But the question is, is a choice of no choice, still a choice? Say I have to be on the other side of the country by the next day, or I get fired from my job. Is the choice of a) potential economic ruin or b) submitting to a search of my person and effects really a choice? I know it isn't life or death, but still.
I suppose they would say that even that is a choice and you 'willingly' submitted when in reality you did no such thing. You did it because if you didn't you'd get fired.. and if you don't submit they won't let you fly. I say, it is a choice of no choice.
Furthermore, if your argument is correct, then at best the only Constitutionally protected mode of movement is walking. So as long as you are free to walk from Tennessee to Washington state then your rights are just fine. Is that what you're saying?
I think I'm one of the few people who will not attempt to read the minds of the founders, and claim I know what it means. Its a badly parsed statement, and probably the most ambiguous amendment of the constitution.
I do think though that the world is very different than when the founders wrote the bill of rights. We need to preserve the spirit of the second, while keeping our interpretation within the bounds of the real (modern) world. Whatever that means is up to debate.
I personally think that people do have the right to arms, BUT only if the people themselves are capable of handling them, and do so responsibly. Just like felonies remove your right to vote, it should remove your right to bear arms. And their should be varying degrees of licensing, to maintain the "well regulated" bit. Bob J. Crackhead shouldn't have an assault rifle.
Perhaps treat arms like a drivers license.
I'm sure someone will get up in... ahem... arms over this, but I prefer a debate based on common sense, rather and the psychic ability to read the founders minds.:)
I'm okay with that premise for a debate. You are correct that reading people's minds, let alone people dead for 200 years, is a bit tricky.
So instead of that, we can simply turn to the text itself. I think I've made clear my feelings on the text, so let us instead move to the question:
If the Second is accepted to protect an individual right to arms, what are those arms? And who gets them?
The difficulty with any licensing model is two fold:
a) Licensing turns a right into a privilege. The power to grant a license is also the power to deny it. Such methods have been used in the past to deny Arms to people those in power didn't want to have them. Most often minorities in the form of Blacks. Today, in NYC you can get a license to carry a concealed weapon. However, if you are not politically connected you can forget about it.
b) Pro-gun people are often worried about creating anything even resembling a registry and with good reason. In almost all cases where such a registry was created, it lead to eventual confiscation. A licensing scheme would end up being a registry, if not of exactly what you had then at least that you have something.
Furthermore, it isn't fair or right to lay prior restraint on everyone for the actions of a few. True Freedom is risky. To be a truly free people we must accept that sometimes things are going to go wrong, sometimes terribly so. It is the nature of the beast. Isn't that risk worth being Free?
So, back to the question of which arms, and who should have them. First the easiest one. I strongly believe that if you cannot be trusted with a gun, you also can't be trusted with gasoline, matches, fertilizer, knives, pointy sticks, or any other implement of destruction. In short, if you cannot be trusted with arms you cannot be trusted to be a member of a free society and should be removed. I also don't agree that random felonies should make you a prohibited person. Lots of things are felonies these days. Most of them aren't violent crimes, some of them aren't even properly crimes. They are merely illegal, which in my mind isn't the same thing. So, who should be allowed arms? Everyone. When you read that 'everyone' do remember what I said above about those who can't be trusted in a free society. It should also be kept in mind that the concept of a "prohibited person" or "felon in possession" is a relatively new concept. For the first 190-odd years of this country there was no such thing. The concept has also shown some non-trivial tendency for scope creep as well. Something pro-gun people warned would happen.
That leaves the question of what Arms are protected. Some would read the Second to include everything up to and including Nuclear arms. I imagine that the strictest reading might lead one to think that. However, I think a more logical reading would indicate that personal arms are what is protected. Does that i
uh... Medicare here has the same history. Introduced under "left" wing administrations.. left in place ever since. In fact, much to my annoyance, we often have things left over from previous administrations that no one wants to get up the gumption to get rid of. There was a half hearted attempt to repeal the AWB in 1996 after the "Republican Revolution" but it didn't really go anywhere.
