TheScout

I do not consider our Government one founded for great eleemosynary purpose, this government was established as the agent of the States in their foreign relations, and as an umpire between the States in their relations to one another, not to dispense charities to the indigent, nor to establish workhouses or houses of correction for the vicious within the States. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, Secretary of War of the United States, US Senator, US Representative, Colonel - U.S.A.

How the original vision of our Republic has changed . . .

"Why is it automatically assumed that if you don't believe in a God, you cannot have good character? Good character is not dependent upon faith in a God."

The BSA does not say you need to believe in God to have good character. Only you need to believe in a higher power to be the best possible citizen.

"What outcome/impact do you want to have?"

To show that such beliefs are not acceptable religious beliefs so we can save his soul for the eternal life.

So true. Browning had to make a good product or he wouldn't make a profit.

More than fancy weapons, the internet, or putting a man on the moon I care about human liberty.

As government expands and makes more deicions and takes more money - we have less liberty.

I said nothing about Obama and do not care about him. I hate big government which interferes with liberty in all its forms.

The internet is not comparable to what it was when the DOD invented it.

Last time I checked private industry has invented more things anyway and such work is more compatible with liberty, not government control.

The USSR and other command economies turned out real well.

Which argument specifically is the straw dog one?

All that initiative, innovation, and invention was done without the government.

Much better.

"If you check carefully the personal freedoms and liberties that liberals want you to have, they all have nothing to do with government power. The ones they do want to take tend to make the government less powerful. That's what they are all about: power."

I guess. I think you worded it a bit odd. The making the government less powerful thing didn't make sense, to me at least.

It is the inflation that scares me the most.

The muskets of the era were inaccurate compared to modern standards. At the time they were the the state of the art standard issue infantry weapon.

"Lacking the wisdom, and experience of his father, W took this country down a road it did not have to travel, expending both blood and a considerable amount of treasure that could of been better utilized in many domestic programs."

So not fighting the war was about spending money on other stupid stuff, not saving money and paying down the debt!

Big Lie? Does that count as Godwin's Law BTW?

Baden,

How? He showed no understanding of the Bankruptcy clause and was outright wrong about it. Neither did he show any understanding of the 2nd Amendment and he claimed the 21st Amendment gave the right to use alcohol when it actually gave states the right to ban it.

Then he claimed the weapons at Concord were at a royal armory when I provided a letter from General Gage saying how the rebels were building the stockpile to start a rebellion?

I have never said I was a former police officer. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you read.

What a nerve for such an anti-Catholic person to tell others to be careful of spreading our views to boys.

I think Congress and the President should go on vacation more. Like 51 weeks a year. Show up for a week, pass the budget and go home. They won't screw up much then.

Bosnia and Kosovo were not wars. I dont know why we fought them. Serbia did not threaten the US at all. Was much less a a threat than Iraq ever was.

I use the term armory losely. The weapons and ammo in Concord were hidden in private buildings. There was no armory built by the British army there. If it was, why would it have been left unguarded?

Gage wrote this letter to Smith, who commanded the expedition.

"Sir:

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will march with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your command, with the utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provision, Tents, Small Arms, and all military stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants, or hurt private property."

If it was a British army armory why would Gage have to receive intelligence of supplies at his own armory! And why did he say it was collected there for the purpose of rebellion? Why would supplies be collected at a royal armory for a rebellion against the Crown?

Please don't end the argument, explain this!

If you took a Constitutional Law class why did you display such a lack of understanding of the Bankruptcy Clause, 21st Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment. I guess it wasn't a very comprehensive class . . .

I argue with Merlyn about the Constitution a lot but at least recognize he has logical arguments even though I do not believe in them. I am afraid I can not say the same for you.

"Hi, The Scout. I love to debate. But I prefer actual facts when I do. Your statement that the US Constitution does not contain the "right" to declare bankruptcy shows that you do not know your facts. For bankruptcy see Sec. 1, Art. 8. For Alcohol, please see Amendment 21."

There is no right to bankruptcy. Congress may make "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Far different from an enumerated right to bankruptcy. The Alcohol example is even worse. States retain the right to ban it. Try reading the Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically says the right to bear arms can not be infringed. Not like the other ones. That is why it is not an attack. You just do not show a good understanding of the Constitution. It is ok. A lot of people do not these days.

"You also said: "Who cares if there is blood in the gutters?" I assume you are using the type of argument known as "devil's advocate". We all care. We promised to care. Both in the Oath and the Law."

No, I don't care. The Constitution does not get shredded when there has been a murder, or two, or thousands. The Second Amendment stands.

"You also said: "The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters." That's right. It also does not say that Congress cannot impose regulation on the right."

Yes it does. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows that?

