The American constitution isn't very complicated

By on October 10, 2013 9:06:16 PM from Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001
+1491

In recent discussions, it's become clear that many people aren't really that familiar with the US constitution.  This is a shame because it's actually not very long.

The constitution is broken into two parts.  The first part lists the explicit powers the government has.  The second part are the amendments, two of which are designed to make it bloody clear that only the explicitly named powers listed are things the federal government can do.

The recently passed ACA was held as constitutional only because the court narrowly decided that the government had the power to tax people based on whether they have insurance or not.  

Most of the runaway government comes from the 3rd item below known also as the "commerce clause". It's amazing at how one little chink in the armor has been exploited so massively. The word "regulate" has been tortured into all kinds of things.

Similarly, the 16th amendment has been tortured to give the federal government all kinds of weird powers.  If you look through the constitution, the only amendment that gives the government more power is the 16th. The rest have been put in to reduce federal power. And two of the amendments were put in there as a "We aren't kidding, seriously, No joking, only the 16 enumerated powers are things the feds can do. Really!"

Since some people seem to be confused as to what the federal government is legally allowed to do here is a list:

  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In addition, 27 amendments were added to the constitution to further clarify any remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do. They are:
  1. The federal government may not pass laws limiting your speech or establish an official religion.
  2. The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.
  3. The "" may not quarter troops in your house.
  4. The "" may may not search and seize things on a whim but only through search warrants based on probably cause.
  5. The "" may  not force you to incriminate yourself.
  6. The people have a right to a trial by jury.
  7. The people also can demand a jury in civil cases.
  8. No cruel or unnsual punishment allowed.
  9. Restates, for future progressives, that the federal government can only perform the ENUMERATED rights (we had a whole amendment dedicated to this and it still gets forgotten)
  10. Restates, for future progressives, again, seriously, NO KIDDING, that the federal government only has those 16 previously enumerated rights and everything else is left to the states. Clear enough? 2 of the 10 bill of rights designed to make sure no future progressive will think that "promote the general welfare" suddenly is a cart blanche new power. Only those 16 powers.
  11. States are immune from suits from foreigners.
  12. The Prez and Vice President are no longer the 1st and 2nd place finishers in elections.
  13. Slavery is now illegal.
  14. Equal protection of the law and everyone is gauranteed due process.
  15. All men can vote, regardless of color.
  16. The government can now collect money via an income tax.
  17. Senators are now elected by popular vote.
  18. Alcohol is now illegal. 
  19. Women can now vote too.
  20. Changes the date when congress and the president come into office.
  21. Just kidding on the booze, alcohol is legal again.
  22. You can only serve two terms as President.
  23. Washington DC gets to have a vote in presidential elections.
  24. You can't charge people to vote (i.e. no poll taxes).
  25. Clarifies succession for the presidency.
  26. 18 year olds can now vote.
  27. Salary increases for congress dont' go into affect until after the next election

See? Is this really that complicated? The federal government has 16 things it is allowed to do. But for future dumb people, the bill of rights has 2 amendments to emphasize that yes, and truly, only those 16 things are allowed.

So next time someone tells you that the federal government can do anything it wants if it passes congress or if it's popular with the people show them this. Because no, unless they can get the constitution amended to allow whatever their progressive dream they're having, if it's not listed here, it isn't legal unless they can manage to torture the 3rd enumerated power (commerce clause) or the 16th amendment further.

That said, for the most part, your STATE can go nuts.

 
Locked Post 149 Replies +2 Karma
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dwstiffler
Anthony R
October 13, 2013 2:11:35 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Chibiabos,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 48
Sigh. I'd enjoy conversing with you more if you didn't keep trying to disprove a general truth by showing exceptions and then act like the other person was somehow unfamiliar with those exceptions.

By and large, the states determine gun control laws. If you disagree, then say so. Say "most gun laws are made at the federal level" (which is provably false). quit with the "look at me, I can show exceptions while not actually taking a position!"

And of course the courts interpret the law.  That is their function.  

So let me quote what I wrote again:

      Even without the second amendment, the federal government has very little to do with what guns are allowed or not.

if that is too imprecise for you then say so. I can clarify: most gun laws are made at the state and local level.

 

You haven't even read the 2nd amendment if you believe it reads "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting anyone from owning a gun."  Its quite explicit what the 'right to bear arms' permits, and in fact it specifies quite clearly "well-regulated."

 

I'm pretty left, and even I see the law is the right of Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, though the government has the right to regulate how it is done.

I think there's plenty of room for interpretation as to the nuts and bolts, but it's clear that the intent to me was for ordinary Americans to be able to posess a weapon for legitimate self-defense.

 

We already do pass laws prohibiting some from owning a gun (felons, dom.violence folks)- I'm positive those laws have been found constitutional.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 13, 2013 2:23:48 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Until recently, there was a fairly substantial line of thought that guns could be banned from the general public by reading the 2nd Amendment such that the whole "A well regulated Militia..." part meant that only organized groups (and not individuals) were guaranteed guns.  Under this reasoning, a number of laws outright banning guns were passed.

The Supreme Court tossed that out in the rulings that I cited above.

Neither the feds nor lower level governments can ban guns outright, but Heller is a pretty narrow decision, so guns can still be very heavily regulated by the feds (and lower level governments).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 13, 2013 2:28:14 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
The states, theoretically, could establish their own religion. In theory.

No they can't.  You really have to be aware of case law.  In this case the relevant case is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Its been in the news lately:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

People have been trying, but the courts have said no (despite the fact that a right wing justice here and there would like to make it so, but the Supreme Court has still said no in the past).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 13, 2013 9:55:27 AM from Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs

Quoting Krazikarl,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 2The states, theoretically, could establish their own religion. In theory.

No they can't.  You really have to be aware of case law.  In this case the relevant case is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Its been in the news lately:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

People have been trying, but the courts have said no (despite the fact that a right wing justice here and there would like to make it so, but the Supreme Court has still said no in the past).

true.  That 14th amendment has been tortured in lots of different ways (including the 2000 election).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 13, 2013 10:02:24 AM from Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs Brad Wardell's Little Tiny Frogs

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation isa n abominable policy.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 14, 2013 6:18:43 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I don't believe that the second amendment was created so that people can own automatic weapons or say, a 50 cal. sniper rifle to hunt little furry things. If taken in the context of the day it merely states that the militia (which was volunteer) has the right to bear arms. By arms we're talking about muskets. I do think if the framers knew what weaponry would be available today that they would have been more explicit in their descriptions. I don't have anything against guns, own several over the years, but some of the people that do own guns scare the heck out of me. They are also way to accessible by those that shouldn't have them.

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


Letters of Marque.  Permission for private individuals to attack foreign vessels without being branded as a pirate.  Can you seriously make the argument that they just didn't see the machine gun coming?  Private individuals had the modern equivalent of a missile destroyer and they saw it as important the feds had the power to grant them immunity to piracy charges so they could engage foreign ships in times of war.


You worry about some guy with an automatic today.  When it was written, they thought nothing of letting private citizenry run warships.  There were a few thousand of these privateers at the time, some of them with enough firepower to wipe out small cities.


You haven't even read the 2nd amendment if you believe it reads "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting anyone from owning a gun."  Its quite explicit what the 'right to bear arms' permits, and in fact it specifies quite clearly "well-regulated."


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Reasoning is not restriction.  Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed, and it has nothing to do with Congress.  You are also misusing the word regulated.  A well regulated militia was just a group of private individuals that knew how to shoot and march.  They were practiced, regular.  They did not have a list of restrictions on their activities.


The reasoning holds true today as well.  In NYC, people have been given cavity searches at the roadside simply for going somewhere.  The price of their relative security in such a heavily restricted environment has been their basic rights.  Meanwhile, places like Dallas have violent crime rates comparable to NYC without the random cavity search.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 14, 2013 7:49:17 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.

the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms...

The word "arms" means so much more than just a gun(based upon the first edition of the Webster dictionary).  The popular media likes to focus on just guns, but guns are not the limit of what "arms" are.

Tangent: The popular media is obsessed with trying to change the definition of words such as this so that they can garner public support to make changes that the people really do not want. Controlling the meaning of words will give you power over a legal system that is based upon precise definitions. end Tangent.

Arms are anything used to defend oneself. 

That means that YES, bazookas, SAM missiles, anything that can deter someone from taking your rights from you without your consent.  People who are grossly ignorant of how these things operate would by and large be too afraid to have them in their homes(along with the prohibitive cost) with their children, so please remember this when responding.   

