Politcal Ramblings

[Jessiewoodard57]

In the media I hear a lot about let's ban guns and take away everyone's guns. The truth is if every gun in the world just miraculously disappeared today murder would not stop. It has been going on ever since Cain picked up a rock and killed his brother. Bad guys would just pick something else to use. It's not a gun problem but a heart and moral issue. A gun is a tool no more no less it's use is up to the morals of the person carrying it.

[Tony]

In the media I hear a lot about let's ban guns and take away everyone's guns. The truth is if every gun in the world just miraculously disappeared today murder would not stop. It has been going on ever since Cain picked up a rock and killed his brother. Bad guys would just pick something else to use. It's not a gun problem but a heart and moral issue. A gun is a tool no more no less it's use is up to the morals of the person carrying it.

It's just an attempt by gun control advocates to do something, anything to control something that can't be controlled. I was in the service, hunted and know 100's if not 1000's of people that own guns, not a single one of them have walked into a party / office / church / school / theater or store and shot someone.
The guns are to preserve our freedom, the writers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were keenly aware that having weapons was important because government tends to become overbearing and self serving over time. This was true of the King of England then and is true of the president and congress now. Having guns gives the people an opportunity to force changes in the system if needed. The current administration understands this and has sought to remove weapons from the people, this is not a good sign, we must preserve our right to protect ourselves from anyone who shall try to harm us, including terrorists and our own government.

[Jessiewoodard57]

Why quote me? as I said in a few words it's not a gun issue.

Like you I agree the 2nd amendment is not negotiable that needs to stand as is or all our rights will leave right behind it. Every country in the past when guns where taken away opposition to the administration was murdered by the millions.

[fordman1]

Where did you guys get that cool aid. the 2nd amendment was for an armed militia. Not every citizen walking around schools, malls and churches strapped. Guns sure make it easy for crazies and punks to act tough. "what are you looking at MFer" I'll shoot you..... Make sure you post here before you start your revolution I can get away to Canada.

[Jessiewoodard57]

wow I never said anything about starting a revolution. Where do you think an armed Militia would come from? The minute men were farmers and shop keepers ...the punks as you call them will have guns even if everybody else does not. Look at it this way we outlawed drugs but still have a problem with them. Again it's not a gun problem it a moral issue. For the record I donot own a gun but the way the times look it time to get a few. (last post on this thread)

[Tony]

There are several different interpretations of this amendment.
A Militia : a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

Intent is also part of the interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled on this :
:In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.

According to that ruling the intent is fairly clear, the citizens should have the right to bear arms specifically to form a Militia if deemed necessary.

You must judge for yourself based on the conditions at any given time if that time is drawing near.

[fordman1]

What would you say the supreme court got right or wrong? Roe vrs. Wade, citizens united or maybe Obama care?

[Aslan]

What would you say the supreme court got right or wrong? Roe vrs. Wade, citizens united or maybe Obama care?

Roe v Wade was imperfect not because of the decision but because we haven't done a better job as a country of coming together to truly define "life". That's what it all comes down to. Nobody is "Pro-Abortion"...I don't know of any young girls that "can't WAIT to get an abortion!" But the Church and other churches have taken a very extreme stance on where life begins. A stance that would be impossible to allow as 'law'.

For example, if the debate in court was about whether or not a mother had the right to kill a 2-year old child....there's no way that would be allowed. Same thing for a baby. And the argument can go back quite a ways...even into the womb. Had both sides worked together...we could have federal abortion laws that prohibit any abortions after 6 months unless the mother's life is at risk. The problem is, it's a "religious" issue which means there's ZERO support from the other side for anything but Zero Abortions....and that cannot be the law...right or wrong.

Citizens United was a bad call but again...if both sides work together to limit both unions and corporations....they'd have majority support from the country. But instead....liberals want to limit corporate contributions but refuse to apply those same limits to unions. That's not "fair". And the Court is going to be very careful at limiting free speech concerning elections.

