Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

[Comrade Tortoise]

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
A Libertarian Rant Regarding the Dissolution of Freedom
By Ben Allen

America: Land of the Free. Or at least that is what we are continuously led to believe. In this country we generally accept that our rights to life liberty and property are respected by our government, that, as political rhetoric suggests, we are free. Is this true? In recent years, nay for the last decades, our constitutional rights have been eroded by the very government whoÂ’s primary responsibility it is to protect those rights. Our first amendment right to free expression and religion are being curtailed, our second amendment rights are all but gone, and our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our property has been torn to pieces stepped on and set alight. It is not the fault of any one political party, but rather, most all of them. Both the republicans and democrats are responsible for the death of liberty in this country. In sequential steps, our liberty has been eroded in the name of “securityÂâ€Â

[Cynical Cat]

Nice rant, but paragraph breaks are your friends. Be kind to your friends and include them more often.

[frigidmagi]

[quote]Then, based on evidence you cannot examine, the executive branch declares you to be an “enemy combatantÂâ€Â

[Comrade Tortoise]

*twitch* Indain Reservations... You did not bring up the reservations...
Look you idiot until very recently most banks did not give loans to poeple living on reservations.

Doesnt stop them from setting one up now does it? If they were interested in setting up businesses, the moment business loans became available, they would have taken advantage of them.

Reservations are in low traffic areas by design, the US Government wasn't going to stick the tribes anywhere where their presious seattlers might want to live.

Back then that may have been true. But not anymore. The Navajo reservation here in AZ he directly on the route from Pheonix to Utah and Vegas. That road gets a decent amount of traffic, and just a few milesoutside the reservation, there are thriving small towns with restaraunts, inns, Walmart's and antique shops. It is not due to a lack of traffic.

So let's say you get oh... A restuant up by the grace of God. You won't stay in business long, due to lack of clients.

See above. They will get plenty of Clients, at least in the reservations I have observed

That's not even mentioning the corrupt tribal government

Wow, forgot to mention those... It actually supports my point, law of unforseen consequences regarding government interferance

the fucking mob swooping in on anyone who tries anything (think about it folks state and local cops can't go on reservations legally, you honestly think the mobs would ignore such an oppurity?). In most places you can't get federal or state business aide either and your health care is run by the damned US Government, the same one who can't even get my fucking mail right! If you're lucky you get a damned Army Doctor with a whole 6 weeks of training.

See above. If only I had mentioned that stuff, as it supports the main point of my argument that government not only has no right, but lacks the competance to involve itself in most civilian affairs

[Comrade Tortoise]

Addmitedly, Reservations are messed up for very complex reasons, and Native Americans never should have been "reservationized" but the simple matter is, they dont have an incentive to produce, and are by no means the only places where this sort of thing exists. There are entire caucasian towns that are welfare dependant with unemployment rates of 50% or more, which could easily revamp themselves if only they had the incentive. (oh how much I love John Stossel for bringing these to my attention)

[SirNitram]

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
A Libertarian Rant Regarding the Dissolution of Freedom
By Ben Allen

Full points for a jingoist title, I suppose.

America: Land of the Free. Or at least that is what we are continuously led to believe. In this country we generally accept that our rights to life liberty and property are respected by our government, that, as political rhetoric suggests, we are free. Is this true? In recent years, nay for the last decades, our constitutional rights have been eroded by the very government whoÂ’s primary responsibility it is to protect those rights. Our first amendment right to free expression and religion are being curtailed, our second amendment rights are all but gone, and our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our property has been torn to pieces stepped on and set alight. It is not the fault of any one political party, but rather, most all of them. Both the republicans and democrats are responsible for the death of liberty in this country. In sequential steps, our liberty has been eroded in the name of “securityÂâ€Â

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well Martin,seeing as I am the author... I will do no mocking of myself.

Let's break this down. Our First Amendment rights are being 'curtailed'. With the exception of rapidly fading attempts to cap off speech for certain groups thanks to the PATRIOT Act, there's not been much curtailing it. The closest that comes is the FCC; but the FCC only manages public airwaves.

The FCC, public schools regulating the speach of students, making it illegal to threaten public figures (it is a stupid thing to do, but it IS a person's right to to do so)

A broadcasting company is a private organization that exists as a legal person (which is why they an be sued, A corporation is a person in legal terms, last time I checked) what it says is protected under free speech

Second Amendment? The people can still assemble a militia, interestingly enough, though that's unpopular. It is entirely legal to own a decommed tank. If that's not enough 2nd Amendment, what is?

Assault weapon bans, bans on concealed weapons in may states etc et etc... keyword decomisioned for the tank...

Black/White fallacy. Instead of talking about the present ability to buy guns(I can prove it; I can pick one up at Walmart tonight if I wanted, and I own two firearms), the author has instead decided to portray reality as it is not: That guns are illegal.

I did both, thank you very much.

The banning of guns from airplanes is one of logic to anyone who has thought long and hard about air pressure. A simple misfire could puncture the plane, and that would be disasterous. Given the number of gun accidents in the world, even by the highly trained men and women of the armed forces, it is a matter of safety to restrict them from aircraft. If you fear men with box cutters, give your air marshals switchblades.

And you miss the point. The law does not deter criminals. They will find a way to sneak guns on planes. And gun accidents are are statistically insignificant when compared to the sheer number of guns.

And frankly, the idea that a confrontation between criminals and police/citizens should be any semblance of fair is laughable. One should never ever allow the criminals to be on equal footing with poie or even good citizes, so overkill is your friend, regardlessof the specifics of your motivation for mentioning switchblades against box-cutters.... Give air marshals switchblades my ass. if we are going to issue them knives, at least train them in the use of rapiers or something...

The PATRIOT Act is an abomination, but this slippery slope chariacture does not aid it's opponents.

Not a slipery slope if there is precedent for it happening.

Here we go. As I knew, it was the FCC. A fundamental misunderstanding is present: The FCC has no power over private means of communication at this time. The public airwaves of the broadcast channels are a public resource, and thus the FCC is free to regulate. Private and owned methods.. Satellite radio, cable TV.. Are immune. Don't beleive me? Flip on Cinemax or HBO. Flip on Howard Stern on your XM radio.

A private company is using its privatly owned equipment to send long wavelength EM radiation. I fail to see how the government (logically, I am well aware that the government claims it is a public resource) can have freedom to regulate that. The same logic can be applied to include regulation over the signals sent using flashlights and morse code. The only distinction is wavelength of the EM radiation, and maybe signal strength

Medicare is a boondoggle. A single-payer system akin to Canada's, or a large-scale, negotiator-enabled group like the VA, would work massively better.

And decrease the quality of patient care (in the case of a single payer system) I am not opposed to a union style mass-negotiation of insurance premiums however.

'Welfare Mothers'. Apparently the author has not tried to obtain welfare or live off of it. The chariacture he presents does not exist. Even if it does, in some rarified place, it is morally bankrupt to condemn those who can't eat to starvation because a few people abuse the system. Or, to put it in words more suited for those who love the corporate class: Should we set fire to every CEO, because Enron destroyed lives?

Seeing as there are entire towns that are welfare dependant...

As an asside, nice misepresentation Nitram, people are not condemned to starvation in this country. "welfare" may be a bad system, but there are others, like WIC that are very workable well-managed systems. WIC is a program that works like food stamps, but far more restricted. It gives a list of specific products, down to the brand and size that can be purchased. Much better than food stamps, because you cant buy junk food or booze with it (and I work in a grocery store, I have seen people buy booze with foodstamps)

Even if such things did not exist, the catholic church runs food banks and soup kitchens, and unlike most religious charities Catholic Charities runs its religious outreach seperatly from its charities, and they dont preach or discriminate when you use their services.

The idea that a progressive tax is foul is laughable. The tax code allows the rich to massively lower the amount they get taxed for, often negating their greater burden. Worse, it simply makes sense: The rich can pay more and still live well, whereas the poor can't. That's basic math

Taxes are like the fees for goverment. It is a price. Is it moral to essentially discriminate against sucessful people? Say, charging them ore to go see a movie? No, it is not.

[SirNitram]

Well Martin,seeing as I am the author... I will do no mocking of myself.

I see. I find that quite intellectually dishonest, as a number of these arguments were smashed apart before when you tried them.

Let's break this down. Our First Amendment rights are being 'curtailed'. With the exception of rapidly fading attempts to cap off speech for certain groups thanks to the PATRIOT Act, there's not been much curtailing it. The closest that comes is the FCC; but the FCC only manages public airwaves.

The FCC, public schools regulating the speach of students, making it illegal to threaten public figures (it is a stupid thing to do, but it IS a person's right to to do so)

A public school manages children, not adults, and has a duty to ensure they learn first.

The illegality of threats? Surely there can be a better argument. It is necessary to take threats seriously, if only for the safety of the threatened. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to threaten to hurt you, and you're not a public figure.

A broadcasting company is a private organization that exists as a legal person (which is why they an be sued, A corporation is a person in legal terms, last time I checked) what it says is protected under free speech

And if they use private medium(Satellite frequencies, cable, etc), they can say whatever they want. The airwaves of broadcast TV are legally public domain.

Second Amendment? The people can still assemble a militia, interestingly enough, though that's unpopular. It is entirely legal to own a decommed tank. If that's not enough 2nd Amendment, what is?

Assault weapon bans, bans on concealed weapons in may states etc et etc... keyword decomisioned for the tank...

The AWB is revoked, the 2nd Amendment makes no guarantee of concealing weapons(Indeed, it's purpose is hindered by concealed carry. A Militia is a public defense group.), and there can be very little argument made for the 2nd Amendment being a good reason to change trade restrictions on a T-34 or MiG.

Black/White fallacy. Instead of talking about the present ability to buy guns(I can prove it; I can pick one up at Walmart tonight if I wanted, and I own two firearms), the author has instead decided to portray reality as it is not: That guns are illegal.

I did both, thank you very much.

Then you admit you simply lied and portrayed guns as illegal. This intellectual dishonesty is frankly hypocritical.

The banning of guns from airplanes is one of logic to anyone who has thought long and hard about air pressure. A simple misfire could puncture the plane, and that would be disasterous. Given the number of gun accidents in the world, even by the highly trained men and women of the armed forces, it is a matter of safety to restrict them from aircraft. If you fear men with box cutters, give your air marshals switchblades.

And you miss the point. The law does not deter criminals. They will find a way to sneak guns on planes. And gun accidents are are statistically insignificant when compared to the sheer number of guns.

Then the correct answer is to improve scanning methods to prevent them from being brought on planes. Indeed, this is quite dishonest in and of itself: A plane is not a public forum but a privately owned vehicle. The owner can ban you from carrying a weapon on the premises of a business, and that would include a plane. To ban a weapon which could easily knock a plane out of a sky if used is not unreasonable. Also, it does not support the militia-based origins of the 2nd Amendment to allow guns on planes.

And frankly, the idea that a confrontation between criminals and police/citizens should be any semblance of fair is laughable. One should never ever allow the criminals to be on equal footing with poie or even good citizes, so overkill is your friend, regardlessof the specifics of your motivation for mentioning switchblades against box-cutters.... Give air marshals switchblades my ass. if we are going to issue them knives, at least train them in the use of rapiers or something...

It's not about fairness. Do not throw around such strawmen if you claim to intend 'civil' debate; it is the height of insult to any thinking man to dress up his argument and assault that instead of his own claims. It is about not endangering all onboard should you discharge a firearm. Have you considered for a moment what happens when that happens on a plane, or are we now in the stage of blind ideals?

The PATRIOT Act is an abomination, but this slippery slope chariacture does not aid it's opponents.

Not a slipery slope if there is precedent for it happening.

There remain legal barriers in the way of the nonsense of 'disappearing' people or declaring someone combatant off the cuff. Cite your precedent, but it better be relevent.

Here we go. As I knew, it was the FCC. A fundamental misunderstanding is present: The FCC has no power over private means of communication at this time. The public airwaves of the broadcast channels are a public resource, and thus the FCC is free to regulate. Private and owned methods.. Satellite radio, cable TV.. Are immune. Don't beleive me? Flip on Cinemax or HBO. Flip on Howard Stern on your XM radio.

A private company is using its privatly owned equipment to send long wavelength EM radiation. I fail to see how the government (logically, I am well aware that the government claims it is a public resource) can have freedom to regulate that. The same logic can be applied to include regulation over the signals sent using flashlights and morse code. The only distinction is wavelength of the EM radiation, and maybe signal strength

That you fail to see is perhaps part of the problem. The frequencies by which broadcast TV have been declared public domain and therefore can be regulated. Signal strength is part and parcel of this; it acts as a safeguard against allowing higher strength signals from drowning out smaller competitors.

Medicare is a boondoggle. A single-payer system akin to Canada's, or a large-scale, negotiator-enabled group like the VA, would work massively better.

And decrease the quality of patient care (in the case of a single payer system) I am not opposed to a union style mass-negotiation of insurance premiums however.

This myth again. I await your objective evidence. Or I would, except I've seen you fake your way through this debate before and you know this evidence doesn't exist. This is quite dishonest and insulting, Ben.

'Welfare Mothers'. Apparently the author has not tried to obtain welfare or live off of it. The chariacture he presents does not exist. Even if it does, in some rarified place, it is morally bankrupt to condemn those who can't eat to starvation because a few people abuse the system. Or, to put it in words more suited for those who love the corporate class: Should we set fire to every CEO, because Enron destroyed lives?

Seeing as there are entire towns that are welfare dependant...

Cite.

As an asside, nice misepresentation Nitram, people are not condemned to starvation in this country. "welfare" may be a bad system, but there are others, like WIC that are very workable well-managed systems. WIC is a program that works like food stamps, but far more restricted. It gives a list of specific products, down to the brand and size that can be purchased. Much better than food stamps, because you cant buy junk food or booze with it (and I work in a grocery store, I have seen people buy booze with foodstamps)

And how do you pay rent with this, Ben? That's right, you can't.

Even if such things did not exist, the catholic church runs food banks and soup kitchens, and unlike most religious charities Catholic Charities runs its religious outreach seperatly from its charities, and they dont preach or discriminate when you use their services.

Charities are a grain in the sands of Mars compared to Welfare.

The idea that a progressive tax is foul is laughable. The tax code allows the rich to massively lower the amount they get taxed for, often negating their greater burden. Worse, it simply makes sense: The rich can pay more and still live well, whereas the poor can't. That's basic math

Taxes are like the fees for goverment. It is a price. Is it moral to essentially discriminate against sucessful people? Say, charging them ore to go see a movie? No, it is not.

It is morally reprehensible not to obtain what is needed from those who can afford to give things up, as opposed to those who can't. It is laughable to try and turn this into discrimination when, as cited above, the rich are able to get away with declaring no taxable income at all, even when making alot of money.

In short, standard anarcho-capitalist propaganda. I assumed it was not you, Ben, because I know you have seen these arguments repeatedly destroyed. And I anticipated you being intellectually honest. I see I am mistaken.

[Stofsk]

Then the correct answer is to improve scanning methods to prevent them from being brought on planes. Indeed, this is quite dishonest in and of itself: A plane is not a public forum but a privately owned vehicle. The owner can ban you from carrying a weapon on the premises of a business, and that would include a plane. To ban a weapon which could easily knock a plane out of a sky if used is not unreasonable. Also, it does not support the militia-based origins of the 2nd Amendment to allow guns on planes.

Here, SirNitram won me over. He is perfectly correct: a plane is not public area but a privately owned vehicle. If I opened up a privately-owned business establishment - let's say, a bar or pub - I am perfectly within my rights to put a 'no weapons' sign on the door.

To say that weapons carrying should be allowed everywhere is insane. Have you ever been on a plane for ~24 hours in transit and waiting for the next plane only to be delayed? Yeah, nothing makes you go on the brink of homocidal rage more than that. ;)

And I don't see what's wrong with Welfare, income tax or medicare. I like the fact that if I'm injured I can be taken to a hospital and don't have to worry about massive fees that put me in debt. I love the fact that if I fall on hard times, which I have for the last year, the government will look after me. I love the fact that if someone earns more than me, he will have a higher tax burden. To say all these things is rubbish and not in the domain of the public interest appalls me. And I count myself as a libertarian. (albeit not of the American variety) because my personal freedom is very important to me.

EDIT: To expand on the last sentence. Your personal freedom to achieve what you want in life is tied with your ability to affect change, which in realistic terms means having money. And not everyone is created equal, flowery yankee rhetoric be damned. Some people are born rich, some are born poor. For every rich person who is generous and a saint I'm sure there are a thousand who'd rather pamper themselves in luxury. For every poor guy that 'makes it' and succeeds in life, there are a thousand who have utterly miserable lives and may even, out of desperation, resort to crime.

If having money means you can avoid the extreme of poor hardship, then so be it. If having money means taxing the rich more, which prevents them from living in opulence while the rest of us have to make do with a pitiful welfare sum every fortnight, then so be it.

[Comrade Tortoise]

A public school manages children, not adults, and has a duty to ensure they learn first.

And banning 7 up t-shirts (like my junior high did) was idiotic and in violation of constitutional rights

The illegality of threats? Surely there can be a better argument. It is necessary to take threats seriously, if only for the safety of the threatened. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to threaten to hurt you, and you're not a public figure.

Different from making threats illegal.

And if they use private medium(Satellite frequencies, cable, etc), they can say whatever they want. The airwaves of broadcast TV are legally public domain

Miss the point where I argue that they shouldnt be?

Then you admit you simply lied and portrayed guns as illegal. This intellectual dishonesty is frankly hypocritical.

You are very good at twisting things. I made an argument that A) Guns should not be made illegal and B) That gun con trol in its present form is bad.

Nice strawman, would you like to borrow some kerosine and a match?

Then the correct answer is to improve scanning methods to prevent them from being brought on planes. Indeed, this is quite dishonest in and of itself: A plane is not a public forum but a privately owned vehicle. The owner can ban you from carrying a weapon on the premises of a business, and that would include a plane. To ban a weapon which could easily knock a plane out of a sky if used is not unreasonable. Also, it does not support the militia-based origins of the 2nd Amendment to allow guns on planes.

If it were a private company saying "no guns on the plane" I would not have an issue with it. Instead, it is the government saying it. It is a legistlated issue, meaning it is a federal mandate.

Also, do you intentionally misread the words of that amendment. The two halves are seperate statements. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" Massive comma seperating any form of militia or organized force "the right of The People" meaning ordinary citizens under time of peace "to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged"

Do the words "shall not be infringed' mean anything to you? it is a fairly unambigious statement. If you want though i can pull the ninth amendment out of my ass

The problem is, a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to defeat scanning technology. So planes and other such places will NEVER be safe from them. Be it because they pay off a guard, or use materials that dont show up on scanners'

It's not about fairness. Do not throw around such strawmen if you claim to intend 'civil' debate; it is the height of insult to any thinking man to dress up his argument and assault that instead of his own claims. It is about not endangering all onboard should you discharge a firearm. Have you considered for a moment what happens when that happens on a plane, or are we now in the stage of blind ideals?

Notice that A) I was being quasi-fascetious and B) I addressed that by saying that regardless of whether you intended fairness or not, overkill is still everyone's friend

There remain legal barriers in the way of the nonsense of 'disappearing' people or declaring someone combatant off the cuff. Cite your precedent, but it better be relevent.

Do you honestly think that a power-hungry individual is going to pay atention to the law? The law that they are bound to enforce If the person responsible for enforcing the law and chooses to ignore it, who is going to stop them? The courts?

As for precedent regarding the slow creeping destruction of liberty, I point yo toward nazi germany. FIrst it started as little yelow starts, then curfews. Before long, people were being placed in camps. All it takes, is one evil bastard.

That you fail to see is perhaps part of the problem. The frequencies by which broadcast TV have been declared public domain and therefore can be regulated. Signal strength is part and parcel of this; it acts as a safeguard against allowing higher strength signals from drowning out smaller competitors.

How is that relevant in regard to free speech? So Signal strength gets regulated. Ok, I can understand that, but that doesnt give them the right to curtail speech. Hell if anything it gives them less authority to do so, because doing as such is expressely forbidden in the bill of rights.

This myth again. I await your objective evidence. Or I would, except I've seen you fake your way through this debate before and you know this evidence doesn't exist. This is quite dishonest and insulting, Ben.

First off, even if a person does no get sick, they must still pay for that insurance. And they pay with a vengeance. Because the canadian sytem is a legistlated monopoly (unless things have changed very recently), they cannot legally get health insurance that satisfies their specific needs, they cannot get a price that is more in line with what they are willing to pay for(and even if they could, they will be paing twice). Thus they spend more than tey have to. Especially because they have to shoulder the burden of those who cannot afford to pay the taxes that pay for said Canadian monopoly health Coverage.


Of course, if you want to go strictly by the numbers it costs 1,200 dollars for each ciizen of say... quebec to pay for their health benefits. This means that a four person family pays over 5000 in taxes on that. Which is more expensive than private insurance by a significan margin.

Also, due to lack of entrepreneurship, costs are up, an their health care syem is slower to adapt to new technology than say, an american hospital. Also day clinics and home care are underdeveloped.

Now, basic economics tells us that when prices are zero (more specifically, up front costs that people dont notice) quantify demanded increases past what the supplier can supply, and a shortage develops.

Because of this, costs soar out of control, and with taxes in canada already high, the government can only keep down costs. In quebec, again, hospitals are facing budget cuts both in operating expenes and in capital expenditures (such as digital imaging equipment, which, despite a high initial cost, pays for themelves) and the number of general hospital beds has dropped by 21 percent from 1972 to 1980. While, by comparison, space in US hospitals continues to expand. For example and entire wing is bein added onto the Banner baywood heart Hospital down the street from me

Also, labor costs are also under strict ontrol. he government has put a cap on certain types of income: forexample, any fees earned by a general practitioner greater thanf $164,108 (Canadian) a year are payed at a rate of only 25% (combine that with canadian tax rates and presumably ma;practice insurance and those doctors dont make shit... nice incentive to work hard right? Hell, it sure as fuck is a good amount of compensation for spending a minimum of seven years of one's life at school and providing a vital service to one's fellow man under high stress condidtons and long work days... oh yeah... so nice)

Speaking of incentives, the first year of that income cieling, back in '77, GPs rduced their average work year by 2 and a half weeks. IE they take off pretty much all of december.

Government controls caue misalocation of resouces. Such as penalizing doctors who begin their careers in urban areas, where hospital beds are scarce per-capita.

When u-front price is zero, demand exceeds supply. when that happens... lines, oh glorious lines. In Montreal, people often wait for ays, because they think they will be seen faster in the emergency room. Surgury candidates face long waiting lists and people die on the waiting lists for heart surgury. But you get what you pay for...

Of course, this system penalizes the productuve individual because waiting that long takes time and resources that a sucessfulperson coulod be using to make money. So this system needlessly costs those individual more money. as a percentage of their income, than a poor person. Which is why they come to the US to have their work done.

Of course, we will never agree on which system is more moral, because we operate on a different set of premisis, so we will skip over that part.

What happens when a litle girl has a rare form of leukemia wo can be treated only in wisconsin for 350k? This family does exist and had to appeal to charity.

With a polulation that is aging (yay baby boomers become old and infirm) those problems will only increase

Source: http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html

Here is a bit more for you.

A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.)

In other words, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line.

In a May/June 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs, researcher Robert Blendon and colleagues described the results of a survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. Not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients had this brief a wait.

Source: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524

As for Welfare dependant towns...

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators03/

This has a list of graphs, charts and data tables illustrating that in a 10 year period, over half of Welfare/Foostamp recipients were dependant on such, meaning that it made up more than 50% of their income for at leat a year. And 14 percent were dependant on such programs for a period over 5 years.

There is no excuse for being dependant on public programs that long. In that time, one can do this wonderful thing called getting an associates degree going to night classes at a communiy college. Hell, fill out a FAFSA and go to a college or university on grants, with all expenses paid for four years and get a damn degree. Then get a job in real estate or something. All of that cold be done in a span of less than 5 years. Hell, the university will use your kids as lab rats for their elementary education majors, and take care of child care for next to nothing. And if you endeer yourself to a professor, you can work on campus for spending money.

And how do you pay rent with this, Ben? That's right, you can't

Lets see, assuming a family of four living in a two bedroom apartment (kids, dont need their own rooms) say.. average in my area is 700 a month with most utilities included.

Assume Federal min wage of 5.15 per our. 40 hours a week... yes, yes you can pay for rent. So long as you work at a McDonalds for min wage. All you need to do with their turnover rates is apply and do a decent job, and avoid getting fired. Food is taken care of, and if you work even a hair above min wage.. say... as a courtesy clerk at a grocery store for 6 dollars an hour...

Charities are a grain in the sands of Mars compared to Welfare.

Save that the idea that people will starve is insane. Those soup kitchens and food banks are open every day, practically all day. There are also plenty of them. SOmetimes the value of charity cant be measured in the dollars tossed around, but rather in the service they provide.

It is morally reprehensible not to obtain what is needed from those who can afford to give things up, as opposed to those who can't. It is laughable to try and turn this into discrimination when, as cited above, the rich are able to get away with declaring no taxable income at all, even when making alot of money.

In order to do that, they have to essentially throw money at charity :) And I know damn well that they cant declare no taxable income. They can get themselves a couple brackets down, but there are limits as to what they can do with creative accountants.

[Stofsk]

A public school manages children, not adults, and has a duty to ensure they learn first.

And banning 7 up t-shirts (like my junior high did) was idiotic and in violation of constitutional rights

Have you ever considered what it would be like if all your schools were required to wear a uniform?

[Comrade Tortoise]

If it is a public school, it is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned

[SirNitram]

A public school manages children, not adults, and has a duty to ensure they learn first.

And banning 7 up t-shirts (like my junior high did) was idiotic and in violation of constitutional rights

Last I checked there's no constitutional guarantee to wearing an advertisement. You'll have to point to that amendment. You are making a mockery of the Constitution by blowing important freedoms into ridiculous chariactures.

The illegality of threats? Surely there can be a better argument. It is necessary to take threats seriously, if only for the safety of the threatened. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to threaten to hurt you, and you're not a public figure.

Different from making threats illegal.

....No, making a threat to you illegal would be making a threat illegal. That's literally a tautology.

And if they use private medium(Satellite frequencies, cable, etc), they can say whatever they want. The airwaves of broadcast TV are legally public domain

Miss the point where I argue that they shouldnt be?

You must miss the point where I care. Your position is bunk.

Then you admit you simply lied and portrayed guns as illegal. This intellectual dishonesty is frankly hypocritical.

You are very good at twisting things. I made an argument that A) Guns should not be made illegal and B) That gun con trol in its present form is bad.

Then why did you claim that you were doing so, when the implication was you treating guns as illegal? Are you simply not reading what is said?

Why should guns not be controlled? They're dangerous. Should we not control toxic waste? Should we not control HEU? It's dangerous but has uses.

Nice strawman, would you like to borrow some kerosine and a match?

I'll leave the laughable falsification of arguments to you. Next time, don't say you're doing so when what I state speaks of you 'acting as if guns are illegal'. Literacy. Learn it.

Then the correct answer is to improve scanning methods to prevent them from being brought on planes. Indeed, this is quite dishonest in and of itself: A plane is not a public forum but a privately owned vehicle. The owner can ban you from carrying a weapon on the premises of a business, and that would include a plane. To ban a weapon which could easily knock a plane out of a sky if used is not unreasonable. Also, it does not support the militia-based origins of the 2nd Amendment to allow guns on planes.

If it were a private company saying "no guns on the plane" I would not have an issue with it. Instead, it is the government saying it. It is a legistlated issue, meaning it is a federal mandate.

And you have yet to deal with the fact that it doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment does not say 'Carry whatever calibur you like wherever you like'. It says you may have a weapon and form a militia. You are expanding it into a chariacture of what it is and has been ruled to mean because you are, apparently, an extremist.

Also, do you intentionally misread the words of that amendment. The two halves are seperate statements. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" Massive comma seperating any form of militia or organized force "the right of The People" meaning ordinary citizens under time of peace "to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged"

And none of that says you can bear your weapon where it would be dangerous to have a loaded and ready weapon. Not just for one or two people, but for everyone in the region. Again. Chariacture of the actual amendment and it's rulings.

Do the words "shall not be infringed' mean anything to you? it is a fairly unambigious statement. If you want though i can pull the ninth amendment out of my ass

I can call you on your no-limits fallacy faster.

The problem is, a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to defeat scanning technology. So planes and other such places will NEVER be safe from them. Be it because they pay off a guard, or use materials that dont show up on scanners'

Black/white fallacy. You can't get 100%, so you should have 0%.

It's not about fairness. Do not throw around such strawmen if you claim to intend 'civil' debate; it is the height of insult to any thinking man to dress up his argument and assault that instead of his own claims. It is about not endangering all onboard should you discharge a firearm. Have you considered for a moment what happens when that happens on a plane, or are we now in the stage of blind ideals?

Notice that A) I was being quasi-fascetious and B) I addressed that by saying that regardless of whether you intended fairness or not, overkill is still everyone's friend

No it's not. It is every thinking man's enemy. A shotgun in a crowded room can kill innocents. A firearm in a plane will kill innocents. A nuclear weapon in a crowded skirmish will kill more than it means...

There remain legal barriers in the way of the nonsense of 'disappearing' people or declaring someone combatant off the cuff. Cite your precedent, but it better be relevent.

Do you honestly think that a power-hungry individual is going to pay atention to the law? The law that they are bound to enforce If the person responsible for enforcing the law and chooses to ignore it, who is going to stop them? The courts?

Yes. History is filled with shields that tried to dick people over and got hauled in front of the robes.

As for precedent regarding the slow creeping destruction of liberty, I point yo toward nazi germany. FIrst it started as little yelow starts, then curfews. Before long, people were being placed in camps. All it takes, is one evil bastard.

I demanded relevent precedent. You gave me Nazi Germany. This thread is the embodiment of fallacious, and it's all on your side.

That you fail to see is perhaps part of the problem. The frequencies by which broadcast TV have been declared public domain and therefore can be regulated. Signal strength is part and parcel of this; it acts as a safeguard against allowing higher strength signals from drowning out smaller competitors.

How is that relevant in regard to free speech? So Signal strength gets regulated. Ok, I can understand that, but that doesnt give them the right to curtail speech. Hell if anything it gives them less authority to do so, because doing as such is expressely forbidden in the bill of rights.

