Any Ron Paul Supporters Here?

[MHKflyer52]

Hello All,

 

On the other hand I do not know of any corporation or company that can get big things done overnight (or very quickly) like the US Government can and then sustain it even if their is bickering amongst the different branches of the government like Congress and Senate or Democrats or Republicans. An example of this would be the movement of 57000+ solders and equipment to defend a small government like Kuwait or the present mess we are in Iraq an Afghanistan. Most corporations or companies would be broke or bankrupt in a mater of a day if they had to due what our government dose everyday and it would cost at least three times the amount the Government would spend due to over runs and greed. Just my belief all though I due believe the Government dose waste a lot of time and money on things that the US public has no clue of or even care because as a population of one of the wealthiest nations in the world and with the freedom and right to VOTE we can not get everyone out to vote nor do some people even care.

 

Hope what I am saying makes some sense.

 

[Boxologist]

from another forum for those of u interested

 

RP sticker

[Kitcat]

Slngsht:

 

On the gun control issue: the US Supreme Court just accepted an appeal of a gun control case-first one in 70 years.

 

It specifically will decide if the "right" to a gun is conditioned on the existence of a well regulated state militia, as suggested by the wording of the 2nd amendment. It has to decide that since the case comes from DC-which is not a state. Since it is not a state, there is no state militia and thus, if the literal wording of the 2nd amendment is given meaning, no right to a gun.

 

Early betting has the DC ban on hand guns going down and the Supremo's deciding that the existence of state-regulated militias has nothing to do with the right to a handgun. In fact, I will give odds:).

[slngsht]

Slngsht:

 

On the gun control issue: the US Supreme Court just accepted an appeal of a gun control case-first one in 70 years.

 

It specifically will decide if the "right" to a gun is conditioned on the existence of a well regulated state militia, as suggested by the wording of the 2nd amendment. It has to decide that since the case comes from DC-which is not a state. Since it is not a state, there is no state militia and thus, if the literal wording of the 2nd amendment is given meaning, no right to a gun.

 

Early betting has the DC ban on hand guns going down and the Supremo's deciding that the existence of state-regulated militias has nothing to do with the right to a handgun. In fact, I will give odds:).

 

Yes, I've been following that. My rant was more about the federal government - specifically congress has no say in this issue, unless they want to take up n amendment to the constitution.

[MHKflyer52]

I think the US Supreme Court will find that the gun ban in DC will stand if they look at the Washington DC proper because Washington DC is not a state, kind of like the Vatican in Rome Italy a separate government in its self with its own system if I am not mistaken.

Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States. It is situated within and coterminous with the District of Columbia (abbreviated as "D.C."). The city and the district are located on the banks of the Potomac River and bordered by the states of Virginia (to the west) and Maryland (to the north, east and south). The city was planned and developed in the late 18th century to serve as the permanent national capital; the federal district was formed to keep the national capital distinct from the states.

[slngsht]

I think the US Supreme Court will find that the gun ban in DC will stand if they look at the Washington DC proper because Washington DC is not a state, kind of like the Vatican in Rome Italy a separate government in its self with its own system if I am not mistaken.

Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States. It is situated within and coterminous with the District of Columbia (abbreviated as "D.C."). The city and the district are located on the banks of the Potomac River and bordered by the states of Virginia (to the west) and Maryland (to the north, east and south). The city was planned and developed in the late 18th century to serve as the permanent national capital; the federal district was formed to keep the national capital distinct from the states.

 

I think *because* DC is not a state and is under federal control, the feds can dictate what happens there. Regarding DC, it is unfortunate that for decades the residents have had taxation without proper representation. Is there anything that's a better indicator of how bad politics are in congress? :nonod:

[Kitcat]

The Constitution applies to DC. So the citizens there enjoy free speech, freedom from discrimination, etc. But, the part of the 2nd Amendment establishing gun rights seems to predicate it on the need for a STATE militia. Since DC is not as state, the gun-rights part of the Constitution mite not apply.

 

In spite of their frequent claim to being "strict constructionists", and not adding or subtracting anything to/from the Constitution, I expect the conservative Court majority will decouple the right to a gun from the language about needing a militia (Wh/were pretty much replaced by a professional army for the last 100+ years).

 

The Court got itself into trouble over Roe v. Wade and abortion. It will not repeat that mistake since the gun rights folks are no less passionate. So you can count on the DC gun law, which is extremely broad (all hand guns are banned, period), being struck down. Regardless of any inconvenient language in the 2nd Amendment that would support the ban.

[slngsht]

This is pretty amazing... on most forums political threads turn into stupid one liners and insults. I've enjoyed everyone's contribution to the topic here :thumbs: