Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Does the second amendment give me the right to a gun paid for collectively by my neighbors?

Posted 2 years ago on March 6, 2012, 9:06 p.m. EST by craigdangit (326)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Studies indicate that firearms are used around two million times a year for self defense. Also in certain parts of the country they are used to collect food to feed the hungry. In addition, I have heard people say that people have a right to safety. Does any of this mean that gun ownership is a right that needs to be made available to all citizens of good legal standing? If not, why not?

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

no - but the second amendment gives your neighbors the right to laugh at an idiot

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I will give them a link to your post then lol

So that's it? No rational argument? You just call names like every other partisan bastard without enough brainpower to form something called "debate"

Wait a second, you think the second amendment has to do with speech? You're dumber than I thought. And that's saying something.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah!! Keep up the good work, brother! Don't let these losers come on here and trick you into thinking too hard about anything and debating!

[-] 2 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

The founders of the Constitution even pointed out that the main reason that we can and need to protect the right to have a gun is to protect yourself from the tyranny of the government. Also simply going to jail for any reason takes that right to own a gun away. Saying that I will NOT pay to get you your gun.

[-] 1 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

Yes and mandatory firearm training to go with it. We would need less cops if the criminal eliment knows that everyone is packing heat. 9/11 would have never happened cause the terrorists would have been baggage before anything happened. The idea of a citizen miltia was that the citizens would take care of there own and not have to call 911. This is one idea that could save taxpayer money. Out here in Chardon if teachers were armed this would be over and we would not have to bury 4 students.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well I was in the army and I didn't have to pay for my rifle. I guess anyone in a well regulated militia might get his gun for free.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

First of all, is the second amendment about the military?

secondly, I am glad you are following the letter of the constitution when deciding what things should be given free by the government. More people should.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Right.

That's in the bill of rights so that the federal government can't disarm its own military?

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It isn't all that clear to me, is it to you? I think they're speaking of State Militias, which were the predominant form the military took back then. "A free state" Is that like New Jersey, or The USA?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

They are referring to individuals. They wouldn't have changed the meaning of the phrase "the people" from meaning individuals in the first amendment, to meaning "the states" in the second, then back to individuals for the rest of the bill of rights. Also, they wouldn't need protect the right of the government to own weapons from government intrusion in the bill of rights, which is supposed to protect the rights of individuals anyway. I think it's pretty clear.

In Thomas Jefferson's version of the constitution, his second amendment read "No freedmen shall ever be debarred the use of arms".

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

A militia consists of "the people" and they have the right to bear arms. I guess. I wonder if it wasn't deliberately ambiguous. In any case I think the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to individuals with or without a state militia.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I can't see this poster being able to use his Gun or a weapon.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

In what way? Please elaborate. What do you think of the issues posed?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

They are, all you have to do is sign up for the Army. I understand they are quite useful in Afghanistan

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So the second amendment is about the military?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yes it is. My ancestor was a cosigner of the Massachusetts Bay Company proclamation creating the first "well regulated militia" as a member of the General Court and he commanded one of the first 13 in the Penobscot War. What do you want to know?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

"Gun related injuries"...

Canada's violent crime rate is twice as high as ours is, and Britain's is four times higher. I don't know what factors would cause a less violent country like ours to have a higher mortality rate, but it must have to do with care after the crime.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

In any case, the appropriate motivation should be to lower crime, lower violence, lower the injury rate and the mortality rate. Any serious approach should have a serious hearing.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Right. It's just not a good example of gun control, when their crime rates are through the roof.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

How did the meaning of the term "the people" mean, you know, actual people in the first amendment, then change meanings in the second amendment to mean "the government", then go back to mean "people" in the remainder of the constitution?

Also, why did the founding fathers, in the bill of rights, feel the need to prevent the federal government from disarming its own military? Did they anticipate this occurring?

And, were the founding fathers so adamant about enumerated powers that they felt the need to mention the military more than twice in the constitution? Would this call into question other federal programs that are not enumerated powers in the constitution?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The amendments were drafted after the Constitution that is why they are amendments. The founders were stupid to think they could get the constitution ratified without the kind of rights that had been in the governing documents of Massachusetts sine early in it's history (after the revolt of the freemen). There was a feeling of urgency in getting something done before the whole thing came apart and England or France or both started gobbling up colonies one, or a few, at a time. Amendments were drafted by competing interests and the language wasn't always scrubbed to get the terminology to mean exactly the same thing and then they were amended sometimes separately. There were several others proposed and I believe ratification began with 12 rather than but the other two fell out in the process.

The militia and the federal military never worked together very well. Although some of the colonies had active militias, active didn't mean they were well armed. Virginia for example didn't have any guns and several others had from a few to about half armed with some kind of firearms most of which were obsolete matchlocks. The states had never appropriated any money for arms except for some powder and lead. The militias were never effective, poorly trained and although their numbers were counted commanders rarely counted on them. But there was always the wish (at the federal level) that the states would somehow get their militias armed either by incenting the citizens to buy their own or get the states to provide them by mandating it. There's a concept, "mandate". But it didn't really work. The feds wanted to provide the officers (and had in the past) but the fed was deep in debt and couldn't afford to arm a significant force (see War of 1812).

So a "well regulated militia" would have had regular army officers 9mustered out and paid by the states) and hopefully armed by the states or the citizens themselves perhaps with some incentives Gun were very scarce, very expensive and most people who were not rich would rather buy a plow or other farm equipment.

Regarding the mentions. People agonize over today's problems and are not sure that tomorrow will ever come. So they fight over small irritating issues write detailed solutions and leave much more important issues to be addressed in broad philosophical statements.

They were a lot more human than we give them credit for being. They did their version of cutting and pasting from other documents to save time and speed up acceptance.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So, by saying, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are actually saying that the states need to provide arms for free to their militias. Got it.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison

Sounds exactly like the military to me, since I have predetermined conclusions about the subject.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "

-Noah Webster

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

And

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

-Tench Coxe

I think it was pretty well understood at the time.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And a well regulated militia being....? I believe that has meaning, as well. Some may have had in mind something like the Swiss style of compulsory universal service.

But, there were multiple arguments surrounding these these issues. I refer you to the Congressional Record and CSPAN. You will find a boat load of rhetoric in the debate, some of it serious, some not. Some taken seriously, some not. Because one person said something doesn't make it a consensus. A lot of posturing was going on centered on the war debts. So many things were said that were more about leverage to be used re other issues. And it wasn't unusual to argue both sides of an issue at different times.Be aware that 13 left the convention without signing and 3 never did.

Was Noah Webster a signatory?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I can get more if you want them. Ah, what the heck.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

-John Adams

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. "

-Richard Henry Lee

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"

-Patrick Henry, speaking snidely to Edmund Pendleton, who opposed the bill of rights.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

-Sam Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

-Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry again

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

-Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton

So, do you take an originalist interpretation to the constitution concerning every subject?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Not at all. First they were human beings with all of the weaknesses of the breed. You wouldn't have had the rhetoric above if the issue weren't contentious at the time. Second, the banks were in the process of unreasonably foreclosing properties left and right (like today) and nobody, individuals, states or federal government wanted to pay for the arms that would very soon be needed to fight the British, yet again.

So they tried to solve, or wall paper over the problems at hand, to try to round up enough votes. The 3/5 compromise wasn't our finest hour, but I guess it was necessary. But did it have to take forever to fix it?

To say that they couldn't have anticipated the firepower of the weapons of today, drug turf wars, communications, is a major understatement and should give any originalist pause. The one thing that hasn't changed is money. These were the richest guys in the country and they worried as much about it as anything and still couldn't make the language clear enough to keep it from eating us all.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Why are you not an originalist then? You sound like one on this issue, why not carry it to its logical conclusion?

These were the military style weapons of the day. It likely would not have concerned the founders, since the above quotes attest that the second amendment is there to keep the balance of power with the people. this was not a significant debate at the time, but a consensus of the signers. Of course they discussed it!

