Man, I hate Liberals

[tuoder]

Please. Explain.

Well, I'll start with a quote, so we're sure we're on the same page as to the wording.

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.

This, by my reading, protects and individual right to keep and carry guns, knives, swords, or whatever weapons are available. It also provides one rationale for the protection of this right, the formation of militia. Others include an intrinsic right to self-defense, and defense of one's loved ones and property. These are natural rights not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, that nonetheless exist.

The government is also empowered to do this:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

in order to do this:

insure domestic Tranquility,

So, in cases where the government can prove an overwhelming interest in regulating interstate commerce in a way that ensures domestic tranquility, it can make sure that people buying machine guns aren't violent felons.

 

[tuoder]

So, how does your definition of infringe differ from this one:
"encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way"
And, how do you translate "shall not be" in relation to infringe in the definition above?

Are the people not able to keep and bear arms?

See below:


So who can have those big scary weapons?
The government right? Not the people, of course not.

I don't think it's particularly controversial to assert that nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of rich individuals. I think you'd agree. Where do you draw the line between weapons anyone ought to be able to get, and ones that should be restricted, and those which should be illegal?

 

[SavageEagle]

So someone who is 30 years old that committed armed robbery at 18 has a life that's less valuable that someone who did not do that? That person now has no right to defend themselves with a firearm, right? Even though they completely reformed, have a family, etc?

That person no longer has the right to defend the Country and the State either?

 

[SavageEagle]

Are the people not able to keep and bear arms?



I don't think it's particularly controversial to assert that nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of rich individuals. I think you'd agree. Where do you draw the line between weapons anyone ought to be able to get, and ones that should be restricted, and those which should be illegal?

There is no line. There should never have been a line. Period.

 

[hornadylnl]

dburkhead,

Still wonder why I'm going Galt?

First of all, I don't believe Tuoder is a troll and is here for real discussion. I just don't think we'll ever change his mind. Unfortunately he isn't in a minority in his beliefs. A very large percentage of the population believes as he does. How else would Obama get elected. You can't reason with this kind of thinking.

Who is John Galt?

 

[tuoder]

So someone who is 30 years old that committed armed robbery at 18 has a life that's less valuable that someone who did not do that? That person now has no right to defend themselves with a firearm, right? Even though they completely reformed, have a family, etc?

That person no longer has the right to defend the Country and the State either?

As it stands now, records can be expunged on request of the the reformed person, restoring one's rights, which were abridged through due process of law. It's a bit legally complex, and it should be simpler, but the process already exists.

There is no line. There should never have been a line. Period.

Really? You support an individual right to thermonuclear weapons?

 

[SavageEagle]

As it stands now, records can be expunged on request of the the reformed person, restoring one's rights, which were abridged through due process of law. It's a bit legally complex, and it should be simpler, but the process already exists.

Really? You support an individual right to thermonuclear weapons?

The process is not complex. It's very simple. You either get pardoned or you don't. The expungement process is only for juveniles who are about to turn 18. Adults do not have this process. Only being pardoned can they clear their record and that is totally up to the governor or the President. Good luck with that.

The question still remains. Do you believe this person no longer has a right to have a full- auto rifle for the defense of themselves and the state?

We are ALL the militia. All those from 17-45. So even by your thinking, all those 17-45 should be required to own a rifle and know how to use it.

As for your last question.... Yes I do. What happens when that private individual is a science genius and learns how to turn that thermonuclear device into the next space ship? But that cannot currently happen unless that person has 10 Master's Degrees in nuclear science and works for the government. Private individuals do not have that chance if they can't afford schooling.

Your whole thought process on this is the very thinking we are all fighting against. Your way of thinking is to be able to place restrictions YOU think are fair on everyone else regardless what others feel. That's what the government is doing and is doing by the force of their gun.

 

[Eddie]

As it stands now, records can be expunged on request of the the reformed person, restoring one's rights, which were abridged through due process of law. It's a bit legally complex, and it should be simpler, but the process already exists.



Really? You support an individual right to thermonuclear weapons?

How is the group any more deserving than the individual? You support the right of the group to take away my property and redistribute it within the group.

"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."

Disarming the people is the first step towards doing away with a free state. Disarming by slowly infringing away at our rights makes it easier because people like you don't see it coming. Sure, let's regulate, let's tax, require a license, let's prohibit the most dangerous weapons. We'll let the police and the soldiers have the good stuff. After all, they are the ones that, as you pointed out above, are going to come and take my stuff away and give it to poor people so that they will have the opportunity to better themselves. You need to read back over your position and look at what you have written. It reads like propaganda for the Brady Campaign.

 

[rvb]

re. child deductions: I claim my kid, not because I need the "assistance" or feel others should support my family's expenses, but because enough of MY "wealth" (humble as it is) gets spread around already, so I will hang on to whatever I can legally. That's not being liberal.

re. welfare programs. I totally empathize with those who truely need assistance. I think many welfare programs are good ideas conceptually. I feel every STATE should be able to decide what social programs they want to provide their citizens. The Federal gov't has NO business in that process. If you want welfare/unemployment/child-subsidies/school funding/etc, those decisions should be made at local and state level.

Charity is not charity if it's compelled by force of law and the threat of imprisonment.

-rvb

 

[jsgolfman]

You are either accidentally or deliberately obtuse, either way, it's annoying.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Your argument fails in that the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the preamble has no force of law. Therefore "ensure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general walfare" as written in the Constitution have absolutely no legal meaning and confer no right or obligation to the Federal Government.

Well, I'll start with a quote, so we're sure we're on the same page as to the wording.



This, by my reading, protects and individual right to keep and carry guns, knives, swords, or whatever weapons are available. It also provides one rationale for the protection of this right, the formation of militia. Others include an intrinsic right to self-defense, and defense of one's loved ones and property. These are natural rights not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, that nonetheless exist.

The government is also empowered to do this:



in order to do this:



So, in cases where the government can prove an overwhelming interest in regulating interstate commerce in a way that ensures domestic tranquility, it can make sure that people buying machine guns aren't violent felons.

 

[tuoder]

dburkhead,

Still wonder why I'm going Galt?

First of all, I don't believe Tuoder is a troll and is here for real discussion. I just don't think we'll ever change his mind. Unfortunately he isn't in a minority in his beliefs. A very large percentage of the population believes as he does. How else would Obama get elected. You can't reason with this kind of thinking.

Who is John Galt?

I change my mind in the face of compelling arguments. I've changed my mind and revised my opinions before, based on new evidence.

 

[38special]

The private sector rewards the greedy--those who believe that never have had any help, and so feel no need to help anyone.

Where is your basis for this?

Private sector rewards hard working folks. My owns a company and so do I. We both work our butts off. 15 years ago my family was below the poverty level and we worked like crap, and didn't take government handouts to do it.

Don't you sit there on your high horse and say we're greedy. We're well off now and highly taxed to pay for people too freaking lazy to do what we did.

We both give a lot back to the community, at our own discretion. I don't need the government to tell me how to spend the money I earned by working my butt off.

Government waste is a real concern, of course, but again that's not really a case against them, unless you can prove that most of the intended money doesn't get where it ought to be going, or that others could do a better job.

Really? That hasn't become eternally obvious already?

Holy crap - there are BILLIONS unaccounted for in the recent TARP bailout alone! That's just in the last year.

The rich have an obligation, not to just the poor, but society. It's quite greedy and selfish to think one never had any help in making their millions. How rich would Bill Gates be if he were born in Russia, or Uganda? There are real opportunities that exist here that don't exist almost anywhere else, and there is no country that both has these opportunities, and asks so little in return to maintain the opportunity for others to do the same.

Again - where in the Constitution does it say the rich have this obligation to society?

Bill Gates is a terrible example. He gives FAR more of his own money to charity than the government takes. And the "rich" being taxed here aren't always millionaires. My dad is not a millionaire, but pays exorbitant amounts in taxes.

I argue that government help does NOT *maintain* the opportunity for people to succeed in the United States. My dad and I both built our companies, having been under the veritable poverty line, without ANY government help. The opportunity is there in America without the government sticking their noses into it.

I don't think most people are under this impression. I'm sure some are, but I am not.

Did you watch the coverage of the last election? This is *exactly* the mindset people are in.

YouTube - Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

That's just one example I found in 30 seconds.

This is flawed logic. Government money does not make someone successful. More often than not, people get an entitlement mentality and become dependant, rather than work to better themselves.

Don't get me wrong - charity is good. Helping poor people is good. The government is NOT the way to do this. Forced taxation for redistribution of wealth is NOT the way to do this.

Yes. A significant portion of those who don't have, steal. You can keep half a dozen people on welfare for what it costs to imprison one. Of course, that will never work out if you don't also attempt to make sure people are attempting to improve their situation, and that it is hard to live on welfare, among other things.

Where, exactly is the evidence that government welfare prevent stealing?

 

[tuoder]

The process is not complex. It's very simple. You either get pardoned or you don't. The expungement process is only for juveniles who are about to turn 18. Adults do not have this process. Only being pardoned can they clear their record and that is totally up to the governor or the President. Good luck with that.

There is a process for expungement for adults.

The question still remains. Do you believe this person no longer has a right to have a full- auto rifle for the defense of themselves and the state?

A person has a right to a fully automatic firearm for the defense of themselves or the state, or for the overthrow of the government. I think the law is a bit too restrictive there. The government has an overwhelming interest in making sure that these weapons are not found in the hands of convicted felons.

We are ALL the militia. All those from 17-45. So even by your thinking, all those 17-45 should be required to own a rifle and know how to use it.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to those in the militia. That's just a poor comprehension of the second amendment on the part of those who think so.

As for your last question.... Yes I do. What happens when that private individual is a science genius and learns how to turn that thermonuclear device into the next space ship? But that cannot currently happen unless that person has 10 Master's Degrees in nuclear science and works for the government. Private individuals do not have that chance if they can't afford schooling.

I've got no problem with private, peaceful, research, I have a problem with allowing criminals and the mentally ill posses weapons of mass destruction.

Your whole thought process on this is the very thinking we are all fighting against. Your way of thinking is to be able to place restrictions YOU think are fair on everyone else regardless what others feel. That's what the government is doing and is doing by the force of their gun.

I'm eager to build a consensus and compromise, and I think it's imperative that these regulations should be as small as possible, and prohibit no legitimate use. But I also think it's become necessary to prevent crazy people from having easy access to machine guns, while letting normal and sane people do so with as little encumbrance as possible.

How is the group any more deserving than the individual? You support the right of the group to take away my property and redistribute it within the group.

The rights of the individual do not extend into other people. If someone decides to rob a bank at gunpoint, their right can be abridged, through due process of law, in the interest of the safety of others. If they can prove they've reformed, it can be restated.

"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."

Disarming the people is the first step towards doing away with a free state. Disarming by slowly infringing away at our rights makes it easier because people like you don't see it coming. Sure, let's regulate, let's tax, require a license, let's prohibit the most dangerous weapons. We'll let the police and the soldiers have the good stuff. After all, they are the ones that, as you pointed out above, are going to come and take my stuff away and give it to poor people so that they will have the opportunity to better themselves. You need to read back over your position and look at what you have written. It reads like propaganda for the Brady Campaign.

I've read the second amendment. I quoted it in my first post.

Can you prove that there is a conspiracy to end our free state?

Can you find where I said the things that you assert that I said?

The Brady Campaign would not be happy with me at all. They want more regulation. I want less. I just don't want none.

re. child deductions: I claim my kid, not because I need the "assistance" or feel others should support my family's expenses, but because enough of MY "wealth" (humble as it is) gets spread around already, so I will hang on to whatever I can legally. That's not being liberal.

re. welfare programs. I totally empathize with those who truely need assistance. I think many welfare programs are good ideas conceptually. I feel every STATE should be able to decide what social programs they want to provide their citizens. The Federal gov't has NO business in that process. If you want welfare/unemployment/child-subsidies/school funding/etc, those decisions should be made at local and state level.

Charity is not charity if it's compelled by force of law and the threat of imprisonment.

-rvb

I think basically the issue here is that the federal governemnt is far more able to collect taxes than the states, and as they say, the one who pays the piper picks the tune. In Germany, their constitution is modelled after ours, and they corrected this problem by mandating that the federal government only receive 40% of the tax revenue, the Lander (more like a province than a state) get 40%, and the municipalities get 20%. In this way, even if you get a nut running the federal government, the whole country won't fall apart.

You are either accidentally or deliberately obtuse, either way, it's annoying.

Hulu - Family Guy: Being Obtuse

Your argument fails in that the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the preamble has no force of law. Therefore "ensure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general walfare" as written in the Constitution have absolutely no legal meaning and confer no right or obligation to the Federal Government.

They're granted the power through the ability to regulate interstate commerce. The preamble is just the mission statement of the document. "General Welfare" is foudn twice in the constitution. It requires that the government spend money for the public good. I'm making a case that helping people get back on their feet after a tragedy or a big screwup is in the public good.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yes. A significant portion of those who don't have, steal. You can keep half a dozen people on welfare for what it costs to imprison one. Of course, that will never work out if you don't also attempt to make sure people are attempting to improve their situation, and that it is hard to live on welfare, among other things.

I am not rich, but I don't have to work very hard because of the hard work I've done throughout my career, my investments, and God's blessing. I live a very comfortable lifestyle. I buy what I want when I want. I am in the 36% tax bracket.

I give away about half of what I make in both charitable and non-charitable giving. I give to my church, other non-profit organizations, family, friends, and people in my community in need. I also send cash sometimes to people that I read about have hit extreme circumstances.