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation is an abominable policy.

I couldn't agree more.

Policemen come from the old "company town" idea.  When they incorporated the USA, policemen became widespread because the whole country became a "company town".  

I live next to the last "oldschool" company town that operated in the USA (Scotia, CA), I would say that aside from being extremely pretentious and fascist, there is nothing more counter to the constitution's ideals than that of a "company country".

Bring back the cowboys, IMO.

They have a LOT more fun!


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 14, 2013 10:58:23 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation isa n abominable policy.

 

40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy?  Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s).  There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s.  Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct defiance of several states refusing to accede to this "tyranny" perpetuated by the "evil" federal government ... and the 13th Amendment was officially incorporated into the U.S. constitution in 1865; the 14th amendment was related (essentially forcing states, affirmatively, to recognize the citizenship of all Americans including former slaves) and was officially adopted in 1868.  Where in the heck did you get the idea the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1940s?  You are off by a whopping 8 decades.

Your "knowledge" of American politics and history is appalling bad, Frogboy ... while it could be academically laughable, the sad reality is the vast majority of people on the "right," including yourself, operate politically on the same false premises.  You vote for candidates who feed you false information you agree with, and so you perpetuate the false information.  The nation tried to found as a confederacy with little or no central interstate power, but it failed as a fledgeling.  The founding fathers agreed:  the federal government needs to have power, including the power to protect citizens of states from state governments, to keep interstate commerce fair and prevent one state from undermining another economically.  The union of states must operate coherently in international affairs, including war, treaties, trade agreements and the like.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 14, 2013 11:21:54 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Looks like it's popcorn time.  Life has just got a little more interesting......

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 14, 2013 11:54:46 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Chibiabos,


40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy?  Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s).  There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s.  Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct defiance of several states refusing to accede to this "tyranny" perpetuated by the "evil" federal government ... and the 13th Amendment was officially incorporated into the U.S. constitution in 1865; the 14th amendment was related (essentially forcing states, affirmatively, to recognize the citizenship of all Americans including former slaves) and was officially adopted in 1868.  Where in the heck did you get the idea the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1940s?  You are off by a whopping 8 decades.

Your "knowledge" of American politics and history is appalling bad, Frogboy ... while it could be academically laughable, the sad reality is the vast majority of people on the "right," including yourself, operate politically on the same false premises.  You vote for candidates who feed you false information you agree with, and so you perpetuate the false information.  The nation tried to found as a confederacy with little or no central interstate power, but it failed as a fledgeling.  The founding fathers agreed:  the federal government needs to have power, including the power to protect citizens of states from state governments, to keep interstate commerce fair and prevent one state from undermining another economically.  The union of states must operate coherently in international affairs, including war, treaties, trade agreements and the like.

Brad is talking about case law from the 1940s that cited the 14th amendment as basis for expanding federal powers beyond what was commonly accepted as the limit of federal power prior to that decade. Surely someone with such a brilliant understanding of American history that they could tell others that theirs' is "appalling [sic] bad" and "academically laughable" should be able to pick up that nuanced meaning?  

Right? 

But keep up the "you're on the right, so you're dumb and only vote for candidates that feed you your false information".  I'm curious to see how Brad responds.  It should be entertaining.  But I'm also interested because I'm somewhat on the "right" (assuming by 'right' you mean American style conservative or libertarian) and I need more of Brad's false information to nourish my academically laughable sad reality of false pretenses.  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 12:11:27 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Alstein,


I meant 60% of the popular vote. 
 

I say this without intending to be disrespectful at all, because I think we (you and I specifically) have had or taken part in some interesting discussions around this place.  This is a terrible, dreadful idea.  It undermines the entire strength of the US constitution.  

The writings of the framers make it clear that they feared tyranny of the majority nearly as much as they feared a too-powerful executive.  Part of the brilliance of the US Constitution vis-a-vis other forms of government (at least as designed, pre-240 years of "living constitution") is that it explicitly provides popular majorities their voice (the House of Representatives) while providing the States their voice (the Senate) and provides a framework that makes wave elections difficult and makes sudden, radical shifts of national direction nearly impossible.  