That's why "pro-gun" people fight laws here tooth and nail, once they get in place.. they never get repealed no matter how ineffective they are.
I'm not sure I'd use Bush as a barometer of real "Right Wing" or Conservative thought. The only thing "Right Wing" about him is his religious views, and the things they dictate, and the "R" after his name. He's not in favor of small government, low taxes, personal freedom, or any of that stuff you're supposed to be in favor of if you're a real Conservative.
If it doesn't protect an individual right of the people, why have it in the Bill of Rights at all? That is a good question, and is especially relevant when you look at all the trouble a Bill of Rights has caused in any country with one.
In this case I believe that there is sufficient evidence for a constitutional ammendment, especially considering that even a well armed militia these days would have absolutely no power against a well trained military with tanks, warplanes and nukes at their disposal.
As an aside, the politician who banned semiautomatic firearms in Australia was a conservative Prime Minister who was branded as "the most right wing leader in Australia's history" by his political opponents. He payed for his decision with three consecutive election wins after the event, finally being kicked out of office due to a union-funded scare campaign that cost more than either of the two major parties whole election campaigns. Combined with a leader who promised to be almost exactly like Howard (except ratifying Kyoto and pandering to the union scare campaign), he finally lost power November last year after being the second longest serving PM in Australia's history. It was generally regarded as a golden era of conservative politics, punctuated by the point that to win office his opponents had to sell to the electorate that they were practically the same party with the same leader. Yeah, but do remember that a Conservative down there is not the same as one up here. I believe, though I could be wrong, that a "conservative" down would still be considered at the least middle/left here, if not more "left wing". As to the having a Bill of Rights or not, it has been troublesome sometimes. Although, that is mainly due to judges almost universally ignoring the ninth/tenth amendments which were there specifically to avoid the predicted problems with having a written list of rights in the first place. On the other hand, could you imagine the things some of our administrations/Congresses would have tried if they didn't at least have to pay lip service to those rights?
Granted, crackheads aren't normally referred to as 'well regulated' in any of the possible meanings.
I do agree with some who say that the Amendment should be taken as a whole. You cannot have a militia of all the people if they have been disarmed. "Well regulated" was not understood at that time, and should not be so now, to mean "choked with laws". It meant that they knew their weapons, and was familiar with their use. Also, not possible if the people at large are disarmed.
One can argue different perspectives of what was going through the Founders minds when they wrote that and what purpose they were thinking of, however in the end one cannot deny the plain language.
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.
If it doesn't protect an individual right of the people, why have it in the Bill of Rights at all?
Granted. I'm not sure I'd ever forgive Reagan for signing that PoS even considering the gains made by it. Of course, we might get that knocked out in the next few years. We'll see. I haven't given up the fight.:)
Perhaps for them it is a touch stone issue. People who are anti-gun are usually in favor of various other things that people who are pro-gun are against. It just works out that way.
Go forth and google up the history of gun control laws beginning with before the Civil War.
I don't think you should get points for merely shifting people to a different type of weapon. One of the key problems I have with the whole debate is people on the anti side, not saying you are or are not on that side, want to focus on "gun crime" and ignore the overall crime problem. They want to declare victory and gun control to be a great thing if they can reduce "gun crime". I don't care about "gun crime". I care about _crime_.
It doesn't take much to get an Insightful tag today, does it?
No, no gun ban of any kind can be logically construed as Constitutional. You cannot square that with "Shall not be infringed". The power to license, which would be required for your little utopia, is the power to deny. It is the power to turn what was a Right into a privilege. And what's worse, none of this would reduce crime one little bit. All it would do is put those who are attacked at the mercy of those who would do the attacking. It would make the weak the prey of the strong. Is this what it means to be enlightened? To argue for a world where a grandmother must bow down to the will of any street thug because you have taken her ability to defend herself? What a sad and terrible world you'd wish upon us!
