A Pilot's Perspective On Barack Obama

[renrich]

The gun crime situation in DC is a result of the demographics there. Many of the the cities in the US with the highest incidence of gun ownership have some of the lowest incidence of violent crime, gun crime homicide.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Regarding the voters age: And the older voters do?


And the quote all (grownup) conservatives loooove: "If you are 18 and a conservative you have no heart, if you are 30 and you are still a democrat you have no brain"

Jimmy Carter... duuude - the one time I would have not voted democrat had I been a US citizen

Quick curiosity question: Why is it - in your opinion - so important for you and many other Americans to have the right to bear firearms?

United States vs. Timothey Joe Emerson

This is a summary of perhaps the most well researched modern day review of the 2nd Amendment - 5th Circuit Court 1999. If you read it and the associated in depth citations you will understand the foundation of the Right.

Simply stated from our Declaration of Independence, "every man has the God Given Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

When we swear an oath as a Federal Officer or Soldier in the armed Forces of the US - we swear and oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies Domestic and Foreign... not an oath to the President, not to America, not to Congress - but this complex document and all the it stands for in our rule of law.

One of the most absurd opinions posed by the Minority of the Supreme Court, who argued AGAINST the right to defend oneself in his own home, was his suggestion that the Founding Fathers never contemplated a situation that precluded a local government from exercising authority over gun ownership to satisfy serious social concerns. What is truly amazing is to contemplate his insertion of the Right to Assembly and Free Spech (1st Amendment) instead of the 2nd which was being debated - you think the minority would have supported 'reasonable restrictions on free Speech" by a city government??

Back to the point. First, every man's inherent right to protect his life from a deadly threat. Second, the bearing of arms to provide for the common defense (militia, citizen soldier). Last, the right to defend (implied) against Tyranny. Social concerns do Not apply.

The Right has always existed for Free Speech and Keep and Bear Arms. Subsequent Laws are proscribed for the abuse of that Right. Can't yell 'Fire" in a crowded theatre if no such condition exists, and can't shoot your local congressman because he's white based on a past grievance.

Hope this helps

[Messy1]

"Messy - I Didn't know that Washington had that law. But since the entire surrounding country can have guns isn't it kindof doomed from the offset?
I mean if Guns where legalized in all but one part of my country I would think that it would increase the "gun-crime" in that part.

(Notice - I'm not debating the issue on guns as such - just the Washington example)

I agree. I think was a waste of time, and our Supreme Court just ruled it was unconsitutional.

[renrich]

Bill and Messy, very good and very clear! The local government in DC should deal with the demographic situation there rather than infringe the constitutional rights of the people, especially with a solution which is known not to work. Scalia did a good job on that issue.

[Messy1]

Ren, I 100% agree. I believe wholeheartedly that if you take away a person right to own firearms, take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, only the criminals, the people you are trying to stop from having access to firearms, will have them. It is all ready illegal right now for a large part of the criminal base to have of any type of firearm, but that does not stop a large number of them. what good will it do to try to ban them across the board.

[Njaco]

Bill, said it much better than my poor attempt. Although not a gun owner I wholeheartedly support the Right to Bear Arms. Maybe I should erase my post, seems weak.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Bill, said it much better than my poor attempt. Although not a gun owner I wholeheartedly support the Right to Bear Arms. Maybe I should erase my post, seems weak.

Your post wasn't weak.. there is a Tsunami of writings and exchanges that 'social' judges ignore - and hence the argument 'Constitution is a living document - things change" from those that are suspicious of such rights as keep and bear arms.

In a cruel world, in which many are ruled by few, with no such rights - leaders are smart to question the ownership of tools that can snuff out a promising Dictator with a well place .50 Browning head shot from 1500 meters.

Consider this - In General (no absolutes), conservatives that believe in small government also tend to believe in the 2nd Amendment. Curiously the ACLU, and left leaning political thinkers which believe that large, and powerful, (and compassionate, of course - but powerful) Governments tend to think private ownership of firearms is "passe", neo con thinking. Ever wonder why? I suspect the above illustration about why it is so much harder to protect the powerful from a rifle than a dirk or sword... which are also illegal in many municipalities..

I am a long time student of American History and had enough hours for a minor to my engineering degree. Of particular interest to those that care is the 'Troika' of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the Constitutional Assemby debates and the First (including Virginia) Constitutions which INCORPORATED a Bill of Rights when the Assembly was still debating whether they (Bill of Rights) should follow Ratification.. Madison was 'out manuevered' by Lee and forced to include a 'draft' Rights document as part of the Ratification process.

It was nearly a 'deal breaker' for the Federalists that already thought the Individuals and States had too many enumerated Powers.

If a Government doesn't trust its citizens, why should the citizens trust the rule makers?

Think about it - times change, governments change, human nature to control and exercize power Doesn't change.

[renrich]

Bill, good words! The left does not trust the people to make informed decisions and they want the power to make those decisions for the citizenry. A good example is the bill that congress passed requiring auto makers to increase gas mileage a large amount. Guess what? When gasoline prices soared, consumers have quit buying gas guzzlers and auto makers are stopping the assembly lines for the big suvs. On the other hand, the left never takes into account human nature with the laws and programs they want to employ. Welfare has always been mostly a failure because human nature dictates that once people get on welfare many of them have no incentive to do anything but stay on welfare.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

Bill, good words! The left does not trust the people to make informed decisions and they want the power to make those decisions for the citizenry. A good example is the bill that congress passed requiring auto makers to increase gas mileage a large amount. Guess what? When gasoline prices soared, consumers have quit buying gas guzzlers and auto makers are stopping the assembly lines for the big suvs. On the other hand, the left never takes into account human nature with the laws and programs they want to employ. Welfare has always been mostly a failure because human nature dictates that once people get on welfare many of them have no incentive to do anything but stay on welfare.

