By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Commando said:
What I am concerned about, is every other infraction against the constitution that nobody cares about and/or is in full support of.

What people need to realize is that in the United States we have the unaliable right to challenge our government via Petition and if that doesn't work, Violent Usurption. Yet no one cares and we let the government regulate our ownership/use of arms. What angers me is that nowdays the average American considers protest to be "Anti-American" and Fascism to be patriotic.

 

I agree. People have lost there way, and most don't care.

I remember seeing a female politician in Californian who wanted to ban automatic weapons hold up an AK47, and say "no one needs this to hunt a deer". She got an standing ovation.

The constitution does not give me the right to bare arms so I can hunt. I don't need it to kill deer. I need it to kill her if need be, or to kill any one in government who is "unjust". For that, I need the most powerful gun I can get. We are given the right to bare arms so we can uprise against an unjust government. It was put into place to keep government in line. When the people who we were given that right to protect us from, stand right in front of us and say "I want to take that away from you", and we cheer, something is very wrong in this country.

Oh, and I don't own a gun, nor do I wish harm on anyone. I just want to right to defend myself against my government.

 

Now as for some of the things here. I will not address them all individually, I will just make some blanket statements.

 

  • I don't care what color or what name Obama has. I just care that his is a socialist, and I hate his politics.
  • I gave over $2,000 in charities last year, and spent several days volunteering for "Habitat for Humanity". Far more then most here. To somehow claim that I want people do die in the streets because I find it unconstitutional is 100% inaccurate, and offensive. Anyone who knows me, knows otherwise.
  • I make far less then $250,000 a year, so it's not my demographic I am fighting for. I am not black, so when I fight for there civil rights, I am not in that group either. I care about all americans equally.
  • Every wealthy person did not become so by putting down the working class. Most became so from the working class.
  • Every corporation is not evil.
EDIT: I just re-read this, and it sounds like I feel I have the right to kill anyone who is unjust in government. That is not what I mean. What I mean is when Government as a whole becomes unjust, and we must rebel against it, I am given the right to own the tools to do so.

 

Were their automatic weapons when the Constitution was drafted?  How could the Founding Fathers have that in mind?  Should we be allowed to have missles as private citizens?  Those are arms.  How about nuclear weapons?  Those are arms.  Are you in a militia?  Those are the people who are allowed to have arms under the Constitution.

You are stretching the Constitution in a way YOU want it to be interpreted, yet you are bemoaning people who do the same thing.  That is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

I don't think you understood how miltias worked back then...

People joined miltias when times were bad.  Not when they were good.  Just how, if the government went wrong or something else went wrong... people would need to join a miltia after it actually went bad.

If things are already bad... you can't get a gun.

Therefore peopel have the right to bear arms so they can join a miltia when needed.

Also miltias back then weren't under the control of the state government.  They were just groups of people with guns that worked with the government.

Your looking at it from what state miltias are now.  Which isn't what they were then.

Hence people have the right to bear arms so that should they ever need to form a milita they can.

 

Agreed, but the militia thing isn't even the real point. 

He claims to understand the original meaning of the Constitution but then goes off and interprets other parts of the Constitution in ways that the Founding Fathers would have been completely unaware of at the time.  A rifle back then was moderately effective at best.  A person with a machine gun now could slaughter hundreds of people if there were no police or people with other weapons to intervene.

And how far can you stretch arms?  Missles are arms.  Nuclear weapons are arms.  How is that any different?  Hell, handguns barely even existed back then.

People who claim they aren't interpreting the Constitution often turn right back around and interpret in a way clearly out of the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.

 

Until you make an ammendment preventing these things.  Yeah.  You probably should be able to stretch it that far.

Not that anyone could really afford a nuclear weapon.  But still... things should be changed by the correct means.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't think you understood how miltias worked back then...

People joined miltias when times were bad.  Not when they were good.  Just how, if the government went wrong or something else went wrong... people would need to join a miltia after it actually went bad.

If things are already bad... you can't get a gun.

Therefore peopel have the right to bear arms so they can join a miltia when needed.

Also miltias back then weren't under the control of the state government.  They were just groups of people with guns that worked with the government.

Your looking at it from what state miltias are now.  Which isn't what they were then.

Hence people have the right to bear arms so that should they ever need to form a milita they can.

 

Agreed, but the militia thing isn't even the real point. 

He claims to understand the original meaning of the Constitution but then goes off and interprets other parts of the Constitution in ways that the Founding Fathers would have been completely unaware of at the time.  A rifle back then was moderately effective at best.  A person with a machine gun now could slaughter hundreds of people if there were no police or people with other weapons to intervene.

And how far can you stretch arms?  Missles are arms.  Nuclear weapons are arms.  How is that any different?  Hell, handguns barely even existed back then.

People who claim they aren't interpreting the Constitution often turn right back around and interpret in a way clearly out of the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.

 

Until you make an ammendment preventing these things.  Yeah.  You probably should be able to stretch it that far.

Not that anyone could really afford a nuclear weapon.  But still... things should be changed by the correct means.

This is my entire point at not looking at the Constitution as a shackle, but rather a guideline on how to approach new problems in a reasonable way.

And I am not claiming that we shouldn't shackle ourself to the Constitution sometimes either, because sometimes that is in the best interest of the people.  Protecting human rights is something the Founding Fathers really left no wiggle room on, and we should adhere to that.

Here is the Seventh Amendment for instance:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There can be a reasonable debate about whether or not the Founding Fathers intended to say "citizens" or "people" in general when they said people.  But many people who "claim" to interpret the Constitution "literally" interpreted it in a non-literal way, by claiming that we should deprive enemy combatants (some of whom were/are U.S. citizens) of due process of law.  If you look at the words in the Constitution, it says that "No person" can be deprived of these things.  Yet the Bush Adminstration and many people who claim to interpret the Constitution strictly completely circumvented what the Constitution says.

Interpretation of the Constitution is a good or an evil in different circumstances depending on which side of the argument you are on, which is why people who claim to adhere strictly to the Constitution are often full of crap, because they only do so when it fits their own agenda.  I don't think we should adhere strictly to the words in the Constitution at all times, but I do agree that there are some things which the Founding Fathers did not leave open to reasonable debate.  Human rights is one of them.

Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed of those people who claim to abide by the Constitution but contort it at the same time, and the Republican Party to survive really needs to move back to a more Jeffersonian viewpoint.  Fuck Reagan, go with Jefferson.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 17 October 2008

I actually bet he would agree with you as well that Guantamo bay is illegal.

Most Libretarians would.


A Libretarain would actually go with both your opinion of the 7th and the 2nd ammendment.

Libretarians believe that principles matter and doing things the right way is important because if you do something the wrong way you leave yourself open to a lot of problems.



FaRmLaNd on 17 October 2008

Much love to redistribution of wealth. You've gotta love Robin Hood.



akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:

I actually bet he would agree with you as well that Guantamo bay is illegal.

Most Libretarians would.


A Libretarain would actually go with both your opinion of the 7th and the 2nd ammendment.

Libretarians believe that principles matter and doing things the right way is important because if you do something the wrong way you leave yourself open to a lot of problems.

I agree that sticking to principles, especially the bright line principles that run throughout the Constitution, is extremely important.  These are the principles that should be "shackles" that we should never lose sight of.

But some principles change, and some principles should change.  That is just how a society works, which is one of the reasons there is a lot of wiggle room in some parts of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers were well aware that time changes a lot of things.  But we should stick to the principles that we can say there really was no question about when the Constitution was drafted based on what would have been within their contemplation at the time.

But in the 2nd amendment example it is unreasonable to construe that people's rights to own missles are protected by claiming that is what the Founding Fathers intended.  It just isn't what they intended because it is impossible for them to have intended that.  This is the kind of principle that we have to look at from a practical standpoint.

And the possession of automatic weapons is similarly something the Founding Fathers did not consider when they made the 2nd amendment.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there could be a way to justify the ownership of automatic weapons based on the Constitution, but is that what is best for society and can we reasonably say that the Founding Fathers had automatic weapons in mind even if they did say "arms"?

I guess I am trying to make a distinction between intention and principles, as both are pretty important when interpreting the Constitution.  And the Founding Fathers in a lot of ways did not want to hinder our growth as a society by creating a rigid document, so practicality should really come into play when discussing things in the Constitution that were not fleshed out on purpose or situations that have completely changed in a way the Founding Fathers could not have predicted since the drafting of the Constitution.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

I actually bet he would agree with you as well that Guantamo bay is illegal.

Most Libretarians would.


A Libretarain would actually go with both your opinion of the 7th and the 2nd ammendment.

Libretarians believe that principles matter and doing things the right way is important because if you do something the wrong way you leave yourself open to a lot of problems.

I agree that sticking to principles, especially the bright line principles that run throughout the Constitution, is extremely important.  These are the principles that should be "shackles" that we should never lose sight of.

But some principles change, and some principles should change.  That is just how a society works, which is one of the reasons there is a lot of wiggle room in some parts of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers were well aware that time changes a lot of things.  But we should stick to the principles that we can say there really was no question about when the Constitution was drafted based on what would have been within their contemplation at the time.

But in the 2nd amendment example it is unreasonable to construe that people's rights to own missles are protected by claiming that is what the Founding Fathers intended.  It just isn't what they intended because it is impossible for them to have intended that.  This is the kind of principle that we have to look at from a practical standpoint.

And the possession of automatic weapons is similarly something the Founding Fathers did not consider when they made the 2nd amendment.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there could be a way to justify the ownership of automatic weapons based on the Constitution, but is that what is best for society and can we reasonably say that the Founding Fathers had automatic weapons in mind even if they did say "arms"?

I guess I am trying to make a distinction between intention and principles, as both are pretty important when interpreting the Constitution.  And the Founding Fathers in a lot of ways did not want to hinder our growth as a society by creating a rigid document, so practicality should really come into play when discussing things in the Constitution that were not fleshed out on purpose or situations that have completely changed in a way the Founding Fathers could not have predicted since the drafting of the Constitution.

 

What happens when someone passes a law... and then an unintended consequences cause a problem?

Law makers change the law.

If you've got this problem with the consitution.  Which does include missles, automatic rifles etc.  Change the constitutions.

Until then any laws should be illegal that bar such things.

What they intended is what they meant at the time.  Not what they would think currently now.



akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:

What happens when someone passes a law... and then an unintended consequences cause a problem?

Law makers change the law.

If you've got this problem with the consitution.  Which does include missles, automatic rifles etc.  Change the constitutions.

Until then any laws should be illegal that bar such things.

What they intended is what they meant at the time.  Not what they would think currently now.

This is one of my points.  How can we reasonably say that arms then means what it does today?  To accurately interpret the Constitution you should use a 18th century dictionary and look at what arms would have included at that time.  You are saying that what they would currently think now doesn't matter but also saying that we should apply a modern definition of arms.

How can we be flexible about expanding the meaning of arms and inflexible about looking at what arms were at that time?  And it doesn't say we can't deprive them of a specific type of arms, it just says arms.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says people could not be deprived of cannons, just arms. 

And it doesn't just say arms, it says right "to bear arms."  Can you physically bear a cannon or a nuclear weapon?  What did they mean by "bear"?  Are we limited to things we can hold with our hands?

My whole point is that you can play with the language any way you want and get a ton of different meanings out of it, including modern meanings which are out-of-sync with the antiquated meaning.

In comparison, the 7th Amendment says "People" shall not be deprived of.  It doesn't make a distinction between foreign people or U.S. citizens, which the Founding Fathers easily could have done as foreign people have always been around.  People are people anyway you slice it.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

What happens when someone passes a law... and then an unintended consequences cause a problem?