What in your mind makes you distrust your fellow man so much that you would wish this upon them? Do you not realize that the people harmed by such laws and ideas are not the ones who would ever harm you?
Or is it like I've always believed... That those who would wish for such a world fear what they would do with a gun?
Now with all the threading I'm not sure who you're replying to. But are you implying that a person who is strongly in favor of the Second Amendment is automatically a racist? Surely not. Especially given the overtly racist history of gun control which continues to this day.
because people in iraq are giving our military a really hard time with handguns and various things that we could buy here. (and we can buy assault rifles too)
the problem is the handguns in private citizens hands do not increase violent crime. I think there are enough places on the web where you can find information to back up that claim I made. Try England's crime rate as an example.
i wouldn't say it's more important, but it's listed as one of them. Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with. Sorry to nitpick, but I do have to point out that where you can buy real assault rifles, most people can't afford them due to the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act. A despicable four line amendment added in the middle of the night at the last minute under questionable circumstances. However, your point though is essentially correct.
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America
It's a strawman arguement to claim that anyone who believes outlawing guns would result in criminials not having them. The point is it would allow for identification of and arrest of criminals more easily.
And even this is a strawman of my question, in which I grant that having a weapon for personal protection makes sense. But why does is even need to be semi-automatic? Cannot a revolver work just as well? Does anyone object to the restrictions on shotguns (barrel length, grips, clipsize and folding stocks)? Why does it always have to fall into "no guns" or "any guns I damn well want to have"? Isn't there a reasonable center?
The thing is, it isn't a strawman. Everywhere that has banned guns has only resulted in disarming the law abiding. It is simple logical that the criminal element isn't going to pay attention to pesky things like 'laws'. And ask the UK and others how well it's worked out.
As to the question of why 'it even need to be semi-automatic' is simple. Revolvers are limited in capacity and in the event you are facing multiple foes puts you at a severe disadvantage.The other related question you have to ask yourself is what purpose does banning semi-autos, or whatever, have? Does it actually reduce crime? The answer ends up being generally no. So we'd be infringing on people's rights with no real gain. Wouldn't seem to make sense to me.
No, there is no reasonable center. As history has shown elsewhere, if you give an inch to the anti-gun people, they'll be along for the mile soon enough. Their goal after all is not crime reduction but gun elimination. Crime reduction can be achieved through much simpler and easier means then trying to pass bans or mandate unreliable and overly complicated technologies.
Not in my eyes. Should it ever get to the point in the US where the 2nd Amendment is needed for the purpose that its proponents purport it's there for, I frankly would rather shoot myself. I have no interest to live through a major US revolution and then live in a nation of gun-wielding rednecks. So... you'd be an Obama supporter then?
Now with the snark covered... The purpose of the 2nd is not just revolution, may it never come to that again, but self-defense in all aspects. Defending yourself from an overbearing and tyrannical government is just one of the many applications of that idea. If you really and truly want to live in a country where you have no practical right of self defense... The UK is that way --->
Why no, no there aren't. And if you're wondering, yes, I think that means the Federal government shouldn't be doing such things as they lack the power to do so. Although, Article I, Section 8 does give congress the power to "establish post offices and post roads". One could argue that an Interstate Highway is simply a large "post road".
Whether individual States wish to "provide public education" or "provide police departments" is up to them. There is however nothing in the Constitution granting such a power to the Federal government. Most such programs/agencies have been created by abusing the Commerce Clause or the "Welfare" Clause.
As to the argument of money spent vice health of the population I don't think it is entirely a fair comparison without factoring in other variables. Do the populaces of the other countries eat substantially the same diet? Do they exercise more or less? Is their environment generally more or less healthy? What is the ratio of those who have wealth to those who don't? These are all just as important, if not more important, than how much money is spent on care.
