iconoclast

Comment history

Open forum, Jan 14-20

hawkeye:

now, you wanna reply to my original post? *January 14, 2013 at 9:29 p.m.*

> Obama is unprecedented in
> side-stepping congress. Has he crossed
> the line if he uses executive order
> to, in effect, nullify a
> constitutional right?
>
> At what point does a sitting president
> become a threat to the freedoms of the
> country?

January 15, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 14-20

hawkeye

already did. by executive order, bypassing congress:

> http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop...
>
> Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman
> threatened Monday afternoon that he
> would file articles of impeachment
> against President Barack Obama if he
> institutes gun control measures with
> an executive order.

January 15, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 14-20

sorry for the repeats; my word processor isn't really great

January 15, 2013 at 12:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 14-20

*George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”*

*Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.*

Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”,

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

when the 2nd amendment was written, 'militia' made no distinction between private ownership of weapon-types to that of the army. in other words, they equated private ownership of 'military grade' as not only allowable, but necessary.

January 15, 2013 at 12:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 14-20

2nd
by making the owning/carrying of guns so difficult that it, in effect, nullifies the "shall not be abridged" part of it. btw, the "militia"

definition of militia:

1. Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have2ither the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

2. The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.

January 14, 2013 at 11:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 14-20

**SHOULD OBAMA BE IMPEACHED?**

> http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop...
>
>
> Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman
> threatened Monday afternoon that he
> would file articles of impeachment
> against President Barack Obama if he
> institutes gun control measures with
> an executive order.

Obama is unprecedented in side-stepping congress. Has he crossed the line if he uses executive order to, in effect, nullify a constitutional right?

At what point does a sitting president become a threat to the freedoms of the country?

January 14, 2013 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 7-13

If scientists and the religious cannot see the symbiotic relationship to the others' discipline, they are both failures.

January 13, 2013 at 9:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 7-13

*With no ability to test and observe, it becomes philosophy, not science.
kn_dalai — January 11, 2013 at 3:50 p.m*

Yes there is. That's what The Large Hadron Collider is for.

January 11, 2013 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 7-13

*Either way, any way, the government can and will out-gun you, and they will kill you-they've done it before. Wanna take 'em on? Good luck to you and your fellow Constitutional believers. -- mrd — January 10, 2013 at 6:28 p.m.
The Viet Cong, and many others, have used guerrilla warfare quite effectively.
kn_dalai — January 10, 2013 at 7:14 p.m*

The United States is an unusual country. We've got a history and a proclivity to rise up and change what we determine is untenable.

The Declaration of Independence, the war with England, Canada, our own Civil War all attest to our independent spirit and to put into action our beliefs.

If a sitting President were to attempt to deny the populace a right guaranteed by our Constitution, many things would happen, and some would result in blood-letting. Obama didn't buy ammunition for “the weather center” as a mistake.

But we're also unusual in that we are a majority of decent, fair people. Dr. ML King knew this. The Negro in the South had no chance of overpowering the entrenched white power structure. He knew what he had to do: take television cameras with him to show the world what happens when a Black in the South dared to sit inside a diner, remain seated when a white man got on a crowded bus or, taking arm in arm, peacefully demonstrated for remonstrance of grievances.

We are at another watershed moment in our country's history, mainly, are we a nation of freedoms granted to us by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or are we a nation of elites who define for us, the dumb, uneducated masses, what The Constitution shall mean at any given time.

John Kennedy would have actively opposed that kind of bastardization of our rights. Will anyone now?

As for Mr. Brancaccio's questions:

Madore: Best thing to happen to county government. OF COURSE he's making mistakes early-on; he's not a politician.

Leavitt: He's just another politician. Not even noteworthy. He should leave.

January 10, 2013 at 10:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Jan 7-13

Everybody believes in something. If they don't, they frequently kill themselves.

Throughout our history, some believed in the gods, some in The God, and others who didn't believe in anything they couldn't interact with (usually of the scientific variety).

As for the major religion, Christianity, doesn't The God say to love everyone, forgive your enemies, treat others like you want to be treated?

Didn't Jesus say that none can come to God except through Him, and nobody can come to Him unless God calls him?

So, what's the problem here? Some are called, others not. Some live by their own code of right and wrong, which happens to mirror the ten commandments. Others live according to a God who has quite a few rules...for every day, every activity, every emotion.

The only god that's causing problems is from Islam. Not many gods demand their followers kill anyone who believes differently. Yes, I know the Old Testament, but if you're going to use that to falsify my argument, then you're going to have to 1)state WHY each God did that, and in followup, why only ONE of them still practices that.

Oh, I answer few replies that aren't about the topics I've presented. Sorry basil.

January 9, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous