AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 35

post #1361 of 2499
3/5/12 at 4:30pm
Thread Starter 
"In 2010 -- the first full year since the end of the Great Recession -- virtually all of the income growth in America took place among the country's very wealthiest people, says an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. The top 1 percent of earners took in a full 93 percent of all the income gains that year, leaving the other 7 percent of gains to be sprinkled among the vast majority of society."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1321008.html

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1362 of 2499
3/6/12 at 1:41am
Ron Paul has made a serious misstep with regard to his stance on federal aid for disaster victims. I know we have a lot of anti-Federalists on this board. It is quite clear, however, that the whole idea behind the Union was that not only would the states have the opportunity to receive aid from the other states when they needed it, but that states would have an obligation to give aid to other states when the other states need it. That's beside the fact that he'll lose a lot of support from the people who interpret his remarks as being immorally selfish.
Reply
Reply
post #1363 of 2499
3/6/12 at 1:47am
Meanwhile, McCain shows us why we should thank God he wasn't elected. He would have attacked Syria long ago.
Reply
Reply
post #1364 of 2499
3/6/12 at 3:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Ron Paul has made a serious misstep with regard to his stance on federal aid for disaster victims. I know we have a lot of anti-Federalists on this board. It is quite clear, however, that the whole idea behind the Union was that not only would the states have the opportunity to receive aid from the other states when they needed it, but that states would have an obligation to give aid to other states when the other states need it. That's beside the fact that he'll lose a lot of support from the people who interpret his remarks as being immorally selfish.

You are selfish because you won't let me take your money when I want it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1365 of 2499
3/7/12 at 5:26am
Thread Starter 
"Younger women drivers will see the cost of their car insurance rise by hundreds of pounds when new European rules are introduced at the end of this year.

This latest ruling stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when setting insurance premiums, despite the fact that women drivers are less likely to have a crash and are involved in far less serious road accidents.

The Labour transport spokesman, John Woodcock, has called on the Government to take action to mitigate the worst effects of the new ruling. He said that on average women would end up paying an additional £362 a year for their insurance.

But this "average" masks the fact that younger drivers face far steeper increase. According to figures from the AA, women aged between 17 and 22 pay an average of £1,799 a year for car insurance, while men in this age group pay a staggering £3,163.

In order to "equalise" rates, women in this age group are likely to see far higher increases, as they will effectively have to pay premiums that reflect the risk of younger, more aggressive male drivers the so-called "boy racers"
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...EU-ruling.html

The reality is that a safe male driver shouldn't have to pay extra because of some show off who who doesn't care who he kills and neither should females.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1366 of 2499
3/7/12 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"Younger women drivers will see the cost of their car insurance rise by hundreds of pounds when new European rules are introduced at the end of this year.

This latest ruling stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when setting insurance premiums, despite the fact that women drivers are less likely to have a crash and are involved in far less serious road accidents.

The Labour transport spokesman, John Woodcock, has called on the Government to take action to mitigate the worst effects of the new ruling. He said that on average women would end up paying an additional £362 a year for their insurance.

But this "average" masks the fact that younger drivers face far steeper increase. According to figures from the AA, women aged between 17 and 22 pay an average of £1,799 a year for car insurance, while men in this age group pay a staggering £3,163.

In order to "equalise" rates, women in this age group are likely to see far higher increases, as they will effectively have to pay premiums that reflect the risk of younger, more aggressive male drivers the so-called "boy racers"
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...EU-ruling.html

The reality is that a safe male driver shouldn't have to pay extra because of some show off who who doesn't care who he kills and neither should females.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1367 of 2499
3/8/12 at 9:03am
Thread Starter 
Thankfully a far cry from Bush's Texas tough talk -

"Iran's top leader Thursday welcomed comments by President Barack Obama advocating diplomacy and not war as a solution to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, a rare positive signal in long-standing hostile transactions between Tehran and Washington.

The report on Iran's state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as praising a recent statement by the U.S. president saying he saw a "window of opportunity" to use diplomacy to resolve the nuclear dispute.

Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, told a group of clerics: "This expression is a good word. This is a wise remark indicating taking distance from illusion."

It is one of the rare cases in which Iran's top leader praised an American leader."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1330645.html

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1368 of 2499
3/8/12 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thankfully a far cry from Bush's Texas tough talk

Well what is "I don't bluff."?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1369 of 2499
3/8/12 at 9:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well what is "I don't bluff."?!

That's fair enough. He's making sure people know he means what he says. He's keeping the door firmly open to sanctions and diplomacy rather than war. Take a look at the repubs, except for Ron Paul, their itching for violent rhetoric.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1370 of 2499
3/8/12 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's fair enough. He's making sure people know he means what he says. He's keeping the door firmly open to sanctions and diplomacy rather than war.

So is Obama's "tough talk" (basically telling Iran to capitulate to US/Israeli demands "diplomatically" or face our wrath.) fundamentally different?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Take a look at the repubs, except for Ron Paul, their itching for violent rhetoric.

I know.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1371 of 2499
3/8/12 at 3:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So is Obama's "tough talk" (basically telling Iran to capitulate to US/Israeli demands "diplomatically" or face our wrath.) fundamentally different?

It is. It paves the way for dialogue and inspections that could well prove that there isn't even a reason to go to war with Iran, even in the Wests eyes. Personally, I think it's their right as a sovereign nation to defend themselves. It's beyond a joke that after devasting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that any of these neo cons believe they have a moral superiority argument. They've well and truly blown that one.

The best thing would be to lift all sanctions, let Iran look after themselves and start accepting the reality once and for all that only the US has ever used nukes. Realistically the US should be the country most feared, therefore realistically having sanctions imposed on it as the first priority. The US makes Iran look like angels.

Ron Paul unfortunately, is the only one who's right on this.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1372 of 2499
3/8/12 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It is. It paves the way for dialogue and inspections that could well prove that there isn't even a reason to go to war with Iran, even in the Wests eyes.

I disagree that Obama's tough talk is fundamentally different. It still amounts to a threat to capitulate to our "diplomatic" approach or face our wrath.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Personally, I think it's their right as a sovereign nation to defend themselves.

Absolutely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's beyond a joke that after devasting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that any of these neo cons believe they have a moral superiority argument. They've well and truly have blown that one.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The best thing would be to lift all sanctions, let Iran look after themselves and start accepting the reality once and for all that only the US has ever used nukes.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Ron Paul unfortunately, is the only one who's right on this.

Yep.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1373 of 2499
3/8/12 at 3:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I disagree that Obama's tough talk is fundamentally different. It still amounts to a threat to capitulate to our "diplomatic" approach or face our wrath.

It does seem to, but Obama hasn't said what he'd do, and I personally think he wouldn't invade or bomb Iran even if intelligence suggested that they had nukes. I think David Cameron just the other day said Iran is trying to build inter-continental nukes. As the US goes, Obama's showing a whole more diplomacy than is typical. But who know's, maybe he knows something we don't? Maybe Iran has already got nukes and he doesn't want to take any chances by invading?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #1374 of 2499
3/8/12 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It does seem to, but Obama hasn't said what he'd do, and I personally think he wouldn't invade or bomb Iran even if intelligence suggested that they had nukes. I think David Cameron just the other day said Iran is trying to build inter-continental nukes. As the US goes, Obama's showing a whole more diplomacy than is typical. But who know's, maybe he knows something we don't? Maybe Iran has already got nukes and he doesn't want to take any chances by invading?

Well the US doesn't even have to do anything directly. That much is clear. Obama knows this. If he doesn't want to get his hands dirty, he'll just let Israel do it "on their own." *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

They don't have nukes. At least not nuclear weapons.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1375 of 2499
3/8/12 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Well I guess everyone in Maryland is going to go out, buy a bunch of guns, and shoot each other now.

Clearly. Also, criminals will line up to return their weapons, because hey...it's just no fun with unarmed people anymore.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #1376 of 2499
3/8/12 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Clearly. Also, criminals will line up to return their weapons, because hey...it's just no fun with unarmed people anymore.

It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs? Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation. But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.

You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.
Reply
Reply
post #1377 of 2499
3/9/12 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs?

No idea. But what about weapons that are similar?

Quote:
Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation.

First, I don't know if that's actually true. But assuming it is for a moment, HOW did they "get removed from circulation?" It didn't happen because law-abiding citizens couldn't buy them anymore.

Quote:


But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.

Ahh, there it is...the ad hominem argument. Of course I have interest in a solution. The problem is two-fold:

1) We've already violated the 2nd Amendment with our restrictions on bearing arms. The amendment doesn't say the government can even regulate firearms. It says, "shall not infringe." Now clearly, that is written in context of forming a militia as needed at the time...but to pass more stringent laws like we're discussing, the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed/replaced. Good luck with that.

2) Passing those strict gun possession laws alone doesn't do anything to take them off the streets. It simply disarms law abiding citizens and presumably prevents straw purchases/thefts, etc. If you're going to really have tough laws, you have to prevent manufacture of the weapons. Again, good luck.

Quote:

You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.

I don't know much about that. Has crime decreased? What does "unregulated" mean and does that actually apply to what we have here?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #1378 of 2499
3/9/12 at 10:29pm
I disagree that the Second Amendment says what you think it says. So, apparently, does the Supreme Court, most of the time, and that's who I trust to make such decisions. However, it is clear that interpretation cannot solve the problem, which is why I support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and to clearly outline the government's power to restrict and regulate firearms.
Reply
Reply
post #1379 of 2499
3/10/12 at 6:23am
That would take us down a path that leads to horrific results.

"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation ... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions ... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."

-- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1380 of 2499
3/10/12 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs? Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation. But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.

You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.

How many crimes are committed today with AK's here in the United States? Probably next to zero. Carrying around something that dramatically calls attention to yourself and can't be hidden in any form or fashion isn't a way to be a smart criminal. You're knocking down a strawman. AK's aren't out of circulation by criminals due to laws against regular citizens. They aren't used because they are a stupid weapon to use to break into a house, mug someone, or for most other things and they also weigh 12 pounds loaded and with an extra clip which gives you less room to carry all the iPad's, iMac's and other assorted and expensive goodies the criminal is supposed to be carting off.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1381 of 2499
3/10/12 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and to clearly outline the government's power to restrict and regulate firearms.

Scary.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1382 of 2499
3/10/12 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Scary.

He doesn't want you to have a gun when he comes for your 12 year old daughter so he can dictate what happens to her body for the good of the herd.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1383 of 2499
3/10/12 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He doesn't want you to have a gun when he comes for your 12 year old daughter so he can dictate what happens to her body for the good of the herd.

Yeah, I know. Leftists are incredibly authoritarian and totalitarian. They appear to see this as the only path to achievement of their Utopian dreams.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1384 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Scary.

You're so unbelievably ignorant. Seriously.

Which of these places is the most dangerous in terms of violent crime:

USA
Britain
Canada
Australia

You honestly think the availability of firearms is not a factor in this?

Scary.

And ignorant.

Willfully.
Reply
Reply
post #1385 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're so unbelievably ignorant. Seriously.

Which of these places is the most dangerous in terms of violent crime:

USA
Britain
Canada
Australia

You honestly think the availability of firearms is not a factor in this?

Scary.

And ignorant.

Willfully.

Which of those places has waged a so-called "War on Drugs" that has resulted in filling its jails with a higher percentage of its own citizens than any other country, breaking up families, and causing higher crime rates?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1386 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:35am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Excellent, repeal the 2nd amendment and at the same time end the war on drugs! Win win!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1387 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Excellent, repeal the 2nd amendment and at the same time end the war on drugs! Win win!

Abolish the government. WIN.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1388 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Abolish the government. WIN.

But then how would the people who "should" have guns be able to enforce tonton's and BR's mandates?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1389 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But then how would the people who "should" have guns be able to enforce tonton's and BR's mandates?

But who should have guns and who should not? How and by whom is that to be determined?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1390 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But who should have guns and who should not? How and by whom is that to be determined?

How about trying the same way it's done in Australia? Make everybody safer in the long run. Win. Win. Win.
Reply
Reply
post #1391 of 2499
3/10/12 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But who should have guns and who should not? How and by whom is that to be determined?

BR and tonton should decide and tell us. They clearly think most (or even all) ordinary people shouldn't. I assume they think the state should. Beyond that, you'll need to ask them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1392 of 2499
3/10/12 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about trying the same way it's done in Australia? Make everybody safer in the long run. Win. Win. Win.

I know! I'll get together with a group of individuals, we'll call ourselves a government, declare that everyone else is bound by a "social contract" to obey everything we say, and take all their guns.

That'll work!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1393 of 2499
3/10/12 at 10:40am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

BR and tonton should decide and tell us. They clearly think most (or even all) ordinary people shouldn't. I assume they think the state should. Beyond that, you'll need to ask them.

When you say evolution, something foundational to the life sciences supported by mountains of evidence, is a hoax, I discount you and your judgment. I certainly shouldn't be king, nor would I want to be, but I wish ignorant fucks wouldn't vote so god damned much.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1394 of 2499
3/10/12 at 10:46am
Who should be king?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1395 of 2499
3/10/12 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When you say evolution, something foundational to the life sciences supported by mountains of evidence, is a hoax, I discount you and your judgment. I certainly shouldn't be king, nor would I want to be, but I wish ignorant fucks wouldn't vote so god damned much.

Thanks for showing you are completely end stage. With such hatred it wouldn't be surprising to see you taking guns and ridding the world off all the ignorant fucks who stop your utopia from arriving.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1396 of 2499
3/10/12 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Who should be king?

Whoever is elected by whoever BR allows to vote.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1397 of 2499
3/10/12 at 2:43pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Who should be king?

Way to not read. I said, I do not want to be king but then followed that statement wishing that idiots wouldn't vote. Please explain how the combination of those two parts of the sentence imply I want a king or that I want to forbid people from voting.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1398 of 2499
3/12/12 at 7:01am
"FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves" -- Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem

Quote:
If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1399 of 2499
3/12/12 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I disagree that the Second Amendment says what you think it says. So, apparently, does the Supreme Court, most of the time, and that's who I trust to make such decisions. However, it is clear that interpretation cannot solve the problem, which is why I support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and to clearly outline the government's power to restrict and regulate firearms.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part lays out the rationale for the Amendment. The second part establishes the right itself. Now, we clearly don't have a need for a militia any longer. However, that doesn't change the right we have and the meaning of the second part. The government has clearly and unequivocally infringed on citizen's rights.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Way to not read. I said, I do not want to be king but then followed that statement wishing that idiots wouldn't vote. Please explain how the combination of those two parts of the sentence imply I want a king or that I want to forbid people from voting.


If idiots didn't vote, the Democratic party would never be in power again.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #1400 of 2499
3/12/12 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I know! I'll get together with a group of individuals, we'll call ourselves a government, declare that everyone else is bound by a "social contract" to obey everything we say, and take all their guns.

That'll work!


It's how it would "work" that's the problem. Oh, it would WORK alright. Just like Obama's policies have "worked."
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.