You're truly naive to believe that public investment in the form of health, education, infrastructure, or security have not had a positive impact on development of the US as a superpower.
I truly believe that our forefathers understood that their may come a time in the course of this great nation that the people would have to once again throw of the chains of tyranny and ensure their future security. In order to accomplish this the citizens of this nation would require arms. Not sporting arms, not hunting arms, not military arms, just arms. Why the term "arms" because in the 18th century the term "arms" was given to mean any type of weapon. In todays terms "arms" should mean the same thing. If as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America desire to lawfully own a firearm, be it a muzzle loading antique used for show or a fully automatic assault rifle, then as long as I legally own it and legally use it then there should be no prohibition on it. Invariably those that mirror my thoughts get labled as "gun nuts" or "anti-government". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an advocate for safe and legal gun ownership for all citizens. I believe that it is my responsibility to protect myself, my family, and my government and that I should not rely on someone else for that protection.Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.*
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.* That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
On anther note I notice that yourself and I both use the terms "rights" and "citizens" in the same sentence. I myself believe that the only persons who are "entitled" to the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are; U.S. citizens and legal guests of the United States. I believe that "our" rights should not be transferred to non-citizens whether they be illegal aliens or combatants against America. You are correct in stating that our 4th and 5th rights are being trampled on. The government should not be allowed to listen in on my conversations without good cause and a legal warrant. I have nothing to hide but I have everything to loose. For those who don't believe me read 1984 by George Orwell, and get back to me. As far as non citizens, i.e. illegal aliens and combatants our Constitution should not afford them the same rights as it does a citizen.
Since you're inept at reading comprehension I'll spell it out for you. We did this do ourselves. We chose to drive inefficient vehicles and live 30 minutes from work. Our rise in power in the last century relied more on the supply of cheap oil than any other factor.
But these factors were exacerbated by the fact that liberal sandal-wearing, granola-eating, tree hugging environ-fascists go into a tissy fit anytime someone wants to drill a new oil well on US soil. Drilling for new oil will not solve this problem, but it will lessen the impact.
If you think price controls is the way to go, then you've economic amnesia. Try reading something from someone who know more than you & I.
Pelosi has said that she wants Bush to release the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower the price. So it's clear that she knows that increasing supply cause a drop in price. So why is she so stupid to prohibit any legislation that would allow for an increase in supply by drilling for it close to home?
She doesn't understand that releasing reserves in not a sustainable action. And if we lose those reserves and encounter a shortage, we are totally screwed.
It is, however, no nuts and bolts model for how to conduct that task, of governance of a free people. The Founders tried a form of national government devoted to the ideas of consent of the governed to the nth degree, under the Articles of Confederation - and it bombed. Similarly, one reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War was the weakness of the central government that it established, in deference to its states’ rights consent of the governed philosophy - yielding a government so unable to function effectively that an exasperated Jefferson Davis remarked, “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone, ‘Died of a Theory’”.
So that sort of model has been tried, more than once, and it’s failed.
The Founders were more clever (or at least more flexible in the connection between their philosophic belief and their addressing of reality. They also recognized as few others, in that day or since have that ideas are powerful things - so powerful that any one, allowed untrammeled authority, inevitably becomes tyrannical. Majority rule, untempered, becomes the whim of the mob. The wholesale adoption of a “consent of the governed” philosophy results in a government with power so atomized that it becomes ineffectual, and so not just unable to protect liberty but inimical to it. No concept, however worthy in the abstract, could or should be given unlimited sway. Ideogical conclusions, and human nature, were never to be entirely trusted.
And so the Constitution was born - the most exquisite counterbalancing of rights and responsibilities, powers and obligations, ceded authority and retained autonomy, that has ever been crafted. It’s a work of collective genius, and it very deliberately lacks much -in the way of high-flown rhetoric like that which Jefferson was able to include in the Declaration. It’s worth noting that Jefferson’s editor on the Declaration, Franklin, was present at the Constitutional Convention - if anyone had authorty to call the developing document a betrayal of the older manifesto, it was him. Yet at the Convention’s end, he deemed the sunburst pattern on the back of Washington’s chair to be a rising, not a setting, sun.
A long winded response to be sure. I hope it makes my point regarding the infringements upon the Bill of Rights.
So, no response from you. Hm, I didn't think it would be this easy to get you to see the light.
Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just like your desire to protect the 4th and 5th amendment. A shame you want to pick and choose to fit your agenda.
As for me I would protect all your rights. Including the right to free speech even when you distort the facts and speak on a topic where you have apparently no first hand knowledge.
Have a nice day.
I would like your thoughts on 2 points I brought up.
1. Should one right guaranteed to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights be limited more than any other right. For example at what point does a citizens right to keep and bear arms become any less important than his right to be secure from illegal search and seizures.
2. Who is granted these rights in the Constitution? Is it a citizen of the United States of America? Is it anyone who is on American soil? Or is it anyone we come in contact with?