Since you promote confiscating my resources and would decide how and to whom my money should be redistributed, I'm interested to know if your deeds match your words or you are a typical liberal who believes in charity as long as it is with someone else's money.

I don't mean to be disrespectful or disparaging. I am just interested if you talk the talk or walk your talk.

 

[Eddie]

There is a process for expungement for adults.

Please, explain this process for us.



A person has a right to a fully automatic firearm for the defense of themselves or the state, or for the overthrow of the government. I think the law is a bit too restrictive there. The government has an overwhelming interest in making sure that these weapons are not found in the hands of convicted felons.



I don't subscribe to the theory that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to those in the militia. That's just a poor comprehension of the second amendment on the part of those who think so.



I've got no problem with private, peaceful, research, I have a problem with allowing criminals and the mentally ill posses weapons of mass destruction.



I'm eager to build a consensus and compromise, and I think it's imperative that these regulations should be as small as possible, and prohibit no legitimate use. But I also think it's become necessary to prevent crazy people from having easy access to machine guns, while letting normal and sane people do so with as little encumbrance as possible.



The rights of the individual do not extend into other people. If someone decides to rob a bank at gunpoint, their right can be abridged, through due process of law, in the interest of the safety of others. If they can prove they've reformed, it can be restated.

This has no relation at all to my comment. You support the ability of the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms while at the same time you support the ability of the federal government to tax me and use the tax money to provide charity.




I've read the second amendment. I quoted it in my first post.

Can you prove that there is a conspiracy to end our free state?

It is not so much of a conspiracy as a social movement made up of people who think like you do.

Can you find where I said the things that you assert that I said?

Yes. It is in this thread.

The Brady Campaign would not be happy with me at all. They want more regulation. I want less. I just don't want none.



I think basically the issue here is that the federal governemnt is far more able to collect taxes than the states, and as they say, the one who pays the piper picks the tune. In Germany, their constitution is modelled after ours, and they corrected this problem by mandating that the federal government only receive 40% of the tax revenue, the Lander (more like a province than a state) get 40%, and the municipalities get 20%. In this way, even if you get a nut running the federal government, the whole country won't fall apart.



Hulu - Family Guy: Being Obtuse



They're granted the power through the ability to regulate interstate commerce. The preamble is just the mission statement of the document. "General Welfare" is foudn twice in the constitution. It requires that the government spend money for the public good. I'm making a case that helping people get back on their feet after a tragedy or a big screwup is in the public good.

.

 

[tuoder]

Where is your basis for this?

Private sector rewards hard working folks. My owns a company and so do I. We both work our butts off. 15 years ago my family was below the poverty level and we worked like crap, and didn't take government handouts to do it.

I was talking about dealing with charity on a strictly voluntary basis. Some people think they never got any help from anyone, so they don't contribute.

Don't you sit there on your high horse and say we're greedy. We're well off now and highly taxed to pay for people too freaking lazy to do what we did.

I seriously doubt that you are greedy. I'm sure you're quite charitable. I don't really know you, but most people are.

We both give a lot back to the community, at our own discretion. I don't need the government to tell me how to spend the money I earned by working my butt off.

Were you never helped by the state in the form of police or military? Do you not benefit from there being clean streets and public schools?

Really? That hasn't become eternally obvious already?

Holy crap - there are BILLIONS unaccounted for in the recent TARP bailout alone! That's just in the last year.

I agree that the government should be held to account for how it spends. I think the Fed needs auditing. That isn't the same as saying that it is wholly and completely incapable of spending money in the interest of society. That's very different.

Again - where in the Constitution does it say the rich have this obligation to society?

It doesn't.

Bill Gates is a terrible example. He gives FAR more of his own money to charity than the government takes. And the "rich" being taxed here aren't always millionaires. My dad is not a millionaire, but pays exorbitant amounts in taxes.

I'm aware of his charitable activities. They are very good. But he can't solve these problems alone. He'll be the first to tell you there's a rold for NGOs and governments to play.

I argue that government help does NOT *maintain* the opportunity for people to succeed in the United States. My dad and I both built our companies, having been under the veritable poverty line, without ANY government help. The opportunity is there in America without the government sticking their noses into it.

That's very good, and I applaud you for it. We don't all have the same opportunities in life.

Did you watch the coverage of the last election? This is *exactly* the mindset people are in.

YouTube - Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

That's just one example I found in 30 seconds.

I'm aware of imbeciles. Don't let them ruin it for everyone. These people are by no means the rule.