Yes, it would likely cost most people more than they are spending on health insurance. The worst coverage I've ever had cost around $600/month. At that time that amount yearly was less than 10% of my income. A non-trivial number to be sure. However, given that would make me likely one of the "rich", according to proponents of such plans, I imagine I would end up getting soaked for more than that in extra taxes. Because nothing says fun like 40% to 50% income taxes.
That's true. I don't see this as being a serious problem this term. Next term maybe. On the other hand, there are Judges to appoint, and it could be a problem there this term. I also don't think it likely that congress would send up such a bill this term. Again, next term perhaps. See H.R. 1022 for an example of a terrible law in that regard.
I claim he's a constitutional law professor. That's not a debatable point, it's a fact -- and other law professors he's worked with say he's got his head on straight.
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it. Hmmm... Interesting.
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Obama on the failed AWB, 'Inaccuracies' about the Tiahrt Amendment, and 'Gun show loop hole':
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
None of that, and I imagine other examples are available, sound like he wants to "let local governments enact". That sounds like federal action to me. And comparing RP's view on abortion to Obama's view on the various "gun" issues doesn't work. No matter how one stands on abortion, there is no "abortion" amendment. One can make an argument that that particular issue is best solved at the local level. On the other hand, there is a right to bear arms amendment. Local governments don't get to stomp on that anymore than the federal one. So even if he was "only" in favor of local governments taking such actions, that still doesn't make it right. And as far as needing an amendment to nationally prohibit CCW or a new AWB, why? All it would take is a congress willing to go along with it and a Supreme Court willing to as well. No amendment was needed to pass the first AWB.
You are correct though, there are no strict Constitutionalists left. Much to all our loss. However, just because there aren't any in the current field, doesn't given those who are in the field a free pass. And that includes GWB's violations of the 4th amendment and McCain's possible future violations. No one gets a free pass.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm merely arguing against Universal Health Care as a government program. The War is an expensive pile no doubt. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a government program get "fixed"? The war will likely end. Medicaid/Medicare still isn't fixed. That's all I'm saying.
On a side note, I rather dislike all of our choices for president. I don't want McCain. I just want Obama, the likely Dem candidate, even less. Blood sad state of affairs if you ask me.
You can't claim he is a supporter of the Constitution when he has no problem stomping all over the Second Amendment. The Constitution is not an ala carte menu where you get to pick and choose which rights you support and which you don't. It is all or nothing.
Either you support the Constitution, as it is written, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
Go back and check who was in charge of the purse strings when Reagan was in office. As for GWB, the ass, again, check who was in charge of the purse strings. A bunch of so-called republicans who are no more republican than my foot. For the thousandth time, Presidents don't spend money. Congress does. Presidents propose budgets. That is all.
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending money. The war does cost a ton of money, but whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't cost as much as Obama's plans. And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.
You know, here's the thing that always gets left out of these debates. Yes, it'll cost a bloody fortune. Yes, it'll probably be mismanaged and poorly done. But leaving aside all that for a minute... Where in the Constitution is the "provide universal health care" clause?
You are operating under the false belief that there really is a "free market" for insurance companies. There isn't really. They are heavily regulated billion dollar businesses offering a product that large numbers of people would literally die without. I honestly think we'd be better off without them entirely. And without government run health care as well. Let a real free market define the price for health care. It couldn't help but come down to levels that people could actually afford. You can't get paid if you let your perspective client die.
Go take a look at how much of our money is being eaten up by the Medicare/Medicaid beast and get back to me on that. If you think Universal Health Care will cost any less, you're not doing the math. Even the War will look small in comparison in the long run.
It is a lot of money. But would you call it "rich"? As opposed to "well off" or "doing well"? Bare in mind, when one says you are "rich" most people put you in the same category as millionaires and such. And no, that isn't 8K a month.. Such a person is paying at least 2,000/month in federal taxes. That doesn't count any health care deductions or state/local taxes which would likely pile on. Now 6k a month is still good money. But not "rich".