Obamacare is simply bad legislation. It's the opposite of FDR type politics. It was a desperate attempt to at least accomplish something on the health care front, hoping it would eventually pave the way to nationalized health care. The same failed ideological attempts as Bill Clinton's Nafta and pro-China policies. The far left that has taken over the Democratic party has lost all interest in Nationalism and consider this "Global Community". And they continue to make rather large bets on a very cloudy future. But the court did get most of the decisions correct on Obamacare with one notable exception.

Their ruling that companies like Hobby lobby can skirt the legislation by claiming they are a company built on certain moral values, etc... That was a horrible ruling that could have very serious consequences. It's wrong based on what the definition of a "corporation" is. And it sets a horrible precedent that if people/companies disagree with something...and truly disagree with it for moral reasons....the rules don't apply to them. That could have unplanned consequences later. Even with abortion...why does Hobby Lobby not have to follow the rules regarding Obamacare....but still has to pay corporate taxes...some of that money going to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood? Could they not argue that paying those taxes violates their religious freedoms? Could anyone be able to decline to pay for things they object to? If it's a moral objection? We can't function as a Democracy if rules are only enforced on those that specifically support them.

[fordman1]

About the constitution, didn't Jefferson want to take a fresh look at every 20 yrs. or so? Do you really think the founding fathers had Islam in mind when they said freedom of religion? Beheadings, stoning and woman as slaves?

[Aslan]

About the constitution, didn't Jefferson want to take a fresh look at every 20 yrs. or so? Do you really think the founding fathers had Islam in mind when they said freedom of religion? Beheadings, stoning and woman as slaves?

Absolutely. It's history repeating itself again and again. Nobody wanted to confront the Nazis, and nobody wanted to believe they were doing what they were doing...until he was on the doorstep of France. Nobody wants to confront human rights issues because then the World gets bogged down in conflicts in areas that nobody really cares about like Africa or some Middle East desert. And the people we want to police that area (middle east) like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Egypt...they are all almost as bad as the places we want dealt with.

To link the discussion to bowling, if I were good enough to be a Pro...I'm not sure I'd be willing to travel to places like the United Arab Emrites...where there are still laws on the books and being enforced where a man and woman can't kiss in public or a muslim and non-muslim cannot hold hands, etc... I think our country needs to be more assertive regarding human rights rather than get in bed with countries that are 'slightly' better versions of the ones we "don't like". And I don't think we need to take tolerance of other beliefs to the point of allowing people's human rights to be violated just because we want to "respect cultural differences".

In the old days, if your neighbors were cannibals...you either destroyed your neighbors or ultimately you'd be their dinner. Then everybody became a hippie sometime between the late 1800s and late 1900s...and now countries could eat their young and we'd all sit around in some global committee discussing economic sanctions. I mean, how many years did China have a policy that ended up in the murdering of tens or hundreds of thousands of children with their one child policy?? But are we going to war with China because we think thats cruel? Probably not. But I don't think we get in bed with them and become economic partners while they are behaving in that manner.

We've given away our leverage. We're not the sole global economy anymore and we have no military will to fight and we have a government that can barely agree to pay their bills. The World knows they can do what they want...nobody is guarding the fort. Putin invaded Ukraine. Then he put troops in Syria and started attacking our puppet warriors in Northern Syria. Turkey shot down their plane. Did Russia attack Turkey? Nope. Because the leader of Turkey knows how to deal with Putin. Putin respects strength and exploits weakness. Turkey should a will to fight and Russia said, "oh, never mind then..." The US said not to put troops in Turkey and within a year Putin couldn't wait to put troops there. China holds our debt. Russia is led by a man with an itchy trigger finger. Our allies were tricked into going into Iraq last time and aren't happy about our NSA bumblings. Donald Trump wants to force our Southern neighbor to build a wall. And our Northern neighbor wants an oil pipeline and we're such a fractured country we can't even agree on that.

I don't really care anymore. I'm starting to become numb to it. Without a strong, moderate, 3rd party...it's just more of the same voting for the best option of two horrible options.