Nice about-face on your entire argument; they have the right because it's private, WAIT, it's public therefore they have the right.

Here I just shrug. Screaming how the word 'Fuck' being bleeped is somehow equal to suppressing political dissent is such a laughable chariacture I can't enunciate the contempt.

This myth again. I await your objective evidence. Or I would, except I've seen you fake your way through this debate before and you know this evidence doesn't exist. This is quite dishonest and insulting, Ben.

First off, even if a person does no get sick, they must still pay for that insurance. And they pay with a vengeance. Because the canadian sytem is a legistlated monopoly (unless things have changed very recently), they cannot legally get health insurance that satisfies their specific needs, they cannot get a price that is more in line with what they are willing to pay for(and even if they could, they will be paing twice). Thus they spend more than tey have to. Especially because they have to shoulder the burden of those who cannot afford to pay the taxes that pay for said Canadian monopoly health Coverage.

You're lying. Canada allows people to get private insurance; it often covers things the single-payer system doesn't.

You're also lying about the price. Because, dun dun dun, it's paid for by the state. And it's also lower than the US.

Of course, if you want to go strictly by the numbers it costs 1,200 dollars for each ciizen of say... quebec to pay for their health benefits. This means that a four person family pays over 5000 in taxes on that. Which is more expensive than private insurance by a significan margin.

Yet ensures everyone gets taken in with almost no copays.

Also, due to lack of entrepreneurship, costs are up, an their health care syem is slower to adapt to new technology than say, an american hospital. Also day clinics and home care are underdeveloped.

You know what I asked for? You know what I knew you wouldn't provide? Yea, right as predicted.

Now, basic economics tells us that when prices are zero (more specifically, up front costs that people dont notice) quantify demanded increases past what the supplier can supply, and a shortage develops.

Objective observation shows no such thing occouring. Could basic economics be wrong? Sources say yes!

Because of this, costs soar out of control, and with taxes in canada already high, the government can only keep down costs. In quebec, again, hospitals are facing budget cuts both in operating expenes and in capital expenditures (such as digital imaging equipment, which, despite a high initial cost, pays for themelves) and the number of general hospital beds has dropped by 21 percent from 1972 to 1980. While, by comparison, space in US hospitals continues to expand. For example and entire wing is bein added onto the Banner baywood heart Hospital down the street from me

And hospitals where I am are in danger of closing. What's this prove? That the private system is subject to extremes.

And how do you pay rent with this, Ben? That's right, you can't

Lets see, assuming a family of four living in a two bedroom apartment (kids, dont need their own rooms) say.. average in my area is 700 a month with most utilities included.

Very good.

Assume Federal min wage of 5.15 per our. 40 hours a week... yes, yes you can pay for rent. So long as you work at a McDonalds for min wage. All you need to do with their turnover rates is apply and do a decent job, and avoid getting fired. Food is taken care of, and if you work even a hair above min wage.. say... as a courtesy clerk at a grocery store for 6 dollars an hour...

And you miss the point when it counts. How does someone without a job and unable to get one pay for rent? If you think there's always room at McDonalds or the Piggly Wiggly, you're simply delusional.

Unemployment is a real problem. Which you'd realize if you weren't an anarcho-capitalist with your fingers in your ears.

Charities are a grain in the sands of Mars compared to Welfare.

Save that the idea that people will starve is insane. Those soup kitchens and food banks are open every day, practically all day. There are also plenty of them. SOmetimes the value of charity cant be measured in the dollars tossed around, but rather in the service they provide.

They'll be on the streets, which signifigantly increases the difficulty with getting these coupons, and increases the chance of death from myriad sources. Gonna continue playing semantics or reply?

It is morally reprehensible not to obtain what is needed from those who can afford to give things up, as opposed to those who can't. It is laughable to try and turn this into discrimination when, as cited above, the rich are able to get away with declaring no taxable income at all, even when making alot of money.

In order to do that, they have to essentially throw money at charity :) And I know damn well that they cant declare no taxable income. They can get themselves a couple brackets down, but there are limits as to what they can do with creative accountants.

Heh. It must be nice to have no contact with reality. The books are full of folks who declared no income at all.

But you're not debating. The entire post is fallacies lumped on one another, chariactures, and nonsense. You seek to turn the sensible idea of 'No suppressing political dissent' to 'YOU CAN'T REGULATE WHAT SWEAR WORDS I SAY WHEN USING PUBLIC AIRWAVES WHICH THE PUBLIC SHOW THEY DON'T WANT SWEAR WORDS ON', you turn 'The right to arm yourselves and, in times of need, form a militia' into 'I MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL M240G IN MY ARMS AT ALL TIMES, EVEN WHEN THIS WOULD DRASTICALLY ENDANGER INNOCENTS.'

Your argument embodies the no-limits fallacy. Scholars who are employed strictly to interperate the Constitution disagree with your chariacutres, and their authority is quite relevent, though of course an afterthought.

[SirNitram]

If it is a public school, it is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned

Appeal To Authority Fallacy.

[Comrade Tortoise]

If it is a public school, it is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned

Appeal To Authority Fallacy.

How?

[SirNitram]

If it is a public school, it is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned

Appeal To Authority Fallacy.

How?

You declare that your opinion of the Constitution is somehow relevent to whether the matter is within it or not. The only authorities worth citing in a matter of Constitutionality is the Supreme Court.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Last I checked there's no constitutional guarantee to wearing an advertisement. You'll have to point to that amendment. You are making a mockery of the Constitution by blowing important freedoms into ridiculous chariactures.

A shirt is a form of expression, regardlessof what that content is.

I refer to the make 7 up yours T shirts

....No, making a threat to you illegal would be making a threat illegal. That's literally a tautology.

I mean that taking a credible threat seriosly is different from making all threats illegal

You must miss the point where I care. Your position is bunk.

Save for the fact that I was arguing a position contrary to what is currently legal standard. Therefore, you cant win the argument by saying 'well it should be legal because it is currently legal" that is called circular reasoning.

You're lying. Canada allows people to get private insurance; it often covers things the single-payer system doesn't.

No... I specified that they would have to essentially pay double for additional insurance. Notice what is in parentheses

You're also lying about the price. Because, dun dun dun, it's paid for by the state. And it's also lower than the US.

Where does the state get it's money? oh, wait...

:analstomp:

Yet ensures everyone gets taken in with almost no copays.

Hence the waiting lists.

You know what I asked for? You know what I knew you wouldn't provide? Yea, right as predicted.

have evidence to the contary, or are you just posturing?

Objective observation shows no such thing occouring. Could basic economics be wrong? Sources say yes!

Then why the fuck did 192 people die waiting for heart surgury?

And hospitals where I am are in danger of closing. What's this prove? That the private system is subject to extremes.

I suppose because some businesses have to close, we should socialize everything. Talk about black and white fallacies

And you miss the point when it counts. How does someone without a job and unable to get one pay for rent? If you think there's always room at McDonalds or the Piggly Wiggly, you're simply delusional.

If you look, you will find a job. It takes decent timing and persistence. I got a job on my first damn try, and the turnover rates of a fucking fasfood joint are insane. If you look, you wont go for months without money. And if you got fired from a previous job, you should have unemployment benefits. If a person's husbnd runs out, they will have at least a litle money from child support. There are any number of things that will alow a person to survive until they get a job, they just have to look and be persistent.

They'll be on the streets, which signifigantly increases the difficulty with getting these coupons, and increases the chance of death from myriad sources. Gonna continue playing semantics or reply?

When my mom lost her job and was retraining as a real estate agent, we were without significant income for 8 months. We did not starve, we did not have to go on welfare, we did not get kicked onto the street. It takes the bank quite some time to forclose on a house. And if one talks to their landlord, they can get extensions on the rent if they lose their job, or if their husband runs off with a cocktail waitress. There was some credit card debt of course, but nothing that cant be handled with debt consolidation.

Heh. It must be nice to have no contact with reality. The books are full of folks who declared no income at all.

Cite. Seeing as, last time i checked, the financial records of most companies are not publicly viewable... Now, I cold be wrong on that, but if you would be so kind as to cite sources. Give a couple names.

No it's not. It is every thinking man's enemy. A shotgun in a crowded room can kill innocents. A firearm in a plane will kill innocents. A nuclear weapon in a crowded skirmish will kill more than it means...

Then use slugs instead of Buckshot. Use low calibre guns on a plane. and... yeah, nukes are a bit much.

Then why did you claim that you were doing so, when the implication was you treating guns as illegal? Are you simply not reading what is said?

Why should guns not be controlled? They're dangerous. Should we not control toxic waste? Should we not control HEU? It's dangerous but has uses

Save that criminals will break the laws, while law-abiding citizens will be limited by them. This puts the criminal at advantage. Just because someone is dangerous does not mean they should be controlled. Especially when the constitution states that it's use is a right that cannot be infringed.

Toxic waste is inherentl dangerous. it does not require volition to cause harm. A gun does require volition. It reqires a set of fingers to pull the trigger.

Then why did you claim that you were doing so, when the implication was you treating guns as illegal? Are you simply not reading what is said?

I wrote it, I know what I said.

I used two seperate but similar lines of argument.

And none of that says you can bear your weapon where it would be dangerous to have a loaded and ready weapon. Not just for one or two people, but for everyone in the region. Again. Chariacture of the actual amendment and it's rulings.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand. the government simply does not have that authority if it stays within the limits of the constitution.

And you have yet to deal with the fact that it doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment does not say 'Carry whatever calibur you like wherever you like'. It says you may have a weapon and form a militia. You are expanding it into a chariacture of what it is and has been ruled to mean because you are, apparently, an extremist.

Appeal to authority. Also, shall not be infringed means just that.

Nice about-face on your entire argument; they have the right because it's private, WAIT, it's public therefore they have the right.

Here I just shrug. Screaming how the word 'Fuck' being bleeped is somehow equal to suppressing political dissent is such a laughable chariacture I can't enunciate the contempt.

Speech is speech asswipe. The constitution doesnt make a distinction.

Black/white fallacy. You can't get 100%, so you should have 0%.

If the criminal can get a gun on the plane, the innocent suffer. All bans and gun free zones do is limit the innocent, not the criminal.

If the airlines want to restrict guns, that is there perogative. However the government, if we follow the constitution to the letter (and because I am arguing that the government's current position is wrong,you cant refute my argument with current law, you will need to argue that law's merits and justification) the government does not have the authority

[Comrade Tortoise]

Appeal To Authority Fallacy.

How?

You declare that your opinion of the Constitution is somehow relevent to whether the matter is within it or not. The only authorities worth citing in a matter of Constitutionality is the Supreme Court.

I have eyes, I have a brain and am literate. it is you who are appealing to authority.

An because I am arguing against their position, you cannot simply argue what is. You must argue WHY it is, on it's merits. Otherwise, your logic is nice and round

[SirNitram]

Your no-limit fallacies, blatant chariactures, and outright lies aren't worth my time yet. You can declare yourself victor, but as much as you insist, your opinion isn't the Constitution. You cannot show a logical progression from the 2nd Amendment to 'It's wrong to demand tanks be sold decomissioned' or 'I must be able to carry a M240G on a plane', or any other of the ridiculous positions you've asserted. And your opinion simply doesn't carry any weight.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Your no-limit fallacies, blatant chariactures, and outright lies aren't worth my time yet. You can declare yourself victor, but as much as you insist, your opinion isn't the Constitution. You cannot show a logical progression from the 2nd Amendment to 'It's wrong to demand tanks be sold decomissioned' or 'I must be able to carry a M240G on a plane', or any other of the ridiculous positions you've asserted. And your opinion simply doesn't carry any weight.

What no limit fallacies are these? It is not fallicious if the word of the constitution does not have exceptions.

The GOVERNMENT does not have the authority under the constitution to ban in tact tanks,or M240Gs. That does not mean that one should necessarily have such weapons (and in my essay I specified guns of smaller power, easily concealed and without the ability to necessarily punture the fusilage of a plane) it simply is not in the powers of government.

[SirNitram]

Your no-limit fallacies, blatant chariactures, and outright lies aren't worth my time yet. You can declare yourself victor, but as much as you insist, your opinion isn't the Constitution. You cannot show a logical progression from the 2nd Amendment to 'It's wrong to demand tanks be sold decomissioned' or 'I must be able to carry a M240G on a plane', or any other of the ridiculous positions you've asserted. And your opinion simply doesn't carry any weight.

What no limit fallacies are these? It is not fallicious if the word of the constitution does not have exceptions.

The textbook definition of one you just committed. 'There's nothing spelled out, so it goes to ELEVENTY SEVEN!'.

A sensible individual will examine the context of it's creation, and work logically. You have not. You have declared there is no limiting on any of the freedoms, no matter what the cost in safety, etc. This is illogical and immoral.

The GOVERNMENT does not have the authority under the constitution to ban in tact tanks,or M240Gs. That does not mean that one should necessarily have such weapons (and in my essay I specified guns of smaller power, easily concealed and without the ability to necessarily punture the fusilage of a plane) it simply is not in the powers of government.

This is frankly laughable. Whatever one's political leanings, only the most extreme would claim to have superior comprehension of the Constitution than every Supreme Court Justice to ever take the stand.

Why bring them up? Because this assertion on your part holds no logical backing. It is merely your opinion, asserted as fact. Therefore I find the opinion of those of a qualified authority to be an ample rebuttal.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The textbook definition of one you just committed. 'There's nothing spelled out, so it goes to ELEVENTY SEVEN!'.

And I suppose you simply do not comprehend english. Shall not be infringed is unambigous. It leaves no linguistic room for a limit.

A sensible individual will examine the context of it's creation, and work logically. You have not. You have declared there is no limiting on any of the freedoms, no matter what the cost in safety, etc. This is illogical and immoral

The constitution is a document thqat expressely limits the powers of government. The amendment process as designed in order to change things. If you want to grant additional powers to government, then try to amend the sucker. It is called a social contract. Get a grip of it.

This is frankly laughable. Whatever one's political leanings, only the most extreme would claim to have superior comprehension of the Constitution than every Supreme Court Justice to ever take the stand.

Round about appeal to popularity, and an appeal to authority. They have been wrong before. Such as the Dred Scott decision, or perhaps the kelo decision. They are not infallible.

[SirNitram]

The textbook definition of one you just committed. 'There's nothing spelled out, so it goes to ELEVENTY SEVEN!'.

And I suppose you simply do not comprehend english. Shall not be infringed is unambigous. It leaves no linguistic room for a limit.

You're far more a lawyer than a scientist. The interpretation is entirely within the 'Right To Bear Arms' section; we must define what the right truly means, and thus the lack of infringement placed into a meaningful context.

But meaningful context seems to be anathema to your argument.

A sensible individual will examine the context of it's creation, and work logically. You have not. You have declared there is no limiting on any of the freedoms, no matter what the cost in safety, etc. This is illogical and immoral

The constitution is a document thqat expressely limits the powers of government. The amendment process as designed in order to change things. If you want to grant additional powers to government, then try to amend the sucker. It is called a social contract. Get a grip of it.

So first the government doesn't have the right, now it does. You flip-flop more than the 2004 Presidential Candidates.

This is frankly laughable. Whatever one's political leanings, only the most extreme would claim to have superior comprehension of the Constitution than every Supreme Court Justice to ever take the stand.

Round about appeal to popularity, and an appeal to authority. They have been wrong before. Such as the Dred Scott decision, or perhaps the kelo decision. They are not infallible.

They don't need to be. They need only be better than you. And since the Appeal To Authority is truly defined as the Appeal To Illegitimate Authority, citing a relevent authority.. IE, scholars in the subject vs. your own opinions.. It is not fallacious.

In the end, you have shown you both cannot and will not sustain this based on logic, but instead on declaring your own opinions of what the Bill Of Rights should mean. Since you have no foundation for this logically, you are employing fallacious means to attempt(And fail, as I am not as undereducated as the typical opponent of a political rant) to solidify your position.

If you cannot assemble a real argument, Ben, simply go away.

[Comrade Tortoise]

So first the government doesn't have the right, now it does. You flip-flop more than the 2004 Presidential Candidates.

Nice strawman. Changing the constitution to fit the times is what the amendment process is for. That, is within he power of government

You're far more a lawyer than a scientist. The interpretation is entirely within the 'Right To Bear Arms' section; we must define what the right truly means, and thus the lack of infringement placed into a meaningful context

(I have briefly considered law)

You want to talk Meaningful context? Alright. The founding fathers just finished fighting a war against a tyranical government who sought to destroy their weapon stocks. Their entire rebellion hinged on the right of the people not only to keep and bear arms, but on the ability of the people to keep abd bear arms of similer calibre and technological sophistiation as the tyrannical government they were rebeling against.

Strike one, to your "meaningful context"

They also lived in an era with no forensic science to speak of. So the ability of government to retroactively punish criminals for their crimes was minimal. Thus necessitating the ability of the people to use arms in their defense.

Strike two

Strike three...

The constitution is a social contract. Now, just like any other contract. it is set in stone. If a party breaks it, they are in breach onf contract. If either party wants to change the contract, they have to go through the legal process of changing, or amending it. This must be done with the consent of both parties. Hence the whole 3/4ths supermajority in both houses, with state ratification for an amendment to take effect.

What the founding fathers intended was that every citizen have unrestricted access to firearms. That IS the meaningful context. Now, if we want to change that to something which you deem more "sensible" that is for the amendment process.

Now, there is a lot of controversy even among supreme court judges as to the nature of the 2nd amenment. So your claim that every justice who has ever sat on the bench agrees with guncontrol as quoted here:

only the most extreme would claim to have superior comprehension of the Constitution than every Supreme Court Justice to ever take the stand.

Is wrong. unless you can cite unanymous court cases, you are either commiting a strawman, stating that that is my claim that I have more knowlegde than every supreme court judge and then setting it on fire. Or you are simply wrong.

Hence, I do not claim to be smarter than every justice. I just so happen to side with those who wrote the dissenting opinion in numerous cases. The fact that they were overriden by vote does not make them wrong. Unless you want to claim that number=right. WHich as we both know is fallicious

If you cant make a real logical argument incorporating history etc Martin, just go away.

[Cynical Cat]

Comrade's Tortoises distortions about the Canadian medical system have been accurately torn down by Nitram, but one should also note that one of Ben's sources is the ideaologically hard right Fraser Institute which never saw a privitization measure it didn't endorse.