US Presidential Election, 2016.

[Coito ergo sum]

You sound like a stubborn child! 'I'm going to hold my breath until you give me what I want!!'

No, I'm a patriot who is determined to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded.

Where black men (the free ones) are worth 3/5 that of white men?

LOL - where the States were not constrained by the Bill of Rights....

[Seth]

You sound like a stubborn child! 'I'm going to hold my breath until you give me what I want!!'

No, I'm a patriot who is determined to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded.

Where black men (the free ones) are worth 3/5 that of white men?

Do you understand the roots and effect of the "3/5th Compromise?"

Do you understand that by accepting that compromise, the slave-holding states guaranteed the eventual end of slavery, and that it was a brilliant maneuver by the non-slave-owning states that forged the union, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified?

You ought to do a bit of research on the facts before you bloviate any further.

[Ian]

Of course I know all that. Maybe you should consider that the founding fathers had to play politics and compromise in order to come up with a document that was imperfect and open to changing with the times before you bloviate any further. Or you could just bloviate me.

[Seth]

Of course I know all that. Maybe you should consider that the founding fathers had to play politics and compromise in order to come up with a document that was imperfect and open to changing with the times before you bloviate any further. Or you could just bloviate me.

I don't have a problem with the Constitution changing with the times, so long as those changes take place in the prescribed manner.

What I object to is the "reinterpreting" of the Constitution by charlatans who use semantic obfuscation and niggling to evade the clear mandates of the document.

You want to change it, then propose an amendment and get it ratified.

Otherwise, original intent is the only metric that can be used to "interpret" the Constitution.

[Ian]

Then why do you spend so much time whining about the integrity of the constitution and about how patriotic you are, standing up for it and the founding principles of the Republic, et cetera. The Constitution is doing just fine, thank you. Original intent and all.

[Seth]

Then why do you spend so much time whining about the integrity of the constitution and about how patriotic you are, standing up for it and the founding principles of the Republic, et cetera. The Constitution is doing just fine, thank you. Original intent and all.

Not really. The Progressive Executive State has largely made Congress irrelevant, and there are few checks and balances on administrative regulation these days.

Like gun control.

The NFA, for example, is entirely unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms by restricting access to machine guns.

[Ian]

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past. As for gun control, who gives a crap about access to machine guns? That's fine by me. The 2nd Amendment talk about a "well-regulated militia" and "arms", neither of which have anything to do with your right to own a machine gun. Grenade launchers and stealth bombers are also "arms", and I sure as fuck don't want private citizens to have access to either. It's all about where Uncle Sam draws the line, and most people, including me, are perfectly fine with machine guns being on the restricted side of that line. You're welcome to think that we're sheep who don't realize we're not truly free, and I'm welcome to roll my eyes at such sentiments.

[Warren Dew]

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

When did you move to Russia?

[Seth]

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

Excuse me? Have you been living in a cave? One look at the Federal Register debunks that claim. You're just mostly unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that spew forth from Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration every year.

As for gun control, who gives a crap about access to machine guns? That's fine by me.

I do. I like machine guns, and the 2nd Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It doesn't say "may be infringed because Ian doesn't care for machine guns."

The 2nd Amendment talk about a "well-regulated militia" and "arms", neither of which have anything to do with your right to own a machine gun.

Wrong. In US v. Miller the Supreme Court held that the requirement to register short shotguns (sawed off) under the NFA was lawful because the Court had been provided with no evidence that sawed-off shotguns were used by or of any utility to the military. In point of fact, short shotguns have ALWAYS been used by the military, but in the specific case involved, neither the defendants nor anyone else appeared before the Court to give evidence (which is abundant) of the military utility of a short shotgun, so the Court had to rule as it did because it could not consider evidence not presented to it (more accurately it CHOSE not to take judicial notice of the common use of short shotguns by the military as part of a political agenda to enforce the NFA). If you read that ruling, what you discover is that the "arms" that are MOST intended to be protected by the 2nd Amendment are those arms which are commonly used or suitable for use by the individual soldier. That metric advances with the state of the art in military small arms, and it absolutely includes machine guns, and grenade launchers, and hand grenades, and all sorts of other "arms" used by soldiers in the past, present and into the future.

Therefore, any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear machine guns or other such arms is in violation of the clear mandate of the 2nd Amendment, which by the way has also been ruled by the Supreme Court to be an INDIVIDUAL right, not a "collective" right applicable only to "the militia." This ruling, Heller v DC, relied on the substantial advances in legal scholarship in 2nd Amendment issues and history that have taken place since about the time that Clinton banned "assault weapons." The weight of the evidence now in the official record with the Court demonstrates with perfect clarity that the Founders intended that right to be completely protected from exactly the sort of thing that states and the federal government have been doing for the last 100 years or so.

Grenade launchers and stealth bombers are also "arms", and I sure as fuck don't want private citizens to have access to either.

Doesn't matter what you want. I have a right to own a grenade launcher or a stealth bomber, if I can afford either. As it happens, it's perfectly legal to own a grenade launcher with grenades. It's made expensive and inconvenient by the NFA and various rules regarding the sale of such items to civilians, but so long as you do the paperwork and pay the $200 tax for a "destructive device," and aren't legally disqualified from owning one, you can get one from any of many sources I'm familiar with.

It's all about where Uncle Sam draws the line, and most people, including me, are perfectly fine with machine guns being on the restricted side of that line.

What you fail to understand is that Uncle Sam and the Congress, and the President, and every federal, state and local employee of every government agency of any type DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DRAW THAT LINE. That's what "shall not be infringed" means. Exactly what it says, and nothing less.

You don't like it, tough shit, you don't have to like it, you just have to tolerate my peaceable exercise of my rights.

You're welcome to think that we're sheep who don't realize we're not truly free, and I'm welcome to roll my eyes at such sentiments.

If you let the government say "you can't have that thing because its too dangerous" then the government can declare ANYTHING to be "too dangerous" and can ban it, like printing presses, religion, political meetings, free speech, habeas corpus, fair trials...and arms.

The Founders explicitly forbade Congress from exercising any "infringing" authority regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. "Infringe" means "to encroach upon..."

"Encroach" means "to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits"

And there is absolutely nothing in the federal government that is a more gradual series of steps and stealth that encroach upon our right to keep and bear arms than modern-day gun control efforts, which are the epitome of gradual "death of a thousand cuts" encroachment on the rights of the People.

That's infringement, and it's unconstitutional.

Don't care if you are afraid of your fellow citizens, you have to wait for them to actually do something illegal with their arms, you may not engage in prior restraint because that infringes on their rights.

[Ian]

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

When did you move to Russia?

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

Excuse me? Have you been living in a cave? One look at the Federal Register debunks that claim. You're just mostly unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that spew forth from Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration every year.

I'm often on the fence about whether you conservatives 1) just believe what you want to believe, facts and history be damned, or if 2) the reason you're conservatives in the first place is because you have such a weak understanding of history and poor analytical skills. Opinions like these two above make it clear that the latter tends to be the case.

Go back fifty years and what do you find?
The top income tax rate was 91%. Now it is 35%.
All telephones were owned by the government; people only rented them. Remember Ma Bell?
The price of natural gas was regulated by Uncle Sam. No longer.
All stock trade commissions were regulated. No longer.
Interest rates on bank accounts were much more regulated. No longer.
The government regulated all prices and routes for aircraft, freight trains and merchant vessels. No longer.
Military conscription is gone.
The size of the federal government compared to GDP since the end of WWII averaged around 20%. It's still around that level.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/f ... index.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... der-obama/

There's another way of looking at all this: as far as government regulation goes, you guys don't even realize that you won, and in fact you got your way for decades. However, it's not too far-fetched to say that this pendulum has begun swinging decidedly back towards the left, perhaps for decades to come...

[JimC]

Those who complain about government regulation should think back to what happened to people's health early in the Industrial Revolution...

For all the examples of slightly absurd over-regulation, there are a dozen that save lives, usually by making ruthless capitalists to do things they would not do unless forced. And we should not forget the work by unions to ensure that industrial safety regulations actually had some teeth...

[Ian]

Those who complain about government regulation should think back to what happened to people's health early in the Industrial Revolution...

For all the examples of slightly absurd over-regulation, there are a dozen that save lives, usually by making ruthless capitalists to do things they would not do unless forced. And we should not forget the work by unions to ensure that industrial safety regulations actually had some teeth...

That's another thing conservatives in the US work themselves into a tizzy about: those corrupt, business-hating, overly-powerful unions. No sense of history or context at all...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

1.png (35.17 KiB) Viewed 1149 times

m.png (223.44 KiB) Viewed 1149 times

These overlapping charts could just represent coincidences, but only to those diehard conservatives who prize wishful thinking over reality...

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

The Unions - those socialist commie bastards who fought for and brought in stuff like.........the weekend. and holidays.

[kiki5711]

One look at the Federal Register debunks that claim. You're just mostly unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that spew forth from Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration every year.

And it still didn't stop the banks from stealing bailout money, selling bogus mortgage deals they knew were not as sweet as they made them out to be, etc......etc......A thief will always find a way.

[Warren Dew]

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

When did you move to Russia?

I disagree. The country has a helluva lot less regulation today than it did in decades past.

Excuse me? Have you been living in a cave? One look at the Federal Register debunks that claim. You're just mostly unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that spew forth from Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration every year.

I'm often on the fence about whether you conservatives 1) just believe what you want to believe, facts and history be damned, or if 2) the reason you're conservatives in the first place is because you have such a weak understanding of history and poor analytical skills. Opinions like these two above make it clear that the latter tends to be the case.

Go back fifty years and what do you find?
The top income tax rate was 91%. Now it is 35%.
All telephones were owned by the government; people only rented them. Remember Ma Bell?
The price of natural gas was regulated by Uncle Sam. No longer.
All stock trade commissions were regulated. No longer.
Interest rates on bank accounts were much more regulated. No longer.
The government regulated all prices and routes for aircraft, freight trains and merchant vessels. No longer.
Military conscription is gone.
The size of the federal government compared to GDP since the end of WWII averaged around 20%. It's still around that level.

Actually it appears that the difference is that us "conservatives" understand the difference between "regulation", "tax", "conscription", etc., while you socialists think they are all synonyms.

We also know the fact that AT&T was a private monopoly; the phones were never owned by the government, contrary to you seem to believe.

The rest of the areas you mention are still generally regulated, just in different ways than they used to be. Price regulation has been generally reduced, but there is a lot more regulation of how businesses are allowed to manage their business.