In a world where many people were armed only with hand-to-hand weapons, such as swords and cutlasses, a crazed person with even a matchlock could kill as many people then as a person today could with an AR-15, circumstances allowing.

As the above quotes attest, the purpose of the second amendment is to keep the balance of power to the people at large, so of course the founders would have wanted the same class of weapons available to the people. It is most definitely in line with originalism.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Actually it was mostly pikes and halberds,and pitchforks. Most of the serious weapons had been returned to armories. That is why the Shays's rebellion folks tried to take the armory in Springfield. I hear the arguments but I don't accept that the highest priority was the balance of power between the government and the people. One of the main issues were the states and banks gobbling up the federal notes given to the soldiers and foreclosing on properties that had mortgages in pound sterling and demanding payment in Continental Dollars. People were very upset about the feds coming to the support of the state governments which were totally controlled by the rich guys. The Shays's guys were frustrated that the feds intervened before they could string up the bankers.

It is hard to be an originalist and then take the latitude to selectively translate the parts you want to 2012, saying well, if they were here....

The chances are pretty good that if you believe they were practical people then, they would be practical people now. And practical people universally agree that......

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

When did I say I was an originalist, first of all? You are the one who is saying the constitution should be interpreted as if things had not changed since its writing, and the same weapons were available. Sounds like originalism to me....

Why am I still arguing this? I provided you with several quotes indicating that the sky was blue at the time, and you said you didn't believe me. So I put up a dozen more, and you are still telling me the sky was, in fact, green at the time? Do you have any quotes to back this up?

I can't believe someone as well-studied as yourself would imply that the founders were not concerned about the balance of power between the people and the government. Have you by chance read the Federalist Papers?

I don't know what parts of the constitution I am selectively translating... clarification would be gratiously appreciated.

Please also finish the sentence about practical people. One of the biggest mistakes a person can make during a debate is to fool themselves into thinking the other debator is motivated purely by greed, stupidity, or evil. It degrades discourse rapidly and prevents change and progress.

Practical people agree that firearms ownership has little to negative effect on the crime rate, and cultural differences play a much more important role. Practical people also agree that basic protection is necessary in certain parts of the country that do not have significant access to police forces, to protect from wild animals, and to even physical differences between people that would otherwise fall prey quickly.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I was responding to your suggestion that I should be an originalist and I gave you some reasons why that is a difficult position to take. Yes I have read the Federalist papers, but I caution that what is written did not record all of the arguments or points of view. And that just because it was written doesn't really prove that that party was always consistent in holding that point of view. I also tried to point pout that the constituencies back home were fighting their own battles which weren't necessarily central to the specifics of the fundamental right(s) that were being hashed out but definitely had some influence on the debate and probably the outcome. It was a complicated time and the context mattered, and it influenced the final language of the Bill of Rights.

If it was perfect we would have 27 amendments minus 1. And it has become obvious that another one, two or three are desperately needed.

The reason I didn't complete the sentence is that it can't be complete truthfully, because practical people never "universally " agree on anything. It was sarcasm, which I can't seem to give up using.

Practical people might somewhat agree that we have the highest per capita crime rate in the world and the highest incarceration rate in the world and that we don't seem to understand how to reduce either of those numbers. I have lived in the wild west and it isn't utopia.

I didn't intend to disappoint you or make you feel jerked around. I am sorry. Please don't shoot me.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Please don't shoot you? First of all, I am not angry or flustered, just depressed at the turn the debate seemed to be taking. I love debate, I just don't like it when people resort to certain tactics. It seems to be back on track now, unless your last statement was some sort of attempt to make me look like a gun owner, or enforce some sort of stereotype. Which is another mistake people can make during debates, straying from the issues being debated to make snide remarks....

We don't have the highest per capita crime rate in the world, not even close. I would like to know where you got that statistic. And I am unclear which amendment you are saying needs to be taken away, a lot of people want to repeal the tenth amendment. But there are very specific guidelines for altering the constitution, so, who knows which grassroots movement will take hold next :)

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"Don't shoot" is a joke. This more of a conversation than a debate, from my end. I don't get any points from defeating your arguments or losing my own. I don't know you or anything about you.We start some where in the middle with neither of us clearly stating a position as would happen in a debate and defending them.

And it is not unusual in conversations about guns, for someone to suddenly expose an extreme position. In a conversation it is fun to throw out interesting facts to gradually explore more dimensions of the issue. I am guilty of doing just that. From Wikipedia, which can be a questionable source, I know: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers.[9]"

Clearly there are a lot of third world countries that are worse, so normally we are compared with other advanced or industrialized nations and no matter how you slice it we have little bragging room.

Our criminal justice system (including laws) is not something I take pride in. The "war on drugs" is an abysmal failure.

The amendment I was referring to was "prohibition."

Amendments needed include public funding of elections and getting the money out of elections fed, state and local. And getting the corruption out of governance at all levels, explicit equality for all, get the government out of everybody's bedroom, doctor's offices etc.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Because it fits my predetermined conclusions! The whole constitution actually was set up as a socialist republic if you read it right!

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

do you belong to DAR or SAR?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Neither but qualify through more than one branch. Then lots of family in the Civil War, Union side.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well, let's take it one further: equal rights. If we had passed the Equal Rights Amendment both women AND men under Obamacare would qualify for free contraception. Why are only women covered?

If a woman can say, I don't want to care for a child - and then "abort" - why can't a man say, I don't want to care for a child? Refusal to support is considered by the courts to be immoral... but killing what will become a future child is not.

We are a really sick, irrational, society in that much of our logic fails the test of consistency.

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

Perhaps my homeowners insurance should cover the cost of a good Smith and Wesson riflle...Could reduce potential claims of B&E.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Wealth redistribution, absolutely.

Some, truthfully, have far more than they will ever use - I say we divvy 'em up. And it's NOT all of "legal standing"; the Constitution makes no such differentiation because the Founders assumed that good shall triumph over evil, however armed.

I agree with that assessment.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Thing is, though, we all have more than we COULD ever use. Do all of us have more than we need? Of course. But does that mean homeless people get to divide up what we have?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well the homeless are people too, ya know... Sure, resource redistribution and all that - let's divvy up the guns and give them their fair share.

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

only if you are a Journalism student at Colombia University. Since the school's core belief are against gun ownership, that's where you go to get them to pay for your gun. i know it hard to follow ask Nancy Pelosi to explain.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

It is available to all citizens of good legal standing.Doesn't mean the govt should provide everyone a gun .Just more redistribution of wealth. Why should I have to pay for anybody's gun other than my own. People need to quit looking for a handout and get off their ass and work for things.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I agree, people shouldn't have to pay for each other's things.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Join the military and you have a free one and be in a well regulated militia.Sounds like an absurd troll post.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So the second amendment is about the military? And no, it won't be "free", I thought we had moved past the absurd idea that things from the government are "free". You are the troll, because you are obviously trying to make me and my fellow occupiers look like morons who think that the government gives away "free" things. Stop stereotyping us and go back to watching Glenn Beck, you moron.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Calling names looking to fight about a NON issue. We did not move past anything.You are not an occupier but you do look as you said" a moran" .Unlike you I know that the only thing free issued by the US Govt. are bailouts and corporate welfare.You do not need a gun you would end up shooting yourself.Which may not be a bad thing!

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Okay, sorry, you are not a moron. Although I did not spell it the way you claimed...

It was really late last night and the trolls had been working me over all evening. I snapped because you called me a troll. What makes you say I am not an occupier? I have supported this movement since its inception. And bailouts are despicable! I know they are not free, someone has to pay them and it ends up being us.

What makes you say I don't need a gun? I have been separated from my ex-husband for three years and he beat me almost to death once. Don't make my personal decisions for me and tell me what I do and do not need please!

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

Great idea. Insurance paid contraceptives and insurance paid guns... I love it.

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

You have it just call the police and it will be delivered to your door ,if deemed necessary.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Security? I live 15 minutes from a police station. If you think I can rely completely on the police for my safety, there is no hope for you.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Own a gun, protect yourself.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No don't! they are inherently evil and have been known to go off spontaneously! Save yourself!

