Finger-biting, gun-toting health 'debate'

Silva, get that thing of Dick Cheney right now.

He can't breathe in that damned thing.

I'm guessing that the fingerless Wingnut anti healthcare protester is going to find it hard to fire his guns from now on. Couldn't have happened to a nicer thug.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php
.

I'm guessing that the fingerless Wingnut anti healthcare protester is going to find it hard to fire his guns from now on. Couldn't have happened to a nicer thug.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php
.

This is a most perplexing post. So, the guy whose finger was bit off deserved it, because of things that happened at distant events at which he was not a participant? So it's his fault, because of what happened elsewhere? Good grief, this all seems like it's a way for Silva to blame people who do not agree with Obama. It's their fault, simply because of what happened elsewhere.

Now, let's just imagine what the reherotic would be, shall we, if a person who advocated health care reofrm had had his/her finger chomped off by a person who disagreed. Peopld would be ALL OVER that -- it would be right-wing crazies at fault, wouldn't it? Yes, all right-wingers would be at fault. Instead, here, somehow it is still the right-wingers' fault, even though a left-wing crazy has committed a crime.

interesting, don't you think?

We can give a hearty thank you to the HealthScare Insurance Corps and their Republican/Libertarian waterboys, for this great display of our American democracy's, inaction !! Fifty years we have wanted a fair and equitable healthcare system, where greed is not the basis, on which it is determined, by Corporate Bureaucrats, who gets to live longer, then somebody else. Last time they wasted 300-500 Million Dollars to stop the Clinton administration from attempting reform. My guess is, this time around, it is at least that much, if not twice as much. Do you have any idea as to how much they are gouging our nation, in order for us to cover their costs, on the assault on American citizens?!! I would guess that their take, per quarter, makes the slick, Oil Corps, look like petty thieves !! Their greed is satisfied through the illnesses, the infirmity or the accidents, of our citizens. It is time we took the greed out of Healthcare. Let us say good-bye to the greedy, Healthcare Insurance Corps and other groups of people, benefitting from other people's misery. That is not American, that is evil !! Tell all of the politicians who have fattened their coffers with the help of any of these Healthcare Corps, give the money back and let us start to de-invest from these blood-sucking Corps !! Come on, all of you, sane Americans, let's take back our healthcare from these parasites, the HealthScare Corps !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

With the finger biting incident be played all over the news across America...the dems and obama have not only lost the debate about healthcare, but will lose big in 2010. America have had enough of these cross dressing liberal wimps.

You can't add 50 million illegal aliens,bums and losers to our great healthcare system and not expect to have long, long waitiing lines while women give birth in hallways...it's happening in Canada and England right now.

Say NO--to obama care and his socialist agenda! Stand up for our rights and America.

Paulo

Were the two combatants wearing tin foil hats?

Carrying guns isn't merely legal, but common in New Hampshire. Only those from elsewhere had a problem with it.

Biting off an old man's finger isn't merely uncommon, it is illegal maiming, and repulsive.

But you equate it to someone peacefully and legally wearing a gun that might have saved lives had an incident occurred.

Freaky logic.

Mark,
Here's a better picture of Cheney.
.
http://www.daleklinks.co.uk/media/62125/new-davros.jpg
.

How long did it take the right wing lunatic fringe to go from: "if you criticize the President you are a traitor" to "school children should not trust the President" ??

A little over two months - Nov 4, 2008 to Jan 20, 2009.

The Republican party is nothing more than a hypocritcal pile of corporate enabling scum.

They should have put the Teabaggers pinky finger in a brown paper bag, wheeled him out to his car, and said, good luck with that.

I am sick of these psychotic fascist morons/teabaggers. Their fascist GOP heroes (BushCo) wrecked this country, and they are so freakin' stupid that they still haven't figured out that they're being used as dupes by the lobbyists who fill Republican pols campaign coffers.
.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YbQIqpoPLEk/Set2OXKuWQI/AAAAAAAABqQ/8b8WSZNI75E/S290/teabaggers.jpg

The Second Amendment was written for just such times as this.

I am in favor of legal gun ownership. Just want to state that right off the bat. Part of living free is that we have to sometimes take the bad with the good. The safest countries in the world are dictatorships, because you're not allowed to do anything.

I just don't believe that guns are the right way to do things. Particularly if you are a Christian.

Christ clearly teaches in Matthew 5: 30, "Offer no resistance to one who is evil".

If you own a gun for "protection", you have already gone against this teaching, because you have determine to "offer resistance to evil."

I don't see any good that comes from teaching guns are the only way to protect yourself. What about LOVE? REASON? EDUCATION? UNDERSTANDING?

In some situations, guns may change "behavior", but they can't change hearts. And changing the heart of our country so that so many don't feel the need for guns as their protector should be a goal for all.

We should try better to "choose" solutions that don't involve violent resistance.

The Second Amendment was written for just such times as this.

Posted by: Dale Jr. | September 4, 2009 8:49 AM

Bravo "great Americans", this is what you have brought to America. Dale Jr's veiled suggestion to violence. Bravo again. Which American should die first Dale? Whose American voice do you wish to silence first faux patriot? At least have the guts to list them for us big fellow.

Silva and every other liberal,

Since when should the state be providing healthcare to anyone? Healthcare is not a right, nor is housing, nor is food, nor is an education. These things are known as commodities - they are not rights!

A right is something that cannot be taken away. It is not something that is granted or bestowed upon an individual or class by the State.

The genius of the Constitution is the way it begins by acknowledging the existence of rights that transcend the government. These rights are inherent - they existed before you were old enough to acknowledge the authority of the government, and the government is compelled to respect them. It’s equally important to understand that these rights are individual. They do not depend on your membership in any group. It’s easy to agree with this idea, but much harder to fully understand it.

The difference between liberty and anarchy is the understanding that every right comes with an equally significant responsibility. Your right to free speech does not entitle you to speak in ways that directly compromise the rights of others, such as the infamous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” example. Your right to bear arms is not a license to shoot everyone who displeases you. The only creatures on Earth who have rights in the absence of responsibility are children. That’s why socialism always reduces its dependents to infancy. The only way to obtain a benefit like health insurance, without respecting the rights of those who don’t want to give up their existing coverage - or those who earn their livelihood by providing it - is to demand it, with the scream of a needy child. Socialism always turns ugly, as the screams of competing dependents turn blood-curdling, and the State manages scarce resources by deciding whose rights to violate first.

"But you equate it to someone peacefully and legally wearing a gun that might have saved lives had an incident occurred."

Or that could have been used to slaughter dozens iof his fellow citizens in cold blood. Those guys aren't there to protect, they are there to intimidate and to threaten those who's politics they disagree with. They aren't heros, they are thugs. Their actions may be legal, but they aren't to be admired. Any person who cares about free speech and democracy should condemn these chilling attempts to intimidate and threaten.

Why don't we introduce Dr. Lechter to the guy with the gun? The good doctor loves the second amendment with some fava beans.

[quote]
Stand up for our rights and America.

Posted by: Paulo | September 4, 2009 12:16 AM
[/quote]

Gee, Paulo, where was this sentiment for our rights when President Bush was wiretapping American phone calls without court-approved warrants?

Idiot-for-Life BC, Bush was wiretapping those who had or have connections to terrorists. Regular folk like me and perhaps even you (though you really aren't regular, you're more like ridiculous) were not wiretapped.

Now onto other things, in the grand tradition of the Swamp to ignore news that is not kind to the Obimbo administration:
1. I remember about a month ago, the Swamp had an item heralding the unemployment drop from 9.5 to 9.4 and that the unemployment rolls grew by only 217,000. Hmmm, where is the Swamp item about unemployment jumping up to 9.7 percent (and the day after Comb-over Biden said the economy was swell and the stimulus working) and the July newly unemployed numbers revised up to more than 270,000?
Where is the Swamp item about Van Jones being a Truther? We had gobs and gobs of Swamp items about "birthers," but what about the "Truthers?" You know, those whack jobs that think 9/11 was an inside job?

The Swamp: About as fair and balanced as Pravda.

Bill, the Second Amendment exists first and foremost as a check against a tyrannical government. Do a little historical research and you'll find a staggering distrust among the Framers for the very federal government they were creating.

When you joined the military you took an oath to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (not a man or an office or a political policy or an ideology) against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Your loyalty lies with the Constitution and with those who abide by its provisions. Anyone who seeks to subvert the Constitution, even by ostensibly "legal" means, regardless of party and regardless of any office they may hold, must be eyed with great suspicion, as one whose goal it is to steal your liberty. You can do the math from there.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin

John D. wrote: "Bush was wiretapping those who had or have connections to terrorists."


I'm no fan of Bush, but I find it ironic that those who cried "Foul" loudest about the warrantless wiretap program are cheering on Obama as he tramples the Constitution far worse than Bush ever imagined in his wildest dreams. If Bush "shredded" the Constitution, as his critics loved to say, then Obama is in the process of dowsing those tattered shreds with gasoline, lighting the match, and tap-dancing on the smoldering ashes while reciting passages from Marx and Mao. One wonders if Obama's cheerleaders will ever be able to see past their own partisanship to recognize the danger this man poses to the continued well-being of our constitutional republic.

When you joined the military you took an oath to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Posted by: Dale Jr. | September 4, 2009 3:12 PM

Somewhere you missed an important part of that oath:
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,

This finger biting incident was the first salvo in the Second Civil War. I say bring it on. Lets round up some traitorous Republicans. The kind that thinks its cute to foment an insurrection. Lets round them up and line 'em up and Pop Goes the Weasel!!!!!!

"The Republican party is nothing more than a hypocritcal pile of corporate enabling scum."

Of course the Democrats know nothing of hypocrisy, right? Puh-leeze! Hypocrisy is the very air you libs breathe.

The dangerous nature and mob like actions of the rigth-wing "protesters" comes pretty close to a text book definition of insurrection. Which the government has a constitutional right to "put down". I wish Obama would use this constitutional duty.

Posted by: Chris | September 4, 2009 10:05 AM

Health care is a rigth!!! But, even if we disagree on that, you said "The only creatures on Earth who have rights in the absence of responsibility are children."

So, that would mean you think it would be o.k. to provide health care FREE to ALL children. Then, once they reach the age of adult, they're on their own, right?

But the constitution. in Sec 8, does say the government PROVIDES for the general welfare. To me, that clearly includes health care.

If health care is a "commodity", then why do most health care orginazations file under the 501C ("not for profit") tax code?

And, do you know what single organization owns and operates by far the most amount of network of hospitals in the US? The Catholic Church. Almost 20%!! And part of church doctrine supports universal health care coverage.

But I'll tell you what. I don't think my taxes should go to military operations. I'm morally opposed to that. So how about we change the constitution and everyone who wants to can provide, by private organizations, for the nations defense. Then I'll drop the request for the government to provide health care, and we'll be even.

Just remember T-Baggers; You have the 2nd Amendment right to be blown away by Bill K.!
Ain't 'Merica great?

Crusty,
Whhaaaaa???

You want to tell me how BHO has shredded the Constitution, and where he has quoted M and M??
You have got to back that one up.

"Bill, the Second Amendment exists first and foremost as a check against a tyrannical government."

Dale Jr.
And in what universe did BHO not just win a fair election of the people, by the people and for the people?
What tyrannical act did BHO commit, other than defeating McCain and Palin by the widest margin in 3 decades?

All aspects of BHO's win in November are fair and constitutional. Therefore; any call for overthrow of his government is sedation.

You, and others of your ilk are beneath contempt. Beyond that, I don't even trust you to keep your side of the ally picked up, or to operate a vehicle safely, let alone handle a loaded weapon. At least Bill r and I qualified on weapons once upon a time.

Here's the truth of it; That cretin with a gun was threatening the president implicitly. If this had happened at a Bush rally we still wouldn't know where the guy disappeared to.

Here's the 'tyrannical' act BHO committed in your eyes; He and the Dems. just won the election and you don't like it. You are a childish, crybaby. You have spent decades throwing sand, somebody throws it back and you go running home to mommy. Boo Hoo Hoo.

correction;

'sedition' not sedation.

Posted by: Dale Jr. | September 4, 2009 3:12 PM \
Yes dale, that would include fighting against those armed thugs who got to town hall meetings to attempt to intimidate othere. They seek to subvert our democratic processes. They are the domestic enemies of our nation. They seek to use the threat of force to thwart the results of our last election. They aren't patriots. They aren't heros. They are the enemy. Will you stand up for the Constitution against them, or will you be counted amongst the enemies of the Constitution?

"Bush was wiretapping those who had or have connections to terrorists. Regular folk like me and perhaps even you (though you really aren't regular, you're more like ridiculous) were not wiretapped."

Devola! How do you know who was or wasn't tapped? That was half the point of objecting to the
'secret', and 'warrant-less' eavesdropping.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Dale Jr. | September 4, 2009 3:12 PM

That famous Franklin phrase actually supprots liberal causes more. Including the immoral war in Iraq and the domestic spying on private citizens by Bush.

Bush used security to take away freedom and rip apart the constitution his entire administration.

If you have never tried getting private insurance I don't think you have an argument in this debate. Try it sometime if you DON"T think something should be done.

That said, this discussion of healthcare is like attending a union meeting. The people who WON'T run for office and try to change things do not trust the people they voted into office to do the right thing on their behalf. My question is why do you think these people are trying to screw you? If you have all the answers why aren't you running for office and getting your plans/policies enacted? What is stopping you from doing so???

Stop letting your emotions rule your life and use the education you received for critical thinking on resolving the healthcare problem. There is no way that legislation could cover every instance or situation. I firmly believe that the Congress/Senate are trying to do the best for the majority. Healthcare reform is needed badly in this country. Let's hope we get a start this year.

"Somewhere you missed an important part of that oath:
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,"

So are you saying that when the President orders you to exercise the coercive force of the military-backed government to enforce an unconstitutional law against your fellow citizens, that you are required by your oath to obey the President rather than the Constitution?

Would your answer change if Bush were still President? I rather think it would.

C. Morris wrote "And in what universe did BHO not just win a fair election of the people, by the people and for the people?"

I don't think Dale Jr. is making any commentary about the legitimacy of the election results, nor am I. The issue is what Obama is trying to accomplish now that he is in office. Bush was a constitutional disaster on multiple levels, and I have no doubt that McCain would have given us more of the same, but their failings do not excuse or justify Obama's efforts to engineer a socialist revolution by force-feeding the American people a host of unconstitutional policies. The federal government was constituted as a limited one with strictly prescribed powers (see Article I, Section 8), but it has not abided by those constraints since the New Deal, and we the people have stood idly by while the federal government under both parties has run rough-shod over our liberties, arrogantly and presumptuously accreting ever more power to itself.

Now Obama, as only the most recent in a long line of presidential abusers of the Constitution, intends to administer the coup de grace. He is an Alinskyite radical who has surrounded himself with other Alinskyite radicals. The man is a clear and present danger to our constitutional system, and as a doctrinaire Marxist he is deliberately working to subvert the very Constitution under which he obtained his office. Those of you who support this man's agenda in a fit of blind partisanship are enabling his subversion. I fear that by the time you awake to Obama's true agenda it will be too late to reverse the damage.

Whatever Bush may have done wrong, he is gone now (good riddance). But now you need to deal with the much greater threat that has replaced him. This is no longer about Bush's errors, as grievous as those may have been. This is now about the government having been populated by a group of radicals who are systematically deceiving the public to adopt an unconstitutional agenda that will prove the be the undoing of our nation. If you just let it happen without questioning it, or worse, if you actively support it, you are not worthy of the name "American".

syj,

You are completely wrong on all counts. Healthcare cannot be a right. As I said above, rights cannot be taken away or bestowed...they are inherent to all individuals living in a free society. I'm sorry, but your argument is confusing two points and reaching an incorrect conclusion.

You completely miss the point on children having rights without responsibilities.

"but their failings do not excuse or justify Obama's efforts to engineer a socialist revolution by force-feeding the American people a host of unconstitutional policies." " T.C.C.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

First, allow me to remind you, whether you like it or not, it is President Obama, President of all of America !!
" but their failings ", accepted by most fair-minded citizens, to be the reason America found itself in the ditch, after this Dynamic Duo, Bush&Cheney, left office. As a result of their failings, they were the ones who initiated these bailouts and if they didn't, they were too chicken to do so. these great Americans left it for our Democratic President, President Obama, and tried to saddle him with the blame.
".. engineering a socialist revolution..." is about as delusional as, say President Bush's " Mission Accomplished " !! The bloodbath in Iraq continues, in spite of our force-feeding democracy down Iraqi throats, dead or alive !! All forms of government are not pure forms. There is socialistic elements in our form of democracy !! I will go so far as to suggest, that you enjoy one or two of these socialist elements, in the course of your day, from public schooling to the use of our highway systems, not to mention the possible use of Medicare, or Social Security system, by your parents.
".. force-feeding the America people...", do you mean the way the healthcare Corporations, and their hired disrupters and politicians, have tried to do, to our debate about the healthcare crisis ? Do you mean the way Bush&Cheney tried to force-feed the Iraqi people with our democracy, dead or alive ? The American electorate voted President Obama into Office and he has chosen to fix our broken down, abusive and price-gouging healthcare system. He has tried to work with the Republican/Libertarian fringe, but to no avail. Their reasoning is, I am sure, why should they cut their own throats and support President Obama's healthcare initiative. Let the people continue to be victimized by the greed based healthcare system !! It's no skin off of their nose, they have " government-run " healthcare and it is fine with them !!
"...a host of unconstitutional policies. " Now, that is the most poorly thought out point, of your distorting description of President Obama's efforts on behalf of all the people of America !! Take a wild guess and ask yourself, if these policies were unconstitutional, wouldn't there be some lawyer in the Republican/Libertarian fringe that would have challenged these policies in a court of law ? Go figure. All I can ask is that you, please, get your head out of your ideology !! You would be doing your country and yourself a big favor, not to mention the millions that are uninsured, or underinsured !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

" Don Fitzgerald, IL": You say: "First, allow me to remind you, whether you like it or not, it is President Obama, President of all of America !!"

I suppose the irony is lost on you. How likely is it that you would have posted the same sentence substituting "President Bush"? Not very likely at all. I suppose then it is only Presidents you like that are "President of all America". Others, not so much.

Rick

I regret to have to spell it out for you, " Rick", but I was referring to President Obama's elected office, not his policies. As for Bush, when he held the Office, in spite of his failings, and they are legendary, I always honored the Office. You, Republican/Libertarians fringe, just don't get it. He is our nation's President, whether you voted for him or not, whether you agree with his policies or not. Just to go over Civics 101, when a person holds the office of President, he should, out of respect for the Office, be referred to as, President Obama, or President Bush. If you are incapable of doing that, I can only imagine what other courtesies you are incapable of offering !! I would advise you to quit your supposing and assuming, they just make you look that much more ridiculous and, believe me, after noticing a few of your posts, that seems to be a habit of yours. Try a little harder, you may get it, yet !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Chris | September 5, 2009 10:53 AM

And what is the difference with the 2nd amendment? Why is that a right? It can't be "taken away"? Yes it can. If you committ a felony, it get's taken away.

And you still need to "purchse" a gun if you choose. Are you saying we do NOT have a RIGHT to even "purchase" health insurance?

Those who purchase guns largely do it for "self defense" or to protect themselves from harm or bodily injury.

We buy health insurance to protect our body from (or recover from) illness or injury.

Can't it be considered a RIGHT in terms of having the option to purchse it, just like one may choose the option to purchase a gun?

Maybe we've been looking at it the wrong way. The argument is not so much about having a "right" to purchase. But does the government have any obligation to assisst those who have trouble affording it.

I say yes!! And this has nothing to do with rewarding irresponsible or "lazy" behavior. The fact is, there are millions of hard-working Americans that bust their butts, but unfortunate circumstances just sometimes get in the way of making ends meet. Civilized society has an obligation to not simply let those good, har-working people sink.

"Take a wild guess and ask yourself, if these policies were unconstitutional, wouldn't there be some lawyer in the Republican/Libertarian fringe that would have challenged these policies in a court of law ?"

Don, even if we assume the absence of a challenge (which I do not concede, since I'm sure these are happening but are not sufficiently high-profile to catch much attention in the propaganda press), that doesn't make them magically constitutional. Please point me to the Constitutional provision that supports "Cash for Clunkers", or TARP, or a government-run health system, or Medicare (including Bush's Medicare part D) or Social Security or 90% of what the federal government has been doing under both parties for the past 70 plus years.

And don't give me that vapid, uninformed tripe about the "general welfare" clause. The general welfare language that opens Article I, Section 8 refers to the welfare of the United States, not of individual citizens. Likewise, the "necessary and proper" clause at the end of Article I, Section 8 refers only to actions necessary to carry out the "foregoing" enumerated powers. All other powers not granted in this Section are reserved to the people and the states under the 9th and 10th amendments, respectively.

This isn't rocket science. It's plain English. Here it is so you and everyone else can read it for yourselves. Obviously our elected officials haven't read it.

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I see I made the mistake of engaging a conspiratorialist. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to waste my time, trying to have a rational discussion with one, who sees, boogeymen, everywhere he/she looks. Like I said, go " force-feed " yourself with some reality !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

syj,

The government has no responsibility to individuals to provide healthcare. As I said before, investing such a responsibility with the State reduces individuals to a state of infancy and dependence. We are not infants, we are a society comprised of free individuals who can make decisions for ourselves.

Or are you arguing that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and our government is right to make those choices on our behalf?

syj,

Also, if you do not understand why the 2nd Amendment is a right, which cannot be taken away (not withstanding your exception), your understanding of the Constitution and US History is rather poor.

Posted by: Chris | September 6, 2009 12:28 PM

That is not really my point in this case. What I am saying is, the government does not "issue" American citizens guns. You have the right to purchase or not to purchase. Like any other "commodity".

Now, if there was a specific reason for the founders to put that in, that's fine. But the government can't ban you from purchasing automobiles either, or televisions, or refirdgerators, etc. I guess my question is, why are GUNS singled out for protection from "infringement"?

If the government made a law banning the ownership of automobiles, that would be unconstitutional as well, wouldn't it? Although autos are not specifically singled out for protection like guns are.

I never understood the necessity of singling out a particular item. That is why I think conservatives (and even some Justices) do not interpret the 2nd amendment correctly. Regarding the "individual rigth vs collective" debate.

Not that it should be illegal to own guns. Because I don't believe that. But It doesn't make sense for any single item to have been singled out for constiutional protection.

Syj,

Keep thinking about why the founders thought it important that the citizenry have the right to hold arms. The answer cannot be that far away from you, can it?

Think real hard about it, and I'm sure the answer will present itself.

"I see I made the mistake of engaging a conspiratorialist."

No, Don, you made the mistake of engaging a constitutionalist. Why are you ducking my question? The Constitution was written for a defined purpose, to create a government for certain useful purposes (to protect the liberties of American citizens) while at the same time imposing strict limits on the power of that government. Words mean things, especially in the Constitution, but ever since the FDR days our elected officials of both parties seem to have forgotten that.

If I may be so radical, I'll quote another "conspiratorialist" who, I think, would agree with me:

'We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Although I already know the answer (sadly), I'll ask the question anyway: Which side are you on, Don?

SYJ rote: The government has no responsibility to individuals to provide health-care. So syj, do you have health care Ins. that isn't going to disappear if cancer or some other catastrophic illness costs you your job. Because it would be nice to know that I the taxpayer wont have to pay for a hypocrite when He comes knocking at the door of the County Hospital.

Well, an anti health care demonstrator got his pinkeye finger bitten off and spit into the street. I'm really looking for a prop 8 demonstration and counter demonstration now. I wonder who will stick what into the mouth of whom and get it bitten off. I'm going to be sporting a steel jock strap though, and maybe even a piece of steel plate down the back of my pants. This is better than wrestle mania and Jerry Springer combined. HOOO but alas, there hasn't been a prop 8 demonstration for a while.