Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Polonius wrote:As for the actual health care thing, I blame the GOP for this bill. Rather than going to the mattresses and trying to fight any bill, knowing that the Democrats would unveil a massive spendy bill, they should have worked hard to get a compromise through that would, you know, help people.

The GOP's strategy seemed to be "Wait until kennedy dies and we can ride out a filibuster in the Senate." Which isn't exactly inspired leadership.

Don't get me wrong, I'm upset at the Democrats "spend as much as we can" policy, but honestly, being surprised or upset about that is like being surprised or upset when the sun sets.

The GOP is acting ridiculous on this, but both sides are to blame for not compromising.

The GOP was not invited into the negotiation. This is a Pelosi/Reid creation. Why on earth should they participate? Obama knew that when he gave it to them to run with and didn't do himself.

Invitations are rarely extended, instead the reigning donkey-caves come up with a proposal and shout loud enough to pass it.

Quiet kid, the adults are talking here.

Frazzled wrote:Quiet kid, the adults are talking here.

Why don't you take your medicaid paid for oxygen tank and go have a breather fraz

Good point. That was harsh. I apologize.

Frazzled wrote:Its not in their best interests to do so. In order to cooperate there has to be two parties to the negotiation. There isn't.

How can you argue that the Democrats are the intractable ones here? Even you agree that we need healthcare reform, which is a message the GOP has not exactly taken great pains to disseminate.

Apology accepted. Moving on...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
How can you argue that the Democrats are the intractable ones here? Even you agree that we need healthcare reform, which is a message the GOP has not exactly taken great pains to disseminate.

I'm about to split hairs here, but I don't really see the GOP being opposed to health reform, lots of republican reps want health reform. The issue is that Captain GOP (Michael Steele) is so far up his ass in rhetoric that he isn't even representing the majority of the party. The problem is that many people here Mr. Steele's stupid remarks then assume the whole party feels that way.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its not in their best interests to do so. In order to cooperate there has to be two parties to the negotiation. There isn't.

How can you argue that the Democrats are the intractable ones here? Even you agree that we need healthcare reform, which is a message the GOP has not exactly taken great pains to disseminate.

Thats acknowledged. Trying to ram through nationalizing 1 / 5 of the US economy however is no the way to go.

Kilkrazy wrote:America put a man on the moon from a standing start to done in under 10 years.

NASA's budget during that time was 10 times today's budget adjusted for current inflation rates.

youngblood wrote:
I'm about to split hairs here, but I don't really see the GOP being opposed to health reform, lots of republican reps want health reform. The issue is that Captain GOP (Michael Steele) is so far up his ass in rhetoric that he isn't even representing the majority of the party. The problem is that many people here Mr. Steele's stupid remarks then assume the whole party feels that way.

I'll buy that. The GOP certainly hasn't been able to maintain its normally high level of partisan cohesion. I'd even believe that the lack of organization has directly lead to some of the more ridiculous blocking tactics (death panels, etc.). Since there's no real, contiguous message within the party everyone is simply going around flinging their gak at the wall in the hope that reform can be slowed by whatever happens to stick. Its all very Democrat, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats acknowledged. Trying to ram through nationalizing 1 / 5 of the US economy however is no the way to go.

That's only one of the plans (single-payer) on the table Fraz, and you know. It also happens to be the worst of the bunch. Instead of simply saying all Democrat plans are bad, the GOP could, you know, be constructive by pointing out which plans are bad.

dogma wrote:
ISince there's no real, contiguous message within the party everyone is simply going around flinging their gak at the wall in the hope that reform can be slowed by whatever happens to stick.

Hmmm... yes

Cairnius wrote:It's funny how people translate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to their own ends. The 2nd Amendment ties gun ownership to belonging to a regulated militia...no one chooses to read that part, though.

Actually if you knew anything about Constitutional law you would know that the Supreme Court, which is the highest authority on interpreting the Constitution in the land, did in fact designate the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing each citizen the right to own firearms...

Cairnius wrote:
So, if we can read rights into the founding documents, we can read rights into the founding documents. I'd say "life" as in "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" certainly includes health care. Yeah it's in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, but the Declaration is pretty important, so I'd say that counts as a founding document of our government and statement of legal principles, too.

So people do have the right, and the Federal government does have the enumerated power to provide it.

