To those who think voting Obama or Romney is the same thing as far as gun control...

[optiontrigger]

The original premise of this thread was the argument that we had to vote Romney because he would put in conservative pro-2nd amendment justices. Today is a perfect example of how that isn't necessarily true. Especially when you consider that Romney is much less pro-2nd amendment than Bush was.

My main point is that both parties are useless and not worth supporting.

We're saying the same thing. Read my post above yours. That's why we need to be really active in looking further ahead than just November. I consider Romney as a 4-year pawn until someone else who has actually read and understands the Constitution can take his place.

 

[fd15k]

We're saying the same thing. Read my post above yours. That's why we need to be really active in looking further ahead than just November. I consider Romney as a 4-year pawn until someone else who has actually read and understands the Constitution can take his place.

You think that's his problem, that he hasn't read, or doesn't understand the Constitution ? Not his rich buddies, his sect, or his personal interests ? I want to live in your world

 

[optiontrigger]

You think that's his problem, that he hasn't read, or doesn't understand the Constitution ? Not his rich buddies, his sect, or his personal interests ? I want to live in your world

So I guess you're going to play semantics. Obama considers himself a Constitutional scholar and you know from my previous posts how I feel about him. My post was refering to someone who will follow the meaning of the Constitution that they swear an oath to adhere to.

 

[fd15k]

So I guess you're going to play semantics. Obama considers himself a Constitutional scholar and you know from my previous posts how I feel about him. My post was refering to someone who will follow the meaning of the Constitution that they swear an oath to adhere to.

I don't believe that there is one true meaning of the Constitution that a president, justice or a politician have to stick to. It's a fairly abstract document setting general guidelines for the governance, but the rest is up to the people, and people are all different. Take Bible as an example, why do we have so many different Christian groups around ? Shouldn't there be one true meaning in there that everybody must agree on ?

 

[optiontrigger]

There's one Constitution. There are many different versions of the Bible.

 

[Jamie6.5]

It boggles the mind how WE THE PEOPLE let 5 individualizes decide for the millions.

We don't.
We do however allow 9 individuals to decide whether or not the people we elected to represent us in the law making and oversight processes, followed the rules laid down in the founding documents in the making of law(s).

In the case of obamacare, Justice Roberts decided that as long as the "fine" imposed by the Affordable Care Act is considered a tax, (especially considering that it will be collected by the IRS) that it falls within the scope of the Congress to impose that fine/tax, as that is spelled out in the Constitution.
Despite the ruling that the "individual mandate" can be construed as a tax, other key components of the bill were struck down.
Such as, finding that Congress did overstep their authority in demanding that the states increase medicaid spending to meet the goals of the ACA.

While the decision may be unpopular at the moment, Justice Roberts has exposed obamacare for what it is.
The single largest overbearing tax increase ever imposed on the American people, amounting to 1.7 Trillion dollars in obligation(s) for "affordable" health care insurance.
Which is what TEA partiers said it was to begin with.

In the case of Heller, that same justice found that D.C's restrictive gun laws violated the clearly stated intent of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That leaves it up to the people as to what THEY NEED TO DO, to insure that they don't elect the kinds of representatives that write, sponsor or vote to pass bills they don't like.
Justice Roberts wrote:

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

 

[fd15k]

There's one Constitution. There are many different versions of the Bible.

That's a weak argument. There are plenty of interpretations for the same Bible versions. That's despite Bible being much larger, often very specific source of information. My point still stands - abstract statements are open to interpretations, and Constitution is very abstract.

 

[MP Sgt]

There's one Constitution. There are many different versions of the Bible.

You could write a document with nothing but, "The Sky is Blue." People will debate and interpret anyway they want.
How the hell people don't think the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to have firearms is baffling to me. BUT, they don't assume it means only the state can have guns because of what it says. Rather, because they want it to mean that.

So, the sky is red.

 

[optiontrigger]

Let's see, King James, American Standard, New American Standard, Book of Mormon, Roman Catholic...
One Constitution

Just don't complain then if any new administration at any election decides to interpret the Bill of Rights their way and infringes on what you hold as important. After all, it's everybody's own interpretation.

