waitforufo

The Gulf States? Come on. What have they done for the Palestinians?

I'm not quite sure why they use the term migrant. Aren't the vast majority of these people actually refugees?

I'm sure they think, "How fast can I get to the USA?"

Where does the Constitution suggest that my natural rights are changeable? Yes they did because the "doctrine of old" did not respect the natural rights of individuals. The laws of old protected the rights of tyrants. How could they when their philosophical influence came from philosophers like Immanuel Kant who claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone and John Locke who emphasized "life, liberty and property" as the foundation of natural rights. Thomas Paine in Rights of Man emphasized that rights cannot be granted by any charter (Constitution) because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges. You see our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries determined to create a new nation based on modern philosophy. A modern philosophy centered on the natural rights of individuals. Red Leader, your links are nothing but sour grapes opinions of those that lost or who were upset by the loss of Heller and McDonald with respect to gun control. The only important quote from those documents is this... Emphasis mine. Reagan's quote fits in nicely with Thomas Paine's opinions does it not.

You get upset when I assume what your position is.

So you don't want government to fix all the things you mention below?

Its not the humans per se. It's the humans that think they can create utopia through government. The following posts are proof. Red leader above would let government grow without bound, believing it would shower us all with a great bounty. Get the government out of the way and people will pursue and find their own happiness. Yeah "but their is an "i" in win," - Michael Jordan Individualism is laudable because it allows everyone to pursue their own happiness. That can include choosing to cooperate with others or not. My guess is that you are uncomfortable with the "or not" option. I'm doing just fine pursuing my own happiness. That pursuit includes cooperating with many people when it is to my benefit. I have no interest in pursuing your happiness or anyone else's. I do however wish you good luck. You likely wouldn't like the happiness I found for you anyway. I doubt you will like the one the government forces you to live either. It does leave us with lots and lots of affordable products and frees us to pursue other objectives.

Reflection of signals within circuitry is used all the time in radio electronics. Such circuits are called filters. No radio would work without them. Reflections are also used in common antennas. A parabolic dish reflects transmitted signals to a focused point at the receiver module. A Yagi antenna only has one active element. The rest are parasitic and spaced such that signals from the active element reflect off the parasitic elements and combine to increase gain or antenna aperture in a particular direction.

How many people have cancer? How many people have a mobile phone? How many jobs are created by the cancer research? How many jobs are created by the mobile phone industry? How many lives are saved due to cancer research? How many lives are saved because nearly everyone has a mobile phone?

Our goal wasn't containment. It was surrender. In fact it was unconditional surrender. In the end however, we did allow them to keep their emperor.

There you go. Zero is the number of US casualties we were looking for. We weren't playing tiddlywinks with the Japanese. The US suffered 111,606 men killed. China lost 4 million. The atrocities of the Japanese exceed that of the Nazis. How do you explain one more American death from the Japanese when you have the bomb. You don't have to. You just nuke them.

When the Japanese asked us on 12/7/41 to come and play war with them, I'm sure they understood that when you play with the big boys you have to learn how to take your lumps. We were just dishing out lumps.

The intentional killing of children is a crime in the US. The accidental death of any child is a tragedy. The US however does not have an unusually high child accidental death rate. Accidental deaths caused by firearms is one of the lowest causes of accidental child death. http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/accidental-gun-deaths-of-children-are-far-down-on-the/article_ad337bbe-7ec4-529a-baa8-6eb6ad53e71e.html If reducing accidental child deaths is the goal there are many things higher on the list. Back yard swimming pools and pedal cycles for example. So why all the focus on firearms? http://www.momsteam.com/sports/swimming/safety/grim-statistics-on-child-drownings If you are so concerned about accidental deaths of children, why not pick the low hanging fruit first? I have to believe it is because reducing child accidental death is not what your interested in. Ah the sirens song. All we need is a few minor adjustments to your rights and the government can bring you an endless stream of sunshine, lolly pops, and rainbows. Your rights only need to be rolled back a bit and before you know it the government will feed, burp and tuck you in bed at night. Think of how happy you will be when those pesky rights are all gone. How do we know you will be happy? Because we will tell you that you are. Some of us will at least go out with a positive body count ratio.

You asked... I believe this response answers that question.

Well, I pity you for believing that the human condition can be improved by giving your rights away to a noble cause. The only result will be suffering. People like you will only realize this when you wake up one day and all your rights are gone. How eagerly you anticipate your chains.

Red Leader you were probably composing the above masterpiece and did not see my proceeding post. Here it is again for your viewing enjoyment. Gold Leader out.

Cooperation. How much cooperation should we have on abortion rights? How much cooperation should we on gay marriage rights? How much cooperation should we have on voting rights? How about this. In order to register to vote you have to supply your own weapon, ammunition, pass a safety test, and qualify on a shooting range. Your voter registration card would now be multi purpose. It would act as your gun registration, concealed carry permit, and guarantee that our militia is well regulated. Can't supply your own weapon, ammunition, pass your safety test, and range qualify, well then you can't vote. So how do you like compromise now? Sorry rights are not up for compromise. Yeah Red Leader can provide all his data from other countries that he likes. Those other countries have never been as dedicated to human rights as we have been. From the "shot heard round the world", (not Bobby Thomson, the other one) those other countries have always considered our passion for rights to be extreme. Who cares what they think? Yeah some people will abuse there rights and lives will be lost. We have a name for that. It's called crime. Those lost lives are the price we pay for keeping all of our rights thereby enabling the rest of our population to achieve their full potential as human beings. Freedom isn't free. Americans have always understood that.

Red Leader, this is Gold Leader. The issue I see is how unwilling some are to even consider that the status quo is as good as it gets. Gold Leader out.

One of my prouder moments. Thank you. I thought it was much more directly to the point than these self aggrandizing, pseudo intellectual, attempts at insults. I don't think I could have been more clear.

Here is a tip. If you think I have missed one or your questions, restate it.

I have also been very clear about my position. I am very protective of my rights. Erode one, and you erode them all. Eliminate my ability to protect my rights, and my other rights will likely fall more quickly. I don't care if that hurts your feelings. I don't care if you paint me as extreme. Extremism in defense of my rights is no vice. I don't care if those that take a position different then my own view me as unreasonable. The constitution is on my side. Natural rights is a philosophical concept not a religious one. A philosophical concept held by the founders of our nation. If you don't know that, get a better education. If you don't like me or my posts all I can say is na-na boo-boo stick your head in doo-doo.

The bill of rights was added to the constitution in order to assure passage by the States. Many of the founders argued against adding the bill of rights. So why was it added? The constitution defines the powers of government and defines the restrictions of the people. The government can only do what they are empowered to do by the constitution. The people can do everything they want with exception of the restrictions defined by the constitution and laws derived from the constitustion. So forget the bill of rights. Where in the body of the constitution is the government empowered to control guns? Where are the people restricted from owning guns? You cant find either. Hence I am free to own guns and the government has no power to restrict them. Well the States were not happy that the courts would properly rule when it came to government restrictions and individual liberty so they insisted on the bill of rights. In some respects the bill of rights acts as a substitute for history of case law defined by court rulings. Since the nation was new, there was no case law to rely on. To change the constitution there are three methods. First, you can get the courts to set precedent. Second, you can add amendments. Third, you can call for a constitutional convention and rewrite all or part of the constitution. All methods are available to today's lawmakers. Why don't lawmakers use the second and third methods mentioned above? Because they want to get re-elected and they want their party to be in power.

In this topic there have been several post about changing the US constitution. I believe there was also some mention of just how difficult that can be. It's actually not difficult at all. All you have to do is get five justices on the Supreme Court to set a precedent in a case ruling. With regard to the second amendment this was done with Heller and McDonald. Both of those rulings said that individuals had the right to bear arms in their homes. This was not an entrenchment, it was a precedent which defined the meaning of the second amendment. I'm sure iNow knows this. In fact he is very much in favor of the Supreme Court making precedent setting rulings. Heller and McDonald are very important rulings. Stare decisis makes these rulings as, if not more, important than the second amendment itself. Not some ancient document, but recent modern rulings.

Not 30 years ago. If I recall correctly it started on about November 22, 1963.

Shall not be impaired. There are those pesky words again, shall not.