Caveman

I don't doubt it's unconstitutional and as a libertarian I don't like being told I have to do anything, except of course for allowing others to live as they see fit. Here's my only issue and it's in the source. "Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies.." This is off the home page of the Heritage Foundation. I'd like to read a few more opinions on it, gather as much info as I can, and then formulate my own opinion on the subject. Then again in my opinion that's a part of being a good citizen, being well informed in the most objective way possible. My only complaint is in the idea that such a subjective interpretation the constitution is ok in a case such as this, when it would benefit the conservatives to interpret it that way and yet when talking about an issue like the Mosque in NYC or gay marriage I've heard conservatives say the constitution was written the way it was written and we must read it word for word. Do you see my dissatisfaction with this self-serving logic? It seems to me that a person, whether an originalist or otherwise should at least have consistency in their ideas.

I'll agree with most of what you said but on a highly selfish note. I like what it's done for me in the short run. I guess we'll see how it pans out in the long run. Just to make a joke at the originalists' expense though, nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Congress shall make no law requiring the citizen to buy health insurance."

Maybe it was you referring to me as "nothing" earlier that's got my figurative panties in a bunch. Either way its in the past. But in all honesty it's ok that my opinions scare you as your ideas certainly terrify me

I agree that the entire system is broken. However, I would disagree that "no one" wanted the health care bill. People have the misconception that the idea is free health care for all and that's simply not the case. Granted, I didn't find time to read the entire 1100 page proposal but it has benefited me already. See I'm about to graduate college and there's currently no jobs for my generation. The reform allows me to be covered under my parents health insurance until I'm 26. I would not argue that is a bad thing. The problem here is that almost no one has the time to read the bill and even if we did not many of us could understand the legal-style writing anyway. The info anyone had about it was through the media. You won't find a media source that's not biased one way or the other. I don't think anyone here really knows what the bill was about in its entirety, myself included. I'm not sure how anyone can form an opinion on an issue without informing themselves of both sides. And in my opinion no one should trust the media.

Dave, it's funny that you put the entire blame for a broken system on one party. Both are guilty of the same thing. Before you you point a finger make sure the Republican hands are clean.

Funny. But as you probably guessed I'll disagree. You'd be interested to know that I was a registered Democrat when I left for college and became a conservative in the first few months and stayed a conservative through the majority of my three years there. But the only useful thing I learned in undergrad is how to think for myself. So when a liberal professor makes a comment I am able to consider "is that something I personally believe in?" The answer is usually no. But by the same token when conservatives such as yourselves speak I am able to ask the same question of myself. I assure you I'm not brainwashed. I was when I was a conservative. But my libertarian affiliations are my own beliefs. I've had both liberal and conservative professors and I've disagreed with both. I did not vote for Obama and a girl at my school accused me of being a racist. That offended me because she automatically assumed that I was not intelligent enough to look past his race and dislike his political ideals. I'm getting the same vibe here. It is insulting that you don't think I am intelligent to believe something because it aligns with my morals and the country I would like to live in. You assume I must have had it crammed down my throat.

If he was still alive I bet he wouldn't. He was a dirty Democrat But still, young or old everyone has a right to be heard. I may not have the same amount of years here as you do but i guarantee I and people my age have something valuable to add to a discussion. Though it's probably hard to hear me from up on your high horse. I'm not gonna take anything away from you, you're clearly an intelligent man, and it has been fun debating with you because of this. You made some good arguments. Granted, I didn't agree with them but that's what makes a debate a debate. But admit it, you had it in your head from the first post, I had nothing valuable to contribute because I'm a young man. That's the problem here and everywhere. People need to realize that like it or not my generation is the future, and generally speaking we're better educated than those generations before us. So rather than tell us to shut up and listen, try listening yourself, we may surprise you.

Well then you and I aren't that different. I noticed in a few posts you accused me of being a liberal, but I think you've mistaken my political identity. I'm not a liberal fiscally, and most libertarians aren't. Not to mention one core belief of the libertarian party is for government to play as small a role in the lives of the people as possible. Conservatives and libertarians have a lot in common, just not on the civil liberties front.