Ok - you don't trust the people to vote right - but you trust them to make informed decisions otherwise?

IMO you can almost never trust the consumer or corporation to act for the fellow good. If the gasoline prices had not soared due to shortages, wars and what have you. Then the consumers and producers would not have changed their habbits. On the other hand - if the government had implemented the laws on gasmilage earlier - then the prices might not have soared.

I disagree on the welfare as well - Unemployment rates have never gone hand in hand with welfare availability. Unemployment always follows the economy. It really is a myth that people in general would stop working once they have a possibility of attaining welfare (yea ofcourse there will always be the small minority of slackers - and thats why welfare isn't just thrown out the window to someone not trying to get a job). I mean - its terrible to not have a job - I was unemployed for three months once - almost lost my mind. And this goes for practically all the people I know - regardless of incomeclass.

Heck people past working age in my country recieve pension from the state - however this pension is cut if they get a job - and guess what? : A very high percentage of these people choose to work - eventhough this most of the time means a drop in income.

We are currently at full employment and have "allways" had full welfare for all unemployed people. Its more in humans to work and create than it is to be lazy. And I don't mean lazy like most of us are - I mean lazy as in "sit on your arse and recieve a welfare check". Ofcourse the upbringing is also essential as well. As children here we are hammered with "don't ever worry too much about life's disasters - The state will catch you. However the most dísgusting and imoral thing you can do is take advantage of this system".
But even without this - not working makes people misserable. Ever seen a happy welfarerecipient?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Its more in humans to work and create than it is to be lazy. And I don't mean lazy like most of us are - I mean lazy as in "sit on your arse and recieve a welfare check".

You need to visit some parts of the US - there are 2 and 3 generations of welfare families who are lazy ("sit on your arse and recieve a welfare check" lazy) and will not work no matter what!

[pbfoot]

I live in what Ren considers a socialist paridise but now the US dollar is so weak things have changed to where he might be a wee bit jealous of us . In a recent study done by Macleans magazine the Canadian equivialnt of Time or Newsweek came up with this revelation

....How do we know? You just have to look at the numbers. For our Canada Day special issue this year, Maclean's compared Canadians and Americans in every facet of our lives. We scoured census reports, polls, surveys, scientific studies, policy papers and consumer databases. We looked at who lives longer, who works more, who spends more time with friends, who travels more and who has more sex. We even found out who eats more vegetables. After digging through the data, here's what we found: the staid, underpaid Canadian is dead. Believe it or not, we now have more wealth than Americans, even though we work shorter hours. We drink more often, but we
live longer and have fewer diseases. We have more sex, more sex partners and we're more adventurous in bed, but we have fewer teen pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. We spend more time with family and friends, and more time exploring the world. Even in crime we come out ahead: we're just as prone to break the law, but when we do it, we don't get shot. Most of the time, we don't even go to jail.
The data shows that it's the Canadians who are living it up, while Americans toil away, working longer hours to pay their mounting bills.
The wealth numbers, in particular, are shocking. As of 2005, the median family in Canada was worth US$122,600, according to Statistics Canada, while the U.S. Federal Reserve pegged the median American family at US$93,100 in 2004. Those figures, the most recent available, already include an adjustment for our higher prices, and thanks to the rising loonie Canadians are likely even further ahead today. We're ahead mainly because Americans carry far more debt than we do, and it means that the median Canadian family is a full 30 per cent wealthier than the median American family. "
Special Canada Day Report: How Canada stole the American Dream | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
for the full article

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

You need to visit some parts of the US - there are 2 and 3 generations of welfare families who are lazy ("sit on your arse and recieve a welfare check" lazy) and will not work no matter what!

Jebus - No work programs? I have no idea how welfare works in the US.
Overhere (DK anyway) all people who are unemployed can apply for welfare. If the person is fit for work his name is registered in an employment database which can be accesed by most businesses - and then he has to take any job offered to him or his welfare will be canceled. This has proven a quite effective in eliminating almost all the welfare "leaches".

Hows it work in the US?

[Njaco]

No database. The recipient has to prove they are looking for work and that leaves alot of loopholes. Second, the workers who verify this are overworked and backed up so sometimes they breeze through cases. Its a no-win all the way around.

Bill, you ought to read "Miracle in Philadelphia" - fascinating book about that summer in Philly when the Bill of Rights was hammered out. Great read!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Jebus - No work programs? I have no idea how welfare works in the US.
Overhere (DK anyway) all people who are unemployed can apply for welfare. If the person is fit for work his name is registered in an employment database which can be accesed by most businesses - and then he has to take any job offered to him or his welfare will be canceled. This has proven a quite effective in eliminating almost all the welfare "leaches".

That is similiar to how it is here in Germany as well. If you turn down a job you loose your state welfare.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Jebus - No work programs? I have no idea how welfare works in the US.
Overhere (DK anyway) all people who are unemployed can apply for welfare. If the person is fit for work his name is registered in an employment database which can be accesed by most businesses - and then he has to take any job offered to him or his welfare will be canceled. This has proven a quite effective in eliminating almost all the welfare "leaches".

Hows it work in the US?

Single mothers can take advantage of the US system the most. If they have several kids they get a benefit for each kid, so sometimes it pays for them to keep popping out kids. Many times a couple will live apart so the wife gets the benefit.

Some states have programs where you have to be looking for a job or be enrolled in an education programs, but folks take advantage of that too. The problem that I see when compared to Europe is those who are in this system are not ridiculed of scoffed by the masses in the US. Those who "live" off welfare because they are too lazy to work are looked as "being slick" as they are beating the "system." A lot of it is the mentality and ethics of the people and IMO I think many Europeans have the upper hand on Americans.