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Sounds like chicken shit to me.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

LOL Obvious troll is obvious! Because no one lives in rural areas lol good one.

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

I live in a rual area and am not afraid of the big bad wolf.Your just chicken shit.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I know, right? All of those crime statistics are just made up by Republicans who are trying to make children die of accidental gun deaths. Don't believe those ridiculous "facts" like firearms being used two million times a year for self defense.

In the Real World, everyone gets along just fine and no crimes ever occur. If something really, really bad and out of the ordinary ever happened, like a Jehova's Witness ever came to your door, you could call the police and they would be there before you even picked up the phone. That's how fast the response is! They will always be there to protect you and don't ever let the Republicans trick you into letting one of those self destructing 9mm death machines into your house to kill your entire family in your sleep. Don't be another statistic! Let the police protect you! I'm not afraid of anything! Just self defense!

Also, Name calling passes as rational debate apparently. Usually, the first one to start calling names loses from what I have seen.

Can't tell if trolling or just stupid.

[-] 1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

I live in a rural area and I'm not afraid of shit. Why? Because I don't depend on the Police to come and save me or my family.

Can you say the same?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I hear crickets.

[-] 1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

Yeah,them lily liver'ed Libs can't really debate this gun issue with any legitimacy. They're trying to defend an indefensible position. They can spout the Leftist anti-gun propaganda all they want but they will resort to name calling when losing the debate.

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

chicken shit means you are a pussy

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Yes thy neighbors shall provide ye with black powder weaponry. For it is written.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Are you kidding? The constitution blatantly says it is a right, so no way! Clearly the founder's definition of "right" is something that needs to be paid for by your neighbors and given to you! Like birth control! I doubt anyone will reply directly to this comment, but I sure bet it will be downvoted!

[-] 3 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Come on troll. Tricks are for kids. The Bill of Rights designated the rights which cannot be infringed upon. It is negative rights. "congress shall make no law..." The Bill of Human Rights under Rooselvelt, although not passed, designates positive rights, such as clean air, water, food and shelter and in the modern context, health care. Also, what insurance companies cover is regulated in each state currently. A national insurance bill means harmonizing what is covered and not. Why do you care so much about birth control and not about paying for (other?) people's electroshock treatments at par with other medical treatments now. It's rhetorical. I doubt you will reply directly, but you can down vote it.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

We need a National lobbyist written regulation so that, in case someone is living in two states simultaneously, the insurance companies can't tinker with him!

What really gets my dander up is when someone questions the legal authority of a bill that was never signed into law! It obviously trumps anything ever written in the constitution!

The founders never left any way to amend the constitution as times change, so we need to start ignoring it when it says something we don't agree with! They won't care, they're all dead anyway!

Besides, they put the tenth amendment in there as a joke! No reason at all!

I don't know what the heck you mean about electroshock treatments, but it sounds good!

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Now you just don't make sense. I don't think you know much about the health care bill. My point was you keep going off on the payment of birth control for some reason when you also will have to pay for all sorts of other things, like electroshock, that often is not paid by insurance companies.

I don't care if you don't like the health care bill but you should formulate an argument against it rather than posting ridiculous rhetorical questions.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Two wrongs always always make a right! Let's make people pay for everything! Like guns for self defense! That was what the thread was about anyway!

[-] 0 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Oooops, sorry, now I see what you are saying...

You're off topic though. The question is "Why is the health care bill unconstitutional?"

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

It is unconstitutional because it forces everyone to "pay" a fee. Now, if the federal government wants to collect a sum of money from each individual then they are required to o it as a "capitation" tax but the capitation tax was replaced by the income tax.

The only authority the federal government has to collect money from any individual is through the "income" tax and they don't do a good job at that.

[-] 0 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

See below.

[-] -3 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I'll take "the tenth amendment" for 200 Alex...

And for the record, the topic was guns. But anyway, we can roll with this.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Down voted for being off topic still. Please follow the thread.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Not even true, you asked why the health care bill was unconstitutional, and I told you.

Down voted for kicks and giggles.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I asked you in the thread below.

[-] -1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are requesting rational arguments against acts of which flagrantly defy this nation's constitution.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Why? I'm not familiar with the part that says Congress shall make no law forcing you to buy something.

In fact, since we are on the subject of guns. George Washington passed a law forcing every male to purchase/own a gun for the protection of the United States against Great Britian.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

The tenth amendment sure as heck doesn't cover it! Whoo-ee!

Thank you for reminding me, making people pay for birth control is for the national defense!

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Honestly I'm not a huge birth control advocate, but it does have its uses outside birth control. It can treat osteoporisis (a large cause of DEATH), migraines (can also cause DEATH, which may surprise people), severe cramps and scarring acne in young-this often afflicts teenagers (not married) women for example. It's a drug that is neither evil or not evil, depending on how you use it (I'm Catholic, so I understand where maybe you are coming from).

The states can object is they wish. That is a right, but their delegates in Congress didn't, so it became law.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No, I agree. I am not the least bit against birth control. I just don't want people to pay for it for me and don't want to pay for anyone else's. It is my right.

Have you studied the separation of powers? There is a difference between Congress and the states. Congress most definitely is a part of the Federal Government, not the states. And many of the representatives in congress, reflecting the wishes of the people in their respective states, voted against the health care law. Yet the states they represent are not any more exempt from it than the states that are for it.

Congress essentially is the Federal Government, and it is precisely what the Tenth Amendment refers to. What part of the federal government is prohibited from making laws that oppress the states if it is not the legislative and executive branch of the federal government?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Hmmmm, I'm going to go out on a limb and not google this so maybe I am going to get owned here, but don't the states legistatures have to form an assembly to of 2/3 majority to down vote Congress's bill?

What you are advocating is "nullification." That didn't work so great in the Civil War and is not considered "constitutional."

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

2/3 majority is one option. I believe there are others. The supreme court could wake up and realize the tenth amendment was not added arbitrarily.

I don't care how it happens, but Congress has decided over the years that they don't have to follow the constitution. Illegal wars, Illegal laws, et cetera. It needs to stop, I don't care how.

How is nullification "not constitutional"? If all the rules set forth in the constitution for overturning a federal law are followed, it is by definition constitutional.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

"Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts was legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions." Wikipedia

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

wikipedia is the ultimate of phoney sources.

[-] 1 points by DKAtroll (7) 2 years ago

That civil war was a good one, huh?

Abe is a real hero and a great "man".

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Abe was president in 1798? The point here is that there is a long judicial precendent that nullification is not constitutional. I do believe Lincoln was a man, yes.

[-] -3 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Obamacare has done nothing but INCREASE costs.All the mandated freebies have cause the insurance companies to pass the costs on to the consumer. This is being done to slowly drive all private medical insurance companies out of business and get everyone on the govt plan where your health care will be controlled by them.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Please, please go out of business private insurance companies!

Na, I don't like Obamacare as a format for fixing the system. Mostly because its a system set up to screw over most of us by putting us into Medicaid while cutting funding for the program at the same time. Most health care spending is spent on just 1-2% of the population. We could benefit enormously by concentrating on those reasons and setting up special clinics for people with diseases like diabetes. Give them free meds, stomach stapling, whatever it takes to keep them off of dialysis, for example.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Umm the key words being "not passed".

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

You need to read the entire conversation.

[-] -1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

" positive rights, such as clean air, water, food and shelter and in the modern context, health care"

This is where the Left always goes off the tracks on their Crazy Train.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm not the "Left." The author is comparing apples to oranges. Sigh. This is why we can't have a serious discussion, like, ever, on a blog. Do you have an opinion except its "crazy train"

Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living. Source: Wikipedia

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

What's really crazy is the idea that positive rights need to be written as an amendment to the constitution before they are legal! Now we're talking nut house!

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I was giving an overview of the history to explain the distinction and why its different than your right to bear arms. Positive rights ARE written into a lot of laws now. For example, due to school segregation, I know our state has laws that promise that public education is a right and that a certain level of funding must be given to all schools to ensure all students are given a proper education.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Oh okay! Well that settles it! Forget about the constitution then, because Cape Willard, North Dakota passed a town ordinance saying a clown nose and a hoagie sandwich every morning is a human right! That trumps everything!

[-] 3 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Sir: The Constitution has been amended you realize, yes?

And if such a town passed such an ordinance, then I suppose it would be so. Again, why with the ridiculous rhetorical questions?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

See where I am coming from?

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Because, the town could make provision of those things if the people of the town declared it to be, but they would have to use only money collected in the town. For the federal Government to declare such a thing a right they would need to first amend the US constitution to reflect that, they couldn't just pass such a measure on a simple majority vote.

I realize the constitution can and has been amended. That is precisely my point. Remember during prohibition? the constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol. That is the action we need to take if we want to prohibit anything else, or make the federal government provide any additional services. Why did they bother to amend the constitution if they could have just passed prohibition on a simple majority vote?

[-] 1 points by OWSJesus (20) 2 years ago

Kennesaw Georgia, you must own a firearm to be a resident. Amazingly enough, very low crime rate.

[-] -1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

My opinion is that positive rights are the gospel of the Left and as such are antithetical to what the Founders and America are all about.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Source please

[-] -1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

"The Bill of Human Rights under Rooselvelt, although not passed, designates positive rights"

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Roosevelt was not among the "Founder Fathers" was he?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I didn't say he was. YOU said the Founding Fathers would have found it "Un-American." Please find me a reference.

Please pick Paine, please pick Paine...

[-] 1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

I'm not going to look for a link to satisfy you when my point was also that "positive rights" are antithetical to what America is about.

Can you find a reference from the Founding Fathers that specifically or implicitly states that all of them were in support of "positive rights"?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

If you don't know why you're saying something or hold a position, then maybe, just maybe, your position is a mindless parroting of a talking point.

[-] 0 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

Nice try but,I'm thinking you don't really know WTF you're really talking about anyway,because you can't seem to answer even the most simple question concerning your ideology.

What are you a Leftist or an Independent? Cause you sure ain't a conservative

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Well, If I'm not a Liberal and I'm not a Conservative, what does that leave? Answer: Moderate, slightly liberal in economics, mixed views on social issues, depends I hate to say "Independent" since those are usually people who have no views of any kind. I'm a true blood type, oft spoken of, but rarely seen

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Sigh,I'm sorry,you made that statement so logic dictates you must agree with it. Do you?

You must be part of the "no label" crowd,that's cool,........... I guess.....sigh,shoulders shrugging,head tilts,...look of "oh well" on my face.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

What sarcastic SOB's. No, they are not inalienable rights. They are public goods.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

But you didn't answer,do you agree with the idea of "positive rights"? Do you believe "positive rights" should be considered to be as real and as binding as a Constitutional right?

By the way,chill out and lighten up.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

No. Do you have comprehension difficulties? They are not binding Constitutional rights. They are public goods, which means although they may be distributed my the market, they are best distributed through the government.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Absolutely! Don't believe that ridiculous definition of public goods being nonexcludable and nonrivalrous!

Public goods are any old thing we decide that the government needs to provide! More power to the lobbyists in Congress! Yay!

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

A public good is an economic concept. Some goods are obviously public goods, like air. Prevent me from sharing your air. Try it. Would you really argue it's not?

Now, if health should be provided as a public good or not is a reasonable question. I think it should be, but I can see people's objections. Maybe we should keep it part public and private like we have it now? Or all private?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Public goods are classified based on the factors of nonexcludability and nonrivalry. Excludability, as you noted, is the fact that I cannot prevent you from sharing my air. So air is nonexcludable. It is also nonrivalrous, in a practical sense, because if you take some air you are not using some of a limited supply. These two factors generally go hand in hand, and are what most economists use to classify goods along the public/private line. The public provision of private goods is said to be the definition of socialism. In nearly all cases, if a good can be privatized, it will have been already.

As far as the health care mess goes, health institutions aren't really paid to cure people and satisfy customers, like Wal-Mart is. They pretty much are paid to run up the tab on insurance companies, customers, and the government. Research labs are paid to research illnesses, not insentivized to produce a cure. Certain regulations need to be repealed if people want costs to go down. Testing and approval takes about 50% of the time it takes to develop a new drug. Terminal patients should be allowed to start taking new drugs, with full disclosure, as soon as they leave animal testing or before. This could be a difference of around six years. A lot of people die in this time.

Can you imagine how much health costs would go down if people could agree to limit their legal recourse to $10,000 or less? The fact of the matter is, I have that right to seek medical care without enormous liability at a reduced cost.

Note that I never even said if I thought the health system should be public or private, but I think these things are worth thinking about.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

First, I gave you a like point. I have spent most of my career in research medicine. A research lab may research illnesses or cures. Genetics labs research illness. Most research basic medicine-the reason for the illness. Our money comes from the government. Some may research environmental reasons. Terminal patients are often enrolled in "Phase II" trials. This means we test the animal treatments on a few healthy people first and see what happens and come up with a proper human dose. We might give healthy people a lot or a little and see if their livers and other organs show stress. This helps us know if we would kill a sick patient. It's important, since animal models aren't good enough. Terminal patients have special guidelines and can then receive the drug even though its only been slightly tested because they have no other options. They can't sue if they die or get hurt.

There are other ways to handle liability claims than caps. Caps didn't Texas. In Germany and most other countries with public health care systems you basically can't sue. You report bad care and the doctor really might lose their license unlike here where that is highly unlikely. If continued care is promised, there is little incentive to sue-you know you can afford your continued care if you are disabled and there is a cultural respect for the humanity of doctors-they aren't seen as gods.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Are terminal patients merely eligible for trials after phase II or can they be prescribed the medicine immediately? What I am speaking of is allowing terminal patients to start taking the medicine at or before phase I.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

They are eligible during Phase II. Normally Phase II would have strict "exclusion criteria" because you can't tell if the drug is working or not if the patients have too many illnesses/ taking too many medications. If half your patients died in Phase II, the FDA would stop the trial, too. So, the FDA makes special accomodations for these patients, but we can't give them something we are only testing on rats, no.

[-] -1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

Thanks F350,but I got it from here.....LMAO funny though.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Being ignorant really isn't funny. Especially when you're entire financial system-and American way of life- is on the brink of collapse. Break out the books. Education is power.

[-] -1 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

"Education is power"

So is spell check.

What are you a Leftist or an Independent? Cause you sure ain't a conservative.

[-] 0 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

My brother has over a 200 IQ and can't spell, either. Spelling, like hand writing, has become a 20th century skill luckily though-a hobgoblin of little minds, an ad homienum adored by people who fear arguing on the basis of logos.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Whoa! He has the highest IQ in the world, since Marilyn Vos Savant's is right at 200!

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

He gets every question right on IQ tests. They can't test people who have too high of IQs. What can I say.

This is stupid you are getting so many points for that comment. I just googled this person and she is hardly super impressive. She just bothered to register her IQ with the Guinness Book of World Records. My brother researches transplants and can get a perfect score on the SAT, MCAT, GRE, and GMAT. Whatever. He also practices medicine at one of the best hospitals in the world and holds two patents. this lady seems like she doesn't have enough to do.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No it clearly says you can be part of the National Guard. Have fun week end warrior!

[-] 0 points by DKAtroll (7) 2 years ago

Yes! I agree completely with your way of thinking.

If it's a right! I want it paid for, especially by poor people who I know, regardless if I want to admit it or not, is who my caring and charitable government makes pay for things.

As an aside, I'd love to see the government grow at least 200% by next year. 400% would be much better.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

400% would not quite fix the unemployment problem and with so many more employed, and paying taxes, HUGE tax cuts could be made.

It would come closer if all of the jobs created by 600% growth all paid nothing less than 135,000 a year.

The damned government has nearly wasted away to nothing.

It's a very disturbing sign.