You can't use the Declaration of Independence, it isn't a legal document, not least of all because it precedes the US Constitution or the Articles of Confederation, but also because it is mainly a list of fabricated abuses by the British more than anything else.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually if you knew anything about Constitutional law you would know that the Supreme Court, which is the highest authority on interpreting the Constitution in the land, did in fact designate the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing each citizen the right to own firearms...

Its also worth noting that the US militia is actually made up of every able-bodied man between 17 and 45, so the idea that you can't own a firearm without militia membership is a bit deceiving in terms of who it might exclude.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
You can't use the Declaration of Independence, it isn't a legal document, not least of all because it precedes the US Constitution or the Articles of Confederation, but also because it is mainly a list of fabricated abuses by the British more than anything else.

You can use it as the basis of a moral argument, as was done during the Civil Rights Movement, but you're right that it has no legal force.

dogma wrote:
Its also worth noting that the US militia is actually made up of every able-bodied man between 17 and 45, so the idea that you can't own a firearm without militia membership is a bit deceiving in terms of who it might exclude.

The idea that owning a firearm as being mutually exclusive to being an active member of the militia is asinine....

dogma wrote:
You can use it as the basis of a moral argument, as was done during the Civil Rights Movement, but you're right that it has no legal force.

I would go so far as to say that you can't use it as a moral standard, considering it was based on lies...lies wrapped in beautiful prose and noble ideas, but lies nonetheless...

JEB_Stuart wrote:The idea that owning a firearm as being mutually exclusive to being an active member of the militia is asinine....

I agree, I don't believe the 2nd amendment reads that way. I was merely pointing out that in the US the militia is composed of every man eligible for the draft. Thus, even if we take the 2nd as prohibiting gun ownership by those not in the militia all we're doing is establishing an age range for legal purchase. Not out and out banning weapons to those outside the military.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I would go so far as to say that you can't use it as a moral standard, considering it was based on lies...lies wrapped in beautiful prose and noble ideas, but lies nonetheless...

That's the way of most rhetoric, no? As with most moral standards its primarily an appeal to romance. Not many people are willing to stomach speech based on Kantian ethics, and an even smaller number of them will find it motivating.

JEB, you're choosing to look at the founding documents as valid where it serves you, and invalid where it isn't.

Constitutional law is nothing if not interpretation, and it's almost always undertaken in complete and total ignorance as to who the Founders were, the philosophers they studied, and any attempt to dig deeply into what they meant...which IMHO is all absolutely necessary and pertinent information to interpret the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear about gun ownership...but just dig into the time period and the culture. Colonists actually needed their guns for hunting, or for defense against Native Americans. When it came time to fight the British, without civilian-owned firearms they never would have been able to raise an army. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written.

The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

As much of a massive douche as the "Mystery Author" is, this thread has so far proved him pretty well right.

Cairnius wrote:The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

You were doing so well there for a minute but then you had to go a become a jackass at the end by contradicting your earlier argument and adding in a bit of ad hominem. Shame really.

Cairnius wrote:JEB, you're choosing to look at the founding documents as valid where it serves you, and invalid where it isn't.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm not really seeing what part JEB is ignoring. Its quite clear that membership in the militia is not required in order for any given citizen to own a weapon.

Cairnius wrote:
Constitutional law is nothing if not interpretation, and it's almost always undertaken in complete and total ignorance as to who the Founders were, the philosophers they studied, and any attempt to dig deeply into what they meant...which IMHO is all absolutely necessary and pertinent information to interpret the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

That's probably because the intent of the Founders is no more relevant to the text of the Constitution than the intent of those interpreting it today. In fact, its probably even less relevant as they aren't alive to confirm or deny allegation we might make with respect to their personal views on the matter.

Cairnius wrote:
The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear about gun ownership...but just dig into the time period and the culture. Colonists actually needed their guns for hunting, or for defense against Native Americans. When it came time to fight the British, without civilian-owned firearms they never would have been able to raise an army. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with what the amendment actually says.

Cairnius wrote:
The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

That's a potentially convincing argument for why the 2nd amendment should be revisited, but its really quite off base with respect to what it actually says. There's a reason that a formal process for amendment exists. You don't get to simply rescind the ones you don't like.

I've never heard the right to bear arms being interpreted as the right to bear any sort of armament conceivable at any rate.

Except by some fringe groups, maybe.

::EDIT:: Also, pistols existed in the 1700s. And I don't see why the founding fathers couldn't have conceived of advancements in firearms, they were progressing in sophistication during their own time.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've never heard the right to bear arms being interpreted as the right to bear any sort of armament conceivable at any rate.