But would you agree what went on in these forums is not the answer in congress? People need to start working together and listening to one another. I think all of us here spent a lot of time trying to shout over each other and no one really listened, myself included. We need to remember that our government was not meant to be a competitive team sport, though it has certainly turned out to be.

Well then I apologize. I suppose I get annoyed by the patronizing tone I've encountered. We've established that I'm a young man. That means that I have to work twice as hard, know twice as much to be taken seriously. And I work very hard to do that. I take every law class i can, learn the statutes, memorize the legal principles, study the cases even when they're not required. And yet when I debate like this the response is still, "he's young what does he know?" I get blown off in a way that adults don't. So I suppose I took the comments about my age personally for that reason.

You're absolutely right, let's all fight and piss and moan and nothing will ever happen in government. The whole god damned thing can just fall apart. That's probably for the best anyway. The funny part is you accuse me of being wrong on this. How can mutual stubbornness ever trump compromise? Answer me that please.

I have a feeling you missed a couple important classes there junior or weren't paying much attention.. My degree is in marketing with a minor in philosophy from Niagara University... and I remember taking constitutuional law and I never heard the crap you're spouting... what I do remember is thinking I had all the answers too at 20 years old... Now you need to be old to have an opinion and defend it? Weren't you criticizing me for being a "fence-rider" as you so eloquently put it? Or should people only defend themselves if they hold your beliefs? Still think you are one... you're just arguing harder about being a fence rider You know the difference between you and me? We both hold different views, we know that. But I don't dislike anyone for that difference. I'll admit that some conservative policies make sense, but I don't agree with the ideology as a whole. You and especially Mr VJP seem to genuinely dislike people for holding different views. And that is something I don't understand coming from a party with largely Christian affiliations and in my opinion, that's the real problem with today's government.

You know the ironic part about this thread? I started it to try and find some common ground and remind people with different political ideals that we have to work and live together. And yet it still turned into a big divisive argument. That's politics in today's world I suppose.

And all arguing aside what did you study at College Park? I ask because today that's the only school of criminal justice ranked higher than Albany but I've never talked to anyone who went there.

I have a feeling you missed a couple important classes there junior or weren't paying much attention.. My degree is in marketing with a minor in philosophy from Niagara University... and I remember taking constitutuional law and I never heard the crap you're spouting... what I do remember is thinking I had all the answers too at 20 years old... Now you need to be old to have an opinion and defend it? Weren't you criticizing me for being a "fence-rider" as you so eloquently put it? Or should people only defend themselves if they hold your beliefs?

Nope not at all NY Antler. But nice try I think you don't want to point out the flaw because you have no answer. God forbid you should be mistaken. I don't claim to know everything. I have a lot yet to learn and I look forward to learning it. But the statement you're disagreeing with is not legal, it's logic. People seem to want the constitution to both live and die at the same time and that makes no sense to me at least. So perhaps you can explain how it does? Consider it a chance to put a young, naive, free thinker in his place ;D

So if we're bound by rule of law, and the constitution is rule of law, why do we deny people their civil liberties?

But didn't you say earlier that we're a nation bound by the Constitution? A constitution which the right repeatedly disregards by denying certain citizens the rights which they themselves enjoy for no reason other than they don't agree with the person's life choices in the area's such as religion, and sexuality?

I studied constitutional, criminal, and procedural law at the University at Albany. I'll graduate in May and continue my education at the University at Buffalo Law School fall of 2012. Where did you study? Oh and perhaps you can point out the flaw in my mis-educated logic for me?

So you actually think that equality is for you to pursue your idea of happiness and for everyone else to pursue your version of happiness also?

Mr VJP, please enlighten me as to how that statement was misguided. Other than the fact that you don't like the result of logical reasoning.

We never outlawed adoption. However if you've ever talked to a woman who carried a baby to term and contemplated adoption then you would know it is no easy feat. Yes the child is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's great in theory but with the far from stellar conditions the child is born into in this situation, the odds of them succeeding stacked against them from the beginning. As for gay marriage, true, I suppose a homophobic person could make the argument that a person has the right to marry another of the opposite sex and that makes them equal, that's like saying you have right to own a gun, just not the one you want. You may own a single shot rifle but no pistols (see how I threw your misguided "don't tell me what guns I can own" statement at you?). What does an opponent of gay marriage have against a gay or lesbian (American citizens mind you) pursuing happiness on their own terms? After all, you just made the argument that a 2 celled embryo has that right.

The interesting thing is that there is so much that can be done to the practicality of gun ownership and usage that can work around the 2nd amendment while leaving it completely intact. As one simple example, the amendment speaks of arms, but says nothing about the ammunition. It speaks of the right to bear arms, but does not speak about the harrassing regulations and restrictions and costs that can be levied or applied to such activities. There are no limitations expressed or implied about what arms, or the specific nature of those arms that we have a right to. I think you get the drift of what I am getting at. There are ways of making a right impractical to exercise. Many of those ways have already been used. Many more are being developed all the time. Doc, I will agree and leave you with this comment (not sure where you stand on constitutional interpretation). That is the sad consequence of the conservative favored "dead constitution" Do we want the constitution to live and change or die? It seems many want the parts they like to die and the parts they don't to evolve until they like it...then they'll advocate a dead constitution once again. It seems to me many would like to have their constitutional cake and eat it too.

A lot to learn about what? Free thought? Realism? I'm work too hard for my money to send it away to some lobbyist in Washington to defend a right that's not going anywhere in the first place. When someone tells me the sky is falling and says he needs my money to continue holding it up, you bet your a** I'm looking upwards before I hand over my dough. You have alot to learn about the way things work in the world. Not saying I dont as well, just saying that you are young and ambitious, but dont go confusing your book smarts for knowing everything. There are plenty of people in England and other countries that said they would never be forced to give up their guns, and that they didnt need to defend that right or privilege, kind of like what you are saying. Well, look where that line of mistaken thinking got them. The proof is in the pudding. I don't claim to know everything Buckhunter. What I advocate for is something that I believe is lacking in all areas of this country, both parties. That is critical analysis of information. No one looks at things and actually takes the time to think about them anymore it seems. They hear and react. There are worse things to be than young and ambitious. And when we examine the cases of disarmament in other countries lets not forget something we have that they don't, a constitutionally declared right backed by the Supreme Court. Two very hard things to overcome as an anti-gunner.

What you are describing is an experience with the NRA that is considerably different from my considerable number of years of membership with them. I have gotten legislative alerts that are fully backed up with information about who, what, where, when, and why, on a fairly constant basis. Further, for those that are creatively challenged, there have been occasional sample letters, complete with names and addresses of the appropriate legislators. Also, their magazine includes all kinds of articles that will keep you up-to-date on the current anti-gun activities of those individuals and organizations that would disarm the public, as well as details of victories for the pro-gun forces. And yes, Wayne LaPierre is entitled to an occasional vacation, I would suppose..... lol. I do not demand that he completely stop having a life nor do I feel it is necessary. Frankly, I do not see where anyone could ask more for the relatively small amount of money for membership. Perhaps it is the notion of getting something for nothing that makes us believe that we should be entitled to reap the benefits of services of such organizations without financial support. But I do understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I guess I am just one of the suckers that actually pays his way for the maintenance of the rights that I believe in. I suppose it's also necessary for me to foot the bill for those that want the free ride also. It has to be recognized that the kinds of resources required to lobby legislators and to support legal challenges is substantial. It's hard to imagine it any other way. I don't know, it just seems kind of like the right thing to do to put my money where my mouth is. I have never been one much to accept the benefits of other's hard work without some form of compensation. I hate the thought of being a free-loader, so the small amount that is required for membership is really a bargain considering that they are exerting influence that I as an individual absolutely cannot. I'm glad that there is an organization that is dedicated to protecting gun owner's rights, because by gosh there are plenty of other well organized, well funded organizations that are diligently working the system to severely limit, or dissolve our ability to privately own guns and ammunition and enjoy shooting sports without undo harrassment. That notion is not a scare tactic created by the NRA, and in this era of information technology, shame on anyone who thinks that is the case. You and I have two very different experiences with the NRA, hence our very different opinions. As for gun rights. There's a constitutional amendment that's not going anywhere to protect them backed by two very recent Supreme Court decisions...not the NRA.