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.

Wrexasaur wrote:My brain... it hurts so much... the text wall... so much... information... brain hurts...

Not everything boils down to short sentences and simple truths, unfortunately. Especially not when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, which is precisely my point. If you're not able to back up your 2nd Amendment debate position using the language of the document coupled with knowledge of the time period in which it was written and the personas who wrote our founding documents, you're not entitled to an opinion because you don't know what the feth you're talking about.

So people have to present their bona fides. Someone may not agree with me, but I've studied my history. I know what I'm talking about. That doesn't make me right, it makes me able to present a cogent argument.

If only we, as a society, just first quizzed people on some basic, necessary facts before they opined on a subject, and immediately shut them up if they couldn't pass the test, things would be a lot smoother in America. Want an opinion? Earn it. Go learn something first, then come back to us. You'll be of much better use to everyone.

Seriously though...

I understand that you know what you are talking about (at least in part) but your use of encyclopedic knowledge is absolutely and positively in "Brain shut-down" territory.

Format is important, but I am sure you could make your points much more concise. Maybe some enjoy the massive amount of information you pour onto the forums (not a bad thing mind you) but allowing for conversation is also nice .

I feel like I just got knocked out with an encyclopedia... I think I am going to be ready with a rocket piranha next time... just to be safe.

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.

Wow, I just lost all respect for anything you might have to say, even though I didn't agree with any of it to begin with.

Thinking like that is why people like that 24yo who got abducted and found in an abandoned warehouse 4 days before her wedding cannot fight back, or the kid whose house was burglarized by a man with 29 priors (sword was used but it's the same premise).

I'm sorry but criminals don't give a damn about gun laws so why should it be damn near impossible for a law abiding citizen like to obtain a handgun when a common thug can go buy one out of somebodies car trunk or pickup box?

It does not matter WHY the 2nd amendment was interpreted the way it was, it only matters that it WAS interpreted in such a manner to allow citizens to own them.

You do realize you can single shot an M16 and deer hunt with it don't you? But I guess that is irrelevant because apparently I don't need to own an M16 when a 30-06 will kill a deer just as well. To hell with the law saying I can blow $2k on an assault rifle as I don't NEED an assault rifle.

sebster wrote:
So what happens when you turn 46?

Roving death squads of 17 years old kids, with their freshly purchased assault rifles.

More seriously, that's one of the reasons no one take the 'militia' component of the 2nd amendment seriously. Well, that and the fact that it doesn't actually limit the bearing of arms to militia members.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:So people don't hunt today?

No silly, rednecks aren't people.

Sadly I'm pretty sure that's not too far from Cairnius' actual opinion.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
You can't be serious....

He usually isn't.

We (Rednecks) are a people. We just aren't the type of people to let government run our lives to the point of expecting us to give up our Constitutional rights to make some tree hugger happy that there is one less gun on the street while overlooking the fact many more are purchased illegally.

I's a redneck and damn proud.

Its sort of funny that I reply to all these posts, because I know he has me blocked, I just feel my lack of respect for his opinion is better off expressed than not.

Cairnius wrote:

There's no ad hom at all, Ahtman. Not one whit of it.

Just so you know, any time you invoke "common sense" or belittle your opponent through the derogation of his position you are making an ad hominem argument. Not all ad hominems are fallacious, though they frequently add little to the argument. That said, your inability to recognize them in your own posts points to the fact that your grasp of logic is nowhere near as solid as you believe it to be. Sorry.

Cairnius wrote:
"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."

There's another version of that sentence. It was in the draft which was distributed to the states. It reads: "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."

A minor difference, but since we're breaking down sentences here...

Cairnius wrote:
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.

This whole section could have been omitted. It has absolutely nothing to say in support of any argument. All you do is raise a series of questions while failing to provide answers to them; ignoring the fundamental structure of the English language to boot.

You've said before that you're fond of Chomsky. Maybe you should read some of his real work, as opposed to his second-rate political pieces.

Cairnius wrote:
"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.

You're attaching that by addendum. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the evidence you've offered; especially in light of widespread distribution of firearms during the Revolutionary period.

Cairnius wrote:
""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...

The militia in the United States is every draft eligible male. The words well-regulated are subjective, so while you can go down that road it certainly isn't something which would ensure that a neutral observer would agree. That doesn't even get into the problems inherent in having a clearly biased person imagine the opinion of a theoretical neutral observer.

Either way, it isn't clear that 'well regulated' applies to the right of citizens to own firearms. Hence the part which directly references the bearing of arms featuring the clause 'shall not be infringed'. For example, it is possible to regulate the militia (through, say, the selective service) while not actively restricting the possession of firearms to those who are deemed 'worthy'.

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

Oddly enough, your rights also end when they curtail those of others. In this case your refusal to allow citizens to own firearms is also curtailing their right to security.

Cairnius wrote:
Pointing out the lack of common sense in 2nd Amendment debate is no ad hom at all.

You really don't understand logic...

Cairnius wrote:
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.

...because that entire passage was an ad hominem attack.

Cairnius wrote:
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.

Ad hominem.

Cairnius wrote:
And now the lunatics are running the asylum.

More ad hominem.

Anyway, to summarize for the people (Wrex) that don't want to suffer through an angry wall of text. Cairnius repeated the text of the second amendment while badgering the intelligence of anyone who might disagree with him, all while failing to present any form of argument that couldn't be classified as an ad hominem. Seriously, if you're going to create a 1-2 page forum post you should probably attempt to insert something more substantive than polemic.

If I were grading this as an essay, which is what it really is, I would give it a D; passing, but only because the teacher doesn't want you to repeat his course.

dogma wrote:If I were grading this as an essay, which is what it really is, I would give it a D; passing, but only because the teacher doesn't want you to repeat his course.

Isn't that a winning tactic though? Use the force dark one... use it with great intent and... lost my train of thought... anyone feel like getting a hoagie or something? It has been an awful long time since I went to... PARAKEET!!! RUN AWAY!!!

dogma wrote:
If I were grading this as an essay, which is what it really is, I would give it a D; passing, but only because the teacher doesn't want you to repeat his course.

HAHA! OMG Dogma FTW! Don't worry, I think he has me blocked too, or he really didn't like my response which poked a million holes in his argument.

If I am not blocked, I must ask this question then to Cairnius: Assuming you are correct, and you must be in the militia, wouldn't you then say that it would be ideal to have assault weapons and not .22s as your standard issue weapon? What about people in wheelchairs. They are obviously not battlefield worthy, so should they be told, "Tough Gak," and sent packing? And how do you define a militia? Is it a bunch of men with assault weapons marching around their local park, because that is what it was during the colonial era. Furthermore, do you have Gmen go knocking on doors once people are too old to serve and demand their personal firearm back? See how problematic it is to tie this right to something so constricting, not mentioning the logical fallacies committed trying to do so...

Wrexasaur wrote:Seriously though...

I understand that you know what you are talking about (at least in part) but your use of encyclopedic knowledge is absolutely and positively in "Brain shut-down" territory.

Format is important, but I am sure you could make your points much more concise. Maybe some enjoy the massive amount of information you pour onto the forums (not a bad thing mind you) but allowing for conversation is also nice .

I feel like I just got knocked out with an encyclopedia... I think I am going to be ready with a rocket piranha next time... just to be safe.

*shrug* I type 105 wpm and read extremely quickly...I'm not going to be able to share your perspective on this. That was a lightweight essay by my standards...and I hope that if and when anyone ever makes real decisions about issues like these in our government that they are able, in writing, to elucidate their thought process to justify what they did.

In the end, that's what I want from anyone who opines on anything...I want to know how they got to where they got. Justify it. Show me the logic of your argument in all its constituent parts, so that if I disagree I can start picking it apart to see if it falls apart.

If I can't, then I may learn to agree with you if I didn't from the beginning.

Wrexasaur wrote:My brain... it hurts so much... the text wall... so much... information... brain hurts...

I do believe you're trying to challeng the Frazz in inane borderline trolling humorous icons.

Challenge Accepted!!!

Fateweaver wrote:Thinking like that is why people like that 24yo who got abducted and found in an abandoned warehouse 4 days before her wedding cannot fight back, or the kid whose house was burglarized by a man with 29 priors (sword was used but it's the same premise).

I'm sorry but criminals don't give a damn about gun laws so why should it be damn near impossible for a law abiding citizen like to obtain a handgun when a common thug can go buy one out of somebodies car trunk or pickup box?

It does not matter WHY the 2nd amendment was interpreted the way it was, it only matters that it WAS interpreted in such a manner to allow citizens to own them.

