|
|
Post by whatever on Mar 23, 2004 17:36:59 GMT -5
Helloooooooooooooooooo
I swear I can hear echoes echoes echoes...
I'd still love a response on this topic; anyone have any thoughts on my no-holds-barred view of weapons?
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 23, 2004 17:47:16 GMT -5
Helloooooooooooooooooo I swear I can hear echoes echoes echoes... I'd still love a response on this topic; anyone have any thoughts on my no-holds-barred view of weapons? I agree. The second amendment was meant as a last check on government power. The idea was we must be able to defend ourselves from the government, if need be. And we can't do that with hunting rifles against tanks. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Mar 23, 2004 20:05:30 GMT -5
I agree. The second amendment was meant as a last check on government power. The idea was we must be able to defend ourselves from the government, if need be. And we can't do that with hunting rifles against tanks. - Rick Thanks, that's what I thought. I guess it sounds too seditious, to me even, to say it out loud now-adays. I read your "One Angry Man" and thoroughly enjoyed it. Excellent. The link for Wildwood Weed made me laugh too. I don't know how to vote "You have permission to marry my daughter..." because I don't have any daughters  Hope everything's going great. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 23, 2004 21:18:03 GMT -5
Thanks, that's what I thought. I guess it sounds too seditious, to me even, to say it out loud now-adays. I read your "One Angry Man" and thoroughly enjoyed it. Excellent. The link for Wildwood Weed made me laugh too. I don't know how to vote "You have permission to marry my daughter..." because I don't have any daughters Hope everything's going great. Everything is wondeful. Connor is 7 months old now, very sweet, six teeth. Outgirl babysat the other night and they had a grand old time. Thanks for the compliment on the One Angry Man piece. It's one of my more popular essays, next to I Fought the Law and...I Won... - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 25, 2004 9:27:47 GMT -5
I would definitely get rid of the electoral college and elect all officials by straight popular vote. Don't know if that's part of the Constitution or not, but it should be changed. . Absolutely! One person, one vote. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 25, 2004 9:53:39 GMT -5
Helloooooooooooooooooo I swear I can hear echoes echoes echoes... I'd still love a response on this topic; anyone have any thoughts on my no-holds-barred view of weapons? I have mixed feelings on this matter. I am not anti gun and believe everyone should have the right to have a gun whether for hunting or self defense. However, i do strongly believe in gun control laws. I do not think it's unreasonable to have a waiting period to purchase and I don't want convicted criminals or people with history of violence to be able to purchase a weapon. Yes, I know most criminals do not purchase guns leagally and yes I am aware that the effect on crime would be minimal but if only one life is saved then I believe it is worth it. I do not believe that anyone really needs an automatic weapon and I know that our forefathers were not thinking of that when the constitution was written. They were thinking of muskets! I am not necesarily against the right to carry but there are certain places that it should never be allowed such as schools and abortion clinics. By the way, I'm a nurse in a large trauma ICU and I get the pleasure of seeing firsthand the results of our fine citizens exercising their right to bare arms every Friday night. Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Mar 27, 2004 23:32:27 GMT -5
If you could go back and help them write the Constitution, with the experience of almost 250 years, what would you change? - Rick I'd use smaller words, write it in crayon, and add pictures so that the 20th-century "progressives" wouldn't have such a tough time understanding it. Seriously, I'd fix the ambiguity in the General Welfare tax limitation clause, and likewise in the commerce clause. Also, I'd figure out a way to more clearly ratchet down the Judicial sandbox boundaries, and make clearer the sovereignity of the other branches in upholding the constitution. And, I'd make the 10th amendment an article in and of itself, and change the clumsy wording of the 2nd to make its obvious intent of stating an individual right to head off Mikey Moore and the rest of the dishonest gun-grabbing culture. I'd lose the Preamble altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 28, 2004 2:28:57 GMT -5