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose they would say that even that is a choice and you 'willingly' submitted when in reality you did no such thing. You did it because if you didn't you'd get fired.. and if you don't submit they won't let you fly. I say, it is a choice of no choice.
Furthermore, if your argument is correct, then at best the only Constitutionally protected mode of movement is walking. So as long as you are free to walk from Tennessee to Washington state then your rights are just fine. Is that what you're saying?
I think I'm one of the few people who will not attempt to read the minds of the founders, and claim I know what it means. Its a badly parsed statement, and probably the most ambiguous amendment of the constitution. I do think though that the world is very different than when the founders wrote the bill of rights. We need to preserve the spirit of the second, while keeping our interpretation within the bounds of the real (modern) world. Whatever that means is up to debate. I personally think that people do have the right to arms, BUT only if the people themselves are capable of handling them, and do so responsibly. Just like felonies remove your right to vote, it should remove your right to bear arms. And their should be varying degrees of licensing, to maintain the "well regulated" bit. Bob J. Crackhead shouldn't have an assault rifle. Perhaps treat arms like a drivers license. I'm sure someone will get up in... ahem... arms over this, but I prefer a debate based on common sense, rather and the psychic ability to read the founders minds. :)
I'm okay with that premise for a debate. You are correct that reading people's minds, let alone people dead for 200 years, is a bit tricky.
So instead of that, we can simply turn to the text itself. I think I've made clear my feelings on the text, so let us instead move to the question:
If the Second is accepted to protect an individual right to arms, what are those arms? And who gets them?
The difficulty with any licensing model is two fold:
a) Licensing turns a right into a privilege. The power to grant a license is also the power to deny it. Such methods have been used in the past to deny Arms to people those in power didn't want to have them. Most often minorities in the form of Blacks. Today, in NYC you can get a license to carry a concealed weapon. However, if you are not politically connected you can forget about it.
b) Pro-gun people are often worried about creating anything even resembling a registry and with good reason. In almost all cases where such a registry was created, it lead to eventual confiscation. A licensing scheme would end up being a registry, if not of exactly what you had then at least that you have something.
Furthermore, it isn't fair or right to lay prior restraint on everyone for the actions of a few. True Freedom is risky. To be a truly free people we must accept that sometimes things are going to go wrong, sometimes terribly so. It is the nature of the beast. Isn't that risk worth being Free?
So, back to the question of which arms, and who should have them. First the easiest one. I strongly believe that if you cannot be trusted with a gun, you also can't be trusted with gasoline, matches, fertilizer, knives, pointy sticks, or any other implement of destruction. In short, if you cannot be trusted with arms you cannot be trusted to be a member of a free society and should be removed. I also don't agree that random felonies should make you a prohibited person. Lots of things are felonies these days. Most of them aren't violent crimes, some of them aren't even properly crimes. They are merely illegal, which in my mind isn't the same thing. So, who should be allowed arms? Everyone. When you read that 'everyone' do remember what I said above about those who can't be trusted in a free society. It should also be kept in mind that the concept of a "prohibited person" or "felon in possession" is a relatively new concept. For the first 190-odd years of this country there was no such thing. The concept has also shown some non-trivial tendency for scope creep as well. Something pro-gun people warned would happen.
That leaves the question of what Arms are protected. Some would read the Second to include everything up to and including Nuclear arms. I imagine that the strictest reading might lead one to think that. However, I think a more logical reading would indicate that personal arms are what is protected. Does that i
That's why "pro-gun" people fight laws here tooth and nail, once they get in place.. they never get repealed no matter how ineffective they are.
I'm not sure I'd use Bush as a barometer of real "Right Wing" or Conservative thought. The only thing "Right Wing" about him is his religious views, and the things they dictate, and the "R" after his name. He's not in favor of small government, low taxes, personal freedom, or any of that stuff you're supposed to be in favor of if you're a real Conservative.
