close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    13,286
    363
    Sep 28, 2009
    It very clearly describes what they are doing and should do. The enumerated part later on describe the limits on what can be done.
     
  2. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    13,286
    363
    Sep 28, 2009
    I guess its in "The right to keep and smoke cannabis shall not be infringed" clause.
     


  3. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    Slavery was legal and Women couldn't vote back then either.

    We threw a fit of a Tea tax and then later taxed whiskey. things change.
     
  4. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,008
    4,434
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Again, amendments. Please point me to the amendment that grants the fed this power.
     
  5. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    Please point to the Supreme Court decision saying the laws are unconstitutional

    It works that way, in case you didn't know.
     
  6. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    52,008
    4,434
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    I didn't think you could...
     
  7. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012

    You are truly a disengenuous weasle in my opinion.

    You can't even be honest about what you cite. I knew you were wrong and figure maybe you misread a complicated citation, but actually, there it was, the very second paragraph in your cited source. i guess the dope gives you a short attention span.

    Tell you what, I'll higlight the parts you missed to give you a little help.


    "A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."

    To spell it out for you, it isn't intended to allow 12 randomly selected individuals to decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional or not. It is intended to protect a defendent in a case where the law is misapplied or doesn't fit the circumstances of the case before it. Now if it happens repeatedly it may affect the standing of the law. I know of no examples of this.

    Given that there are people who will agree with the law on a jury and it akes a unanamous jury to conclude nullification, it is not some "undiscovered panacea for legalization" that you pretend it is.
     
  8. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Did you post my lecture on the primary system yet? Or are you just going to continue to mischaracterize my statements and hope no one looks it up to verify?

    WTF are you even talking about? The Preamble is not law, carries no weight of law and doesn't grant the government any powers nor restrict any other powers. I asked another poster to provide where in the Constitution the feds are granted the power to provide "public safety" and "orderly society". You said the Preamble. That's WRONG! The Preamble grants the government no right to either of those. Just admit it instead of doubling down on a bad argument and just confirming that you're clueless.

    NO THEY DON'T STAND AS LAWS! YOU CAN'T ARGUE THE PREAMBLE IN COURT! What part of this do you not understand? Im guessing all of it.

    Is the Preamble considered law?
    http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q56.html
     
  9. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Actually, it's the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government in Article I Section 8 (NOT THE PREAMBLE), are reserved to the states and the people.

    You are aware that the Constitution doesn't grant people rights, such as the right to consume substances, correct? It restricts the government.
     
  10. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    My apologies for exposing the mountains of bull **** you post. Unfortunately I have more of a life than to follow the thousands of uninformed posts per month you generate.

    You don't know of any examples? Im shocked! :wow:

    Here's an example from last month. Enjoy. New Hampshire just made the principle of jury nullification a statutory law for 2013, btw.

    NH jury acquits rastafarian pot grower
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/new-hampshire-jury-acquits-pot-growing-r

    :whistling:

    Sometimes I don't think you even know what you're arguing for or against. Just arguing just to argue, even when you have no clue what the subject matter is.

    Who said anything about a panacea for legalization? Your entire quoted post is a giant strawman argument and an uninformed and disjointed argument at that. Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged. Only legislators and judges can repeal laws. This is common knowledge. You're arguing against a statement that no one actually made.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  11. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    I've been avoiding wading into the drug legalization thing, because honestly these things kind of tire me out. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the legalization concept, but the way the arguments are packaged seem to be designed to turn off the very people the Libertarians are trying to persuade. For example, bringing up tobacco and alcohol are arguments for making those things illegal too, not for legalizing pot. It's a rhetorically childish gambit, kind of like saying "Hey, Sally's dad lets *her* ride a bike without a helmet!!!" Honestly, I would have more respect if the guy just said "yeah, I just want to get high and I don't want to go to jail." The other stuff just ends up sounding like rationalizations.

    That said, let's take the 10A arguments, or that the Constitution is silent on the matter and therefore it is "permitted" (I hate that phrasing but I'm trying to be brief). The reality is that something can still be regulated even if there's an explicit protection in the Constitution for that activity. That's because the law and the courts recognize that a balance must be struck between government interests and constitutional rights.

    For example, the Constitution has the Equal Protection clause, yet we have Affirmative Action which seems to run afoul of that clause. That's because of the judicial review standard of intermediate scrutiny. Government ostensibly has an important interest in expanding admissions opportunities to underserved groups, and the law is judged to be the least-intrusive way of doing that (not my argument, but that's the argument that won the day in 1976).

