There will be no need for congress!

[madmax]

Still nothing about violating the 2nd Amendment in there - nothing.
Only the fringe lunatics are screaming that... like Alex Jones.

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where is that "well regulated militia"??? We are talking about "regulating" what weapons are legal and what are not. We are talking about where that line is drawn. We are not talking about "disarming the country".

Right now you can't have an automatic weapon, surface to air missiles, etc. Is that line still valid? Or do we want to shift it?

This is about Brady Bill II, or not. Or use and training restrictions for certain weapons. We require drivers to pass a driving test, sight, hearing, and mental capability. Maybe we will be talking about licensing certain weapons and make sure the capability and cautions are well understood.
Who knows? But some people THINK they know.

But the conspiracy theory nuts have been screaming "THEY"RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" for a long time now...their panties are just a little tighter now.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by madmax

Still nothing about violating the 2nd Amendment in there - nothing.
Only the fringe lunatics are screaming that... like Alex Jones.

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where is that "well regulated militia"??? We are talking about "regulating" what weapons are legal and what are not. We are talking about where that line is drawn. We are not talking about "disarming the country".

Right now you can't have an automatic weapon, surface to air missiles, etc. Is that line still valid? Or do we want to shift it?

This is about Brady Bill II, or not. Or use and training restrictions for certain weapons. We require drivers to pass a driving test, sight, hearing, and mental capability. Maybe we will be talking about licensing certain weapons and make sure the capability and cautions are well understood.
Who knows? But some people THINK they know.

But the conspiracy theory nuts have been screaming "THEY"RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" for a long time now...their panties are just a little tighter now.

As I understand it the Supreme Court ruled that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." are not the same thing, as in the right to bear arms is not dependent on being part of a militia.

And if you are a strict suporter of the Constitution then you would understand that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from their government.

I personaly do not see the need for a private citizen to own asault weapons, but it was the intent of the founding fathers for the citizens to has weapons on par with the forces the government. That with modern advancements would be very dangerous to say the least.

What really needs to be done is for a new Constitution to be drafted with better checks and balances , and with more limitations on what the government is allowed to do.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

If you had a question worth answering that wasn't just another conspiracy theory.. I'd answer, but those aren't very rational questions.

Followed by:

[QUOTE}Vice President Joseph R. Biden vowed action on gun control from President Obama on Wednesday and floated the idea that Mr. Obama could use executive action to do so.
“The president is going to act,” Mr. Biden said, speaking briefly before a meeting with gun safety and gun victims’ groups Wednesday. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help [of] the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action we believe is required.”

So there was nothing about usurping the 2nd Amendment.



Vice President Joseph R. Biden vowed action on gun control from President Obama on Wednesday and floated the idea that Mr. Obama could use executive action to do so.
“The president is going to act,” Mr. Biden said, speaking briefly before a meeting with gun safety and gun victims’ groups Wednesday. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help [of] the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action we believe is required.”[/quote]

Do you think that if you say it twice, once in color and once in black and white, it makes you more intelligent? News Flash!! It didn't.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

The unarmed populace.

The pen being more powerful than the sword

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by madmax

Still nothing about violating the 2nd Amendment in there - nothing.
Only the fringe lunatics are screaming that... like Alex Jones.

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where is that "well regulated militia"??? We are talking about "regulating" what weapons are legal and what are not. We are talking about where that line is drawn. We are not talking about "disarming the country".

Right now you can't have an automatic weapon, surface to air missiles, etc. Is that line still valid? Or do we want to shift it?

This is about Brady Bill II, or not. Or use and training restrictions for certain weapons. We require drivers to pass a driving test, sight, hearing, and mental capability. Maybe we will be talking about licensing certain weapons and make sure the capability and cautions are well understood.
Who knows? But some people THINK they know.

But the conspiracy theory nuts have been screaming "THEY"RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" for a long time now...their panties are just a little tighter now.

Read the Supreme Courts latest interpretation when it came up last session.
They said it well with an emphasis on what it really means.

As for regulating assault weapons you have to know that the line in the sand is all about the "definitions." One person's ranch gun is another's definition of one of the dreaded assault weapons. And right now, others (elected representatives) are talking about all guns, handguns, and all semi-automatics (140 specific guns in all that are now completely legal).

Wake up and smell the coffee.

You may be a rocket scientist but I doubt you qualify as a constitutional scholar. Also, you might consider reading Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion by David Barton (Wallbuilder Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-925279-75-0 Hardback Edition). Engaging in liberal Revisionism of the USC opens the door to all kinds of changes that a public incensed over the terrible killing of children just might unknowingly buy into; say like voting for a "Santa Claus."

[madmax]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Read the Supreme Courts latest interpretation when it came up last session.
They said it well with an emphasis on what it really means.

Every court seems to take a slightly different slant on it. It's easy to see why when one reads the 2nd Amendment - it is certainly open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

As for regulating assault weapons you have to know that the line in the sand is all about the "definitions." One person's ranch gun is another's definition of one of the dreaded assault weapons. And right now, others (elected representatives) are talking about all guns, handguns, and all semi-automatics (140 specific guns in all that are now completely legal).

No shit sherlock... that's exactly what I've been saying all along. That's what Franco and I have been discussing - pay attention.
The debate is: some people want action, and some people want no action. It's all about striking the right balance, because there is no easy answer, and there is no magic fix

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Wake up and smell the coffee.

LOL... the conspiracy theory nut is telling me to "wake up". Classic...

Originally Posted by hrdguera

You may be a rocket scientist but I doubt you qualify as a constitutional scholar. Also, you might consider reading Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion by David Barton (Wallbuilder Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-925279-75-0 Hardback Edition).

I don't consider myself an expert. But I have studied... that does make me a scholar. Even a myopic right wing conspiracy theory nut is a "scholar" if they truly study it. It's a moot point anyway. I do know about the history of how the 2nd Amendment came to be, and the mindset behind it. You have already displayed your ignorance of it by suggesting that any move in controlling access to certain types of weaponry is "violating" the 2nd Amendment. Then go contradict yourself by admitting it's about "definitions' and where the line is drawn.
If you blow open the doors completely on the 2nd Amendment you have people with grenade launchers, SAMs, heck even thermonuclear weapons.
That's what a lot of nuts blinded by ideology don't see: there is a practical limit that society establishes.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Engaging in liberal Revisionism of the USC opens the door to all kinds of changes that a public incensed over the terrible killing of children just might unknowingly buy into; say like voting for a "Santa Claus."

From one conspiracy theory nonsense to another... you're consistent.
"Revisionism" comes in many flavors. Public sentiment say that Citizens United was revisionism. The public does "unknowingly" buy into nonsense, as evidenced by the conspiracy nuts. These nuts are fed by the likes of Fox News, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck on the right... Mike Malloy, MoveOn on the left.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

So there was nothing about usurping the 2nd Amendment.

Nope - only to a conspiracy nut. We have a Supreme Court, remember?
Second, no action or proposal is out there to disarm anyone. Like I said, the worst would be Brady Bill II.

Care to make a wager?

Originally Posted by dumbass

Do you think that if you say it twice, once in color and once in black and white, it makes you more intelligent? News Flash!! It didn't.

News Flash 2!!! Cut and paste stutter. Relax.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by evileye

And if you are a strict suporter of the Constitution then you would understand that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from their government.

That was the intent of SOME behind the 2nd Amendment. Not all of the Founders had the same cookie cutter views, in fact they varied widely. That's why bitter political battles and rivalries ensued immediately after the founding of the nation.

Some thought this to mean to defend the homeland, not defend against the homeland government. Example, from the Pennsylvania Constitution: "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Of course it is very true that some found the need to protect against an oppressive government. Some of the Founders were a bit paranoid having recently bitterly fought for their freedom from a "tyrannical" England.
Where it gets a bit bipolar is that many of these same Founders crafted the US government to be immune to the same type of tyranny. We, as a nation, can address any purported tyranny.

Again... what does it matter? No one, not even a "Kenyan born NWO puppet" would attempt to "disarm" the country. Assault weapons at the most.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

That was the intent of SOME behind the 2nd Amendment. Not all of the Founders had the same cookie cutter views, in fact they varied widely. That's why bitter political battles and rivalries ensued immediately after the founding of the nation.

Some thought this to mean to defend the homeland, not defend against the homeland government. Example, from the Pennsylvania Constitution: "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Defense of the state against who, if not an overzealous federal government?

As you so aptly stated, the founders thought:

"We, as a nation, can address any purported tyranny."

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

People attempting to talk about the debt ceiling should really try to understand it first.

Obviously it is your opinion that only a few superior individuals have that capability but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Debt is incurred by the government, and Congress holds the purse strings. The debt ceiling is really just a mechanism to cover the debt already incurred by congressional authorized spending. Spending comes first, then addressing the debt ceiling. Debt ceiling adjustments are after the fact.

Control spending from the start and there is no need for debt ceiling changes.

Exactly!! Please name the spending cuts along with the associated dollar amount of those cuts that that offset the tax increases achieved during the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations.

To give a comparison that even you might be able to understand, the DEBT CEILING is the mechanism that is intended to do just what it's name implies, It places a limit on the debt. That's so simple that even you should be able to understand that.

There was an attempt to reign in spending as recently as about a week ago. That attempt failed miserably. Ergo the upcoming "DEBT CEILING" should rightly be utilized act as a tool to force fiscal responsibility as it has always been intended.

Anyone with even a minute modicum of cognitive skill knows that you will never borrow or spend your way out of debt. There comes a point where the amount being borrowed exceeds the debtor's capability to repay that debt. This country is either at or has already passed that point. To keep borrowing without drastically reducing the spending is nothing short of illogical.

Congress had an opportunity to make a significant reduction in spending last week but didn't hang tough only due to the possible harm the ramifications of going over the "FISCAL CLIFF" might have presented. They have another opportunity within the next 2 months. The House should require that there be actual reductions in spending as opposed to only reducing the amount of increase in spending as this administration has demonstrated to be their preference.

My prediction is that Congress will not have the balls to do what needs to be done.

The Debt Ceiling should be debated on the floor, in open sessions of Congress as opposed to what appears to be the "new normal" method of legislation as has happened all to often in the past few years. There are 100 Senators and 435 voting members of the House, all duly elected legislators, who are charged with introducing, debating, amending and passing or rejecting bills brought before it. That doesn't happen anymore. A small number of legislators go behind closed doors to hammer out a deal in secret negotiations as has happened during the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and even The Affordable Care Act. These backroom deals are cut while 95% of the legislators sit in their offices making fund raising calls or do cross-word puzzles instead of actually being involved in the legislative process they were elected for. In my opinion their exclusion is intentional. The leaders than slow walked the process right up to the point where there is a crisis of time and in the waning minutes a bill is brought to the floor for a vote. The legislators, elected to represent us, the taxpayers and voters, are than expected to follow the recommendations of their party leaders without having the opportunity to even read the bill much less have an opportunity to debate or amend it if they believe it would be in the best interest of their constituents. Unfortunately most elected legislators abdicate their authority by accepting this process. Even worse the voters reelect them to continue this charade for 2 or 6 more years.

I predict that the Debt Ceiling negotiations will not produce spending cuts in a significant way. I also predict that the administration will not be willing even make any serious concessions or attempt to reduce spending at all. It appears to me that any amount of debt is acceptable to them and will continue to be acceptable as long as we accept excessive and/or wasteful spending to be referred to as investments.

As was so succinctly said in the Joke Thread, (thanks to Frankoitalionarmy) It is well worth repeating.

Lesson #2

Here’s another way to look at the debt ceiling.

If you come home from work and you find that there has been a sewer back-up in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to the ceilings. What should you do… raise the ceilings or remove the shit?

The conspiracy theory machine is in overdrive...

You can roll your eyes if it gives you a false sense of superiority but do you have a better explanation that would justify continuing to spend way the hell more than is taken in. I can find no justification for that intentional disregard for fiscal responsibility so for my edification, please tell me what else could it be.