"I had mentioned that all the stuff that BrentAllen said we would not accept if regulated, were in fact already regulated. Your comment that none of the "rights" were enumerated is off-point. The point is that they are regulated. For your argument that because the Second Amendment is the Constitution it can't be regulated, I would ask you to look at other Constitution rights that are also regulated by statute. You didn't like bankruptcy. Here's more:

The Fourth Amendment which ensures that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

However, the Patriotic Act says that the Feds can now arrest you without a warrant and hold you without notice, right to appeal, or even the right to communicate to anyone. The Act says that the Feds can break into your house at night, take anything they like and bug your house, without a warrant and without notice to you or any court. Where the Act requires warrants it says that no probable cause is necessary. So, my point is that if the Congress can gut the 4th Amendment, why can't it regulate the 2nd?"

Parts of the Patrot Act are unconstitutional. I have never defended it. Why do you assume I think it is. It is simply not the worst of all civil rights erroding legislatioin we have seen.

"Another example, the Fifth Amendment. It says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Well, the Congress and the Supreme Court have said that you cant have a jury in about 20 areas of the law; that military law applies to the military in peacetime as well as wartime; that it is not double jeopardy to try a person for murder in State Court, and if the case is lost, retry the same person in federal court for the same murder; that you have no right to plead the fifth in about 20 areas of the law, even though the answers may incriminate you and be used against you; etc. So again, if Congress can gut the 5th Amendment, why cant it pass laws interpreting or regulating the rights under the 2nd Amendment? "

Parts of the Constitution give Congress authority to wage wars. For a long time military courts have been allowed.

"I had explained that the Patriot Act is nothing but a facist manifesto, providing unstoppable and unlimited powers to the executive without checks and balances, just like the Nazis did when they took over their legislature. You responded by arguing that Roosevelt did worse with Japanese internment camps. Again, apples and tumbleweeds. I agree the internment camps were illegal. The Supreme Court dodged the issue until after the war, then agreed. Just like the Supreme Court dodged the issues on Gitmo until it was clear that Americans didnt like Gitmo and what it stood for, then they agreed."

The Japanese internments were worst but nobody mentions them -ever and FDR is held up as a near saint. Why is that? Calling it Facist is silly. To say it provides unstoppable powers like the Nazi Enabling Act is just false. The Enabling Act allowed the German President/Chancellor - offices which Hitler merged to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag. The Patriot Act did no such thing. I am quite sure Congress still has most of its powers. Huge differnce.

Most colonies required men to own a weapon for militia duty. Many of them were Brown Besses left over from the Seven Years War. Especially true in many more settled areas where they did not have rifles for hunting. Rifles were very rare. You should know that. Your own source says many soldiers kept them for militia. duty.

The Lexington and Concord attacks were mostly done with muskets. Rifles were less popular in New England. More of a frontier weapon. The sniping attacks were possible. If you look at the stats for the ammount of shots fired vs hits you can see they were done with ineffective muskets. Many more royal soldiers should have died that day.

""You said: Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them. EXACTLY, PRECISELY, YOU GOT IT! The weapons they wanted to take away were in the armory at Concord.

The Brits needed to grab the armories because thats were the cannon, the military weapons, and the big stores of powder were held by the Colonial governors for their militias. The Brits never tried to disarm the Colonials of all weapons. As the Encarta Encylopedia explains: The Battle of Concord took place during the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. It was the first serious engagement of the revolution, which followed Paul Revere's famous ride warning of a British attack. The battle was fought at Concord, Massachusetts. American minutemen prevented British troops from crossing the bridge over the Concord River to seize the colonists' ammunition and military stores. The British retreated to Boston, harassed by fire from colonial militia.

Whose armory was it in Concord? It was one of the Massachusettes Provincial Council formed by the colonists, it was not an imperial one. The people created it by themselves to give them extra resources to aid their fight against the British.

Facts are stubborn things. You should check yours a bit more sir. (And maybe take a Constitutional Law class!)

It would make you a better debater if you love it so.

I don't really believe that. What about Andrew Johnson? Or Grover Cleveland? Or Calvin Coolidge?

Other Presidents did some deregulation Reagan, Bush. Steps away from socialism as way. Though I guess they made some steps towards.

It seems Obama's are bigger steps than most at least though. With the possible exceptions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.

I don't know what you mean by Federalism/Socialist mode. They are not the same. . .

I agree we should split into independent states. Or at least restore the Articles of Confederation.

"COMMENT: Huh. Use of automatic weapons has increased, as has the murder rate associated with them in the last five years. Ive seen blood in the gutters. But then I was a policeman. Is the complaint that there is not enough? Why tell you? Because, just like alcohol, driving and other stuff (see below) some people abuse their rights. It takes a license to drive a car. It should clearly take a license to own or shoot a gun. Let's compare. The US Constitution says that bankruptcy is ever person's right. But we have hundreds of pages of laws to make sure that a bankrupt doesn't get away with inconveniencing a credit card company, student loan, mortgage company etc. So the Constitution mentions guns. It does not make them exempt from further legislation, anymore than it makes bankruptcy subject to further legislation."

Who cares if there is blood in the gutters? The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters. Driving a car isn't a right enumerated in the federal constitution. Neither is using alcohol, or declaring bankruptcy.

Your comparison of the bankruptcy clause to the 2nd Amendment shows you have no understanding of either.

"COMMENT: Well, all those things are regulated. Cars & Trucks: try to buy one without an air bag, pollution control or a catalytic converter. How to get to work: who do you think chooses between more interstate or hwy lanes instead of light rail or subways, or vice versa? Knife you can carry: in most states a blade over 3 inches is a concealed weapon, also illegal are switch blades, spring knives, and in some places, gravity knives. Doctor & treatments: heard of HMO, PPO or Medicare/Medicaid restrictions on treatments and doctors? Thats all authorized by law. Water: Here in Denver we pay penalties for too much use, as they do in many parts of the country. Yes ITS CALLED FREEDOM. We vote for representatives (city, state, national) and they make laws, and we all abide by them, its called Freedom."

Again, none enumerated rights in the Constituion. Freedom is not voting for representatives who take our freedom away.

"COMMENT: and the Patriot Act, which I have read, is almost indistinguishable in its scope, intent and grant of unchecked powers as anything Hitlers party adopted in the 30s. Facism, pure and simple. It abrogates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, ignores the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and generally overturns all of the case law on search & seizure, secret proceedings and habeas corpus adopted in the last 200 years."

Again shows that you have no understanding of histroy. Patriot Act is indistinguishable from Nazi powers? Is this a joke? Try reading the Nazi legislation. Start with the Enabling Act. That one alone will show you that you are wrong. You seem to overlook worse acts perpetrated by liberals. FDR's concentration of the Japanese during World War II. Wilson's Sedition and Espionage Acts as well as the Committe on Public Information during World War I which were much more strict than the Patriot Act. Lincoln's suspension of Habeous Corpus without Congress, jailing of dissidents, theft of property, declaration of martial law without Congress, suspension of the Maryland legislature.

"COMMENT: No they didnt. Assault weapons in 1776 were Brown Besses and they were in the armories, which were controlled by colony governors, which the British seized and the Colonials liberated. The rifles the milita carried were hunting and sporting rifles. Nary a semi-automatic among them (sorry, couldnt resist).

Many colonists owned Brown Besses from service in the French and Indian War. Many others owned them and kept them in their homes. Ever hear of the minutemen? You seriously need to study your history.

Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them

"SO WHAT, well we all think differently, and we vote. Thats FREEDOM. But what my right wing friends often forget is that my opinion is just as valid, and holding it does not make me any worse a person, patriot or citizen than they are."

Thats all cool but I do not have to respect your belief that the government can take away or limit MY guns or regulate every aspect of MY life.

I would only say you are a worse citizen for what seems to be your poor understanding of the Constitution and history. ; )

Umm. . . dude, they both led us towards socialism.

'Stolen'? C'mon Gern.

Thats the way markets are. Sometimes they go up sometimes they go down. You made the choice to put your money where you did. You will reap the consequences.

Nah, we should balance the budget.

Pretty easy.

George Washington had 5 cabinet departments.

War (now Defense)

Treasury

State

Postmaster-General

Attorney Genral

Cut all the other departments and everything that is in them.

We would be cutting the debt real fast.

I have been investing in my IRA and other mutual funds a lot. I am a rather young man I have plenty of time.

They are really cheap now! Really cheap.

They will go up in time.

They always do. Look at history.

My only fear is the long term strength of the US dollar if we continue to inflate it like we do.

Modern liberals like to expand the power of government. This takes away individual freedom.

Look how federal control over the economy and banking grew under Lincoln while he was fighting his war. He took away the right of the states to leave the union. Stole millions of articles of slave property. Jailed political dissidents. Shut down the Maryland legislature. Declared martial law without the consent of Congress.

Jump to the next big expansion of government power under liberals in the early 1900s like T. Roosevelt and Wilson. Increased regulation of the economy. Putting controls on child labor, minimum wages, amount of time that one can work. Regulating banks and industry. Creating a Federal Reserve to print its own money to finance this and dominate all other banks. World War I also say a string of abuses far worst than anything under the Patriot Act. Check out the Espionage and Sedition Acts and the Committee on Public Information.

Look at FDR who again expanded the government at the expense of individuals. Ordering banks to close, seizing private gold, making a minimum wage, taking more taxes for 'Social Security' to tell Americans how to retire. Increasing regulation of business again. Imposing price controls and non-competition agreements. Not to mention the internment of the Japanese Americans.

Truman wanted to nationalize railroads and steel mills to stop strikes. Was only stopped by the SCOTUS and Congress.

Then the liberals on the SCOTUS went to work in the 1960s and 70s. Extended federal power to regulation of schools, voting districts, contraception, abortion, and school prayer.

LBJ started his Great Society programs to make the government even bigger. Less money and therefore freedom in Americans pocket and more to the government again.

Modern liberals. Want to take even more of our money. Want to make gun controls. Want to kill babies. More government ownership of private corporations than ever before. Do not want to let local governments have 10 Commandment monuments on their property. Want to force banks to reconfigure home mortgages. Do not want to let people pray in schools. Want to raise the minimum wage. Want the government to coerce people to making more green power sources. Do not like school vouchers.

You can spend what you don't have when you can print your own money.

Another reason we need to return to sound money and the gold standard. . .

Kahuna are you serious? Apparently we do not even live in the same world.