OBAMA WINS!

[Michael]

Hey Walter, HTFU Last time I checked, Obama the Savior, The Messiah, The One, The President of the World, was human and can make mistakes. I don't have to be a constitutional scholar, nor do I need any special standing to form an opinion about him and express it. But seriously, I agree with what you said about the past 8 years and really do know what you mean about realizing how angry you are about the mistakes that have been made and wanting a politician to be a leader and do the right thing. I can relate. Anger can be a good thing.

We've all heard the stories about doctors who amputated someone's left leg instead of their right leg and I'm sure those doctors had forgotten more about surgery than their patient will ever know, too.

[Walter Joyce]

So one person PMs me and calls me a jerk and the other tells me to HTFU.

Maybe the person who messaged me should HTFU, and maybe you should wait for the doctor to scrub in before you accuse him of cutting the wrong leg off.


I never referred to anyone as "Obama the Savior, The Messiah, The One, The President of the World" and never would. And I'm well aware of your "standing" to form an opinion. Opinions are easy, solid arguments that can survive scrutiny by those who know the rules of the game are another.

Dismissing a recognized expert in the field with a cheap shot about banning ammunition as evidence of their limited understanding of the Constitution isn't much of an opinion, let alone a well formed argument.

It seems like half the time people can't stand lawyers and at other times they thing they can actually accomplish legal reasoning without any training or experience.

If you want to go through life seeing everything as a conspiracy and then ignore history in the making and write it off as just the same old same old feel free, its your lose. Sitting on the sidelines taking cheap shots and throwing half baked conspiracy arguments is easy.

Taking the initiative and having the intellect, the personal skills, the demeanor and the ambiton to dedicate your life to serving your country should be applauded. Our president elect may be the first public servant to achieve that office since Jimmy Carter. We're so used to corruption, self-dealing and exploitation from our leaders we can't even recognize the real thing when it comes along.

Is Obama perfect, hell no, no human being ever is.

And he'll make mistakes.

But he is taking office at one of the low points in our history on so many fronts. The time for this country to truly pull together and find the common ground that can lead to real solutions to the complex problems we face is here. You want to show how clever you are, try developing solutions instead of criticism and "opinions". And if you can't be part of the solution, then what is it you are trying to achieve?

Well I'm also entitled to have my opinion and I voiced it. And I'll continue to do so.

Ben, I apologize for hurting your feelings, believe it or not I sat on that post for two days and toned it down before I posted it. The only part I got wrong was criticizing your spelling, that was a cheap shot. I confess that sometimes I respond in kind and I'll state here that I saw your critique of our president elect as a cheap shot.

He is the best hope we have right now, and I don't want to burden him with my expectations of what I believe he could do for this country on so many fronts. But I am sick to death of negative carping and I found it especially bothersome when people couldn't even allow him one day without voicing their pessimism.

I take this country and its constitution very seriously. I believe that the party that has been in power has abused both the country and the constitution for decades. And the current administration has been the nadir for so many reasons in so many ways.

There is so much more to the constitution than the second amendment to its bill of rights.

And as far in the bill of rights goes I would love to see an organized outrage and desire to protect the other amendments. If you want to hang your hat on the Second Amendment so frequently then what is your stand on the Fourth or Fifth amendments? Do you just see them as protecting the guilty, mere technicalities that set criminals free?

How much constitutional history have you studied?

Do you really believe there is one "original intent" behind such a complex and nuanced document?

When judges interpret the document to suit modern realities are they activist? Or are they only activist when you disagree and they are following the original intent when you agree with the decision?

What about the other articles?

What about the commerce clause?

The 14th amendment?

The balance of powers that has been all but ignored in the rush to create an imperial presidency?

Should judges be elected or appointed?

Why?

Is it right to pack the federal judiciary based on ideology?

Is it right to hire or fire federal prosecutors based on partisan politics?

Do any of these questions have easy answers, or does it all begin and end with that most cherished of rights on this board, the right to bear arms?

Is there are right to privacy?

If there is, where is it and why?

If there isn't then why can't the government search our homes and listen to our conversations whenever they feel like it?

Why shouldn't gays have the right to marry?

Why should they?

How much regulation is enough and how much is too much?

Can you really rely on the market to achieve economic equity and balance?

If we can then do you really think its right that executives now make up to 275 times more than their average worker?

Why?

Why not?

Why is cutting taxes for the working middle class socialism but bailing out wall street good economic policy?

Tell me your opinions on those issues, and more, because that might be interesting discussion, because I'm tired of the conspiracies and the nihilism and the pop analysis of serious issues that we as citizens should consider, because without good citizens democracy fails.

Or would you rather just sit back and wait for our next president to do something unpopular, or that you don't agree with and then pounce with more criticism?

You think I'm a jerk, fine, that's your opinion and you have a right to it, but the first amendment doesn't protect from me criticizing it, like any constitutional protection found int the bill of rights it only protects you from the government.

I'm not sitting on this post for two days, and I'm not editing it.

[Chanchu]

"Obama has forgotten more about the constitution than any of you could ever hope to know. He taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation and is held in high regard (note there is no u in regard) even by those who differ with him ideologically."

I gotcha Walter-- if you don't have a law degree ya can't understand the constitution. I really do see your point as I think if you have not been in the military- you don't/can't know shit about the military. Of course that does not stop people without military experience or degrees in military science from thinking they can command. Just like peons without law degree's sometimes think they can understand the constitution.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/obam ... ights.html

Here is something of his record on the 2nd I don't agree with his stance or his votes. I do think we are going to see a massive attack on the 2nd under Obama. I also think the 2nd is the protector of all the other amendments.

Lets wait and see what happens- print it and save it... I don't like Bush but I give him credit for one thing. Eight years and no attacks on American soil. I really hope Obama will have the same success rate.

[Steve James]

I also think the 2nd is the protector of all the other amendments.

Could you name the times in American history, other than the CW, that the people have taken up arms against the government, or used firearms to protect their other rights? Do you agree with them? And, do you think that GWB has strengthened or respected the Constitution well, in your opinion?

Eight years and no attacks on American soil. I really hope Obama will have the same success rate.

Okay, 9/11/01 doesn't count. I know what you mean. But, are you arguing that we haven't been attacked "because" Bush is President? Er, I mean because he has been President since they've attacked us? Maybe it's been because of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, and those other details?

I agree, though. I hope there are no attacks on American soil. But, if I thought that GB prevented any, I'd have to willfully ignore the fact that the worst attack in our history happened while he was at the helm. Yeah, I hope nothing worse happens, but I'm not going to blame the president-elect already. Btw, I said the same thing years ago when it came to Bush. Of course, the other side of the anti-Obama party believes that GB was directly involved in the attacks, himself. So, I really don't see why the argument is with Obama. Fair enough, everyone "hopes" that bad things won't happen.

Okay, I hope if there's a cat 6 hurricane that Obama handles it better than Bush. Then again, we haven't even had any cat 5 hurricanes since he's been in office.

[Michael]

No Walter, of course I don't think you're a jerk, and I usually find we're in agreement on all of the things you mentioned. Sorry that this is coming off like cheap shots because that's not the intention. You shouldn't rush to put me on the defensive because I've made a lot of detailed posts on many of those issues and I don't expect you've read those, but I am pretty hard core on this board on the 4th amendment (NSA go to hell) and 8th amendment (no torture any time, any where, any how for anyone under any circumstances), but to me, banning what I think is probably the most popular rifle ammo is a direct attack on the 2nd amendment. It's prima fascia through the back door. I wouldn't say the 2nd amendment is the most important because we need all 10.

I'd say the 1st Amendment is the most important because it gives us the right to complain when any of the others are infringed upon. Judge Napolitano says the 4th is the most important because it means the government has to leave us alone or show a really good reason why they're interested in us and he says the final straw leading to the 1776 revolution was when British agents were given the power to write their own warrants, which is now happening again with federal law enforcement officers. Did you know that FBI agents are now writing their own warrants? Red Beckman, whom Ron Paul credited with saving the US jury system, says the 7th is the most important because a jury is the most powerful legal entity in our legal system. There's this great vid on youtube that was posted here on EF where a lawyer goes to great lengths to explain how important the 5th amendment is. The 9th and 10th amendments say to me that the federal government has boundaries even when they are not explicitly defined in the Constitution and I do think the federal government has grown too large and powerful.

I'm not nihilistic and I don't even know if you aimed that at me. The HTFU thing had a big smiley next to it and I meant no offense. I know you didn't refer to Obama as The Savior, etc., but many of his supporters, the mainstream media, and foreign media have. It's eery and reminiscent of some very bad things from the 20th century.

As far as conspiracy theories, I don't see anybody on this board working harder to provide evidence for what they claim. I put links in most of my posts and respond to all questions and requests for backing up what I'm saying. Accusing somebody of "conspiracy theories" is not a fair comment, IMO, unless you think there are no conspiracies. You think I'm sitting on the sidelines? Again, that's really not a fair comment; I think you're lumping me in with some other people who have knee-jerk or myopic views of the second amendment.

[Chanchu]

"Could you name the times in American history, other than the CW, that the people have taken up arms against the government, or used firearms to protect their other rights? Do you agree with them? And, do you think that GWB has strengthened or respected the Constitution well, in your opinion?"

LA riots- Korea town did not burn because Koreans were on the roof tops with Armalites the cops- Ca. government cut and ran those who had weapons saved there property and lives.

Katrina disaster "looters will be shoot in this parrish" the cops, government were nowhere to be found private citizens saved there own @ss's and homes if armed if not...

Black Panther Party- you know the story.

Do I agree? yes..

Many others- those are three in my lifetime off the cuff.

I don't like Bush I don't agree with his ideas on the constitution. I do think that his green light to SF and intell paramilitary people prevented further attacks on American soil. 9/11 was in motion pre Bush II. Post 9/11 green light- No further attacks

SF and intell para/military did prevent further attacks beyond doubt IMHO in Bush II era.

I give Bush II credit for the directives that enabled that.

"but I'm not going to blame the president-elect already"

Nor am I. I did not read of anyone blaming Obama here or attacking Obama here I did not- I wish him/us the best. However his record on the 2nd amendment is not good in fact its horrible- to my way of thinking.

As I said- I lets wait and see hope for the best for our country.

[Michael]

Could you name the times in American history, other than the CW, that the people have taken up arms against the government, or used firearms to protect their other rights? Do you agree with them? And, do you think that GWB has strengthened or respected the Constitution well, in your opinion?

Waco, Texas, April, 1993. A group of about one hundred US citizens were viciously attacked and slaughtered by the BATF and FBI.

[Steve James]

Do I agree? yes..
Many others- those are three in my lifetime off the cuff.

Well, you could have mentioned the MOVE compound, in addition to Waco. I have to agree with the Panthers. None of the above actions were successful defenses, unless you're just counting the ability to inflict casualties. But, take Koresh's compound, for ex., suppose there was sexual and child abuse going on somewhere, and the perpetrators resisted attempts to arrest? Would their use of firearms be an example of theri right to self-defense? I.e., is it legitimate for the guy pulled over for a ticket to shoot the trooper because he felt his rights were being violated?

The Koreans are an example of the failure of gov't, not an act of gov't. So, it falls under the idea of self-defense. It's even silly to single out Koreans --just easier because it got on film. Other stores were looted, owned by whites blacks and Latinos, and other stores were protected. However, okay, a storeowner --or anyone-- has a legitimate need to defend himself and his property.

You know, when the term "race riot" referred to whites gunning down blacks in the streets --which was for most of this country's history. (Okay, there have been slave rebellions, but they don't count as race riots. I'm talking about things like the Draft Riots, Tulsa, Springfield, etc). Anyway, during those times, blacks were generally disarmed ... even though there was a 2nd amendment. You know, during the lynching years and beyond. During those times, like the Civil Rights era, a few black people made it a point to join the NRA. There were also a small group of men in the South called "the Deacons" who rode in pickup trucks with their shotguns. Yep, Malcolm X's main point was "self-defense", and we've mentioned the Panthers. Well, having personally participated in a couple of those movements, I can tell you that the rights of the 2nd, like several other amendments, were not expected to be demanded by blacks.

So, I'm all for self defense. I also remember a lot of the riots that started from the 60s on. I remember Agnew writing "shoot to kill." I also understood why people were rioting --in their own neighborhoods-- yet weren't shooting store owners. If, however, I'd argue that if the people Al Sharpton defended, like Sean Bell, had used guns to shoot the police, they wouldn't be supported by the NRA or alleged supporters of the right to bear arms.

I don't have any problems with a state or locality voting to have rules about gun ownership, as long as they are applied equally to all citizens. Very few people who shoot at the police survive; but I do know that there is police brutality and abuse of power. I also don't think it's a good idea to think about shooting it out with them: I've personally seen the results of that. Well, they shoot people while they're sleeping when their guns are useless.

[Steve James]

Based on the information I have about Waco, I believe the Branch Davidians were a peaceful group of people who posed a threat to no one, they were ambushed by the BATF for publicity and training purposes, they had a completely invalid search warrant, and that the only defense the Davidians had were their 2nd amendment protected weapons.

But, do you know anything about David Koresh? Even the gov't (FBI/ATF/Janet Reno) have admitted that it was a screwup. So was the Randy Weaver (?) incident. It's useless for you to say "their 2nd amendment protected weapons" since I don't think you have an argument why any aren't. I don't "have" any information about Waco. I watched it on television. There are numerous gov't agency reports --that generally criticize the FBI and ATF, but absolve them of guilt. Then there are the accounts of witnesses and participants: i.e., people who were either in the compound or left soon before the attempt to invade.

You also know that Koresh (on tapes) had been telling his followers that the gov't was going to kill them. Well, we can leave out the part about him being Christ. However, if you accept his logic and argument, then you must agree with Jim Jones having Leo Ryan killed, then getting his followers to give their children the green KoolAde. That's exactly what I believe about Koresh... just a gut feeling. I don't believe that the gov't wanted to kill them.

And just fwiw, I'm not in favor of killing police officers or American service persons. That's the only "gov't" with arms I come in contact with.

[Michael]

"However, if you accept his logic and argument, then you must agree with Jim Jones having Leo Ryan killed"
What argument are you talking about? When you see with your own eyes the FLIR footage clearly showing FBI agents mowing down Davidians trying to run from a burning building, you might reconsider whether or not the govt wanted to kill them.

"It's useless for you to say "their 2nd amendment protected weapons" since I don't think you have an argument why any aren't."

My goodness, Steve, I was answering your question. You seem to be reducing everything down to nothingness and then dismissing it. You don't get the relevance to the 2nd amendment of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms using a search warrant with allegations of sexual abuse and drug trafficking and nothing about guns to ambush and murder 80 people in order to take out David Koresh, who was a fully legit and law-abiding weapons dealer in Texas?

[Walter Joyce]

Just like peons without law degree's sometimes think they can understand the constitution.

Here is something of his record on the 2nd I don't agree with his stance or his votes. I do think we are going to see a massive attack on the 2nd under Obama. I also think the 2nd is the protector of all the other amendments.

Lets wait and see what happens- print it and save it... I don't like Bush but I give him credit for one thing. Eight years and no attacks on American soil. I really hope Obama will have the same success rate.

I never said or intentionally implied that people without a law degree are peons, or that people who lack any type of education are peons, why get defensive?

My point was that those who lack the education or training in a specific area might want to defer to the experts given their expertise. That doesn't mean roll over, but at least stop and consider that if you disagree with a recognized expert you might want to stop and do a little study to understand what is motivating the experts opinion and what is motivating yours as opposed to sniping. And the expert I had in mind was Obama, not me.

I also find it interesting what you believe about the 2nd amendment as the protector. I'd venture that the founders believed the 1st amendment was the most important, and at that point in our history the 2nd was, well, second in importance.

My thinking is that the founders were trying to encourage debate as the first means of settling an issue, but there is so much more in the 1st, like freedom of religion, of association, as well as speech and the freedom of the press. The 1st contains so many protections to encourage free thought that there are course offered on the varying clauses.

Given their experience with the English the founders probably also realized that there are those out there who when they lose the debate will try to impose their will by force, so there you have the second. BUT, I still say there is depth to the phrase "A well armed militia being essential..."

To me that implies that the arms protected by the amendment were meant to be used DEFENSIVELY, and given the historical context, for hunting to feed your family. I don't believe the founders were trying to protect the right to .38 specials. These guys were pretty smart, they would include the starting language to the amendment on a lark.

Yes, I've considered that I'll eat crow about my enthusiasm for the president elect, or some will encourage me to, but that is a risk worth taking. No government can stand without the support of its people, or without a whole lot of violence and repression, Ours is designed for the former, and that is all I am advocating.

The president elect is facing very difficult challenges, of an historical an epic nature, how about a little honeymoon period?

[Michael]

No honeymoon from me. I respect your views and I accept at face value that you take the Constitution and the USA seriously, but we've been giving the benefit of the doubt for 28 years to Bush's and Clinton's (and Clinton is Bush, Sr.'s symbolic "son", Kissinger was sitting in the Oval Office dictating to Bush, Sr., etc.) and look what it's gotten us. It seems my overall view of the top levels of the Executive branch are different than yours, so I don't want to argue endlessly based on having different viewpoints when I think we have similar principles. I'm doing my best to keep this fact-based, so...there you go.

[Ben]

"Ben, I apologize for hurting your feelings, believe it or not I sat on that post for two days and toned it down before I posted it. The only part I got wrong was criticizing your spelling, that was a cheap shot. I confess that sometimes I respond in kind and I'll state here that I saw your critique of our president elect as a cheap shot."
You're forgiven. I'm sorry you perceived my previous posts as a cheap shot at Obama. I never intended any of them that way. I was voicing concerns for our future. Obama is now our future.


"I take this country and its constitution very seriously. I believe that the party that has been in power has abused both the country and the constitution for decades. And the current administration has been the nadir for so many reasons in so many ways."

I totally agree.

"There is so much more to the constitution than the second amendment to its bill of rights."
I again agree.

"And as far in the bill of rights goes I would love to see an organized outrage and desire to protect the other amendments. If you want to hang your hat on the Second Amendment so frequently then what is your stand on the Fourth or Fifth amendments? Do you just see them as protecting the guilty, mere technicalities that set criminals free?"
I have never hung my hat on the second amendment. I don't feel its any more or less important than any of the others.

"How much constitutional history have you studied?"
Some in high school, some in college, a lot in my own time. Hard to say how much exactly.

"Do you really believe there is one "original intent" behind such a complex and nuanced document?"
How could there not be an original intent. Surly when the founding fathers wrote the document they intended it to be a certain way. There was an outcome they were looking for. They weren't just throwing darts at things posted on the wall.

"When judges interpret the document to suit modern realities are they activist? Or are they only activist when you disagree and they are following the original intent when you agree with the decision?"
We could say that a judge is being an activist in any decision. I don't like the whole "activist judge" hoopla.

The 14th amendment?
The issues with the 14th amendment come from the fact that immigration law is being ignored(at least to me). I resent people coming here illegally and the govt.(state or federal) ignoring the laws in place. I don't get to break the law, illegal immigrants do and no one seems to care.

"The balance of powers that has been all but ignored in the rush to create an imperial presidency?"
I agree, Its one example of unconstitutional behavior that needs to be addressed.

"Should judges be elected or appointed?"
I think elected for the most part. Honestly There are things about Govt I don't feel qualified to pass judgment on.


"Is it right to pack the federal judiciary based on ideology?" No

"Is it right to hire or fire federal prosecutors based on partisan politics?" No

"Do any of these questions have easy answers, or does it all begin and end with that most cherished of rights on this board, the right to bear arms?" I cherish all my rights. That's why I don't like what I've been seeing in or govt for a long time.

"Is there are right to privacy?" yes

"If there is, where is it and why?"
Its in the constitution. Its there to protect us from the government.


"Why shouldn't gays have the right to marry?" They should, I've never said otherwise.

"Why should they"
Because in a republic the rights of the individual come first. The govt has no place to tell someone who they can marry.

"How much regulation is enough and how much is too much?"
Depends on what we're talking about. This is wrapped up in perception. I would say enough to protect life liberty and property and not a hair more.

"Can you really rely on the market to achieve economic equity and balance?"
Honestly, I don't know.


"Why is cutting taxes for the working middle class socialism but bailing out wall street good economic policy?"
Cutting taxes for the middle class isn't socialism and baling out wall street was... well... Those guys should be in jail.


"You think I'm a jerk, fine, that's your opinion and you have a right to it, but the first amendment doesn't protect from me criticizing it, like any constitutional protection found in the bill of rights it only protects you from the government."
It suppose to protect me from govt. I don't know how much faith I have that it has been for the past at least 8 years.

I think you were acting like a jerk. Doesn't mean you're a jerk all the time. Also note here how you're quick to assert your right to speak but are also quick to tell everybody else to stop talking about Obama...

[Steve James]

"However, if you accept his logic and argument, then you must agree with Jim Jones having Leo Ryan killed"
What argument are you talking about?

The argument that people have a right to protect themselves from the gov't, obviously. Jones had Ryan killed.

AFAIK, Koresh did not claim to be Christ and that was defamatory disinfo.

What do you mean "defamatory disinfo"? Coming from you, that's an interesting pov. Is the wiki on David Koresh reliable in any way?

When you see with your own eyes the FLIR footage clearly showing FBI agents mowing down Davidians trying to run from a burning building, you might reconsider whether or not the govt wanted to kill them.

Why did the gov't want to kill them, again?

I don't know why you'd bring Jim Jones into this as there is absolutely no connection between that and Waco, MOVE, etc. Sort of confuses the conversation, IMO. I guess you're implying that Koresh had a death wish and wanted to take everyone down wit

Not implying anything, former members of his cult said so. Jones thought the gov't was going to kill them, or at least he told his followers so. You don't want to believe so about Koresh because that confuses your conspiracy argument, which frankly doesn't make sense except as a conspiracy theory.

You should also look deeper into Guyana to understand why that comparison is out of place. Autopsies showed nearly all were shot, the Kool-Ade thing is mostly hype.

I am not as sure about anything as much as you are sure about everything. So, there's not really a point.
Okay, Koresh and Jim Jones were fine fellows.

[Steve James]

This is from the wiki on Koresh. Do you think it's correct?

At the Palestine, Texas, camp, Koresh "worked it so that everyone was forced to rely on him, and him alone. All previous bonds and attachments, family or otherwise, meant nothing. His rationale was if they had no one to depend on, they had to depend on him, and that made them vulnerable."[2] By this time, he had already begun to give the message of his own "Christhood," proclaiming that he was "the Son of God, the Lamb who could open the Seven Seals."[4]

Lois Roden died in 1986. Up until then Koresh had been teaching that monogamy was the only way to live, but suddenly announced that polygamy was allowed for him. In March 1986, Koresh first slept with Karen Doyle, aged 14.[5] He claimed her as his second wife. In August 1986, Koresh began secretly sleeping with Michele Jones, his wife's younger 12-year-old sister. In September 1986 Koresh began to preach that he was entitled to 140 wives, 60 women as his "queens" and 80 as concubines, which he based upon his interpretation of the Biblical Song of Solomon.[2] Koresh then built up an entirely new theology around his "marriage" to Doyle. This theology was called the "New Light," with a doctrine of polygamy for himself, which he called "The House of David." According to this doctrine, Doyle was supposed to have a daughter named Shoshanna who would then be married to Koresh's firstborn son Cyrus. However, Doyle failed to conceive, so Koresh then transferred his attention to his wife's sister.