Those are good things because it allows popular sentiment to have its stage while also increasing institutional stability.  It also makes it exceptionally difficult to change the rules of the game (the amendment process) because the framers understood human nature.  We're fickle beings, given to greed, envy, hatred, etc and we love finding scapegoats for all of our own failings.  This system makes it harder for those flashes of national emotion to be codified.  This system protects the minority expressly at the expense of the majorities waves of emotion.  The idea being that if the majority's desire to amend the constitution is worthwhile the opinion will grow among the people and the states and the change will happen.  But slowly and smoothly and only occasionally.  

Think of how many times this country has swung back and forth politically just in the last 40 years.  Imagine if it was easy for one side or the other to radically alter the rules of the game.  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 12:13:53 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Chibiabos,
40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy?  Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s).  There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s.

His post is admittedly somewhat awkwardly phrased, but you are off base here.

I suggest that you go plug "Incorporation Doctrine" into wikipedia and give it a read.  Basically, there were a series of court rulings in the first half of the 20th Century that cited the 14th Amendment.  He is referencing those.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 2:46:41 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Man that's some revisionist history...

 

Chibiabos, you seem to have difficulties grasping the difference between something being done lawfully and something being done unlawfully.

 

A Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery is not smiting state rights.  As a Constitutional Amendment, the states had to ratify it for it to take effect.

 

The problem was, from the Confederate perspective at least, that the idiots had already seceded from the union and thus weren't present in representation to block the amendment process, nor in ratification.  If they hadn't left, it never would have been ratified.

 

It's nice to see my expectations being met, I knew the commies would pretend privateers don't exist.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 6:32:36 AM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting sareth01,
Arms are anything used to defend oneself.

That means that YES, bazookas, SAM missiles, anything that can deter someone from taking your rights from you without your consent.

Seriously? How you can transpose a 21st century definition into a 18th century document is truly disturbing.

Quoting psychoak,
The problem was, from the Confederate perspective at least, that the idiots had already seceded from the union and thus weren't present in representation to block the amendment process, nor in ratification. If they hadn't left, it never would have been ratified.

I may be incorrect however I thought that part of the conditions for the Southern states to rejoin the union was ratification.

From Wikipedia: The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in the Congress.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 12:23:03 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Seriously? How you can transpose a 21st century definition into a 18th century document is truly disturbing.

I have studied law in detail and from that research I have an understanding of what law is, and how it works.  As with all things I don't know everything, feel free to find holes in my knowledge, I have no undue pride about it.

Laws are defined by the LEGAL definitions of the time.  The definition at the time of the second amendment's adoption for the word "arms" is both relevant and precisely the intent of that amendment during the time of it's adoption.  Legal definitions are sometimes different from common definitions, there is a large ignorance of this understanding at the present time. Noah Webster's dictionary was the legal standard for it's time, even though it was printed after the constitutional writings(and therefore could be manipulated and altered from the true meaning).  Still, it is the best we have to work with.

How can you apply 21st century definitions to 18th century law?  You only serve to prove my other point, that the media influence to change the culture of law by altering popular definitions is highly effective.  

Your tacit view that things are different in the 21st century, that we are "superior" is both a fallacy and a means to control the law.

Ex Post Facto laws are expressly forbidden by the constitution, I HIGHLY suggest you read up on what ex post facto means so that you do not become a part of the ignorant opposition to the constitution.  Also, you should look up in detail what the definition of "law" is and how that has changed.  Also, you can research some cultural anthropology to provide yourself with a framework of understanding cultures in general.  

Also, friendly tip:

Bringing your emotional evaluation into your legal discussion really is irrelevant and only serves to discredit your view.


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 2:47:42 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

It's the little things that make life worth living.

 

I may be in a country filled with idiots that will doom us to an eventual catastrophic collapse and ensuing dictatorship, but at least I'm amused by the willful blindness.

 

Once again, mostly because it's fucking hilarious.  Cannons, grenades, mortars, all regular parts of post revolutionary life.  Common enough that some places had to pass laws against leaving them lying around primed because of all the fires and explosions happening by accident.

 

Privateers!  The sublime ass kicker of every liberal twat trying to argue that the Second Amendment only covers hunting rifles.  21st century man quakes in fear at the thought of a private citizen having a machine gun.  18th century man thought nothing of private citizens being capable of coastal bombardment from a hundred gun warship.