Except by some fringe groups, maybe.

There's probably a case to made on the distinction between 'arms', 'munitions', and 'materiel'. Basically any citizen can bear 'arms' (pistols, SMGS, assault rifles, etc.), but would be unable to bear 'munitions' (grenades, explosives, missiles, etc.) or 'materiel' (tanks, aircraft, etc.).

You could also do some good stuff with the word 'bear'. Effectively limiting legal weaponry to that which was man-portable. People don't 'bear' howitzers.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've never heard the right to bear arms being interpreted as the right to bear any sort of armament conceivable at any rate.

Except by some fringe groups, maybe.

You could also do some good stuff with the word 'bear'. Effectively limiting legal weaponry to that which was man-portable. People don't 'bear' howitzers.

Dibs on the right to bear miniguns!



Come to think of it two governors came out of the above movie...wonder what that means

dogma wrote:People don't 'bear' howitzers.

That's true, you 'boar' them!

Get it? hahahahahahahahaha

Cane wrote:Dibs on the right to bear miniguns!

You already can, it is just expensive. Enjoy this video of the Knobb Creek Machine Gun Shoot. It is an annual gathering of machine gun owners, including Miniguns, and even a flamethrower or two!

Holy cow, better than any 4th of July I've seen. One of the great things about the miltiary are the live fire exercises at night..truly a spectacle to behold! Those civvies were probably ex-military and just couldn't keep a good weapon down.

If anyone's dumb enough to try and invade America without WMD's they're in a world of hurt! feth YEA!

The necessity of factionalizing rather than problem solving is amongst the top reasons why America is dumb.

Who fething cares your political affiliation? If you can't present a good reason if a person deserves medical coverage or not by sight then they deserve it.
Tackling healthcare is in essence a large public works project - like the TVA.

But hey, what possible good could come out of public works projects?

A president set a goal, and unlike getting to the moon, all we can do is whine and complain that its not fair and can't be done.

My ex governor could kick your governors ass.

Jesse Ventura for president. I'd vote twice under 2 different ID's.

I remember how secure I felt in my old house. Tween my roommates and I we had enough pistols, rifles, automatics to keep the entire city at bay if we had to. Felt sorry for any dumbass trying to break into that house. LOL.

I am just going to leave this here...

Frazzled wrote:Like it won't blow apart the budget right? right?

No, read what I said.

I said people believe obvious lies because they want to believe them. I gave the example of a silly claim about healthcare reform. I did not say that all arguments against healthcare were silly. For instance, it will cost more (actually covering people and making insurers cover people when they get costly illnesses costs money). In the long term you'd hope structural improvements in the system can bring costs closer in-line with other developed nations, but in the short to medium term it'll cost more.

But the point is people believing the stupid lies. There were plenty of reasons to vote against Obama, that he was a secret muslim who was really born in Kenya wasn't one of them. There were plenty of reasons to vote against McCain, that he was a dangerous and irrational man suffering from PTSD was not one of them.

There's nothing wrong with opposition, it's a healthy thing. But people need to be honest in assessing what they hear, and not believing stuff just because it helps their side. That only lowers the quality of debate, and the result of that is the woeful healthcare debate the US has had, and the result of poor debate has been a mediocre package that doesn't address the reasons US healthcare costs so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:No one can prove that, Fraz. For every set of numbers you toss around to "prove" that the budget will be blown, someone else can toss around a set of numbers to "prove" that your presented numbers are wrong and completely full of gak and that the proposed health care reform will actually save us money and cut down the deficit by huge margins.

End result = null result. The numbers can't be used to prove anything.

No, that's the exact problem Maher was complaining about. It's easy to just say 'lah lah lah statistics' when the numbers are saying something you don't want to hear, but you don't really believe that people don't have pretty decent estimates of what this will cost and what it will save, do you?

Reality is that the plan under consideration will cost more money. There are plenty of ways of lowering health costs to something more consistent with the rest of the developed world, but that'd take far more substantial reform. Unfortunately, if you look at the right freak out over this, and couple it with the health insurers' influence over both parties, it's near impossible to address major reform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Bush didn't put in an 800Bn demo porkbarrel spending bill, and greatest federal budget in history of mankind. Bush didn't nationalize the car companies on the taxpayer dime, try to force through massive taxes via cap and trade, and try to nationalize 1 / 5 of the economy without debate.

