opinion, not fact ... I'm not buying this assumption just because you make it. agreed cool ... talking guns ... where can I find one? Gun crimes are rarely committed by legal gun owners. You seem to want to disarm America because of crazy people. That would not only make us less safe because criminals will still have guns but it will never happen. Fully automatic ak47s aren't legal to own yet that's what I'm reading was used in this robbery. so how does that happen if they're illegal??? do you think criminals might not give a shit about the law? I think this might be the biggest problem I have with the gun control crowd ... this gun was ALREADY ILLEGAL ... so what law prevents this? magic utopian gun control legislation? is former mayor fuckberg going to save us all from the criminals like he did from big gulps? go to prison if you want 100% security. and before you bring up the UK ... I'm not willing to accept more likely violent crime in my house in order to make the left feel more safe. arm yourself if you are so worried about a crazy person with a weapon. it's your right to defend yourself.
Go to sleep, sir. Your district has decided that your curfew was hours ago. Your dissident speech is out of bounds.
I hate hearing this. The Constitution is NOT a living document, that's the bullshit they feed you so they can completely bastardize it as they please and yes the right to bear arms means legal access to military grade weaponry http://m.herald-review.com/blogs/le...11e2-838d-001a4bcf887a.html?mobile_touch=true http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism/
Constitution 101: the founding fathers in their wisdom wrote a document with specific provisions to amend it over time. They created multiple ways to amend it. They themselves amended it multiple times in the years right after it was written with one huge series of amendments being created and added all at once. That addition is known as the Bill of Rights. Understand the Constitution and it will help you. Right now, based on your comment above you do not fundamentally understand the Constitution. The Constitution was created as a living document that would change over time.
This is a fun and short book to read if you are interested in understanding the Constitution: http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2213
Ultimately the government is going to do what the government will do. All 3 branches will occasionally run amok and overreach their constitutional powers. The beauty of the thing is that none of the branches can do something unconstitutional and have that stand without the constant threat of reversal in some manner. The Legislature can write an unconstitutional law and have it struck down by the Judiciary or not signed into law by the Executive. The Judiciary can find a law unconstitutional but then be reversed by a constitutional amendment that changes the constitution. The Executive can have it's decisions reversed by the Judiciary and can have laws forced upon it by a two-thirds majority of the Legislature. The government often resembles a three-legged goat but things keep moving along without constant interruption. The biggest problem we face at this point is the accumulation of powers in the Executive branch. This is what has enabled the US to operate as an empire on the world stage for the last 60 years or so. Extraordinary circumstances (WWII and the Cold War) created a bloated security infrastructure headed by the Executive that has never been brought to heel. Attempts by the Legislature to bring it to heel, with things like the War Powers Act, have failed to halt the accumulation of power at the top. People are upset at President Obama for the way he has used and abused executive power. If President Johnson or President Nixon had been in office today with the accumulation of powers things would be much worse. Imagine President Nixon with the post - 9/11 NSA and Homeland Security to do his bidding.
There's that, and there's the aggregation of power by the federal government at the expense of the states. Federalism is essentially dead except for little drops of eyewash.
This is only true if you look at the problem from 10,000 feet though. New York and Alabama could not be more different when viewed from ground level. That said, the rise in federal power over the last century and a half has been sharp indeed. As examples of the differences between New York and Alabama: 1. Guns. 2. Abortion. 3. Drugs. 4. Work rules. 5. Sentencing laws for non-federal offenses. 6. Local taxation. 7. Blue laws. 8. School year length and curriculum. 9. Local regulation of property. 10. Administration of various federal programs and grants. I could probably write a list of 100 items that are fundamental to the understanding of what it means to be a citizen of a state in which New York and Alabama take divergent and often polar opposite positions. The things that have changed as the federal government took oversight of certain areas away from states fall primarily in two classes: 1. Universal rights of the US citizen have been established in many areas a) ethnic b) racial c) gender d) Sexual orientation e) etc 2. The right of society to an undamaged condition often with reparations for past abuses has been established in many areas a) clean water and air b) safe highways c) affordable food, electricity and water (very few people starve in the US compared to the world as a whole and very few are without power, everybody has access to water in some form or another) d) medical help is generally available regardless of a person's ability to absorb the cost e) etc
So they took 3 femal hostages, 2 bank clerks and one customer, went on a hour long car chase, threw 2 of the hostages from the moving vehicle, one of the hostages had been shot and one had a graze wound before or during their ejection from the moving SUV, the cops eventually shot all the tires out of the SUV and the robbers used the last hostage as a human shield in an intense last stand firefight lasting 5mins. One robber died at the scene, two made it to a hospital, where one eventually died. The hostages thrown from the vehicle survived, the hostage used as a shield died at the scene. 20 officers fired their weapons and are now on administrative leave, standard procedure during investigations. Ramos, age 19; the only surviving robber will most likely get the death penalty.
No Brad. Once again you fail epically. You do not even understand the meaning of the term "a living constitution". Read Wikipedia or something, I have no interest in educating you. A living constitution does not refer to the amendment process, the amendment process actually supports the opposite stance. I believe in originalism and that amendments should be conceived with the original intent of the document in mind.
From a thread mentioning a bank robbery in once nice turned bankrupt shithole Stockton, CA to......wha? Oh, now I get it......
So you believe that only white male property owners should be allowed to vote? That was the clear intent of the framers when they wrote the Constitution. They wanted only socially acceptable men of means to have suffrage. It was the original intent.
Considering that most of the current voting populace is so stupid that they don't even know who the Vice President is and that half of them vote the way they do because their votes are purchased by the government I think that letting only monetarily independent land owners vote would probably be a good idea.
While there may be a huge amount of truth in the beginning of your statement, your last twelve words not only lost you the game, but show you should be indicted for throwing it.
