration system has never helped solve a single firearms crime.” http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/gunregistration.html), so it cannot be expected to help solve any here.
.
5) Registration costs money. Canada is looking to end its registration system, because it is costing taxpayers millions for no benefit (see #4).
.
So when there is a cost but no benefit, why do you want it?
Like I said, we can debate the merits of registration itself all day long, but the constitution still doesnt outlaw it.
local gop
on April 6th, 2010
We have mowed this field many times. Let us try one more time.
Think ” Founders Original Intent” and ask yourself why would these men create the 2A in the first place ? Their primary motivation was to provide for the means in which citizens could repel a Government(s) that had through its actions become tyrannical. Registering your firearms with the very entity in which the firearm may have to be used against would be illogical and frankly stupid. Secondly, they would have never dreamed of registering their firearms with an entity for which they felt for lack a better term had no jurisdiction over the original granter of the right ( read birth right ), that granter being God, or whatever higher being you believe in. The right of self defense ,protecting that life given to you by God is elevated well above the supposed rights of the Government as defined by the Government, regardless of the noble intentions. Your willingness to succumb to the States intentions good or ill, in no way supersedes my right to both protect myself and family from harm in the real world, while retaining the tools required to expel a Government(s) that for whatever reason has become oppressive.
Neither you nor I are a founder so neither you nor I know what the founders actually want. We can guess, but we just don’t know at the end of the day. One of the problems with original intent. Another problem, whose intent do we follow? As anyone who has had basic U.S. government (LL has already said that that fancy book learnin’ aint for her so she probably wouldn’t know this) knows, Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists had a much different ‘original intent’ than James Madison and the federalists. So, which faction’s intent do we toss out, and which to we keep? They were all founders, so how do we reconcile the varrying views on the constitution? Another problem with original intent, well nearly 250 years of crap that didnt exist when the Constitution was written. Not that history and judicial precedent matter at all in a civil society (get the sarcasm).
.
It seems that we just have different values. On one hand, I value public safety, equiping police to trace weapons used in violent crimes, and attempting to lockdown the sales and distribution of weapons designed to make killing people easier. On the other hand, you value alleviating your fear that some day maybe perhaps the secret police will show up at your door and confiscate your gun(s), although the 2A spceifically prohibits taking away all guns, thus rendering you defenseless and inable to launch a violent overthrow of the government, which is illegal in and of itself. Did I get your logic down right? I think there were some fundamentalists in Michigan that could use your expertise, oh wait, thats right, they were arrested because they were stockpiling weapons to murder police officers. But I guess that’s what, patriotic in your book?
The problem with merely going to precedent, but not to the Constitution itself, is that we end up with a “random walk” away from the Constitution.
It’s not random. Supreme Court decisions, and amendments, are not simply random. I know Justice Scalia would have the entire nation believing that interpreting the constitution beyond a 1787 mindset is ‘whims of fancy’ but it’s just not.
.
either way, we have to figure it out on our own because the founders are, well, dead. we can look at the text, as we do, but thats where fact stops and guessing begins. we have to make educated guesses while taking into consideration what is going on right now and not what was going on in 1787 because this just itn’s 1787. in 2300 i would hope they look at it the same way, ‘it’s not 2010 anymore, things have changed.’ that’s common sense for ya’.
Obviously, you have no concept of a “random walk.” When we pile layer upon layer of precedents, and do not go back to the Constitution for rulings, we get further from it.
Now, why don’t we go back and look at my logic for opposing gun registration. I notice you did not address it at all.
Jack, I think those precedents set by prior Supreme Court rulings were based on the Court’s reading of the Constitution. Subsequent rulings are supported by precedent. It does not represent ignoring or “randomly walking” away from the Constitution. Are you seriously suggesting that at any given time the Court should ignore legal precedent?
.
Since we don’t have a Ouija board with which to contact the Founding Fathers and get their take on every issue or disagreement the notion that we can somehow freeze time in 1787 is a bit unworkable. And if you read what some of the Founding Fathers wrote, they clearly didn’t want future generations to view them as godlike or omniscient. They expressed a desire that we be forward looking.
.
Does the Court get it wrong sometimes. Of course it does. There have been terrible rulings. Dred Scott. Plessy v. Ferguson. Korematsu v. United States. Kelo v. City of New London. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The Court can and will make awful rulings from time to time. And we have corrected for Plessy V. Ferguson and other bad rulings. Just as we will, in time, correct for Citizens United v. FEC.
.
I don’t think the Founding Fathers believed that human beings wouldn’t make mistakes or bad decisions. Their genius was in giving us a system that was so well crafted that it could survive and recover from those mistakes and bad decisions. The three branches balancing each other and providing a check on one another. The protection against a temporary inflammation of the body politic provided by a Senate with staggered terms so that only a third of its membership could turn at any one time. It is brilliant work that we should have more faith in.
.
Scalia may be a fine tennis player, but he is dead wrong about that frozen in 1787 stuff.
I am not saying the Court should ignore precedent. However, it should base its decisions on the Constitution, supported, if possible, by precedent. The Court has taken the opposite approach — basing its decisions on precedent, supported by the Constitution when possible. The result has been many decision that are supported by precedent, but NOT by the Constitution.
jack,
examples?
The most egregious one, which opened the door for all sorts of socialist policies, was Helvering v. Davis, 1936. The core of the argument was this paragraph:
.
“The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from state to state, the hinterland now settled that in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 442. Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co. supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one or at least not greatly different whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey’s end is near.”
.
It starts well, with the argument that, because unemployemnt spreads from state-to-state, providing unemployment insurance, which allows people to continue purchasing goods and services, falls within the “provide for the general Welfare… of the United States” power. (Obviously, unemployment insurance has NOT prevented such a spread during subsequent recessions.)
.
So, Congress has the power to do a thing for a Constitutional purpose (the general Welfare of the United States), so it must have that power for any reason whatsoever. In this case the individual welfare of specific people, even though there is clearly no threat that unemployment due to old age will spread from state to state.
.
This has allowed the move further and further from the Constitution, because if the Congress can redistribute wealth for a Constitutional reason (unemployment insurance supposedly preventing the spread of unemployment), then Congress can redistribute wealth for any reason at all, regardless of its Constitutional authority.
they didnt ignore the constitution, they specifically based their decision off of it. you may not agree with the interpretation, but there wasn’t any ‘ignoring’ of the constitution.
No, LG. Read it again. They based their decision on the PRIOR decision (Steward Machine Co., decided the same day), which in turn was based on the Constitution. In fact, it was impossible for the Court to decide Helvering as it did without first deciding Steward. That should raise a red flag with anyone. If a decision cannot be reached based on the Constitution alone, then it should not be reached at all. Precedent should not be the basis of a decision, but reinforcement only. The Constitution should be the basis.
it’s called the transitive property. if A is based on the constitution, and B is based on A, then B is also based on the constitution. it the sc has already tackled a similar problem and reached a decision then going back to the constitution is unnecessary.
“if A is based on the constitution, and B is based on A, then B is also based on the constitution.”
.
That is completely ridiculous. If the Court cannot make ruling B without first making ruling A for a precedent, then B cannot be based on the Constitution.
.
It is also making the assumption that if Congress can do a thing for a Constitutional reason, than it can do that thing for any reason at all.
.
Do you believe that?
Local dissing Scalia and questioning the founders intent? Shocking. Thanks again Local, we have quite a body of anti-constitutional and anti-conservative writings from you. As Monk once said – you are a sick puppy.
*
I’ll read your ramblings later – too early for the squirrely.
Thanks for pointing out the absurd Jack. Do you see what I mean about arguing with this person? The scary part is that they are an active member of the FCRC.
Yes. His is a common misperception — that if the government can do a thing for a Constitutional reason, then it can do that thing for ANY reason.
.
The Constitution says that the government can suspend habeas corpus in the case of insurrection. By their logic, the government can suspend habeas corpus for any reason at all, or for none at all.
.
The Constitution says that the government can “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” By their logic, the government can collect Taxes and Excises for any reason at all, such as to punish businesses the government does not like, such as tanning salons.
The tanning salon tax is an obvious swipe at Minority Leader Boner. How is the man supposed to maintain that nice, healthy and oh so natural looking orange glow with these excessive taxes on tanning?
I thought the orange tint was from bottled tan. But what do I know — I’m so pale I get moonburn. I just walk past a tanning salon, and I burn.
“Neither you nor I are a founder so neither you nor I know what the founders actually want. We can guess, but we just don’t know at the end of the day.”
Yes we do. All we have to do is read their writing prior to, during and just after the period. It’s call historical research.
It seems that we just have different values. On one hand, I value public safety, equiping police to trace weapons used in violent crimes, and attempting to lockdown the sales and distribution of weapons designed to make killing people easier. On the other hand, you value alleviating your fear that some day maybe perhaps the secret police will show up at your door and confiscate your gun(s), although the 2A spceifically prohibits taking away all guns, thus rendering you defenseless and inable to launch a violent overthrow of the government, which is illegal in and of itself. Did I get your logic down right? I think there were some fundamentalists in Michigan that could use your expertise, oh wait, thats right, they were arrested because they were stockpiling weapons to murder police officers. But I guess that’s what, patriotic in your book?
local gop
on April 7th, 2010
This is the mindless crap that frankly makes discussing anything with you an utter waste of time. Someone brings up the constitution and discusses the founders intentions and you revert to the ever so lame you must be a racists, militia member or fundamentalists nut. Sweet Jesus can’t you find something more original. I am amazed at those of your ilk. Unlike any other on the planet, you seem to have this astounding ability to simultaneously look into others heart and ascertain the totality of their beliefs while being an utter dumb ass. Your response was predictably pathetic.
Just read the “patriotic” remark about stockpiling guns to murder police officers. Local, you are on the edge and falling. Step back.
LL,
that’s what those wackos thought-it was patriotic to kill cops. atleast thats what Fox News reported. i didnt say it was correct, just pointing out that crazy people actually believe that sh$@. i used to work in a PD, would never advocate killing cops or overthrowing the government(s).
GS,
did you not specifically that the government cant make you register your gun because you might have to use that gun to overthrow them one day? is that not your chief argument? did you not assert that you had some insight into what the founding fathers wanted and intended? these are your words, not mine. dont get mad that I merely show how these views are taken to the extreme by people as you seem to think could never happen. those arrested in michigan had a similar value to you, albeit taken to the extreme. and where did i say racist?
LG, you still haven’t addressed the simple fact that, by the Canadian government’s own admission, it’s gun registration program has not lead to solving a single crime, and it has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
.
Furthermore, only law-abiding citizens can be required to register their guns.
.
So, if gun registration will cost millions, will only apply to law-abiding citizens, and will not accomplish what you say you want it to accomplish, why do you want it?
I would also point out that Canada’s violent crime rate is considerably higher than we have in the US — anywhere from 100-400% higher, depending on the crime. (Not surprisingly, the biggest disparity is in occupied home break-ins.)
.
If you really care about public safety, you might think about REQUIRING everyone to get a gun, and to be trained in its use.
Jack,
First, this isnt Canada. Second, I don’t know about Canada’s domestic gun control policy. Third, statements by singular politicians usually aren’t the best evidence to the actual state of things.
.
It’s not just about the initial registration. It goes beyone the point of sale. If guns were untraceable, people could easily purchase guns then turn them over to felons.
GS,
did you not specifically that the government cant make you register your gun because you might have to use that gun to overthrow them one day?
The discussion was to educate you on the motivations of the framers. Don’t take it from me read any one of a zillion books on the subject. This is not in dispute in that it is all based on their writings prior to, during and after ratification. Begin with the Federalists papers and work your way from there.