I do agree with some who say that the Amendment should be taken as a whole. You cannot have a militia of all the people if they have been disarmed. "Well regulated" was not understood at that time, and should not be so now, to mean "choked with laws". It meant that they knew their weapons, and was familiar with their use. Also, not possible if the people at large are disarmed.
One can argue different perspectives of what was going through the Founders minds when they wrote that and what purpose they were thinking of, however in the end one cannot deny the plain language.
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.If it doesn't protect an individual right of the people, why have it in the Bill of Rights at all?
Granted. I'm not sure I'd ever forgive Reagan for signing that PoS even considering the gains made by it. Of course, we might get that knocked out in the next few years. We'll see. I haven't given up the fight. :)
Go forth and google up the history of gun control laws beginning with before the Civil War.
I don't think you should get points for merely shifting people to a different type of weapon. One of the key problems I have with the whole debate is people on the anti side, not saying you are or are not on that side, want to focus on "gun crime" and ignore the overall crime problem. They want to declare victory and gun control to be a great thing if they can reduce "gun crime". I don't care about "gun crime". I care about _crime_.
No, no gun ban of any kind can be logically construed as Constitutional. You cannot square that with "Shall not be infringed". The power to license, which would be required for your little utopia, is the power to deny. It is the power to turn what was a Right into a privilege. And what's worse, none of this would reduce crime one little bit. All it would do is put those who are attacked at the mercy of those who would do the attacking. It would make the weak the prey of the strong. Is this what it means to be enlightened? To argue for a world where a grandmother must bow down to the will of any street thug because you have taken her ability to defend herself? What a sad and terrible world you'd wish upon us!
What in your mind makes you distrust your fellow man so much that you would wish this upon them? Do you not realize that the people harmed by such laws and ideas are not the ones who would ever harm you?
Or is it like I've always believed... That those who would wish for such a world fear what they would do with a gun?
You're kidding me right? Unbiased coverage of gun issues in the MSM?
Now with all the threading I'm not sure who you're replying to. But are you implying that a person who is strongly in favor of the Second Amendment is automatically a racist? Surely not. Especially given the overtly racist history of gun control which continues to this day.
It's a strawman arguement to claim that anyone who believes outlawing guns would result in criminials not having them. The point is it would allow for identification of and arrest of criminals more easily.
And even this is a strawman of my question, in which I grant that having a weapon for personal protection makes sense. But why does is even need to be semi-automatic? Cannot a revolver work just as well? Does anyone object to the restrictions on shotguns (barrel length, grips, clipsize and folding stocks)? Why does it always have to fall into "no guns" or "any guns I damn well want to have"? Isn't there a reasonable center?
The thing is, it isn't a strawman. Everywhere that has banned guns has only resulted in disarming the law abiding. It is simple logical that the criminal element isn't going to pay attention to pesky things like 'laws'. And ask the UK and others how well it's worked out.As to the question of why 'it even need to be semi-automatic' is simple. Revolvers are limited in capacity and in the event you are facing multiple foes puts you at a severe disadvantage.The other related question you have to ask yourself is what purpose does banning semi-autos, or whatever, have? Does it actually reduce crime? The answer ends up being generally no. So we'd be infringing on people's rights with no real gain. Wouldn't seem to make sense to me.
No, there is no reasonable center. As history has shown elsewhere, if you give an inch to the anti-gun people, they'll be along for the mile soon enough. Their goal after all is not crime reduction but gun elimination. Crime reduction can be achieved through much simpler and easier means then trying to pass bans or mandate unreliable and overly complicated technologies.
You punish criminals.
Now with the snark covered... The purpose of the 2nd is not just revolution, may it never come to that again, but self-defense in all aspects. Defending yourself from an overbearing and tyrannical government is just one of the many applications of that idea. If you really and truly want to live in a country where you have no practical right of self defense... The UK is that way --->
Whether individual States wish to "provide public education" or "provide police departments" is up to them. There is however nothing in the Constitution granting such a power to the Federal government. Most such programs/agencies have been created by abusing the Commerce Clause or the "Welfare" Clause.
