(11-16-2017, 02:41 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2017, 10:18 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Ron could have been a revolutionary he is bold enough to speak unfiltered truth. Rand is the closest thing we have right now but he's not nearly the radical his Farther is and what we need right now is radical change.
I hope when I'm 95 and babbling incoherently people are kind enough to call it unfiltered truth.
Radical change is usually wildly overrated. You could get the Bolsheviks running things.
babbling incoherently?
You're just not listening.
But based upon some of your previous posts... that's not really surprising.
Ron Paul was trying to clean up DC long before any of us even watched the news. He saw the problems with the financial bubbles before they popped. Everyone wrote him off as crazy back in the 80s too (before he was anywhere near 95)
I wouldn't expect too many people to get behind a man who wants the people of the country to lead themselves anyway... Most like you are comfortable being sheep.
(11-15-2017, 12:38 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2017, 01:34 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]If Rand is your only hope then you have no hope.
Rand is too "pure" and self-righteous to be an effective politician. He should be teaching political theory somewhere.
But many people keep buying what he's selling.
Because some of us believe, like Rand, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the powers of government are limited to what's spelled out in it. I don't see what's so hopeless about that.
You just said that the 2nd Amendment needs to change.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to contradict yourself here.
(11-16-2017, 06:28 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2017, 04:17 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You just said that the 2nd Amendment needs to change.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to contradict yourself here.
While I personally don't want the 2nd Amendment changed, TJB is not being hypocritical here. Changing the Constitution by Amendment is built in to the Constitution.
He hasn't said that though. He's all about that extra-Constitutional regulation.
(11-16-2017, 04:17 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2017, 12:38 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Because some of us believe, like Rand, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the powers of government are limited to what's spelled out in it. I don't see what's so hopeless about that.
You just said that the 2nd Amendment needs to change.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to contradict yourself here.
I don't believe that a firearm registry or limits on the number and type of weapons that can be owned violate the Second Amendment. I don't recall the Second Amendment making any reference to a bump stock, tracer rounds, full auto vs. semi auto vs. DAO vs. SAO or suppressors/silencers. So in some ways, yes, I do believe that gun laws in the United States can and should change without a Constitutional amendment. I don't see a law banning assault weapons, suppressors, bump stocks as unconstitutional in the least, nor do I think a Constitutional amendment is required to limit an individual to X number of firearms and X rounds of ammunition that can legally be kept on hand, requiring all firearms be registered, and passing criminal liability to the registered owner of the weapon unless they've previously reported it stolen. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, not the right to overthrow Guatemala.
If we interpreted every shred of the Constitution as literally as possible, we'd all be seated on juries for every idiot that sued Pizza Hut because he paid $20 and his pizza was cold.
(11-16-2017, 11:02 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2017, 04:17 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You just said that the 2nd Amendment needs to change.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to contradict yourself here.
I don't believe that a firearm registry or limits on the number and type of weapons that can be owned violate the Second Amendment. I don't recall the Second Amendment making any reference to a bump stock, tracer rounds, full auto vs. semi auto vs. DAO vs. SAO or suppressors/silencers. So in some ways, yes, I do believe that gun laws in the United States can and should change without a Constitutional amendment. I don't see a law banning assault weapons, suppressors, bump stocks as unconstitutional in the least, nor do I think a Constitutional amendment is required to limit an individual to X number of firearms and X rounds of ammunition that can legally be kept on hand, requiring all firearms be registered, and passing criminal liability to the registered owner of the weapon unless they've previously reported it stolen. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, not the right to overthrow Guatemala.
If we interpreted every shred of the Constitution as literally as possible, we'd all be seated on juries for every idiot that sued Pizza Hut because he paid $20 and his pizza was cold.
It exists to enable the People to overthrow the US government, that's a bit more than Guatamala.
Well the guy tackled Rand from behind while Rand was wearing headphones and totally unaware. He tackled Rand for putting branches on his own property but thought it was too close to his own. So he tackled a Congressman, unaware, from behind. Like a coward. Typical.
Sorry, the article had this in it: "Assaulting a member of Congress is an offense we take very seriously," said Josh Minkler, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. "Those who choose to commit such an act will be held accountable."
So I guess Congress just got stuck in my head.