“did you not assert that you had some insight into what the founding fathers wanted and intended? ” yes, I did because I can read and do basic research. Your ignorance of the historical documentation or your disagreement with same in no way nullifies its existence. It simply makes you look like a fool.
The fact that a handful of dipshits in Michigan wanted to start their own rebellion has no barring on the founders motivations at the time. Their distrust of Government Tyranny was grounded in fact, history and the existence of an ongoing dispute with a Nation acting in a tyrannical manner. They simply inserted what they believed would be a tool for average citizens to repel tyranny should it resurface.
The whole issue of registration becomes an academic circle jerk in that those rights enumerated and recognized as pre-existing ( read granted by God ) to the formulation of ANY government and therefore are simply outside the purview of any governments authority. This is of course the God Given right to self defense and self preservation.
G, how many times is “God” mentioned in the Constitution?
GS,
it’s interesting that you point out that the ‘dipshits’ in Michigan had no bearing on the motivations of the founders. So, basically, you recognize that things have changed. yet, you refuse to take into account the last 250 years of these changes that you point to. why is that? why is it so hard for you to believe that the founding fathers did not want to freeze constitutional and judicial interpretation in a 1787 context? in fact, thomas jefferson pushed for the people to come together every 20 years and change the form of government, every 20 years. because he argued that the government must be intuned with what the people wanted at that particular point. so original intent may have been to protect themselves from england (goes back to the whole intuned with the needs and will of the people at that particular point), which is fine, but last i checked, england isn’t invading any more.
They didn’t, LG. That’s why there is in the Constitution a method for its amendment.
“First, this isnt Canada. Second, I don’t know about Canada’s domestic gun control policy.”
.
Then perhaps you should look into it. That’s why we still have people like you in this country — you refuse to learn for others mistakes.
.
Even fools can learn from their own mistakes (although many do not). The wise learn from OTHERS mistakes.
jack,
i dont base us policy off of canada, sorry. get a new argument. if we based policy off of foreign politicians then we would adopt a public option because british politicians claim it works.
There exists a method to amendment the constitution. The document is not “frozen ” it can be amended based on a very specific formula. The nation has done so on numerous occasions.
You are now just pissing up a rope.
So, LG, when a particular proposal, such as gun registration, has NEVER worked as intended, anywhere, you think we can make it work here?
.
How would we do it differently here to make it work?
As for “it works,” one must examine what that means. Do minorities in the UK experience similar differences in medical citcumstances as those in the US do? Yes. In fact, looking only at Whites, to normalize for minority population, in 2002, White males aged 65 could expect to live about 16 years in both the US and the UK, and White women aged 65 could expect to live 19 years in the UK, and 19.5 in the US. Since the UK was rounding to whole numbers, we may take them to be equivalent.
.
Now, since final outcomes seem quite similar in both countries, shall we look at waiting times to get procedures? Well, the UK loses that one.
.
What about waiting times? The UK loses again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3749801.stm
.
Six of the top twelve drug companies are in the US.
.
So, you have to define the phrase “it works.” How would YOU say that the UK’s single-payer system works better than ours? (That Canadian minister came HERE for surgery. He did not stay with Canada’s single-payer system, nor did he avail himself of England’s.)
.
Furthermore, by what criteria would you just a gun registration program? If it does not meet that criteria, would you be willing to cancel it?
“So, you have to define the phrase “it works.””
.
No sh#%…..
gs,
big difference between amendment and interpretation. the sc essentially amends the constitution every time they make a ruling, but does that follow the process in the constitution? no.
“the sc essentially amends the constitution every time they make a ruling”
.
Not every time, LG, just when the libs prevail!
the SC has the power of a constitutional amendment….nothing but a reversal by the court, or a constitutional amendment can change a sc decision.
Nonsense, LG. The SCOTUS also interprets laws, and when the interpretation does not match Congress’s intent, they reword the law.
.
I would also like to see Congress exercise its check on the SCOTUS, and start impeaching some of them.