DaVinci

You have a problem with the concepts she mentioned? You don't agree that hard work is more likely to do more for you than sitting around drinking and complaining about not having anything? I see a lot of Miniver Cheevy's around.

Or business is business and the Volt was forced onto the public and the public didn't want it. Since the public didn't want it, it didn't sell. Only an idiot would try to continue to sell a product the public does not want.

The simple fact is you either uphold rights, or you select which ones you like... Thus not really supporting rights at all. The US Constitution was put into place to protect the rights you don't like, not the ones you do like.

Fair enough, but the fact is that when you are willing to limit a right in one way that you would consider inappropriate for another right, that speaks more to your personal view of the validity of the right than the right itself. Yes, a gun at home or a car in the garage are both no danger to anyone. And we are free to test 'uropeans' when they want to visit the US.

Then those steps did not stop a criminal now did it? If he became a criminal after, then he became a criminal after.... And those steps didn't stop him and would not stop him.

Because some people clearly use what sound like reasonable requirements to flat out prevent ownership. Look at Chicago, their 28 year handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional. So Dailey made the requirements as difficult as he could (and in the process had to get another smackdown from the courts). " a five-hour class, written test, fingerprinting, three background checks, two visits to a Chicago Police Department records office on the Southwest Side, three trips to suburban gun shops, a dizzying stack of paperwork—not to mention weeks of waiting for the city to process and mail documents. All told, it took $265 (not including the $524 for the gun itself) and three months to go from gun virgin to gun owner." All of that just makes ownership difficult... Want to guess how many criminals will do any of that? "Only three days after the high court’s decision, Mayor Richard Daley pushed a set of new restrictions, which the City Council rush-approved the next day. The so-called Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance that went into effect on July 12 says that aside from the already mandatory Firearm Owners Identification Card ($10), wanna-be gun owners need to get a Chicago Firearms Permit ($100, renewed every three years) and register firearms with the police department ($15 per gun every three years)." So you have to pay 265 dollars to buy a gun, and 125 dollars every three years to keep it in Chicago. "The ordinance also mandates gun training, bans all gun sales in the city and describes how a gun must be “broken down” during transportation on, say, CTA buses and trains. At home, however, a gun owner is legally allowed to keep one firearm assembled and operable." So they let you buy a gun, just not in the city. They also required training, but you could not get training in the city either. All of the ideas seemed like a good idea.... But NONE of them will stop a criminal because a criminal will not do any of the steps.

Well, I think that Bush did order troops into Iraq. You can't see that as a good idea? But the main thing you missed (or ignored) was I was asking a question about if you would limit other rights with the same restrictions. Yet, there are no tests or registration to own a car.

If you think you should have to show ID to buy a gun or show ID to vote, why would showing an ID to say start a newspaper, or showing an ID to a cop when you are on the corner publicly speaking be such a crazy idea?

1. It was not a bullet proof vest. It was a tactical vest. I have several tactical vests. Some from my time in the military, some from a project I worked on after the military, some are prototypes for a new version of tactical vest. 2. Why? Well some need them for work, others need them for classes, some just like them. Some classes actually require you to have LIII body armor.

Where is the Dem budget? I tend to take his plan more seriously than a non-existent one.

This.

The problem is with Ryan's budget, not even whats in it, but the fact he actually has one. This gives the other side plenty of ammo to use against Romney/Ryan. Never mind that the left has not really put out a budget in three years.... People want to vote 'ideas' not data it seems. And ignoring a MAJOR problem. Makes me sick to my stomach.... I don't think Ryan is actually going to help. Rubio might have carried FL. The chances of a "R" victory is very slim given the electoral system. Liberal strong holds: 172 EC Likely Liberal: 99EC Conservative strong: 139 Likely: 42 So right there we have: 271 to 181.

True, but when you compare what he said to what Douglas said..... He is the more 'liberal' when it came to blacks. Then when you look at Grant and his signing of the 1871 Klan Act effectively killed the first iteration of the KKK. It is pretty easy to make the claim that the republicans were more supportive of blacks than the other political parties at the time. The second iteration of the KKK was started again by a book and play called 'The clansmen'. The writer, Thomas Dixon, Jr., said the purpose of his book was to "revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!" So given this, it would also be safe to say that democrats at the time were not the party that supported black rights.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who is not honest is a waste of time. He is not being honest, so it is a waste of my time. I do not have all day to spend on here and I have plenty of other activities in my life that are more enjoyable and more productive than trying to discuss a topic with a person like this. On another note.... I thought Mods were not supposed to play the player?

This.

Would you agree with this statement as well? "Personally I think something akin to a voters license for voting wouldn't be a bad idea. A license that's only given after a rigorous political training." The problem is that in both cases these requirements have been used to prevent honest people from exercising a right.

Yes, I have. It is not my fault you do not understand that a cop and a civilian are not the same thing.

3rd time I am asking..... Show me a quote from a founding father that limits an item, not an action.... Please show me where a Founding Father said that a citizen could not have a cannon?

Well, just admit you do not understand tactics and the difference between 'real' tactics and paintball tactics. I know what creating a scenario is... I also know you created one that makes no sense in the real world. Don't blame me that you do not understand something and made a bad scenario because of your ignorance.

Like I said.... If you are not going to at least be honest... Any further exchanges are just a waste of my time.

Whatever. If you are not going to be honest... There is no point in trying to discuss anything with you.

Huh, that is the same thing I thought about yours.

I support the SAME standard for identification for exercising rights granted in the Constitution. You can remove the right for ID to buy a gun, or require ID to vote and I would be fine with either (Personally, I think showing an ID for both is fine and a good idea). What I do not support is your double standard of requiring it for one and not the other.

So many problems with your argument: 1. Which Sabbath? Shabbat? First-day Sabbath? Seventh-Day Sabbath? 2. A Company does not make law. It is a company practice. 3. Being non-religious, I do not participate in a sabbath... Although I do recognize YOUR right to recognize one or participate in one.... Same as I recognize Chick-Fil-A's right to close on Sunday. But to answer your question..... I have worked most of my adult life at Companies that are open both Saturday and Sunday.