    A lower standard is Rational basis, where the question is if the law is a reasonable way to pursue a legitimate end. So does government rationally believe that it has a legitimate interest in regulating drugs? To me the answer is yes (I think it's a rational argument, but that doesn't imply it's a -persuasive- argument). Is a blanket ban a reasonable way to pursue that interest? Well....that's the rub, isn't it?

    The highest standard is strict scrutiny and that's generally used for laws impacting explicitly-protected rights. For example, laws having to do with freedom of speech are reviewed under strict scrutiny. The government must have a compelling interest and the law has to be the narrowest and least restrictive way to meet this interest. For example, it's against the law to blab about government secrets. There's a compelling interest (state secrets are, well, secret) and it's not only narrow (it applies to people who actually know secret stuff) but unrestrictive for the mass of people (not everyone knows secret stuff). To me this level of review wouldn't be justified for something like marijuana legalization, mainly because smoking pot isn't a fundamental right. Of course, an argument that it is can be made in court which is what countrygun was (I think) trying to get at.

    The main takeaway here is that just because something is protected (explicitly or implicitly) in the Constitution, it doesn't mean it's immune to any regulation whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Ron Paul's performance in the debate is a good metaphor for his campaign, absent.
     
  13. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    You are truly a dope addled boob, at least I hope your mental limits can be blamed on substance abuse.

    "Straw Man"? You are a walking straw man. Your own words show how discnnected from reality you are.

    directly above, you say,

    "Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged."



    Yet the source you cited yourself, in an attempted to BS your way int some gravitas, clearly says, and I will repeat it again for your edification,

    "A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."


    Again that come from your own citation.

    If it were up to A jury to decide on the suitablility of a laws existence, as you claim thusly,

    "a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place"


    Then the Founding Father's went to a heck of a lot of trouble to design the Supreme Court when their real intention was that the legislature, or any law making body, or the people by initiative petition, should be overruled by 12 people selected at random.

    As to your frequent misstating of my words, I never said I didn't know of a case that was decided by jury nullification. But rare is the law itself that is changed by one nullification, and as rare, a masss of nullifications that cause reconsideration of the law.
     
  14. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    I've given up on trying to read every post (bin busy at the range and reloading) to keep up and to try to point out the BS in them. I'd also probably loose a few "more" friends if I do. I'll just state here that the Constitution was never meant, and no one has yet to show me where it allows the government to do anything, i.e. outlaw anything that, without the intervention of other, does no harm to anyone other than to the person doing it. Yes there are laws. They ARE unconstitutional no matter what the Supreme court has said. Remember! The Scots have just ruled that Obomacare is legal because it is a TAX when it was argued that it's was not a tax buy the side the Scots found in-favor of. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  15. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    To go back about 4 days and about 6 pages... as I predicted, it seems Douggmc has disappeared. And after I went and got all “civil” just for him/her.

    It has really become hard for me to be civil with liberals. Yes, I know… as a moderator I’m supposed keep everyone inline and be the most civil of all. Well I wasn’t civil before I became a moderator and even though I try to stay as civil as I can… after years and years of arguing with liberals (I can spot them a mile away) I’ve lost all civility with them. I try! I really try!

    Sooooooooooo, just to add to my “explanation” of my EXAMPLE of Obomacare. Here’s Ben Stein’s take on it.

    No I don’t know if this is really a Ben Stein quote or not. But it’s dead on!!!!!!!!!!

    And that pretty much describes the "hypocrisy and idiocy" of liberals.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  16. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Yeah .. sorry I have been busy and haven't fallen in line with your time frame expectations. I'll respond to you response now (see my next forthcoming post) ...
     
  17. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    Oh joy! I just can't wait. :upeyes: :yawn:
     
  18. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Privilege or not ... is irrelevant. People WILL get healthcare whether they want it or not. Are you, an uninsured person, going to object to treatment when unconscious and in a coma from your stroke? Even if you were conscious, they wouldn't listen to you. It is entirely disconnected from their ability to pay or whether they are insured or not. It has always been that way (in modern U.S. / West) and WILL always be that way ... regardless of Obamacare existing or not. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THIS

    With that said, these costs WILL be incurred by healthcare providers and they WILL be passed on to ME. The ONLY pragmatic approach is ... How do we mitigate this?

    You can't collect money where money doesn't exist. Doesn't matter how you feel or wish. Pragmatism vs ideology.

    So ...there are two types of people that are uninsured:
    1) The person that has the money to pay for it, but chooses not to
    or
    2) The person that does not have the money to pay for it (and obviously doesn't).