 

[fd15k]

You could write a document with nothing but, "The Sky is Blue." People will debate and interpret anyway they want.
How the hell people don't think the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to have firearms is baffling to me. BUT, they don't assume it means only the state can have guns because of what it says. Rather, because they want it to mean that.

So, the sky is red.

Exactly. That's how for example 13th Amendment is different from the 2nd, so that it wouldn't require "incorporation" :

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[optiontrigger]

Buy Ammo, regardless.

That's the best argument I've read all day today!

 

[optiontrigger]

These discussions have some good logical arguments being tossed around by many on all three sides of the fence. I imagine it would be pretty interesting to have some of the level headed people here have some friendly bantor over beers but that would probably create another argument in itself over the different brands and types of beer.

 

[gehrheart]

Remember that the justices are appointed by the president not on merit, but rather, on how their belief agrees with the president. And this position is held for a lifetime.

My problem with that statement is that Romney seems to agree with Obama.. He is for the health insurance (romney care) pro NDAA, Pro CIPA/SISPA and PIPA. Pro gun control (Mass scores much better with brady becuase of Romney) Pro homeland Security, Pro TSA, pro War, what real difference is there? Niether one can tell the truth. Cant trust iether one.
I see one as being more socialist.. But I do not see a conservitive choice between those two!!

 

[gehrheart]

I don't believe that there is one true meaning of the Constitution that a president, justice or a politician have to stick to. It's a fairly abstract document setting general guidelines for the governance, but the rest is up to the people, and people are all different. Take Bible as an example, why do we have so many different Christian groups around ? Shouldn't there be one true meaning in there that everybody must agree on ?

With that I will have to completly dissagree. I find that the Constitution is in fact writen in stone, and is the letter of the law for the federal government. It is not, nor do I feel, intended to be view as a living document. I do not find need to interpit anything. It simply is as its writen.

 

[optiontrigger]

My problem with that statement is that Romney seems to agree with Obama.. He is for the health insurance (romney care) pro NDAA, Pro CIPA/SISPA and PIPA. Pro gun control (Mass scores much better with brady becuase of Romney) Pro homeland Security, Pro TSA, pro War, what real difference is there? Niether one can tell the truth. Cant trust iether one.
I see one as being more socialist.. But I do not see a conservitive choice between those two!!

Read the rest of my posts. I don't wish either as president. But I'm talking about the Supreme Court appointments that will stay around making decisions that affect us for a lot longer than the presidents will stay in office. The two longest running justices have been serving since 1986 and 1988! The oldest four are 79, 76, 76, and 73 years old, it's almost guaranteed that they will either retire or pass on during the next four year term.

There must be something in the water that they drink to keep them running longer than the Energizer rabbit.

 

[fd15k]

With that I will have to completly dissagree. I find that the Constitution is in fact writen in stone, and is the letter of the law for the federal government. It is not, nor do I feel, intended to be view as a living document. I do not find need to interpit anything. It simply is as its writen.

It kind of shows the reason behind this whole struggle - we can't have a president we both agree with, since we can't even agree amongst each other.

 

[PBinWA]

There must be something in the water that they drink to keep them running longer than the Energizer rabbit.

It's called a secure and relatively easy job that they probably love to do with an awesome pension and "royalty" status.

 

[gehrheart]

Read the rest of my posts. I don't wish either as president. But I'm talking about the Supreme Court appointments that will stay around making decisions that affect us for a lot longer than the presidents will stay in office. The two longest running justices have been serving since 1986 and 1988! The oldest four are 79, 76, 76, and 73 years old, it's almost guaranteed that they will either retire or pass on during the next four year term.

There must be something in the water that they drink to keep them running longer than the Energizer rabbit.

I understand. My point was they they are the same thing, hence what difference would there be in who they appoint!!! I fear an appointment by either one!

 

[gehrheart]

fd15k

It kind of shows the reason behind this whole struggle - we can't have a president we both agree with, since we can't even agree amongst each other.

You and me however do agree on who to vote for!

 

[cad1988]

Asking the Republicans or the Democrats to handle out national debt problem is like asking two alcoholics to watch a liquor store.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, Romney has a lot of work to prove that he is doing anything more than the bare minimum to attract NRA donations.

Ron Paul is still running and is the only true supporter of the second amendment.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!! WOOT WOOT! He's getting my vote