How does any person (doctor, scientist, whoever) qualify to determine the eligibility of an other person to exercise their RIGHT (2nd Amd) - other than through a court ruling by verdict of actually HAVING broken the law?
This is a question of priorities:
May any academic/scientific finding/argument infringe on any fundamental law such as the bill of rights? And if so, why and by which qualification?
He didn't really believe in the 2nd amendment either, and you can bet that if he proposed the same evisceration of it that enough Republicans would have lined up behind him, joining the Democrats, and we would be screwed. At least with Obama and his fellow tyrants at the forefront, the Republicans have an incentive to oppose gun control and the pro 2nd amendment community is more energized to fight new legislation.
It is extremely important at this point in history for the citizenry to be armed, not disarmed. I think we are running headlong into extreme civil disorder.
Why do I think we are moving in that direction. Because the economy is shrinking and has entered long term decline. This is so because the industrial age upon which we depend for survival is ending. It is built on the input of large amounts of energy. But energy takes energy to find and deliver it for economic use, and the growth of that energy acquisition cost follows a compound curve. With less economic output debts can't be paid, and life generally becomes more difficult. The entire debt based monetary system becomes suspect.
Oil is the most important energy source we have; in 1930 it took the equivalent energy of one barrel of oil to get back 100; today it takes 11 barrels to get back 100. That is a compound growth rate of 3% which doubles the cost every 23.3 years. Obviously you can't spend more than 100 barrels to get back 100. The next doubling takes us to 22 barrels to get back 100, and the one after that takes us to 44 barrels. But even at the 11 barrels that it takes today, we as a society can't afford luxuries, advanced health care, and higher education, which is why the dollar prices of these are rising much more rapidly that our ability to pay.
This nasty little secret of exponential cost growth has been hidden by the fact that the early increases were small, and total production has been expanding to compensate for the energy that has been lost in cost. But now we are entering steeper portions of the cost curves; additionally total production is slowing down because we are hitting natural geological constraints. We discovered and used much of the easy to find deposits, and not what is left is dirtier, deeper, more remote, and in smaller pools.
So why will this lead to civil war or revolution? When the economy is shrinking, there is less to divide among us. Government and powerful corporations and other special interests insist on maintaining their positions and spending. The federal government insists on growing even larger, and taxing the public either directly with higher taxes or indirectly by borrowing newly created money to spend, thus diminishing the value of the money the public has. Big corporations and special interests manipulate the government to bail them out or favor them, thus transferring some of the wealth that the average man produces into the hands of big corporations. The power of government is being used to force the average person to take a smaller share of the diminished pie.
The revolution point is reached when the pain and suffering inflicted on the average man from this system of plunder and control exceeds the pain and suffering that he perceives will come from revolting. How close are we? That depends on how quickly the economy moves down.
You can't believe much of the data the government produces because they have a motive to mislead you. But look at this data on gasoline deliveries in the US since 1983.
Since 1998 deliveries have dropped about 60%, but some of that is because of more fuel efficient vehicles. Data shows that since 1998 the fuel efficiency has accounted for 10% less fuel being used, so the remaining 50% of the decline is usage is because of the economy. If the real economy has declined that much the rate of contraction is 5%, meaning it will be cut in half every 14 years, rinse and repeat. There may be some other factors affecting the decline in gasoline use, but even if the rate of decline is less than 5% it is nonetheless in decline and any decline rate produces a halving period. Of course this is one statistic, but consider that oil prices have not come down significantly during that time period when we are using considerably less motor fuel, so that is your clue.
This is not necessarily a right or left issue, although both sides will blame the other and try to support the present Democrat/Republican system of rule. This is a survival issue. You can bet the thin veneer of civility will peel away as the situation becomes more desperate.
The fun is just beginning.
"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.
Now it's MY turn to call THEM extremists.
Funny how truth always comes out.
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
"Now it's MY turn to call THEM extremists."
Yup. And you're WELCOME !
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
The Judge is right that it should not be up to our doctor's to determine if we can carry a gun.
Thanks for posting.
I cringe every time I hear someone rail against the newspaper editor for printing that list of names of gun owners.
That's not the real problem!
The real problem is that those names were a matter of public record, or any record at all, in the first place! The government has no business tracking who owns guns. That's a job for one's insurance agent (and strictly voluntary).
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
I can make the same argument that Rubio is making to himself! I honestly believe that Rubio doesn't care about the constitution! Why? Ask him where he stands on the income tax or foreign aid or his foreign policy. That's what I thought! Shutup you hypocrite! And by the way guys, the Judge is the freaken man!
care a whit about the 4th Amendment?
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: