Man, I want to take them seriously so badly. I agree with the basic ideas of minimal government & being responsible for yourself. I don't agree with socialized health care or any other forced charity programs. It's not so much a practical thing, but the principal of the matter. I'm all for charity, but on a personal level.

...But then the f'ing Libertarians are total nut jobs whose agenda always ends up being about weed. At the Libertarian convention, the chosen candidate was joined on stage by his Mom who was trying to pull some Nero shit with him. Sad Sad.

So, politcal theory: Highest level of not crap I can give
Present party: total crap. Still will probably vote for 'em though.

God, I hate starting political discussions on the internet, even more than joining them.

While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.

Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.

I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

getting on topic with the poll though, I completely agree with the minimal form of government presented by them. After all, if history has taught us anything, it's that large government programs have always completely failed. Just look at the USSR or Cuba if you need any proof of this.

Not crap, but I can see what you mean about some people being nuts....

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)

chet wrote:

Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.

I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)

Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.

Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.

You would have to goto the Supreme Court with a case arguing that the 2nd amendment is an necessary freedom of the citizens of the United States using the 14th amendment. And even then, they just couldnt stop you from owning arms if it was a "well regulated militia". It says nothing about giving you arms for your militia.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not on this one....

Anyone have any input?

After all, if history has taught us anything, it's that large government programs have always completely failed

rural electrification?

polio vaccination?

most of the new deal?

lots of government programs have failed, not all.

No comment

I vote CRAP.

I am all for supporting third parties, unless it is the Libertarian party. They scare the bejeesus out of me. Partly because i agree with intern that we need some restrictions placed on us because there are many who are only kept in line because there are repercussions for their actions. They also scare me because of some of the people affiliated with them.

I am registered in Boulder County in Colorado, yes the Boulder County of Boulder, CO - which means lots of hippies and ultra conservatives. I can't remember if it was the 2000 or 2002 election, but there was a Libertarian challenging the incumbent dem for sheriff. He said his three influences as to how to be sheriff were some other sheriff in southern colorado - who was the only registered libertarian sheriff in the nation, the lone ranger, and Andy Griffith!!! One of his policies he said he would institute, you would only be punished for drunk driving if you caused an accident!!!!

JC Keane wrote:No comment

Thank you.

Tom wrote:

chet wrote:

Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.

I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)

Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.

Hi. I am a lawyer. I'm no constitutional law expert, but this is a pretty easy one, so I'll give it a shot: There is a distinct difference between a "right" afforded by law, and a "duty" imposed by law: a right such as this one is a guarantee against government action, whereas a duty is a guarantee that the government will act in a specified manner. The answer to your question comes from this distinction: the 2nd Amendment creates a right, but it does not create a duty, so no, unfortunately for all the gun-toters, you don't get a free gun from the federal government by invoking the 2nd Amendment.

As for the poll topic: total crap. If you really think "the free market" (fnrr,fnrr, fnrr!) can provide for the needs of people better than a government, compare your telephone service before deregulation with your telephoen service now. Or have dealt with the rolling power blackouts in California after the energy deregulation.

Josh Solberg "The Commie"

Crap. Who picks up the garbage? Who maintains the highways? Private companies? Then what... there is an all-too-easy potential for mafia-like circumstances. Business needs to be regulated, otherwise you have children working 14-hour days for almost no money.