algboy 0 #51 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteI find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home. It's the reverse of the NRA argument. They argue that if the government takes awaay my right to own an AK47, the door will be open to take away my hunting rifle and revolver. If that argument is valid (and I'm not saying it is) then the converse is valid where someone asks, "What level of weapons are allowed? If you allow an AK47, the next thing they'll allow are cannons, then nukes." It's the same argument. I don't agree with the argument but both sides use it. I don't see the problem at all. An AK-47 is roughly equivalent to what a modern militia member would carry to defend the country against tyranny or for self-defense. It doesn't logically lead to nukes or tanks. And leaving citizens only able to arm themselves with so-called hunting rifles and low capacity magazines is a de facto disarming of the populace. As I've had to explain to many people: the 2nd Amendment has ZERO--nada--no-thing to do with hunting. It--like the rest of the Bill Of Rights--is an individual right. It was enumerated as a defense against those forces that would deprive the people of their freedom/lives and it has never been more relevant than it is in these ugly, Consitution-gutting times.“Keep your elbow up!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
algboy 0 #52 October 9, 2008 Apparently, "W" doesn't think so. "Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, says he's talked to three people present last month [11/05] when Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush in the Oval Office to talk about renewing the Patriot Act. That act, passed by legislators who hadn't read it, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when most people were shell-shocked and lawmakers in particular disinclined to use their brains), has of course been criticized as containing unconstitutional elements. All three GOP politicians quote their president as saying: 'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!'" http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml Signing statements, executive orders, Wall Street bailouts not subject to judicial review? Maybe it IS just a goddamned piece of paper. “Keep your elbow up!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #53 October 9, 2008 Quote I used to have a geiger counter... I know a few places with "elevated" radiation levels I have one in my lab.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #54 October 9, 2008 Quote Meh, my AR is cooler then that.Tricked out M4s and 1911s go together like peanut butter banana sandwiches and Elvis!Seriously though. The Constitution as it stands is still valid for our society in this day and age; however, as previous mentioned in a different thread, case law has severely changed and limited what that document actually means. As it stands, the Constitution may not be suitable for society in another 200 years, but they will be able to change is as needed and allowed by the document (if that society is a continuous extension of our own). It's vague and antiquated. The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions. The 4th calls for protections against unreasonable search and siezure. We could find 50 different definitions of that in this forum alone. The 5th and 6th are constantly being revised and the 8th uses different methods constantly for capital punishment and incarceration conditions. The 14th, the hinge to all of it, it constantly being revisted for equal application of all the other others. The constitution is merely an obstacle anymore inmost cases, one that the gov shoves aside when they need to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #55 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI also don't think that they thought doctors killing babies should be a protected by the contitution. An hopefully after a few more justices get appointed, they can correct the decision of the Roe V Wade case. From the fabric of the original Constitution and its first 10 Amendments, I think it's apparent that the Framers recognized that there would be issues addressed in the future that either did not present themselves at the time of the drafting, or that were not considered, or even conceived of, by the Framers (those who drafted the original Constitution) at the time of the drafting. That's why the Framers made provisions for amendment, while at the same time making such amendment cumbersome. They also made clear that the Constitution was not the sole law of the land; there would be a Congress to enact specific laws; and a Supreme Court to interpret, in the full passage of time, both the Constitution itself and Congress's laws. I'm aware of no authority that supports a historical proposition that the Framers considered the issue of abortion, one way or the other, at the time the Constitution was debated, drafted or ratified. Then with that we would lose many other choices. Likely Obama will get elected and with a dem-run senate, 3 justices are looking to retire, so the odds are that the SCOTUS will go further left than the 7-2 R is it now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 October 9, 2008 Quote Quote which is reasonable but assault weapon bans and the high capacity magazine ban (CA) are not. Who decisdes what is reasonable if I want to make an A bomb "for my protection"? The ATF, give em a call and ask about it - let us know how it turns out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #57 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteI find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home. OK, How about a Bazooka or just some basic land mines, Not mass destruction, so they should be allowed? Max of .50 cal, other than muzzle loaders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #58 October 9, 2008 Quote Quote I used to have a geiger counter... I know a few places with "elevated" radiation levels I have one in my lab. I bought one at a garage sale for 10 bucks. I seem to have lost it. It's not a weapon and is totally legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #59 October 9, 2008 Quote I used to have a geiger counter... I know a few places with "elevated" radiation levels I might know a few of those myself. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #60 October 9, 2008 Quote Quote I used to have a geiger counter... I know a few places with "elevated" radiation levels I have one in my lab. You mean THIS one?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #61 October 9, 2008 >I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It allows states to elect a president. We are supposed to be a union of states, not a big federal empire. In a union of states, the people vote for their state leadership, and the state chooses federal leaders. In one homogenous federal government it would make more sense to have a popular vote. There's no question that the founders of the US intended the US to be a union of states, with most of the power reserved to the states as opposed to Washington, DC. If you want to change that, that's fine; try for an amendment. But it's not how the USA was originally intended to operate. >So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. >Why waste your time going to the polls? If you live in California and vote for Obama, your vote is wasted as well. It just plain doesn't matter who you vote for - Obama is going to get the electoral vote. The same is true of popular votes, though. If we had a vote tomorrow for president, and we switched to a popular vote, your vote would also be wasted, since the popular vote will not be all that close. (52 to 46% last I saw.) However, your single vote has more of a chance to affect the outcome of a state's electoral college than the outcome of a popular election. > I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count >nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't >agree with them. Again, your vote doesn't count whether you live in a state with a majority of people agree with you _or_ don't agree with you. The only time your vote counts in a state is if there is an exact tie within the state, and the only time your vote counts in a 100% popular election is if there is an exact tie within the entire US. You are MUCH more likely to see your vote count if we use the current electoral college. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #62 October 9, 2008 Quote http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18 OR then again... one of these might be nice http://www.ozarkguns.com/Armalite/armalitear50.htm I like this one better. http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspxI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 October 9, 2008 Quote The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions. might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf there was one thing people would want to change, it's the 2nd Amendment. I think that's not really supported by much other than the ramblings of some people on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think MOST people would like to see it left exactly the way it is including about half of the previously mentioned people. On the other hand, if you ask most people if they believe their vote should count directly for whoever they want in office, I'm nearly certain you'll find a majority of support for that. Then people need to read Art II, Section I again - it says that the STATES appoint electors - whether they do that by the votes of the citizens or flipping coins is up tho the States.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #65 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteI find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home. It's the reverse of the NRA argument. They argue that if the government takes awaay my right to own an AK47, the door will be open to take away my hunting rifle and revolver. If that argument is valid (and I'm not saying it is) then the converse is valid where someone asks, "What level of weapons are allowed? If you allow an AK47, the next thing they'll allow are cannons, then nukes." It's the same argument. I don't agree with the argument but both sides use it. The difference is that for those who want to ban all guns, they openly discuss this strategy. It's why the AW ban happened, it's why the .50s are being banned in many states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuotewhich is reasonable but assault weapon bans and the high capacity magazine ban (CA) are not. Who decisdes what is reasonable if I want to make an A bomb "for my protection"? you can't use an A bomb for your protection. The US can't use them either, but possessing them does confer protection via deterrence. But you owning one accomplishes nothing. More likely, it hurts your safety as you cannot protect it as effectively as the government can, and it represents an attractive theft item. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 October 9, 2008 Quote No shit, even Russia has a better system than we do, a simple majority. The part that sucks the most is that state electors don't have to go the way that their citizens vote, whcih could actually overturn an election. That is the least objectionable part of the EC. It's never happened, and it never will. Sure, electors have cast symbolic protest votes, but no Obama Elector is going to vote for McCain. He or she wouldn't have been selected if that were a remote possibility. They aren't picked like juries. They are selected by the candidates. Answering the question from others, and expanding on Bill's answer. The EC is no more fair or wasteful of your vote than the popular count would be. And the method has worked for over 200 years. This would be the if it's not broke, don't fuck with it rationale. I fear unintended consequences. Look what happens every time we screw with financial systems. People point to 2000 as proof it needs to go. However, the polling actually favored Bush before the election. I saw the opposite outcome as a possibility. But the game is to win 270 EVs. If it were popular vote, more voters in uncontested states would go to the polls. Bush would have actually campaigned in CA. Gore would have campaigned in Texas. In short, they would be playing an entirely different game, and you can't presume from the narrow Gore vote lead that it would have held in that other game. A popular vote approach marginalizes rural areas. Kallend has a non summarized math proof that tries to argue otherwise, but it doesn't change the reality. You reach a lot more voters in America with TV than in person. You don't have to visit the remote places anymore. And fraud in one state can make the difference, given incentive to cheat in the uncontested states where no one will scrutinize the difference between 55 and 60%. Even without fraud, Florida was incapable of doing a recount in 5 weeks. Normally a recount is done with leads less than 1%....what if the national total is that close? You could recount 120M votes 100 times and each result would have considerable variation. It's less of a concern with a state by state election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #68 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuote The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions. might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated. Have an argument, make one, I'm eagerly waiting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteSome would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal. I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It just plain sucks no matter what your political views are. Tell me any good reason that a president with the popular vote should not get into office because of a technicality. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to why anybody would defend the current system. So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. Why waste your time going to the polls? I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't agree with them. I'm sorry, I'm very passionate about protecting the second ammendment as are some that would like to destroy it, but are there really that many people out there that think the electoral college should be preserved? I *really* wish people would get off this whine - do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 October 9, 2008 Incorrect - the Amendment does not say "the right of the militia to bear arms".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #71 October 9, 2008 I try not to use words like, "never" or, "always" or other absolutes. I may use them, but I try not to as they don't taste good. Ever look up the appointment of Earl Warren by Eisenhower? Yea, he kinda flipped on him and got all liberal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #72 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf there was one thing people would want to change, it's the 2nd Amendment. I think that's not really supported by much other than the ramblings of some people on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think MOST people would like to see it left exactly the way it is including about half of the previously mentioned people. On the other hand, if you ask most people if they believe their vote should count directly for whoever they want in office, I'm nearly certain you'll find a majority of support for that. Then people need to read Art II, Section I again - it says that the STATES appoint electors - whether they do that by the votes of the citizens or flipping coins is up tho the States. Right. And there's no logical reason it can't be amended like a lot of other sections have been over time. That was the point of this thread.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 October 9, 2008 it's an absolute in this case. Elector has never flipped an election by jumping ship. meteors may also destroy the earth someday, but that doesn't make it high on the list of things to be concerned about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf there was one thing people would want to change, it's the 2nd Amendment. I think that's not really supported by much other than the ramblings of some people on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think MOST people would like to see it left exactly the way it is including about half of the previously mentioned people. On the other hand, if you ask most people if they believe their vote should count directly for whoever they want in office, I'm nearly certain you'll find a majority of support for that. Then people need to read Art II, Section I again - it says that the STATES appoint electors - whether they do that by the votes of the citizens or flipping coins is up tho the States. Right. And there's no logical reason it can't be amended like a lot of other sections have been over time. That was the point of this thread. I don't disagree, just pointing out that people need to know WHAT they're bitching about before they start.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions. might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated. Have an argument, make one, I'm eagerly waiting. A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat baked alaska shall not be infringed. Who gets the dessert - the chef or the customers?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