Bush didn't have a financial meltdown. When faced with the growing crisis in the last days of his term, he argued for a stimulus bill that was considerably greater than the $800bn eventually agreed to.

Arguing that 1/5 of the economy was being nationalised is silly. Just plan silly. It is not being nationalised. And the debate is what has been happening for the last couple of months, it was actually taken out to the general public for discussion before a bill was written. Pretending that is not having debate is basically lying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youngblood wrote:I think that the government needs to be fiscally conservative. Neither war or this reform plan are fiscally responsible.

I agree with Fraz's opinions here. Regulate the industry more closely sure, but don't overhaul. Covering all American's isn't a realistic proposal, it never will be. Politicians know this. Instead they should be focusing on those that should qualify and pay for reasonable coverage.

Why is the US so unique in being incapable of offering medical care to all its citizens? The rest of us can do it, and we're no smarter that you lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youngblood wrote:Invitations are rarely extended, instead the reigning donkey-caves come up with a proposal and shout loud enough to pass it.

Except there were invitations offered to the Republicans in the early stages of drafting. The more centrist Republicans were chased about as hard as the blue dog Democrats.

The GOP smelled blood in the water at the time, and didn't consider involvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youngblood wrote:I'm about to split hairs here, but I don't really see the GOP being opposed to health reform, lots of republican reps want health reform. The issue is that Captain GOP (Michael Steele) is so far up his ass in rhetoric that he isn't even representing the majority of the party. The problem is that many people here Mr. Steele's stupid remarks then assume the whole party feels that way.

In their rhetoric members of the GOP will generally accept the need for healthcare reform. The polling numbers overwhelmingly favour 'reform' of some form or another. But most people know this is just rhetoric.

The GOP had a majority in both houses for a long time. For most of the Bush admin they controlled the house, senate and executive, but they never bothered with healthcare reform. So when they reach opposition and the Democrats start attempting reform, most people know what 'we accept there needs to be reform but there needs to be more time to learn what works' actually means.

It means they're playing for time and looking to delay until they can get back into power, at which point they'll reform exactly nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that the US militia is actually made up of every able-bodied man between 17 and 45, so the idea that you can't own a firearm without militia membership is a bit deceiving in terms of who it might exclude.

So what happens when you turn 46?

Cairnius wrote:JEB, you're choosing to look at the founding documents as valid where it serves you, and invalid where it isn't.

Kind of how you enumerate powers to the Federal government through the Declaration of Independence right? Oh wait, I am interpreting a document that actually has legal relevance!

Cairnius wrote:Constitutional law is nothing if not interpretation, and it's almost always undertaken in complete and total ignorance as to who the Founders were, the philosophers they studied, and any attempt to dig deeply into what they meant...which IMHO is all absolutely necessary and pertinent information to interpret the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

So, when I quote the interpretation of SCOTUS you disregard it? The truly ironic thing about this post is that the leading member of SCOTUS who really led the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is Justice Antonin Scalia, to whom many scholars attribute the invention of "original intent" as a method for interpreting the Constitution. So, really, your "original intent" argument works in my favor. Thank you! I have studied the events, ideas, Founding Fathers, and the philosophers that influenced them. That's what you do as a Historian, and I almost decided to go into grad school to write my dissertation on them, but decided against that because I rejected many of the philosophies they embraced. So in short, yes I do know what I am talking about.

Cairnius wrote:The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear about gun ownership...but just dig into the time period and the culture. Colonists actually needed their guns for hunting, or for defense against Native Americans. When it came time to fight the British, without civilian-owned firearms they never would have been able to raise an army. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written.

So people don't hunt today? And they undoubtedly don't need their weapons for civil defense, that would be just foolish! Oh, BTW, were all those citizens who rebelled against the British already active in their colonial militia? I will go ahead and answer that for you: NO they weren't.

Cairnius wrote:The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

They also didn't plan on having 50 states, counting black people as an actual person, freeing the slaves, spanning an entire continent, etc. So the "they didn't plan for it" argument is pretty useless...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Cairnius wrote:The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

You were doing so well there for a minute

You can't be serious....

Ahtman wrote:

Cairnius wrote:The Founders said nothing about pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, or any of the refined weaponry designed explicitly for killing human beings that we have today, nor could they foresee any of their development...so saying that the 2nd Amendment covers these things is fething slowed. It makes no sense whatsoever...but of course common sense so rarely comes into 2nd Amendment debate at all...

You were doing so well there for a minute but then you had to go a become a jackass at the end by contradicting your earlier argument and adding in a bit of ad hominem. Shame really.

There's no ad hom at all, Ahtman. Not one whit of it. My mother is the English teacher, not me, but look at the construction of this sentence:

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

Okay, so let's first consider that the English spoken in 1776 was not the English spoken today in 2009. Bearing that in mind, look at the sentence.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Why does this come first?

These were not documents thrown together in a hurry so that everyone could sign them before the British came a'knockin'. They were SLAVED over, edited, edited again, edited AGAIN to make them as perfect as they could be made. The Founders knew how important these documents were, and they fought long and hard with each other over how to phrase them.

Why didn't they just say this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't that suit the purposes to which modern Americans wish to bend the 2nd Amendment? Wouldn't this be a true statement of purpose? "We want the right to not have our arms taken from us by government the way the British attempted to take our arms and prevent us from defending our liberties."

That's not what they said.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The Founders made it VERY clear why this portion of the Bill of Rights was necessary - because without the right to bear arms, they never would have been able to fight for their freedom.

Now follow along with the revolutionary philosophy of the time.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

This is a fair representation of the guiding principle behind American Revolutionary political thought. When a government becomes oppressive, the people have the right if not the responsibility to overthrow that government and reclaim their freedoms.

"That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly." -- Thomas Paine

Freedom is something that had to be fought for to be appreciated.

But the Founders never meant to create a State where a bunch of citizens just ran around with concealed weapons and man-killing devices in their attics.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

How could this be any more clear to a neutral observer, who has no vested interest in gun ownership? The right to bear arms is CLEARLY couched by the need for regulation of those who own said firearms. The people who owned the firearms would be members of a well-regulated militia. They would be citizen-soldiers. Not sports enthusiasts, collectors, insane Midwestern Militiamen or conspiracy theorists...


Our gun regulation sucks. No private citizen needs a handgun, and anyone who wants one should be willing to pass psych evals and background checks to make sure they're the most stable of the most stable. A sociopath or narcissist personality disorder type might get through from time to time, but at least we'd be checking.

The existence of gun show purchases is an insult and an exercise in supreme stupidity.

No private citizen needs an M16 or an AK-47. "But I'm a collector!" you say. feth you. Go collect something else. Your right to frivolously spend money on items which are meant explicitly to kill human beings, and by support of your right to do so to allow those items to get in the hands of people who explicitly want to use them for their intended purpose, in any intelligent and educated society is superceded by my right not to ever, EVER, have to worry about these weapons ever, EVER, being pointed at me, my wife, my children, my friends, or anyone I care about.

Your rights end when they curtail mine. In this case, the right of security.

For every legitimate purpose you may attach to a MAC-10 or Steyr AUG I can point you at another weapon which does the job as well and which is much more reasonable for civilian ownership.

Hunting rifles and shotguns. That's as far as the 2nd Amendment should ever have been allowed to go. Anything you need to do with a gun, you can do with one of these two tools. And even this isn't foolproof against abuse. You STILL need regulation to make sure that the people who own these firearms, if they're not serving in a militia where they can be kept tabs on by the government, aren't mentally unstable.

Yet someone could walk into a sporting goods store in upstate New York, purchase a shotgun and a case of shells, walk outside, chamber a few rounds, and start blasting away.

There's a word for that: stupid.


Pointing out the lack of common sense in 2nd Amendment debate is no ad hom at all. It's the obvious fething truth which some people want to ignore because they're either ignorant of history and wish to remain that way, or there are people paying them heavy dues to keep the laws functioning the way they want them to function, or because common sense would get in the way of their enjoyment blasting the beejeezus out of gak for the hell of it.

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

Not a complicated sentence, not even a particularly nuanced sentence. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms - a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - shall not be infringed.

The problem is that the Founding Fathers never, ever intended political power to fall into the hands of the uneducated and ignorant. That's why we're a Republic, and have Electors, to form a barrier around political power and to make sure it always remained in the hands of the better members of our society who could read, who owned land, who had a stake in things and could be trusted with the power to make law.

They didn't think they had to write out these laws the way one might explain things to a child...just the simple re-ordering of the words I did above would make the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment more clear, and even that's not perfect.

The Founding Fathers made the mistake of thinking that educated, reasonable, and intelligent people like themselves would forever be calling the shots around here. They didn't realize just how much they would need to hold the hands of future generations of Americans.


And now the lunatics are running the asylum.

My brain... it hurts so much... the text wall... so much... information... brain hurts...