    In both cases, they WILL both incur medical costs at some point. You can sue someone for 500,000 of healthcare costs, but it won't ever be collected. The person in scenario 2 is a no win for us. They can't afford insurance and will incur costs, they mostly will be too poor to be penalized by Obamacare. They are a wash regardless (always have been) However, even the average person in scenario 1 above, doesn't have the ability to pay a 500,000 hospital bill. What is the average net worth of middle class American? Even if sued, bankruptcy laws protect primary assets like homes. Therefore, the costs will be passed on to ME (again). How to mitigate this .... the mandate. Those that make bad decision to not insure themselves EVEN though they can, have to pay a tax penalty to mitigate costs. That keeps person in scenario 1 from infringing on my (and society at large) rights.

    Healthcare is not like any other product or service ... no matter how much you want it to be or say it. I've outlined this logic in both my responses to you at this point. It is not complicated. EVERYBODY WILL GET MEDICAL CARE. Accept it ... and lets move on and get a plan to mitigate the costs.

    YOU WERE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY ... BEFORE OBAMACARE! Don't you get it? The only difference is ... without Obamacare, there are vast majorities of people who are getting healthcare at the time and place that is the most expensive and most costly. At MY expense! The mandate effectively says ... "you can't do that. You can't make a decision (not to be insured)because you are impacting other people (infringing on their rights)." If, hypothetically, it was a decision that ONLY impacted that individual choosing not to be insured, then go for it. But it doesn't. This should smack you virtually right up side the head. It is right up your alley ... "lame and lazy" folks forcing their will on us responsible folks by making us pay their bills.

    I don't listen to people who make a living out making everything an ideological battle and a controversy. They are a LARGE part of the problem ... not a solution. Bill O'Reilly said it best the other day:

    "You can make a lot of money by being an assassin," he said. "It doesn't matter: right wing or left wing. You go in and you're a hater -- radio, cable, in print, whatever -- you can get paid. And there's a people who do that. And they go in, they don't even believe half the stuff they say. ... Capitalism drives that. There are people -- Americans -- who want to hear hate."

    That is what Lew Rockwell is. He is a right wing radio shock jock. Same as Rush, same as Boortz, same as Hannity, same as Beck, and so on (there are others on left too).

    Get back to me with your own thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  19. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    Am I going to refuse treatment? Wrong question! The questions should be why would/should anyone “expect” something they can’t pay for. Because they believe others should support them. It’s called liberalism/socialism.

    My original statement was, “liberals keep forcing their will on people” You asked for an example. And here we are with you proving my point for me.

    What you have proven is that you are a liberal/socialist that wants the rest of us to pay for those that don’t or won’t pay. Privilege or not doesn’t matter? Did you follow the link I provided? Did you read? The government has no right doling out charity or forcing me to pay for charity. You don’t care about Ben’s quote because it’s spot on and proves the illogic of your thought process.

    I’ll ask you the same question I asked Flintlocker and I’ll offer you the same remedy I offered Flintlocker. Do you know there is no law preventing you from sending in more taxes than you are required to pay? Since you’re so worried about those that can’t afford to purchase insurance why don’t you figure out how much tax you really owe without using loopholes and then sent in double that amount. If all the liberals did that just think how many people “YOU” could help. I’m willing to bet you won’t take me up on it. Why? Liberals are all for making other people pay but when asked to bear the burden themselves they come up with excuses and try to play the blame game. If you get sick or hurt it’s not my fault. Pay your own damn bills I pay mine.

    You asked for an example and I gave you one. You asked for an explanation of that example and I gave you one. All you’ve done is prove I was right and try to convince me why it’s NECESSARY. What you have succeeded in doing is prove it a socialist program that you want everyone to pay for.

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

    If the liberals keep imposing their will on the rest of us sooner or later there will be a revolt. And now we have come full circle.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  20. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Why do you seem to be continuously attacking me personally or based on ideology when I'm addressing specifics in a (relatively) polite manner?

    You have not responded or refuted my post at all. You simply are repeating a generalized ideological statement about others "forcing their will on people" ... when I've given you an outlined, logical argument that says it is for that EXACT reason that the mandate is needed (to prevent others from "forcing their will on people"). Frankly, to this point, I see your responses to me as a cop-out.

    What realistic solution do you have beyond repeating the same ideology?

    Do you accept the reality that people WILL get medical care regardless of Obamacare or whether it is a right or privilege (like they did before Obamacare was passed)? It isn't an ideological question ... simple question based on reality.

    PS - I'm not flintlocker. Address me please. You seem to really have an infatuation with him or he really got under your skin. May I suggest you PM him if he won't debate you in a forum thread instead of inserting your past issues into this debate?

     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012