 

Third time the charm maybe?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 4:34:27 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting psychoak,
18th century man thought nothing of private citizens being capable of coastal bombardment from a hundred gun warship.

Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

'sublime ass kicker' my arse....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 5:06:56 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Why would he need to?  Coastal bombardment could take care of the shore side school just fine from out in the water.  They wouldn't even go into port, it would be suicide to attack from that close since every ship at port would be firing on them after a few rounds, and probably people in the city.

 

Anyone stupid enough to shoot up a school in the 18th century would have been dead in as messy a fashion as the people that got to them first could manage.  They'd have been in a shooting war with half the people nearby inside a minute.  Today they get to waltz around in a free zone for an hour while our cops stand around outside waiting for them to get bored and come out or kill themselves.  When they're taken alive they spend the next few years getting letters from fans before their show trial starts.  Then they spend the next few decades getting three squares a day in solitary because we wouldn't want the other inmates to do what should have been done to start with.

 

I don't even have to bother with locking doors around here, anyone stupid enough to run around robbing homes would end up dead fast.  Everyone has guns, and it's understood that cleaning up your own problems and calling the police to come collect the bodies is the only way you're going to get them taken care of.  It's the only thing they'd bother showing up for.  Actually taking someone alive would be a big mistake here.  Your outcome is guaranteed the first time you screw up and rob a place where someone is home.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 5:42:53 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Jafo,
Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

WTF? 

Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said? 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 7:04:00 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

'sublime ass kicker' my arse....

The reason schools get targeted nowadays is because it is all a psychological operation to garner support and enmity between the two factions/countries at war.

Psy-OP game plan:

1. You kill children and other innocent people, to make the people care about your war.

2. You do a media blitz and blame your enemy, fabricating evidence when needed.

3. You buy up any information discrediting your story and suppress any competing voices with death threats and real force.

4. You watch the numbers and hopefully they will go your way to reach a result in your parliament/congress, greasing the wheels with indirect/direct bribes as you go.

5. You go to war/Get more military funding/Start a secretly approved conflict.

We live in a connected world, making it all the more difficult to go to war.  Why do you think the US/allied forces have been killing any journalists trying to radio their stories out of the war zone? 

Information deprivation is the key to victory, since the people have no actual interest to go to war and must therefore be fooled.

Arming people today with relevant weaponry would only serve to make this warfare cycle break down, as people with guns are generally smarter and more knowledgeable about the world than people without guns, and they have an extra "bullet vote".  

Conflict happens in a world with scarce resources, people with lots of college experience and little life experience have a harder time comprehending this.  It's something of a reality check having a weapon in your hand that can dispatch someone efficiently, you have to take responsibility for your actions and responsibility for what you know and do.  Taking responsibility isn't necessarily taught at university, our litigation society is more focused on evading responsibility and therefore ineffective at teaching people how to maintain their rights(you make more money when there is a complex legal system that can steal people's property too).  After all, look what "Marching on Washington" has done to secure our current liberties...lol

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 7:24:14 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting sareth01,
I have studied law in detail and from that research I have an understanding of what law is, and how it works. As with all things I don't know everything, feel free to find holes in my knowledge, I have no undue pride about it.

I'm really not sure how your condescending rant has anything do to with my questioning your statement that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own bazookas and SAMs.

Is there a point to your ramblings that actually reflect my attitudes, I think not.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment, which I think you think I am. I didn't allude to a desire to change the constitution. Should I thank you for the unnecessary civics lesson, I think not.

I stand by my statement that when the 2nd amendment was written the definition of "arms" is much different than what is it today. I also think the ATF would disagree with you as well,

Here's a piece of friendly advice back to you; oh, I don't have any, I'm not your friend.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 7:33:22 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Seeing this thread,  why do I think it's ironic that I had a test on that very same first part of the Constitution the day that I post this...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 7:36:36 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting myfist0,
Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said?

Et tu, Brute?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 7:45:53 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting myfist0,


Quoting Jafo, reply 67Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

WTF? 

Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said? 

That was made clear in threads other than this one already.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 15, 2013 8:44:26 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

So what I want to know is:  Where can I buy my warship and who wants to be on my crew? 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000469   Page Render Time: