Gun laws

[BobCav]

imported post

Why would they regulate it? To prevent that very action, of course! Then they can continue to run unchecked. Once upon a time government was never referred to as "they" or "them". It used to be "our government", now it's "the government".

 

[HerbM]

imported post

dms wrote:

In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.

No. the states also may not regulate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms if those regulations cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny test, if those regulation are to remain Constitutional.

This was actually contained in the Privilegees and Immunities class but since that was ignored by the Court the 14th Amendment was specifically worded to rectify this problem.

This is the same test (Strict Scrutiny) that prevents a state from "regulating" other fundamental rights such as by enacting 'poll taxes' or 'reading tests' or any other method that is used to effectively prevent SOME citizens from exercising those rights.

Scrict scrutiny is a test that NO gun control law can pass. First the laws cannot be shown to be effective, second they cannot be shown provide any compelling state interest, nor can they be shown to be the least intrusive method of accomplishing any presumed benefit.

A simple and less intrusive method than NICS/Brady would be to suspend (or abrogate) the 4th Amendment rights of felons (and other prohibited persons) along with the abrogacation of their 2nd Amendent protections for the RKBA.

At least this would put the burden on those who have been afforded Due Process and found guilty or irresponsible -- and would give the police a very useful tool to use against documented drug/alcohol abusers, documented spouse abusers, documented gang members, and truly dangerous mental patients.

Over 90% of all adult murders are prior felons and /or documented drug/alcohol abusers, documented spouse abusers, or documented gang members.

The myth of the "law-abiding murderer" is just that: almost totally a myth.

See "Armed" by Kleck and Kates or the two following long quotes:


Do Guns Cause Crime? By Don B. Kates
http://hnn.us/articles/871.html
<<
This theory's attribution of murders to ordinary people flies in the face of 100+ years of homicide studies. These show that, far from being ordinary people, "the vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system."4

Though only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. Juvenile crime records are generally unavailable, but to the extent they are, juvenile killers have crime careers as extensive or more than do adult killers -- and so do their victims. Typical findings of 19th and 20th Century homicide studies: "the great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more" as also did Savannah murderers and victims in both the 1890s and the 1990s; exclusive of all other crimes they had committed, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one prior drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug offenses;5 1960s-'70s Philadelphia "victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter."6

Research beyond police records further documents the aberrance of murderers. Thus: in psychological studies 80-100% of juveniles who kill are psychotic or have psychotic symptoms7; though only 75% of Massachusetts domestic murderers in 1991-95 "had a prior [adult] criminal history," 23.6% "were under an active restraining order at the time of the homicide. Forty percent of perpetrators had a history of having been under a restraining order at some time prior to the homicide, taken out by the victim or some other person."8

Typical of "acquaintance homicides" in general are: drug dealers killed by competitors or customers; gang members killed by members of the same or rival gangs; and women killed by brutal, predatory men. Studies analyzing "family homicides" demonstrate that these are not ordinary families; e.g., "intrafamily homicide is typically just one episode in a long standing syndrome of violence." -- "The overriding theme to emerge from these cases was that [domestic] partner homicide is most often the final outcome of chronic women battering."9

In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder -- for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.
>>



Reason Magazine: Beyond Fear and Loathing
Abigail A. Kohn
http://www.reason.com/contrib/show/285.xml
<<
When the Department
of Justice issues a public statement that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to own a gun, when 35 states pass nondiscretionary carry
permit laws, when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof declares
that "gun control is dead," you know the gun debate is over.

...

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of
murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the
criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally
"have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children,
siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have
histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership,
the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or
neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man
eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice
versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing
each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique. According to a 1993 article in
the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug
trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or
criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71
percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were
documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte
criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult
gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are
always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant
of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon.
Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning
guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of
guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm
ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The
CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the
early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the
numbers of homicides."

But this correlation was a fabrication: While the number of handguns rose 69 percent from
1974 to 1988, handgun murders actually dropped by 27 percent. Moreover, as U.S.
handgun ownership more than doubled from the early 1970s through the 1990s, homicides
held constant or declined for every major population group except young urban black men.
The CDC can blame the homicide surge in this group on guns only by ignoring a crucial
point: Gun ownership is far less common among urban blacks than among whites or rural
blacks.
>>

 

[Falcon118]

imported post

Very informative!! :celebrate

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

dms wrote:

In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.

Part of the reasoning for and behind this, was the habit of the Kings of the old days, would arm the commoners to help him fight his enemies, then once victorious the King would again disarm the people keeping them in subjection to the Crown, and enforced by the Standing Army loyal to the King, not wanting to have this ever to happen here in this Country, these provisions were established so as to prevent it from repeating, and if the Government thought to take control by force, the People could defend themselves by force of arms against the attempted over through, and if need be the people, could through the Government out if they became oppressive, and make the changes necessary to restore proper order.(" A force from without or Within"). I believe these words are stated within the writings of the Constitution and related to this very subject.

There is a very interesting book published by Palladium Press, in 1996 authored by Les Adams titled "THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER", it was put into my hands by an NRA Supporter that had two and said I might enjoy it, which I have, It tells an awful lot about the reason behind the Second Amendment, and how and why it was included into the Bill of Rights. And the meanings of the right from the days of old.

Palladium Press

P.O. Box 530065

Birmingham, Alabama 35235

I believe it was commisioned by the NRA, as a supporting arguement in support of the Rightof the People, back when this was a heated debate in the Congress, as to a State or a People Right.


I have seen this book offered on eBay!

 

[HerbM]

imported post

dms wrote:

In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.

This is absolutely true -- and to "agree with it" does not require that you advocate it NOW, but only to recognize this is the ultimate doomsday provision of the Constitution, designed so that the people may oppose ALL enemies of the free state (i.e., nation, country) both foreign and domestic.

Domestic enemies include would be tyrants -- this provision of the Bill of Rights is however designed in the hope that its mere presence, and the armed people it guarantees, will prevent it from being needed.

To talk about this in the wrong place, or to fail to set the context correct, will expose you to sounding crazy or revolutionary. The Framers were in fact revolutionaries; having just revolted successfully against tryanny.

Some gun ban advocates falsely try to claim that the 2nd Amendent represents some "collective right" -- there are in fact NO such 'collective' rights listed anywhere in the Constitution.

Even the Right to Peacable Assembly is not a collective right but is based on the individual right of each person to assemble -- no club membership nor political party membership is required.

Just as no membership in the organized militia* is required for exercising the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- every person was expect to APPEAR with their OWN arms, aleady knowing how to use those arms from daily life.

I only know of one collective right -- no gun ban advocate has every suggested this however. The right to revolt is such a right. If you attempt to use this right alone or with insufficient support you will be killed or jailed as for your crimes. It only works when a large percentage of citizens are agree AND are willing to stake their lives upon it because the alternative tyranny is so egregious as to make them echo, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."

The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries, both literally and figuratively, but they hoped that armed conflict could be avoided by protecting the right of the people to always be armed -- no would be tyrant would ever believe he could succeed.



*"Public Law No: 109-92 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or
engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

HerbM wrote:

However, restrictions on a right are permissible under the Constitution in certain very limited cases, mostly after DUE PROCESS when such serve as punishment (which is not cruel or unusual). Convicted felon may legitimately lose property (fines and forfeiture), freedom (be incarcerated), other rights (voting and RKBA), or even life for the most serious crimes (murder, treason, etc.)

All other infringements, i.e., those not involving due process for actual bad behavior. applied to citizens in general must pass "Strict Scrutiny"*.

*For there to be a compelling state interest, there must be:

1. A major problem;

2. Clear and direct proof the proposed restriction would significantly reduce
that problem; AND

3. any restriction must be NARROWLY tailored, in general this means the
smallest possible restriction of rights and that the restriction must not
apply to the law-abiding due to bad behavior of others, i.e., without due
process; AND

4. clear evidence that no other method is available and that no restriction
that was less burdensome on the populace would be effective.

Thank you very much for the articulate clarification. You have explained very clearly the correct criteria that must be applied in determining which gun laws are or are not Constitutional. I think it is important for everyone to avoid making blanket statements. To say no gun law is Constitutional goes too far. To say most are Un-constitutional is fairly accurate. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to find and share all this information.

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Most of the issues brought out in this thread are the result of tortuous distortions of the Interstate Commerce clause (ICC). Franklin Roosevelt is the culprit in this. In order to push his social agenda, he vastly broadened the scope and applicability of the ICC.

At first the Supreme Court objected. So he threatened to "pack" the court with Judges favorable to his cause if the "sitting" court failed to "go along" with his plans. He claimed he could do this by expanding the size of the court such that the sitting judges would be in the minority. As a result the Court went along. Ever since that time, the ICC has been used to justify every possible unconstitutional regulatory act from Alcohol to Zoological parks.

Very enlightening.I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the Constitution only limiting the Federal Government and not the states. I think to see it any other way until the 14th ammendment invites problems. If the Federal Constitution is applied without ammendments to states what is to stop those same restrictions from applying to indivuduals. For example, I wouldn't be able to throw someone out of my house who was saying things I didn't like. I don't think we should infer anything. The best way to do things is to follow the letter and spirit of the law. If the law is not what we believe it should be we must work to legislate the changes that correct the deficiencies and not infer the laws into existence (judicial activism).

Quick questions. Do you have any easily available resources I can use to learn more about President Roosevelt and his court stacking threats? I had never heard anything like this before and I would like to learn more.


One other slight quarrel. Alcohol doesn't fall into your unconstitutional regulations from the ICC. This is one of the few laws that was done the right way. A Constitutional Ammendment was ratified giving the federal government authority to regulate alcohol. I agree that it would have been unconstitutional without the 18th ammendment.

It would be all right for all guns to be outlawed in the United States if the second ammendment was repealed. That is the only legitimate way to attack gun ownership.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

HerbM wrote:

However, restrictions on a right are permissible under the Constitution in certain very limited cases, mostly after DUE PROCESS when such serve as punishment (which is not cruel or unusual).  Convicted felon may legitimately lose property (fines and forfeiture), freedom (be incarcerated), other rights (voting and RKBA), or even life for the most serious crimes (murder, treason, etc.)

All other infringements, i.e., those not involving due process for actual bad behavior. applied to citizens in general must pass "Strict Scrutiny"*.

*For there to be a compelling state interest, there must be:

1. A major problem;

2. Clear and direct proof the proposed restriction would significantly reduce
   that problem; AND

3. any restriction must be NARROWLY tailored, in general this means the
   smallest possible restriction of rights and that the restriction must not
   apply to the law-abiding due to bad behavior of others, i.e., without due
   process; AND

4. clear evidence that no other method is available and that no restriction
   that was less burdensome on the populace would be effective.

Thank you very much for the articulate clarification. You have explained very clearly the correct criteria that must be applied in determining which gun laws are or are not Constitutional. I think it is important for everyone to avoid making blanket statements. To say no gun law is Constitutional goes too far. To say most are Un-constitutional is fairly accurate. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to find and share all this information.

Well I for one am certainly happy that we have now cleared up what has been ignored to get us into the current situation.

Regards

 

[dng]

imported post

Very informative discussion, but now the question is how to change things. Someone already mentioned lawyers and lobbyists, but I think it has to begin with the American gun owner. There is strength in numbers, and I believe that is the only way to cause true changes. I don't know of very many lawyers or lobbyists who would be willing to go as far as to challenge most gun laws as unconstitutional. They seem to be content to argue and lobby over minor details;dealing with symptoms,instead of taking the head off the "snake" and solving the cause of the problems. Unless large numbers of Americans speak out and demand that these laws are challenged and overthrown, we will continue to worry about small details rather than solve the larger problem.

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

dngreer wrote:

Very informative discussion, but now the question is how to change things. Someone already mentioned lawyers and lobbyists, but I think it has to begin with the American gun owner. There is strength in numbers, and I believe that is the only way to cause true changes. I don't know of very many lawyers or lobbyists who would be willing to go as far as to challenge most gun laws as unconstitutional. They seem to be content to argue and lobby over minor details;dealing with symptoms,instead of taking the head off the "snake" and solving the cause of the problems. Unless large numbers of Americans speak out and demand that these laws are challenged and overthrown, we will continue to worry about small details rather than solve the larger problem.

The sad part is believe it or not as gun owners and supporters we are a member of a Minority and we are being discriminated against.

Perhaps if Fred Thompson is elected as our Next President he might be willing to take on the status Quo as he is and has been a Lawyer and Lobbyist, Joking of course.

You are absolutely correct in that if we want these laws Removed from the Books and re-instate the Constitutional Laws we are going to have to see it done and I am not talking about just the active people on these gun forums, I understand that there are an estimated 8 Million Gun Owners in the US, and I would venture to say that only 10% are active Gun Supporters, the rest are willing to sit back and let the rest of us do the fighting for them.

If we can not muster the rest of the Gun owners to the fight we will never get the battle won. The NRA Claim a membership of 4 Million, and there are the GOA, CCTKABA, 2nd Amendment Foundations and how many other groups with X number of Members, most are multiple members or else we would have more than 8 Million Member Gun Owners?

People that take no part in the Fight to protect our Gun Rights are to me like people on the Lazy Side of the Welfare Rolls they reap the Benefits but don't do anything to help, but will squeal like a stuck pig if they loose anything they have.

 

[dng]

imported post

Kelly J wrote:

You are absolutely correct in that if we want these laws Removed from the Books and re-instate the Constitutional Laws we are going to have to see it done and I am not talking about just the active people on these gun forums, I understand that there are an estimated 8 Million Gun Owners in the US, and I would venture to say that only 10% are active Gun Supporters, the rest are willing to sit back and let the rest of us do the fighting for them.

If we can not muster the rest of the Gun owners to the fight we will never get the battle won. The NRA Claim a membership of 4 Million, and there are the GOA, CCTKABA, 2nd Amendment Foundations and how many other groups with X number of Members, most are multiple members or else we would have more than 8 Million Member Gun Owners?

People that take no part in the Fight to protect our Gun Rights are to me like people on the Lazy Side of the Welfare Rolls they reap the Benefits but don't do anything to help, but will squeal like a stuck pig if they loose anything they have.

I think the only way to motivatethe 90% of indifferentgun owners is for us, as individuals, to motivate one person at a time. It will take time, but I think it is our only choice. I would guessif we combined theassets of everyone in this forum, we would still be no where near what it would costfor commercials or mailing lists. Even though most people believe anything they see on TV, and commercials would be an easy way to reach the masses, I believe one-on-one interaction is the best for results and of course, costs. If each person could turnone indifferent gun owner into someone who defends their rights and that would continue across our nation, it would be a more permanent way of life (defending our rights) for American gun owners. And it would probably go faster than it seems, too. But this is the only realistic way I can see to take on such a huge battle as challenging gun laws.

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

dngreer wrote:

Kelly J wrote:

You are absolutely correct in that if we want these laws Removed from the Books and re-instate the Constitutional Laws we are going to have to see it done and I am not talking about just the active people on these gun forums, I understand that there are an estimated 8 Million Gun Owners in the US, and I would venture to say that only 10% are active Gun Supporters, the rest are willing to sit back and let the rest of us do the fighting for them.

If we can not muster the rest of the Gun owners to the fight we will never get the battle won. The NRA Claim a membership of 4 Million, and there are the GOA, CCTKABA, 2nd Amendment Foundations and how many other groups with X number of Members, most are multiple members or else we would have more than 8 Million Member Gun Owners?

People that take no part in the Fight to protect our Gun Rights are to me like people on the Lazy Side of the Welfare Rolls they reap the Benefits but don't do anything to help, but will squeal like a stuck pig if they loose anything they have.

I think the only way to motivatethe 90% of indifferentgun owners is for us, as individuals, to motivate one person at a time. It will take time, but I think it is our only choice. I would guessif we combined theassets of everyone in this forum, we would still be no where near what it would costfor commercials or mailing lists. Even though most people believe anything they see on TV, and commercials would be an easy way to reach the masses, I believe one-on-one interaction is the best for results and of course, costs. If each person could turnone indifferent gun owner into someone who defends their rights and that would continue across our nation, it would be a more permanent way of life (defending our rights) for American gun owners. And it would probably go faster than it seems, too. But this is the only realistic way I can see to take on such a huge battle as challenging gun laws.

I agree, but the most damning argument I have heard, was back when we here in Missouri were trying to get the First CCW Bill passed, the statement I personally heard most, and the one that was most upsetting, was this"I don't want to be put on a list so the Government can come after me and find out I have a, OR multiple Guns"

Yet they filled out a form 4473, when they Bought the Gun, so did they not understand, that they were already on the list, and filled permanatly with the BATF. "Government"

 

[dng]

imported post

Also, if they use that excuse, they must realize we are going to end up loosing our right to have guns. They may think they're not on "the list" and even if they are not, they would be considered a common criminal if caught. Sometimes we all just have to take a risk and stand up for what is right. And as far as risks go, this is not a very big one considering what our daily lives in this world are like. Again, it goes back to strength in numbers. If we all stand up and fight this spiderweb of gun laws and policies, we can do away with "the master list" along with all the other anti-freedom CRAP that our/the government has come up with.

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

I think the types of gun laws we are enduring is just one of the many symptoms of federal, state and local governments running out of control. I think the best way to restore gun rights is to work to restore all rights. All of our serious constitutional problems have slowly been developing together. Unlawful search and seizures, gun restrictions, political speech suppression... We need to oppose those who engage in unlawful activity everywhere. I think all rights and liberties go together. You can't lose one without the others following. You can't restore one without the others following. There aren't any governments that manage to be mildly tyrannical.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Just for the record, there are over 80 Million Gun owners in the US, not 8 million.

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Just for the record, there are over 80 Million Gun owners in the US, not 8 million.

I accept that number I mis stated, So if you want you can yell at me for making a mistake, I'm used to it my wife yells at me all the time.

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

I think the types of gun laws we are enduring is just one of the many symptoms of federal, state and local governments running out of control. I think the best way to restore gun rights is to work to restore all rights. All of our serious constitutional problems have slowly been developing together. Unlawful search and seizures, gun restrictions, political speech suppression... We need to oppose those who engage in unlawful activity everywhere. I think all rights and liberties go together. You can't lose one without the others following. You can't restore one without the others following. There aren't any governments that manage to be mildly tyrannical.

I admire your thinking but until we can get the 70% of the American people out to vote, and take an active role in theGovernment we are whistling Dixie.

People will not participate in the task of holding the Government accountable simply because they think that they have to do whatever the Government tells them to do.

They have never been taught that the Government only has the power granted to it by the Governed.

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

Kelly J wrote:

I admire your thinking but until we can get the 70% of the American people out to vote, and take an active role in theGovernment we are whistling Dixie.

People will not participate in the task of holding the Government accountable simply because they think that they have to do whatever the Government tells them to do.

They have never been taught that the Government only has the power granted to it by the Governed.

I think one of the problems we are running into is that too many people are participating in government. The general population sees a problem and instead of fixing it they run to the government and demand their intervention. I wish that only people who were truely interested in the prosperity of this country participate in the political process. To be truely interested requires the study of law, economics, business and the canidates themselves. At Utah State University political science majors don't take any economics classes. I am content to let those who are not truely interested in doing the right thing to just get out of the way. I am more than happy to do more work that they can enjoy without the sacrifice. I don't encourage anyone to vote who can't sacrifice mometary personal gain for the wellbeing of all. I do agree with you that I wish at least 70% of the country cared enough to actually study and learn. It just makes me sad when people vote on what a canidate says he will do for them personally. That is why spending bills get so loaded down.

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

Kelly J wrote:

I admire your thinking but until we can get the 70% of the American people out to vote, and take an active role in theGovernment we are whistling Dixie.

People will not participate in the task of holding the Government accountable simply because they think that they have to do whatever the Government tells them to do.

They have never been taught that the Government only has the power granted to it by the Governed.

I think one of the problems we are running into is that too many people are participating in government. The general population sees a problem and instead of fixing it they run to the government and demand their intervention. I wish that only people who were truely interested in the prosperity of this country participate in the political process. To be truely interested requires the study of law, economics, business and the canidates themselves. At Utah State University political science majors don't take any economics classes. I am content to let those who are not truely interested in doing the right thing to just get out of the way. I am more than happy to do more work that they can enjoy without the sacrifice. I don't encourage anyone to vote who can't sacrifice mometary personal gain for the wellbeing of all. I do agree with you that I wish at least 70% of the country cared enough to actually study and learn. It just makes me sad when people vote on what a canidate says he will do for them personally. That is why spending bills get so loaded down.

I must most strenuously disagree with your statement, as it is necessary for every American Citizen to participate in the political process; it is not only a right to do so, it is a civic duty to do so. And the fact of the matter is there are not nearly enough people taking part in the Political Process today.

Granted that there are people that really do not understand the process, and the Candidates, or the issues as say an highly educated person would, but look at the Congress at the Highly educated people there, and then step back a realize the mess they have gotten us into, with this thought in mind I will take a person that displays good common since and, has a descent grasp of the subject over the over educated person that thinks a problem to death. I want someone that can think on their feet and use the strength of their convictions over those educated idiots.

When you look back into our history, the common people, that ratified our Constitution, didn’t do so bad, and the thing has stood for over 200 years, granted there has been a few problems, but to date most of them were worked out, maybe not in a perfect manor but then we are an imperfect people.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written in the Common language so that the common man could grasp the meaning and understand it, this was done by design, not by accident, there was a vast majority of the people that did not have the ability to read, but that didn’t mean they could not talk, and ask questions of others, so I would be the last person on this Earth, to say that; that person should not participate in the process of selecting our leaders or the acceptance, or rejection of those laws that affect our daily lives, and I’m sure that after you think about it you will agree.

I do understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your choice of words.

Respectfully!

 

[Kelly J]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

Kelly J wrote:

I admire your thinking but until we can get the 70% of the American people out to vote, and take an active role in theGovernment we are whistling Dixie.

People will not participate in the task of holding the Government accountable simply because they think that they have to do whatever the Government tells them to do.

They have never been taught that the Government only has the power granted to it by the Governed.

I think one of the problems we are running into is that too many people are participating in government. The general population sees a problem and instead of fixing it they run to the government and demand their intervention. I wish that only people who were truely interested in the prosperity of this country participate in the political process. To be truely interested requires the study of law, economics, business and the canidates themselves. At Utah State University political science majors don't take any economics classes. I am content to let those who are not truely interested in doing the right thing to just get out of the way. I am more than happy to do more work that they can enjoy without the sacrifice. I don't encourage anyone to vote who can't sacrifice mometary personal gain for the wellbeing of all. I do agree with you that I wish at least 70% of the country cared enough to actually study and learn. It just makes me sad when people vote on what a canidate says he will do for them personally. That is why spending bills get so loaded down.

I must most strenuously disagree with your statement, as it is necessary for every American Citizen to participate in the political process; it is not only a right to do so, it is a civic duty to do so. And the fact of the matter is there are not nearly enough people taking part in the Political Process today.

Granted that there are people that really do not understand the process, and the Candidates, or the issues as say an highly educated person would, but look at the Congress at the Highly educated people there, and then step back a realize the mess they have gotten us into, with this thought in mind I will take a person that displays good common since and, has a descent grasp of the subject over the over educated person that thinks a problem to death. I want someone that can think on their feet and use the strength of their convictions over those educated idiots.

When you look back into our history, the common people, that ratified our Constitution, didn’t do so bad, and the thing has stood for over 200 years, granted there has been a few problems, but to date most of them were worked out, maybe not in a perfect manor but then we are an imperfect people.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written in the Common language so that the common man could grasp the meaning and understand it, this was done by design, not by accident, there was a vast majority of the people that did not have the ability to read, but that didn’t mean they could not talk, and ask questions of others, so I would be the last person on this Earth, to say that; that person should not participate in the process of selecting our leaders or the acceptance, or rejection of those laws that affect our daily lives, and I’m sure that after you think about it you will agree.

I do understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your choice of words.

Respectfully!