Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment - Page 3

Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment

This is a discussion on Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by dwolsten People keep focusing on the national level, and forget about the state level. It would be possible to keep the electoral ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by dwolsten View Post
    People keep focusing on the national level, and forget about the state level.

    It would be possible to keep the electoral college around and still have IRV. The IRV would simply be at the state level, and be used to determine who the state's electors vote for. There's nothing (to my knowledge) saying that states must implement any type of voting system; the Constitution only says that the Electoral College system must be used to determine the President. If a State wanted to implement IRV, it should be as simple as the State legislature passing a law requiring it. To me, this would fix most, if not all the problems with voting.
    That's a good point. Using IRV to determine who the electors of each state choose would be a good system, so far as I can tell.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?


  2. #32
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    Nothing to loose? "..we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
    That my friend is the definition of courage, and self-lessness.
    Yeah, if I recall correctly, the founders were quite wealthy men of that time. They could have stayed wealthy even if they remained British subjects. They had lots to lose, not just their lives (as if that weren't enough).

  3. #33
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    That's a good point. Using IRV to determine who the electors of each state choose would be a good system, so far as I can tell.
    Of course, being a State issue, this would have to be decided independently in each state. I highly recommend everyone start writing their State legislators about this. I'm going to. I think it's the least I can do to help bring about a more fair election system, at least in my own state. And once it's in force in one state, it's that much easier to get other states to adopt it.

  4. #34
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by sailormnop View Post
    No core values!? No principles!? Someone who resignedly accepts the compromise of voting for the lesser of two evils is the one lacking principles! Continue to vote for the lesser of two evils and watch the country go down the toilet (gradually) all the while talking about how great the two-party system is? Did I hear a definition of insanity there?
    I think the reference to lesser of two evils is extraordinarily misleading. I do not consider anyone who has been President of the United States to be evil. Clinton was not evil; Bush is not evil; and neither Gore nor Kerry could in any way be considered evil. To effectively use the lesser of two evils analogy you would actually need two evil candidates, e.g. Saddam Hussein vs Fidel Castro. Personally, I vote for the better of the two candidates.

    I never consider voting a compromise. No candidate will match your every thought, your every belief, or your every decision. We are voting for leaders to take responsibility for the duties and responsibilities of office.


    As long as you balance the Federalist Papers with the Anti-Federalist Papers.
    Actually, that is not required. The system chosen was clearly written in the Constitution, which was based on the Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists system was not chosen to be our form of government. It is, of course, interesting to read the differing views as they were debated at the time but it is not relevant today.


    We are voting for representatives! Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Atilla the Hun were all leaders, and good ones too. Leaders tell you what to do, where to go, how to live. Leaders are not servants. We don't need leaders. Our representatives are supposed to be servants. We are supposed to be able to tell them what to do.
    That is incorrect. We are electing leaders. We do not simply install someone that samples public opinion to make decisions. By electing a President we are empowering him, through the Constitution, to fulfill the duties of the office. He does not represent you personally. You are electing a person to lead the nation using his best judgement. An analogy is the police. They are tasked with protecting society, not you in particular.

    To put it in perspectve, I vehemently disagreed with virtually everything Clinton did as President. He did not represent me or my views at all. But he was the President and I respect the office. He was my leader.

    I find it interesting that you wrote we don't need leaders. We need leadership now more than we have needed it since Reagan was President. We absolutely need leadership otherwise we are simply an anarchy or a democracy.

    I have no problem with testing your voting scheme in the marketplace of ideas. I think it will weaken our system but every state can choose their electors as they decide.

  5. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    The "Two Party System" might work IF and only IF one can differentiate between the two on actions, not on campaign promises. I see NO substantial difference between the Jackasses and the Elephants.
    No substantial difference? How about taxation policies? How about national defense policies? How about gun control policies? How about welfare and other handout programs? How about educational choice policies? How about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome issues? And other important issues that demonstrate the distinct differences.

    The differences in the two parties could not be more well defined.

  6. #36
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Actually, that is not required. The system chosen was clearly written in the Constitution, which was based on the Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists system was not chosen to be our form of government. It is, of course, interesting to read the differing views as they were debated at the time but it is not relevant today.

    The Federalist Papers, they were written from 1787-1788. The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. How did the FP influence the USC?

    A full understanding of the U.S. Constitution and how far off the mark our current NATIONAL government is from it's original intent would have the Founding Fathers ashamed of us for allowing their sacrifice to be discounted like we have allowed. We have not even the moral fortitude to vote for the "correct" candidate nor to fight for our hard-won liberties.

  7. #37
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No substantial difference? How about taxation policies? How about national defense policies? How about gun control policies? How about welfare and other handout programs? How about educational choice policies? How about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome issues? And other important issues that demonstrate the distinct differences.

    The differences in the two parties could not be more well defined.
    Maybe YOU can articulate the differences. Taxation, 33% vs. 35%? National defense, are our borders secure? Gun control (subject of the original thread, Moderator) not a Dem/Rep issue as I see it. Welfare, what Article of the Constitution give Congress the ability to pay personal or corporate welfare? Show me the difference!

  8. #38
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by dwolsten View Post
    Sorry, no. The Reform Party, the Constitution Party, and lots of other parties have no power in the US at present, and they're all minority parties. You're assuming that everyone basically agrees with either the Democrats or the Republicans.
    First, when I wrote 'minority party,' I was referring to the out of power party in a two party system. Certainly the fringe parties have no power at all, nor should they have any.

    Many people don't agree with either, and they have no voice whatsoever. Worse, these two parties have figured out they don't really need to represent average Americans at all, because one of them will be elected.
    As I wrote in another post, the President does not represent Americans, he represents America. I certainly don't agree with candidates on every issue. I vote for the candidate that both best aligns with my views and can be a leader. There is a reason the Senators rarely win the Presidency (I think it is only twice.) They do not have leadership skills.

    So all they have to do is focus on one relatively unimportant issue (like gay marriage), and as long as more people agree with them on this distraction than with their opponent, it doesn't matter if they disagree with them on every other issue because they'll still get elected because there's only two choices which both suck.
    You are free to vote for anyone on the ballot or write in yourself if you want. However, that course of action is futile in furthering our future. The Constitution enables a two party system. To effect change one must work within the system.

    It's a failed and outdated system I think. There are no mainstream candidates that agree at all with my views, or many other people; that's why there's so many people screaming about Ron Paul right now. How many people are out there campaigning for Romney, Giuliani, or Clinton, this far ahead of the '08 election? Maybe Arizona is just different, but I see Paul stickers and posters all over the place here, my coworkers talk about him incessantly, etc. The other candidates? I never hear about them. No posters, no bumper stickers, etc. That really says something to me.
    I will not comment on specific candidates as the mods have made it clear that is not welcome. The fact is the primaries are the means to put forth the party candidates. If you feel strongly about crtain candidates then you should volunteer time and/or money to sway other to your point of view.

    My problem with all of this is that people who are unfamiliar with the issues and the candidate positions are allowed to vote at all. The Constitution does not provide a 'right to vote.' In fact, the Founders assumed that only land owners would be alowed to vote. Two Amendments made it clear that the right to vote could not be infringed based on race or gender (or poll tax,...) There is nothing that says we could not have issues tests to determine who could vote. There is nothing that says we cannot limit voting to those that have a stake in America: landowners, job holders, students, citizens. It is obvious that people will always vote themselves money. Welfare recipient and those that live on the largess of the government should never be allowed to vote.

  9. #39
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    The Federalist Papers, they were written from 1787-1788. The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. How did the FP influence the USC?
    The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution was signed to influence it being ratified by the states. There was opposition. The Constitution did not come into effect until June of 1788, after nine states ratified. The Federalist Papers were quickly,(and eloquently) written to explain why the Constitution was written as it was. That is why thr Federalist Papers are the preemptive resource to understanding the thinkink behind it.


    A full understanding of the U.S. Constitution and how far off the mark our current NATIONAL government is from it's original intent would have the Founding Fathers ashamed of us for allowing their sacrifice to be discounted like we have allowed. We have not even the moral fortitude to vote for the "correct" candidate nor to fight for our hard-won liberties.
    I agree with this for the most part. I don't think their sacrifice or accomplishments has been discounted, rather, time inexorably dilutes memory. Even today, many people do not understand WWII, what it was fought for, what was defeated and what was gained. That is why the Consitution is so great. It is inarguably the most successful government on Earth, even with all of our faults.

  10. #40
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    Maybe YOU can articulate the differences. Taxation, 33% vs. 35%? National defense, are our borders secure? Gun control (subject of the original thread, Moderator) not a Dem/Rep issue as I see it. Welfare, what Article of the Constitution give Congress the ability to pay personal or corporate welfare? Show me the difference!
    Yes, I can articulate the differences. Consider the rate of taxation before Reagan. The highest tax rate was near 90%. Now, it is 30+%. Further, one party wants to tax excessively those who are successful in our society. To me, that is backwards. We should put incentives to succeed on the weakest members of society. One party supports wealth redistribution. The ther does not. Keep in mind, change is slow, very slow. Social security is the worst program ever adopted in the country. Still, Bush was trying to educate the public that change is not only necessary, but it is a better direction. Over time, I am convinced Social Security will be as much a relic of our society as slavery. Certainly not in my lifetime but eventually. Whichparty seeks to facilitate the end od socialist programs. Which party encourages and celebrates 'working as a community?'

    As to the borders, the party difference is distinct. One party is for open borders and no enforcement. The other is for defending our borders. Yes, individuals do not exactly align withany set of views. That is politics. The difference though is very clear.

    Gun control is a party distinction. One party wants overarching governmental control. The only way to achieve that is gun grabbing. One party believes the Constitution can be twisted to suit their political agnda, i.e. a living Constitution. The other believes in a strict interpretation.

    Do you think you can determine which party is which from my post?

    In our current time, the Judicial branch has more power than in our entire history. The Marbury v Madison decision should not rule our nation. It was flat out wrong. That is why it is more important than ever to elect a President that has the best opportunity of appointing originalist Justices like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. If your conscience is clear to enable someone to appoint activist Jurors to the Supreme Court by voting for Pat Paulsen then I submit you are doing harm to the future of America.

  11. #41
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, I can articulate the differences. Consider the rate of taxation before Reagan. The highest tax rate was near 90%. Now, it is 30+%. Further, one party wants to tax excessively those who are successful in our society. To me, that is backwards. We should put incentives to succeed on the weakest members of society. One party supports wealth redistribution. The ther does not. Keep in mind, change is slow, very slow. Social security is the worst program ever adopted in the country. Still, Bush was trying to educate the public that change is not only necessary, but it is a better direction. Over time, I am convinced Social Security will be as much a relic of our society as slavery. Certainly not in my lifetime but eventually. Whichparty seeks to facilitate the end od socialist programs. Which party encourages and celebrates 'working as a community?'
    I do agree with this, but it would seem to me GW (R) wimped-out when it came to touching this third rail. I too thought for 36 years the Republicans would reverse course, but when entrusted with the power of Congress and the Presidency they blew it. Possibly too many old incumbent suffering from Beltway-itis . As much as I loved RR, he too shied away from some of the tough issues. Tax cuts, but few spending cuts. (P.S. I loved the movie "Dave". Good idea, misguided principles.)

    Congress only really has the authority to raise revenue by "Duties, Imposts and Excises". The 14th Amendment notwithstanding. In fact confining Congress to it's authority as written in Article I (amended) would be legal and proper. Wouldn't you agree?


    As to the borders, the party difference is distinct. One party is for open borders and no enforcement. The other is for defending our borders. Yes, individuals do not exactly align withany set of views. That is politics. The difference though is very clear.
    Again I look to the ACTIONS of the individuals in government. Proposals from BOTH sides of the two-party system (?) were poor at best. One was concerned about future voters, the other about protecting their commercial interests. Which party was concerned about protecting We The People..?

    Gun control is a party distinction. One party wants overarching governmental control. The only way to achieve that is gun grabbing.
    Again, this is a generalization (stereotype?). If I recall, the NRA scorecard has A+ Dems and F- Repubs. The Constitution Party, for example, has a no-touch Platform with regard to the 2nd Amendment and private ownership of guns.

    One party believes the Constitution can be twisted to suit their political agnda, i.e. a living Constitution. The other believes in a strict interpretation.

    Do you think you can determine which party is which from my post?

    In our current time, the Judicial branch has more power than in our entire history. The Marbury v Madison decision should not rule our nation. It was flat out wrong. That is why it is more important than ever to elect a President that has the best opportunity of appointing originalist Justices like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. If your conscience is clear to enable someone to appoint activist Jurors to the Supreme Court by voting for Pat Paulsen then I submit you are doing harm to the future of America.
    While I can see my former jaded position in your argument, I have become disenchanted with the current politicos and believe it it time to shake things up. Can one person/vote make a difference?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 05:35 PM
  2. Vote for 2nd Amendment rights
    By advantage1one in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 12:45 PM
  3. Sign the petition today together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 10:46 PM
  4. D.C. GUN Ban Poll VOTE ON WTOP News DC Vote and show your support
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: March 11th, 2007, 09:49 AM
  5. Senate Votes to Protect Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 16th, 2006, 12:09 AM