I'd use smaller words, write it in crayon, and add pictures so that the 20th-century "progressives" wouldn't have such a tough time understanding it. Seriously, I'd fix the ambiguity in the General Welfare tax limitation clause, and likewise in the commerce clause. Also, I'd figure out a way to more clearly ratchet down the Judicial sandbox boundaries, and make clearer the sovereignity of the other branches in upholding the constitution. And, I'd make the 10th amendment an article in and of itself, and change the clumsy wording of the 2nd to make its obvious intent of stating an individual right to head off Mikey Moore and the rest of the dishonest gun-grabbing culture. [glow=red,2,300]I'd lose the Preamble altogether.[/glow] Good stuff! What about some sort of philisophical grounding? Something that can keep them from reinterpreting? Is there a way to do that? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Mar 28, 2004 15:17:06 GMT -5
Good stuff! What about some sort of philisophical grounding? Something that can keep them from reinterpreting? Is there a way to do that? - Rick That's a great question. I've thought about that, and I can't honestly say that I've come up with anything brilliant. It's tough, because there are good reasons the founders set up the Judicial branch the way they did (a sovereign branch with lifetime terms) and I'd not want to mess with that. But any attempt to "tighten" the language and limit free-wheeling interpretation that they've grown fond of would, itself, be vulnerable to judicial twisting anyway. Looks like the only real solution is to add a 4th branch to straighten things out when one of the other 3 foul the constitution -- you and me. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 28, 2004 15:20:51 GMT -5
That's a great question. I've thought about that, and I can't honestly say that I've come up with anything brilliant. It's tough, because there are good reasons the founders set up the Judicial branch the way they did (a sovereign branch with lifetime terms) and I'd not want to mess with that. But any attempt to "tighten" the language and limit free-wheeling interpretation that they've grown fond of would, itself, be vulnerable to judicial twisting anyway. Looks like the only real solution is to add a 4th branch to straighten things out when one of the other 3 foul the constitution -- you and me. It seems that the fourth branch of government (the people) are the ones least interested in government. We have not been a good check to government power, allowing them to weaken the right of jury nullification, which is the best defense against oppressive government. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Mar 28, 2004 15:37:52 GMT -5
That's a great question. I've thought about that, and I can't honestly say that I've come up with anything brilliant. It's tough, because there are good reasons the founders set up the Judicial branch the way they did (a sovereign branch with lifetime terms) and I'd not want to mess with that. But any attempt to "tighten" the language and limit free-wheeling interpretation that they've grown fond of would, itself, be vulnerable to judicial twisting anyway. Looks like the only real solution is to add a 4th branch to straighten things out when one of the other 3 foul the constitution -- you and me. I'm okay with lifetime terms for judges, but I'm overly unfond of them being appointed by the President. I can't see how that cannot be a conflict of interest. Obviously, the judge could only possibly benefit the appoiting President for 8 years, tops. But party affiliations die hard, as evidenced by Scalia's utter contempt for even the appearance of impartiality. He recused himself from the Pledge case, prior to which he had remarked negatively on the lower court's ruling, but he refuses to recuse himself from a case where he has a personal relationship with one of the participants. How he can possibly claim impartiality is beyond me. How anyone could possibly believe his claims of impartiality is even further beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 28, 2004 16:00:32 GMT -5
I'm okay with lifetime terms for judges, but I'm overly unfond of them being appointed by the President. I can't see how that cannot be a conflict of interest. Obviously, the judge could only possibly benefit the appoiting President for 8 years, tops. But party affiliations die hard, as evidenced by Scalia's utter contempt for even the appearance of impartiality. He recused himself from the Pledge case, prior to which he had remarked negatively on the lower court's ruling, but he refuses to recuse himself from a case where he has a personal relationship with one of the participants. How he can possibly claim impartiality is beyond me. How anyone could possibly believe his claims of impartiality is even further beyond me. It's a snowball effect. The more the government has grown and gotten involved in our everyday lives, the more special interests try to get government favor, the more individual politicians have a personal stake in these things. I long for the days when we had to force Congress to meet and the president was a figurehead. - Rick |
|
...when he's around