You do realize you can single shot an M16 and deer hunt with it don't you? But I guess that is irrelevant because apparently I don't need to own an M16 when a 30-06 will kill a deer just as well. To hell with the law saying I can blow $2k on an assault rifle as I don't NEED an assault rifle.

Thinking like that is why the kids at Columbine got killed.

That's some of the most specious reasoning I've seen lately...so, you think that the 24 year-old who got abducted and found abandoned in a warehouse 4 dayas before her wedding wanted to own a concealed weapon, or have an open-carry permit, couldn't get one, and THAT is why she was killed?

You think the kid whose house was burglarized by a man with 29 priors wouldn't have been bulglarized had the kid in question owned a firearm? I suppose the criminal would have known through some sort of prescience that the kid owned a firearm and not robbed him that evening?

This is precisely the kind of "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy that is far too prevalent in politics everywhere. There should be no place for that sort of thing in the creation of law, but humans don't seem able, by and large, to cut their emotions off at the knees when it comes to law.


You're missing the point entirely - in a nation with proper gun control your hypothetical criminal wouldn't be purchasing handguns out of car trunks or pickup boxes! The guns wouldn't BE there to be purchased. They'd be regulated. Gun manufacturers would be responsible for weapon serial numbers. We'd actually take advantage of the power of computers to track individual weapons and hold people accountable for production and distribution of firearms and keeping them out of the hands of those who were unfit to own them. Gun sellers at any rung of the production/distribution ladder would be forcibly shut down the second there was any evidence that weapons sold to them were distributed to the mentally unfit or someone with a prior criminal record.

I refuse to believe that this is not within our power. As a society, we just don't see the value in it. There's no reason that we couldn't limit the types of weapons available to the public and still have plenty of room for responsible gun dealers to still make a very nice living selling weapons which were appropriate for civilian ownership to anyone who passed some basic psych evals such that we could trust them to own said weapons.

Why the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the way it was could not be MORE important. Someone's motivation for doing something is just as, and sometimes more, important than what they actually did. Seemingly innocent and beneficial actions can turn out to be nefarious, self-serving, and have negative far-reaching consequences if you're too lazy to examine someone's motivations in taking those actions.

Arguing that you can single shot a deer with an M16, which is an assault weapon which anyone competent in the mechanics of modern firearms could convert to a fully-automatic weapon, and that therefore you should have the right to own one, is also specious reasoning. That’s no justification for a military-grade weapon to be in the hands of a civilian.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Assuming you are correct, and you must be in the militia, wouldn't you then say that it would be ideal to have assault weapons and not .22s as your standard issue weapon? What about people in wheelchairs. They are obviously not battlefield worthy, so should they be told, "Tough Gak," and sent packing? And how do you define a militia? Is it a bunch of men with assault weapons marching around their local park, because that is what it was during the colonial era. Furthermore, do you have Gmen go knocking on doors once people are too old to serve and demand their personal firearm back? See how problematic it is to tie this right to something so constricting, not mentioning the logical fallacies committed trying to do so...

I am not in a militia.

I would define a “well-regulated militia” the way Article VI of the Articles of Confederation in 1777 defines it:

"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

Someone has to be quite dense, or filled with such ideological fervor so as to ignore simple fact which stands opposed to their ideological beliefs, to ignore this history. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment could not be MORE clear to anyone who stops crying in hysterics and who looks at things unemotionally. The ownership of firearms in our laws was ALWAYS tied to service in an organized militia from the very beginning. Modern interpretation of law has stripped away this all-important basis for the law and turned it into an excuse for lunatics to own fully-automatic weapons if they choose to.

Militias during the colonial era started off as "all able-bodied males" who could be used to recruit into the Provincial Forces, who were paid and who also rarely actually saw combat (probably because the British Regulars did the fighting). These troops were of horrible quality. George Washington bitched about them in the mid 1750's while trying to fight against Indian raids. They were undisciplined and had no chain of command.

This is clearly not a blueprint for a "militia" as any of us would like to think of it, and it's also combat-ineffective...and this is where the Minutemen came from. Order from chaos. Now you saw the creation of companies, captains and lieutenants, and then battalions and field officers.

Again, this is what comes from people not bothering to learn their history. If the Founding Fathers didn't believe in unorganized, random civilian militias, then why should we?



Show me an armed force in the world who accept people bound in wheelchairs into front-line infantry units…then perhaps I’ll bother trying to make sense of what seems like a ridiculous line of argument for which I currently have no time. I also have no clue what the hell you are implying with your “assault rifle and not .22 as standard issue weapon.”

This is why we need to use more words, not less, class. Sometimes when you don’t use enough words no one knows what the hell you mean.


If I had my druthers, yes, I’d take firearms away from the senile and mentally infirm the same way I think old people should get re-tested for driving competency at some as-yet-undermined regular interval. Anytime anyone had any sort of capacity to kill someone else through extension of a privilege I would test them for the continued right to that privileges.

There’s nothing problematic here. Anything dangerous SHOULD be regulated and restricted. You must have a lot more faith in the average American citizen than I do, which is why you’re willing to allow anyone and everyone, it seems, to walk around packing.

I don’t trust the average to know how to drive properly or how to vote responsibly. I sure as hell don’t trust them to be packing a Desert Eagle under their trenchcoat...

reds8n wrote:

perhaps Europeans aren't as stupid as their American cousins.

...well...we don't like to go on and on about it, but.....

And we don't really think of you as cousins either, more like our lost children who will one day return.

Not like a noble, good looking, first born son who captains the cricket team and gets a first from Oxbridge type of offspring, obviously, more like some bastard, boss eyed, and lactose intolerant offspring from a drunken liaison whilst on shore leave in Shanghai many years ago who turns up at a family party 18 years later unexpectedly.

Britain/Europe used to corner the market on enslaving and subjugating people in order to steal their land and resources. Are you guys getting back into the game and planning another go at the "New World'?

Personally I'd be a willing subject as long as I could still go to the dentist and not be forced to listen to euro-pop.

I assume you'd be too fat to fit into the dentists chair in the first place.

And don't put yourselves down ( that's our job) you were much better at the whole slavery and denial of basic rights due to skin colour than us for ages.

Europop is a myth invented by the liberal media.

sebster wrote:
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.

No you are smarter, just plain smarter. Actually, with enough money and cooperation, it could be done. Look at China. It has a massive population and its GDP is about 1/3 of the US'. If the US were truly serious about "universal" health care, put it on the state level with federal support. With that said, I have no idea how effective Chinese health care is.

You can imagine though... imagine though... imagine though...

youngblood wrote:
With that said, I have no idea how effective Chinese health care is.

probably at least slightly more effective then no health care...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

And don't put yourselves down ( that's our job) you were much better at the whole slavery and denial of basic rights due to skin colour than us for ages.

Don't sell the misery and death that Europe was able to spread around the globe short. I think you had many a hundred years on America prior to the US even being a sovereign nation...

We learned it from you dad...

LoL at chineese health care, these are the same people who spread aids through several villages during a plasma drive..

Thats right sign up to give plasma for the needy and end up with aids because the Chinese didn't bother to clean the machines.

The HIV virus has been transmitted to tens of thousands of people through reckless blood collection methods in which blood was collected from many individuals and pooled together; plasma and other blood parts were extracted; and the serum with the remaining blood cells was re-injected into the donors so they could donate blood again in the near feature. Because the blood was pooled together and given back if one person carried the AIDS virus it was transmitted to all the other people in the group whose blood was pooled.

from http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=329&catid=13&subcatid=83

for further reading google Henan Blood and AIDS Tragedy

This is the never ending thread seeing as the current state of things is years in the making, not just the last 2 presidents. It's a tale of failing morals, a failure to listen, a failure to compromise, a failure to look past the term of service, greed( a biggie worth mentioning alone), etc. You can point fingers all you want but this has been an epic fail by the country many times over because of the inability to say wow we messed up. We all just get to reap the benefits. So truly instead of bad mouthing each other on here why not try to come up with solutions or ways to at least affect your local community. As far as individual issues to be discussed, well I really don't have all week to write so I'll leave it at that for now.

R3con wrote:LoL at chineese health care, these are the same people who spread aids through several villages during a plasma drive..

Thats right sign up to give plasma for the needy and end up with aids because the Chinese didn't bother to clean the machines.