As to the argument of money spent vice health of the population I don't think it is entirely a fair comparison without factoring in other variables. Do the populaces of the other countries eat substantially the same diet? Do they exercise more or less? Is their environment generally more or less healthy? What is the ratio of those who have wealth to those who don't? These are all just as important, if not more important, than how much money is spent on care.
Yes, it would likely cost most people more than they are spending on health insurance. The worst coverage I've ever had cost around $600/month. At that time that amount yearly was less than 10% of my income. A non-trivial number to be sure. However, given that would make me likely one of the "rich", according to proponents of such plans, I imagine I would end up getting soaked for more than that in extra taxes. Because nothing says fun like 40% to 50% income taxes.
That's true. I don't see this as being a serious problem this term. Next term maybe. On the other hand, there are Judges to appoint, and it could be a problem there this term. I also don't think it likely that congress would send up such a bill this term. Again, next term perhaps. See H.R. 1022 for an example of a terrible law in that regard.
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it. Hmmm... Interesting.
Obama on CCW:
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Obama on the failed AWB, 'Inaccuracies' about the Tiahrt Amendment, and 'Gun show loop hole': Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.None of that, and I imagine other examples are available, sound like he wants to "let local governments enact". That sounds like federal action to me. And comparing RP's view on abortion to Obama's view on the various "gun" issues doesn't work. No matter how one stands on abortion, there is no "abortion" amendment. One can make an argument that that particular issue is best solved at the local level. On the other hand, there is a right to bear arms amendment. Local governments don't get to stomp on that anymore than the federal one. So even if he was "only" in favor of local governments taking such actions, that still doesn't make it right. And as far as needing an amendment to nationally prohibit CCW or a new AWB, why? All it would take is a congress willing to go along with it and a Supreme Court willing to as well. No amendment was needed to pass the first AWB.
You are correct though, there are no strict Constitutionalists left. Much to all our loss. However, just because there aren't any in the current field, doesn't given those who are in the field a free pass. And that includes GWB's violations of the 4th amendment and McCain's possible future violations. No one gets a free pass.
On a side note, I rather dislike all of our choices for president. I don't want McCain. I just want Obama, the likely Dem candidate, even less. Blood sad state of affairs if you ask me.
As a poster above said, we may disagree, but you have been the paragon of civility. :)
You can't claim he is a supporter of the Constitution when he has no problem stomping all over the Second Amendment. The Constitution is not an ala carte menu where you get to pick and choose which rights you support and which you don't. It is all or nothing.
Either you support the Constitution, as it is written, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending money. The war does cost a ton of money, but whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't cost as much as Obama's plans. And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.
You know, here's the thing that always gets left out of these debates. Yes, it'll cost a bloody fortune. Yes, it'll probably be mismanaged and poorly done. But leaving aside all that for a minute... Where in the Constitution is the "provide universal health care" clause?
You are operating under the false belief that there really is a "free market" for insurance companies. There isn't really. They are heavily regulated billion dollar businesses offering a product that large numbers of people would literally die without. I honestly think we'd be better off without them entirely. And without government run health care as well. Let a real free market define the price for health care. It couldn't help but come down to levels that people could actually afford. You can't get paid if you let your perspective client die.
Go take a look at how much of our money is being eaten up by the Medicare/Medicaid beast and get back to me on that. If you think Universal Health Care will cost any less, you're not doing the math. Even the War will look small in comparison in the long run.
It is a lot of money. But would you call it "rich"? As opposed to "well off" or "doing well"? Bare in mind, when one says you are "rich" most people put you in the same category as millionaires and such. And no, that isn't 8K a month.. Such a person is paying at least 2,000/month in federal taxes. That doesn't count any health care deductions or state/local taxes which would likely pile on. Now 6k a month is still good money. But not "rich".