DaVinci

Fibrosarcoma will never have rights.

People like to discuss things. I have changed my mind on a few issues based on logical dialog. But thats the key LOGIC, not emotion and not personal attacks. But look at the Fact vs feeling thread. Many (Most?) do not bother to look at the data and just make a gut choice. TK has done this in that he supports Assange releasing data, but thinks the Presidents BC should be private. I see no logic in that position.

Still Chicago has had a "Chicago Democrat" in the mayors office since 1931. The City has high crime, bad public schools 600m + deficit and another 600m in obligations..... Yet they voted Dem again. I would think that if I had tried "X" for 80 years and I didn't like where I was... that I would try "Y". Why do you think Emanual won?

Not really good news. Should they be allowed to surrender? Sure... Right up to the point that they kill a hostage. Let them know that there is only one path for them to survive and if they take that path they WILL survive. If we adopt a "kill em all" mentality, then they will kill the hostages. If we allow them the one avenue of survival... They will take that path. Hijack a boat = Go to jail. Kill a hostage = Die

No honest citizen needs a baseball bat! Only professional baseball players should be allowed to have baseball bats.

Talking about the NOW while ignoring the past is foolish. The Unions artificially inflated wages WAY past what the market would bear. This is one of the reason this problem exists. If they had not been so greedy up to this point, this point may never have been reached.

No we want him to stand and face his actions. I fail to see the problem with seeing the President's BC when questions have been brought up about the legality of it. What HARM could it be??? You claim to want transparency... Why the sudden issue with transparency when it comes to the BC issue? She has as much a right to run ans anyone else... Say a community organizer with ties to black supremacists????

Could you answer the question I asked? Do you think that Washington had that right? Do you think the South had the right? Please, I asked a simple question and you said that as long as we stayed polite you would try and answer simple questions.

One would think that considering how bad it is in Chicago. Yet Chicago has had a Democrat in office since 1931.... You would think more of the same would be a bad choice. Another guy elected on star power.

Could you answer the question I asked? Do you think they didn't have the right to fight for what they believe in? To answer your question.... I don't know. But I think an individual has the right.

You ignored that Reagan did things that you claim to support, yet bash him.

I bet you really do not know what is considered a "Gun show loophole" The anti gun forces are not logical... they think banning an item will somehow prevent a crime. And they are as single minded as you claim pro gunners are. Pro gunners at least have some data to back their position... anti's.... Well, you didn't both to read the OP's link did you? No it is not. It is the ability to read and understand the written word. It is the ability to know history and put the quote in historical context. It is the ability to read the other quotes from the writers and signers of the BoR. I have asked before, and you never bothered to answer... Can you show me ONE quote from a Founding Father that stated individuals should NOT have weapons?

1. Because what he HAS said he wants to do has been shown not to work and tramples on citizens rights. YET, he got up in arms about his toy rockets being controlled. 2. Because his positions are the same as the Anti-gun positions but stops just short of a full ban.

then you are not really a libertarian. "Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom." "The Libertarian Party supports legalization and elimination of government control over drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, opposes censorship, and supports right to keep and bear arms." You may CALL yourself a Libertarian, but that does not mean you are one.

Funny considering how you seem to love everything he did.... Except that he did it. "he had legalized abortion in California as governor" "Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year" "Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency " Lets not even get started on Kennedy: 1. Bay of Pigs is an awful lot alike Saddam in Iraq. 2. Banned travel to Cuba. 3 "Alliance for Progress" seems a lot like Iran Contra 4. He CUT taxes, "He proposed substantial tax reform and reduction, in income tax rates, from the current range of 20-90% to a range of 14-65%; he proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rates from 52 to 47%" 5. Kennedy presided over the first government budget to top the $100 billion mark 6. His first budget in 1961 led to the country's first non-war, non-recession deficit So Kennedy was a hawk, who CUT taxes, limited freedom, and ran a deficit. You bash Reagan, but love Kennedy?????

So??? You think they didn't have the right to fight for what they believe in?

1. Assange is not an American citizen. So I doubt he has the *same* rights. 2. Just because people say stupid things does not make their opinion true.

And so do country's with rules that you suggest. Following down a path that has been proven not to work is silly. A bumper sticker slogan used by people who refuse to see one inch past the slogan to the truth. Yes, if you could wave a magic wand and remove ALL firearms there would be no firearm violence. But it would be foolish to think that would remove violence... All you would do is allow the weak to be controlled by the strong, the old controlled by the young. Translation: I can't without looking silly, so I will not bother. And I agree... Last resort. But that does not mean it should be removed. Worked in 1776, exercised in 1861.

It is also hypocritical to claim that one Amendment applies to every individual and their right to do something (free speech), yet claim another does not apply to every individual and allow them to own something (own a gun). Never mind that both are pretty darn clear. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 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. You keep acting in every way that "the people" only applies in the 1st Amendment, and that it does not apply in the 2nd. And you STILL refuse to answer the simple question. What process did the Founding Fathers put into place to ensure that this government would never be in a position of tyranny over its citizens? I'll even give you a hint.... The first has something to do with voting, the second involves 9 judges, the third goes bang. Except where it relates to the 2nd. Yet you ignore that the same SC that has ruled that individuals are allowed arms for their own protection.

Morons.... 1. Trying to ban a device for the actions of a person. 2. Trying to ban a device based on what it looks like. Wanna really reduce gun crime? Work on reducing criminals.

And you only understand part of it... Funny huh?

The point is you selectively hold fast to some parts and play loose with others. You have no consistency. You are upset that that some "trash" one amendment, while at the same time you "trash" another. The argument I made was pretty easy to understand, you just choose not to try since you know you are unable without being seen as a hypocrite. My point about you wanting to go after OBJECTS and not ACTIONS was especially easy to understand.... Your refusal to even try just shows how weak your position is. My point that almost every Amendment in the Constitution was added to GRANT, not STRIP rights was so simple a 5 year old could grasp the concept. And this question was so simple it is on grade school tests, "And what did they put into place to assure that the Govt didn't run amok? ALL methods, not just the 1st few. " You have the right to refrain from answering.... But don't try to act like the question was not easily understood by an adult.

No one says that. All they say is that it is better to be armed than unarmed when facing an armed attacker. No one has ever made the claim they are "untouchable"

And your solution is to trash the Amendment you do not like to put into place a solution that has been proven not to work. Funny thing is you take the EXACT opposite position on every other Amendment. So you clearly have a double standard. You are willing to fight for only the Amendments you approve of..... Hey, I support the right of Assange to publish. I also think that if what he was done was illegal, that he has to face that honestly. Just because you have a right, does not mean you can do whatever you want in its name..... Just like if some moron wants to shoot someone its not legal. Nope but in that case you are against the ACTIONS, not the OBJECT. When it comes to guns you want to regulate the OBJECT. That would be like banning the internet to prevent some moron for calling for the assassination. Ban/regulate the actions, not the objects. Especially when those actions trample on innocent citizens rights. Not a difficult concept really. And have you noticed that the majority of Amendments have been to GRANT, not STRIP rights? I find this very funny. You claim that those that make statements against Obama "Not a tea party thing at all, but words spoken by a few people I met a couple years ago around here. They have a right to say it, but I have a problem with it and it is also basically wrong. BUT they have the right to say it...." Have the right to say those things.... But an honest citizen does not have 2nd Amendment rights.... Again, you show 100% support of the 1st EVEN WHEN YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. But you are quick to step on the 2nd whenever you please. Hypocrisy score is off the chart. And what did they put into place to assure that the Govt didn't run amok? ALL methods, not just the 1st few. Yes, you support the right for people to put a warrant out for Bush.... Do you supports others the right to put a warrant out for Assange?

I guess him making money is a bad thing. Your Bush hatred is strong.