The HIV virus has been transmitted to tens of thousands of people through reckless blood collection methods in which blood was collected from many individuals and pooled together; plasma and other blood parts were extracted; and the serum with the remaining blood cells was re-injected into the donors so they could donate blood again in the near feature. Because the blood was pooled together and given back if one person carried the AIDS virus it was transmitted to all the other people in the group whose blood was pooled.

from http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=329&catid=13&subcatid=83

for further reading google Henan Blood and AIDS Tragedy

Hey, I never said it would be good coverage. At least it would affordable to get aids. I wonder how much more it added to China's national debt per year...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:This is the never ending thread seeing as the current state of things is years in the making, not just the last 2 presidents. It's a tale of failing morals, a failure to listen, a failure to compromise, a failure to look past the term of service, greed( a biggie worth mentioning alone), etc. You can point fingers all you want but this has been an epic fail by the country many times over because of the inability to say wow we messed up. We all just get to reap the benefits. So truly instead of bad mouthing each other on here why not try to come up with solutions or ways to at least affect your local community. As far as individual issues to be discussed, well I really don't have all week to write so I'll leave it at that for now.

ooooo, thank you sir for the insight. Sweet Jesus, how could we all be so ignorant and blind? Here we were talking details and you simplified it for us all...

CT GAMER wrote:
Don't sell the misery and death that Europe was able to spread around the globe short. I think you had many a hundred years on America prior to the US even being a sovereign nation...

We learned it from you dad...

Indeed we did.

It's a shame you don't seem to have learnt from those mistakes. Still no one said you were smart..oh... we're back at the beginning of the thread again.

I'd blame the parents but ,,,,

reds8n wrote: I assume you'd be too fat to fit into the dentists chair in the first place.

I lol'd at this.

reds8n wrote:
And don't put yourselves down ( that's our job) you were much better at the whole slavery and denial of basic rights due to skin colour than us for ages.

Damn right. If you ain't first, you last.

Europop is a myth invented by the liberal media.

Having been to London once, and having watched a few minutes of the MTV Europe awards, I am kind of an expert. And in my expert opinion, with a few exceptions your music pretty much sucks.

BTW, how in the hell did we get into it about the second ammendment?


edited quotes!

reds8n wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
Don't sell the misery and death that Europe was able to spread around the globe short. I think you had many a hundred years on America prior to the US even being a sovereign nation...

We learned it from you dad...

Indeed we did.

It's a shame you don't seem to have learnt from those mistakes. Still no one said you were smart..oh... we're back at the beginning of the thread again.

I'd blame the parents but ,,,,

Very witty. You have a way with comebacks, it must be said.

*buys reds8n a drink*

reds8n wrote:
Still no one said you were smart..oh... we're back at the beginning of the thread again.

That is ok, I know reading is hard, what with illiteracy rates documented as rising in many parts of Europe...

R3con wrote:LoL at chineese health care, these are the same people who spread aids through several villages during a plasma drive..

Horrendous.

it's lucky your system is better.

I think we got here by people turning up late and not getting things.


EDIT : See !

That is ok, I know reading is hard, what with illiteracy rates documented as rising in many parts of Europe...

Where you lead, we follow !
We should follow the American educational model, it seems to work well !

Lint wrote:BTW, how in the hell did we get into it about the second ammendment?

I think Fraz said something about how the Federal government is not enumerated with the powers to provide access to health care for everyone, and so I attempted to make a point about how statements like that were really based on interpretation of the founding documents, and then gave an example as to how they've been horrendously misinterpreted over time so as to completely distort their intent.

The point is: the Federal government not having specific, precise enumeration to provide health care to everyone is not an argument not to do so. Strict "constructionist" interpretation of law doesn't make any sense as a legal position, and never has. As soon as you remove the construction of a law from its original intent, which you can only really begin to understand if you comprehend the personalities of those who constructed the law, the circumstances in which the law was constructed, and what the law was intended to achieve, you can't possibly decide whether the law makes any sense of not further down the line when the society changes and the law is called into question a hundred years or more after it was written.

When it comes to health care, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give us no guidance. We're on virgin ground...so any recourse to "enumeration of powers" is inappropriate.

Cairnius wrote:
When it comes to health care, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give us no guidance. We're on virgin ground...so any recourse to "enumeration of powers" is inappropriate.

You are correct, although I think that Fraz leans more towards a lean government. The Founders appeared to imply that the government should be less responsible for people not more.

Cairnius wrote:

Lint wrote:BTW, how in the hell did we get into it about the second ammendment?

I think Fraz said something about how the Federal government is not enumerated with the powers to provide access to health care for everyone, and so I attempted to make a point about how statements like that were really based on interpretation of the founding documents, and then gave an example as to how they've been horrendously misinterpreted over time so as to completely distort their intent.

The point is: the Federal government not having specific, precise enumeration to provide health care to everyone is not an argument not to do so. Strict "constructionist" interpretation of law doesn't make any sense as a legal position, and never has. As soon as you remove the construction of a law from its original intent, which you can only really begin to understand if you comprehend the personalities of those who constructed the law, the circumstances in which the law was constructed, and what the law was intended to achieve, you can't possibly decide whether the law makes any sense of not further down the line when the society changes and the law is called into question a hundred years or more after it was written.

When it comes to health care, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give us no guidance. We're on virgin ground...so any recourse to "enumeration of powers" is inappropriate.

Your statements lack merit based on facts and court interpretations. You're forgetting that whole Tenth Amendment thing. But never let the Constitution get in the way of a good federalization or nationalization...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

youngblood wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
When it comes to health care, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give us no guidance. We're on virgin ground...so any recourse to "enumeration of powers" is inappropriate.

You are correct, although I think that Fraz leans more towards a lean government. The Founders appeared to imply that the government should be less responsible for people not more.

It wasn't an implication. What the hell do you think this means, eat at Luigi's?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2 things

1:
I knew it was Mahr after the first paragraph.


2:

Frazzled wrote: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.

Frazz has pretty much summed up why this thing has been a disaster from the start. Like I said before, I was rooting for the President, but he (like Bush before him) dropped the ball, by allowing the extremists to "handle it".

Bush did it by letting the NeoCons run the war, and Obama did it by letting the Pelosi's run this healthcare reform proposal.

GG

youngblood wrote:

R3con wrote:LoL at chineese health care, these are the same people who spread aids through several villages during a plasma drive..

Thats right sign up to give plasma for the needy and end up with aids because the Chinese didn't bother to clean the machines.

The HIV virus has been transmitted to tens of thousands of people through reckless blood collection methods in which blood was collected from many individuals and pooled together; plasma and other blood parts were extracted; and the serum with the remaining blood cells was re-injected into the donors so they could donate blood again in the near feature. Because the blood was pooled together and given back if one person carried the AIDS virus it was transmitted to all the other people in the group whose blood was pooled.

from http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=329&catid=13&subcatid=83

for further reading google Henan Blood and AIDS Tragedy

Hey, I never said it would be good coverage. At least it would affordable to get aids. I wonder how much more it added to China's national debt per year...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:This is the never ending thread seeing as the current state of things is years in the making, not just the last 2 presidents. It's a tale of failing morals, a failure to listen, a failure to compromise, a failure to look past the term of service, greed( a biggie worth mentioning alone), etc. You can point fingers all you want but this has been an epic fail by the country many times over because of the inability to say wow we messed up. We all just get to reap the benefits. So truly instead of bad mouthing each other on here why not try to come up with solutions or ways to at least affect your local community. As far as individual issues to be discussed, well I really don't have all week to write so I'll leave it at that for now.

ooooo, thank you sir for the insight. Sweet Jesus, how could we all be so ignorant and blind? Here we were talking details and you simplified it for us all...

Always have to have a confrontational one. I see so you just want people to point fingers and have a "no this kinda is a bigger "" Ok I'll bite. If you wanna trace the debt back that you all are so happy to blame on currents. Why not blame it on the ones who started it. After the depression the banks gave the people and government an almost unlimited credit source to rebuild the broken economy. Then they later decided it was time to collect cause they almost lost their ass to the overspending of the american people/government. Past presidents have repeatedly said the national bank has been one of our worst ideas. Ok another culprit of the debt is our need to always save everyone but our own. We hand out aid like no other with no real intention of recuperating any of it. While our people are in all sorts of bad situations(I mean the ones not created due to laziness and personal choices) we're handing money to everyone else. Then following presidents saying well we have always had debt lets go ahead and blow more by making new add ons to the white house, go to wars we have no part in, people not willing to help cover stuff like hurricanes, etc Again endless stuff to argue about.

generalgrog wrote:
Bush did it by letting the NeoCons run the war,

Do you think he A. Didn't intend to and/or B. Had any other way of running things ?

If so do you think things would have worked out differently than they have ?