This is flawed logic. Government money does not make someone successful. More often than not, people get an entitlement mentality and become dependant, rather than work to better themselves.

It depends on how the money is spent. If you tell someone they'll get a check for doing nothing, then yes they will become hopelessly dependent. If you give them a check that depends on either searching for a job or building new skills that will help them get a job, then there is an opportunity for success that may not have otherwise existed.

Don't get me wrong - charity is good. Helping poor people is good. The government is NOT the way to do this. Forced taxation for redistribution of wealth is NOT the way to do this.

The government is one legitimate method of doing this, among many.

Where, exactly is the evidence that government welfare prevent stealing?

Oh come now. In every state, you get 2 years of unemployment for life, you have to prove you are looking for a job, and you have to keep the job for a set period of time before you can go back on the dole. In some states they drug test you. People are busted for fraud all of the time.

 

[rvb]

re. welfare programs. I totally empathize with those who truely need assistance. I think many welfare programs are good ideas conceptually. I feel every STATE should be able to decide what social programs they want to provide their citizens. The Federal gov't has NO business in that process. If you want welfare/unemployment/child-subsidies/school funding/etc, those decisions should be made at local and state level.
-rvb

I think basically the issue here is that the federal governemnt is far more able to collect taxes than the states

? Really ? The state seems to do just as good a job collecting taxes as the feds. Both take $ out of my pay? Both have me complete returns every year.

I'd be much more supportive of state-run programs. Those powers are not enumerated to the Fed, therefore they are held by the states. Crank down what I pay in fed taxes, crank up what I pay in state taxes, shift the responsibility to the states, and it becomes a valid system. If a people don't like the system they live under, it becomes easier to vote the bums out. If that fails, a person can move.

It's a cool concept. I didn't like many laws in MD. I was very active at the state house on key topics, even testifying in comittee hearings. Burned a lot of vacation time and a lot of evenings, etc. Change was not successful, so I moved to IN. I found a place that more aligned with my ideology. The more power the fed grabs, the more everyplace looks the same, and the less the states and their governments matter.

-rvb

 

[tuoder]

I am not rich, but I don't have to work very hard because of the hard work I've done throughout my career, my investments, and God's blessing. I live a very comfortable lifestyle. I buy what I want when I want. I am in the 36% tax bracket.

I give away about half of what I make in both charitable and non-charitable giving. I give to my church, other non-profit organizations, family, friends, and people in my community in need. I also send cash sometimes to people that I read about have hit extreme circumstances.

Since you promote confiscating my resources and would decide how and to whom my money should be redistributed, I'm interested to know if your deeds match your words or you are a typical liberal who believes in charity as long as it is with someone else's money.

I don't mean to be disrespectful or disparaging. I am just interested if you talk the talk or walk your talk.

I pay my taxes and make donations as well. I don't pay much in the way of taxes--only a few hundred dollars in income taxes and several hundred more through other taxes, as I don't make much working part time as a college student (~$12,500/year). Neither do I draw from any welfare programs, although I'd be willing to bet that I qualify, I haven't checked. I don't need it. I have a few things I could sell first. I am assisted through the use of college loans. My parents loaned me what they could, but it isn't enough.

Please, explain this process for us.

You file a petition to the court.

This has no relation at all to my comment. You support the ability of the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms while at the same time you support the ability of the federal government to tax me and use the tax money to provide charity.

I was responding to someone who said that the government had no right in infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms at all. I must have become disorganized.

It is not so much of a conspiracy as a social movement made up of people who think like you do.

Most liberals find themselves disagreeing with me pretty wholeheartedly. They are hardly a homogeneous group. They do not wish to institute TEOTAWAKI. They simply see ways to make the world more fair.

Yes. It is in this thread.

It didn't happen, unless this is more of the disorganization happening.

 

[tuoder]

? Really ? The state seems to do just as good a job collecting taxes as the feds. Both take $ out of my pay? Both have me complete returns every year.

Yes, but the federal government taxes far more.

I'd be much more supportive of state-run programs. Those powers are not enumerated to the Fed, therefore they are held by the states. Crank down what I pay in fed taxes, crank up what I pay in state taxes, shift the responsibility to the states, and it becomes a valid system. If a people don't like the system they live under, it becomes easier to vote the bums out. If that fails, a person can move.

It's a cool concept. I didn't like many laws in MD. I was very active at the state house on key topics, even testifying in comittee hearings. Burned a lot of vacation time and a lot of evenings, etc. Change was not successful, so I moved to IN. I found a place that more aligned with my ideology. The more power the fed grabs, the more everyplace looks the same, and the less the states and their governments matter.

-rvb

I think we fundamentally agree.