On second thought we made need to start a new thread as this doesn't exactly fall in line with the orginal posters theme.
And BTW. I agree. If I had the ability and resources I would own a 1928A1 Thompson. One of my neighbors carried one in VN when he was sent there as an "advisor" during the Kennedy administration. He said it weighed it a ton while carrying through the jungle but it delivered a punch when it was needed most.
I guess one thing we agree on is the Thompson...nothing like a good old .45 caliber classic Tommy Gun. Which by the way until 1934 you could go down to the local hardware store and buy just like you could buy a shovel or a hammer.
1. Terrorist/Combatant detainees and whether or not they should receive the same protection under our Constitution in regards to civilian law or should they be held under military law. My personal thoughts on this is that these particular individuals whether captured overseas or in the United States should be prosecuted according to military law.
2. Illegal Aliens that commit crimes on U.S. soil. At what point does the rights afforded to U.S. citizens carry over to those who are not citizens and are not here legally?
We'll skip the torture debate for now as I was thinking more inline with what due process rights, search and seizure rights, etc. that non-citizens should be entitled to.
I think it would lower gun crimes but we would need the resources to make it work for a longer period of time.
If it was up to me I would elimnate plea bargains and set mandatory sentencing that NO ONE not even federal agencies can supercede. Crime does pay in this country and every day proves it more and more.
Well Dave, I am not talking about the current adminstration. I am as appaled at some of the things they have done as you are. I am talking about what just happened. I am discussing THAT issue, not everything else under the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1835Wayne
YOUR rights have been trampled on!!
Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to whats been happening to our "rights" since GWB and his morality police have been in charge? And I guess you also missed the fact that your government of the people, by the people and for the people can now spy on you and detain you without just cause.
Talk about mindless...
I disdain a good bit of the "Patriot" act. I also disdain the actions of Nancy Pelosi. Do you have anything to say about her??
I can not call what she has done an "adjournment". It was a hijacking.
You seem to take issue with my statement that I am a conservative. I am fairly certain that if you took a poll of some the posters here that have been around longer than a week, you would find almost unanimous agreement on the subject. What bothers you so much?
If I state that the Republican controlled Congress and the Republican Administration completely squandered the opportunity to advance their agenda and continue the prosperity begun in the Reagan Administration, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.
If I state that the President has performed admirably in many situations, but has been a complete embarrasment in terms of illegal immigration, taking years to formulate a cogent policy on the war in Iraq and in developing energy polciy, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.
If I state that I fully and completely support the constitutional right the keep and bear arms, yet I believe two important things; certain people should not have weapons and people shouldn't have certain weapons, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.
Many people have trouble with the distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican. I don't.
Those facts can be pesky things. Many Democrats voted to renew it, in its entirety.
As for the 4th adn 5th amendment infringments, I am appaled by them as much as any attempt on the other 18 active amendments (being that 12 was repeales.) However, iyou shallenge them in court, the same court that ruled that the phrase "the People" means the same thing in the seconds as it does in many other amendments.
Convenient that you forgot about the legal challenges brought against the holding of people in Gitmo - and the same 9 justices ruling on them.......and that the President could/would not act on their listening without the culpability of Congress as well.
I'm sorry, but the moment you start picking and choosing when parts of the Consitution to follow and ignoring the rest, you begin the end of the nation.
Pelosi was out of line. Sorry, but when there are objections to a motion, you don't just do what you want anyways. That's not how our system works. I don't care what party someone is part of. Right is right, wrong is wrong. What is there to debate? Seriously?
Government, "controlled" by either political party in this country needs to be watched , because it will inevitably abuse its powers.
Federal gas tax of 18 cents and state gas taxes vary significantly. Quite a chunk of change in reality, whiel our highways, roads, and bridges literally crumble away.
I hope the monitoring continues.
General Hayden (Director of the NSA, and a member of our intelligence community) stressed the NSA respect for the Fourth Amendment, stating at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006 that, "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."
OH and Obama already said he wouldn't use this sort of program.
however The taxes behind a $4 gallon of gas: The Real Deal
I wonder if it is a coincidence that the 2 most liberal states in the nation pay the highest taxes?Quote:
Nearly 33 cents of every gallon you buy goes to Albany. And on a $4 gallon of gasoline, if there's no cap, the county gets 4 percent, or 15 cents.
Add it all up, and you’re paying just about 67 cents in taxes on one gallon of gas.
New Yorkers pay the most taxes on gasoline in the country, followed by Hawaiians and Californians who pay just over 60 cents a gallon
Had to dig for this one. It came out a few weeks ago
Oil in the Arctic — The New Northwest Passage? from the articleQuote:
Big Oil already has experience in the Arctic — the development of Alaska’s North Slope in the 1970s brought in such giants as BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, all of which currently jointly own and operate the 800-mile long Alyeska Pipeline, which links the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez. Russian and Canadian companies have had similar success in exploiting onshore Arctic oil and gas assets in their countries.