Law makers change the law.

If you've got this problem with the consitution.  Which does include missles, automatic rifles etc.  Change the constitutions.

Until then any laws should be illegal that bar such things.

What they intended is what they meant at the time.  Not what they would think currently now.

This is one of my points.  How can we reasonably say that arms then means what it does today?  To accurately interpret the Constitution you should use a 18th century dictionary and look at what arms would have included at that time.  You are saying that what they would currently think now doesn't matter but also saying that we should apply a modern definition of arms.

How can we be flexible about expanding the meaning of arms and inflexible about looking at what arms were at that time?  And it doesn't say we can't deprive them of a specific type of arms, it just says arms.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says people could not be deprived of cannons, just arms. 

And it doesn't just say arms, it says right "to bear arms."  Can you physically bear a cannon or a nuclear weapon?  What did they mean by "bear"?  Are we limited to things we can hold with our hands?

My whole point is that you can play with the language any way you want and get a ton of different meanings out of it, including modern meanings which are out-of-sync with the antiquated meaning.

In comparison, the 7th Amendment says "People" shall not be deprived of.  It doesn't make a distinction between foreign people or U.S. citizens, which the Founding Fathers easily could have done as foreign people have always been around.  People are people anyway you slice it.

Arms at that time were weapons.

The definition of arms didn't change.  Just more forms of weapons were invented.

As for the "what we can hold in are arms" arguement.

Well the easy way to judge that would be to see if Canons counted in the "right to bear arms" which i believe they did.

 



BenKenobi88 on 17 October 2008

I'm coming into this thread without reading hardly any posts, but how exactly is taxes from the Democratic party something new? This is something everyone should expect from a Democrat.

And I don't really care. If you make less than a quarter million dollars a year (which I assume that's everyone here), you'll get a tax cut from Obama...apparently more than you'll get from McCain actually.

So...I don't get it.  Anyway, one of the biggest reasons I'm voting for Obama is McCain is ten times worse.



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

What happens when someone passes a law... and then an unintended consequences cause a problem?

Law makers change the law.

If you've got this problem with the consitution.  Which does include missles, automatic rifles etc.  Change the constitutions.

Until then any laws should be illegal that bar such things.

What they intended is what they meant at the time.  Not what they would think currently now.

This is one of my points.  How can we reasonably say that arms then means what it does today?  To accurately interpret the Constitution you should use a 18th century dictionary and look at what arms would have included at that time.  You are saying that what they would currently think now doesn't matter but also saying that we should apply a modern definition of arms.

How can we be flexible about expanding the meaning of arms and inflexible about looking at what arms were at that time?  And it doesn't say we can't deprive them of a specific type of arms, it just says arms.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says people could not be deprived of cannons, just arms. 

And it doesn't just say arms, it says right "to bear arms."  Can you physically bear a cannon or a nuclear weapon?  What did they mean by "bear"?  Are we limited to things we can hold with our hands?

My whole point is that you can play with the language any way you want and get a ton of different meanings out of it, including modern meanings which are out-of-sync with the antiquated meaning.

In comparison, the 7th Amendment says "People" shall not be deprived of.  It doesn't make a distinction between foreign people or U.S. citizens, which the Founding Fathers easily could have done as foreign people have always been around.  People are people anyway you slice it.

Arms at that time were weapons.

The definition of arms didn't change.  Just more forms of weapons were invented.

As for the "what we can hold in are arms" arguement.

Well the easy way to judge that would be to see if Canons counted in the "right to bear arms" which i believe they did.

 

7th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This bolded section would actually make it unconstitutional to try any kind of personnel in the air force under military law without a separate Grand Jury as it specifically mentions land and naval forces, but not air forces.  Is it unconstitutional to try air force personnel for violations of military law without an indictment by a Grand Jury, even during war time?

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson