National Reciprocity

[louiethelump]

Is that your Boy Scout flag you are running up there Uncle Lee??

   

   Aren't they usually marked BSA?

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   Idiots deserve a bit of BS from time to time.

[chopprs]

.......just exactly what is a "Liberal Gun Owner"?

   Is that like anything like a used douche?

   I mean, are you saying that you are on Welfare and love it and think we should have way higher taxes and we should all surrender our guns........that is everyone....but.......YOU?

   Gimme a break. Liberal Gun Owner. What dipzhit would even say that seriously?

[lohman446]

"Maybe some should investigate political asylum in another, better country if there are fears about this one. "

   

   I think this is the best country on earth.  I am concerned when the president and his entourage espouse a lack of pride and talk about changing it so much.  

   

   

   "Would we rather anarchy? Don't think so. "

   

   Under what terms?  This is what the liberals fail to understand.  Teaming up with the anarchists is teaming up with people who will demand independence on a personal level - without government handouts. As I consider myself one of the strong and able to care for myself I am not as afraid of anarchy as the liberals would like me to be.  I question why the liberals that cannot care for themselves embrance the anarchists.

[jestus]

Chopprs, et al,

   

   Are we lowering to personal attacks now, with name calling, etc.?

   "Used douche?" "Dipzhit?"

   What a nice discussion.

   

   FWIW, I have an open mind, of which I make liberal use. I have owned a gun since I was in my teens. I think everyone should know how to use one. That's one of the reasons I signed onto this board.

   

   I work hard for my meager existence and our house is full of love  and laughter and hot food on the table every night.  

   

   I do not get where you think you can lambast me because I think liberally. You obviously have a one track mind and cannot conceive that people can make choices with their brains and are not just one way/one-sided thinkers.  

   

   I work alongside folks who, like you, have limited scope in their thinking. Don't believe that you can bully me with your diatribes. (If you own a dictionary you might have to look that one up.)

   

   Now if you have something constructive to say, fine. But save your name calling and cowardly personal attacks for some other venue, like your schoolyard.

   

   As for other points made here, I can understand fears of losing basic tenets of the Constitution. But do recall that the Founding Fathers did not originally want a democracy, because they didn't think the common populace was intelligent enough to vote on matters of national importance. They (Founding Fathers, such a paternal, fostering term) were from aristocracy and that's why we have a Republic and not a true democracy. (So, why aren't we fighting for "republics" around the world or are we selling folks a snow job there, too?) Our government has always been run by folks looking after us peons. We, who are too ignorant to make thoughtful decisions. Well, listening to some contributors on this board, they may still be right.

   

   BTW, all guns were registered during the Revolutionary War. (Look it up)

   

   Higher taxes? Our income taxes are at the lowest they've been since the inception of income tax. In the "heyday" of America, those "Fabulous Fifties" when we were King of the Hill after WWII, the middle class was paying a 50% tax rate and millionaires were paying 90% (look it up).

   

   Since then, tax rates (government income) have gradually decreased. But the expenses we created (the highway system, for instance, that allows your NAA revolver to get from Utah to Podunk) still need money to run and maintain. That's darn ole' society for ya'. We want stuff but bellyache about paying for it.

   

   Want corporations to start taking over? A government is not a corporation and a corporation is not a person. At least with government we can vote. Not so with a corporation. Who do you complain to if the tolls on a privately owned highway go up? Who will listen?

   

   Do we really want to return to frontier times? How romantic. Which candidate is really Daniel Boone?

[Uncle_Lee]

Why not Daniel Boone?

   We already have Alfalfa.

[lohman446]

"Since then, tax rates (government income) have gradually decreased. But the expenses we created (the highway system, for instance, that allows your NAA revolver to get from Utah to Podunk) still need money to run and maintain. That's darn ole' society for ya'. We want stuff but bellyache about paying for it."

   

   Let me make sure I understand something.

   

   You are making the argument that tax rate decreases must lead to decreased government income am I correct?  

   

   Its an interesting argument and ignores the concept of the Laffer curve and a tremendous amount of historical data that supports it.  As long as we are not discussing a decrease to 0 a decrease in tax rates has not been proven to correlate to a decrease in government revenue.  

   

   Your statement that government revenue is down since the 50's is ignorant of fact.  In 2011 goverment revenue (in billions of dollars) was 2303.5.  In 1950 it was 43.5 (you picked the 50's) and 1960 99.8.

   

   You are arguing off a false premise.  The premise is that government revenue has gone down since the 50's.  Actually government revenue has gone up.  Since the entirety of your argument is based on a false premise we can basically disregard it unless you find factual premises to support it.  

   

   http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_1960USbn_13bs1n#usgs302">http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_1960USbn_13bs1n#usgs302

   

[bud]

Another vote for Obama!

   

[louiethelump]

Income taxes started at a flat 1%.  Look it up.

   

   As a typical liberal you presume you are the smartest person in the room, when in fact you are a fool.

   

   "All guns were registered during the Revolution."  This is also a lie.  Guns were hand made and not ser numbered and could not be registered.  They did an inventory of weapons held by the militia so they would know their fighting strength.  

   

   Income taxes did not start in the 1950's.  look it up.

   

   The Christian Crusades were not to force religion, but to take back the Holy land from the invading Muslims who had taken it and put all Christians to the sword.  Look it up.  They are still at that today.  Look it up.

   

   The Christian world stopped doing that sort of thing 500+ years ago.  The Muslim world is still at it.  Look it up.

   You are a fool jestus, and referred to by regimes such as Obama's, as "useful idiots" along with the  "occupy" people.  You and your ilk will be slaughtered without mercy when they are through with you just as they were on the "night of the long knives" by Hitler.  LOOK IT UP!

     

   You are worthy of no more of my time.

[chopprs]

....it is the like mindset that got us where we are!

   .........AND GREECE WHERE THEY ARE!!!!!!!

[jestus]

Lohman446,

   

   The population of the U.S. has nearly doubled since 1955 from 165,931,202 to the 2010 census count of 308,745,538 and the Social Security mean wage index has grown from $3,301.44 in 1955 to $41,673.83 in 2010.

   

   Income tax rates have decreased but incomes and population have not. That would explain your revenue numbers. Yes revenue has gone up, but not as much as it could have if we were paying even the same rates we were paying in the '80's. Our GNP for the four quarters of 1955 ranged from 0.40 - 0.43. In 2011 our GNP was 15.26 -15.55.

   

   We don't live in a static situation and our rate of taxation relative to the wage index has decreased. Any wonder why the government is in debt?  It is not due to the current administration alone as you tend to believe but years of big money paying less and less of their share, and more and more of the middle class shouldering the load. And now the middle class is broken and we're all angry about it. Not just you.

[dracothered]

Here is something to think about if you are an Obumer supporter...

   

   (CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.

   

   That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

[lohman446]

Jestus,

   

   You are being intelligently stupid if you honestly think that I believe the entire current national debt is due to Obama.

   

   You have ignored the concept of the Laffer curve.  

   

   The "big money" that you refer to.  How much is their fair share?  Out of every dollar they make how much should they be allowed to keep?  I hear "they don't pay their fair share" and I need to ask what their fair share is exactly?  

   

   What is the fair share of every citizen who takes part in this democracy?  Let us say we accept that the progressive tax system (where tax rates rise as income rises) is acceptable.  What should the tax rates be at all brackets?  Should there be a 0% bracket?  Should there be, as some of my friends get, a less than 0% bracket?

   

   Your real enemy is the rampant inflation that has occured since the 1950s.  Look at this chart and consider consumer prices were nearly stable through the 1950's and then make a sudden curve http://whatisthatwhistlingsound.blogspot.com/2010/12/monetary-policy-as-tool-for-evil.html">http://whatisthatwhistlingsound.blogspot.com/2010/12/monetary-policy-as-tool-for-evil.html.  This is partially the cause of the suffering of the middle class.  The other cause is an entitlement problem in the middle class.  I am lower middle class (under 50K a year).  I assure you I am living a far more material lifestyle than my grandparents (who were upper middle class +) did.  Despite the doom and gloom outlook of the middle class our problems are not material they are fiscal problems brought on by our own habits

   

   The fiscal problems in America are not just "those mean rich people".  I don't know what we should tax the rich at exactly for them to be paying their fair share.  I do know that with somewhere around 40-50% of Americans paying no federal income tax that there are plenty of people not paying their fair share as I am certain 0% is not a fair share as we cry to shift the burden to other people.

[lohman446]

Obama has given trillions of dollars to the wealthiest of the wealthiest with no strings attached.  He has effectively paid those "evil rich peoples" bonuses with tax money.  He is hosting $40,000 a plate dinners.  Tell me again how much he is for those who are not rich?  He has failed to curb rising gas prices.  He has added trillions to the debt (not his alone).

   

   What bothers me is that some people honestly think Obama is about something different than other politicians.  He is not.  He has catered to the people who can do him the most good and have the most money.  Yet he is supposed to be for the rest of us?  Lets be serious and judge the man by his actions.

[chopprs]

Obama was elected on the premise that he would do exactly the opposite of what he has done. He vowed to lower the debt and he has raised it exponentially. He vowed to be transpaerent and he is the most sneaky and behind closed doors President in my life time and perhaps ever. Literally every single promise that he made was not only a lie but has gone so far the other way as to leave unexplainable how the American people as a whole could have been so blind and gotten so screwed!

   ......yet there are bucket loads of those that say he is great and has kept all of his promises, simply dumbfounding!

[ArmedPatriot]

"......yet there are bucket loads of those that say he is great and has kept all of his promises, simply dumbfounding!"

   ========================================================

   Willful ignorance is the most disgusting human trait short of being a criminal.

[ArmedPatriot]

"The fiscal problems in America are not just "those mean rich people". I don't know what we should tax the rich at exactly for them to be paying their fair share. I do know that with somewhere around 40-50% of Americans paying no federal income tax that there are plenty of people not paying their fair share as I am certain 0% is not a fair share as we cry to shift the burden to other people."

   =====================================================

   

   One huge problem with our economy is these tax credits whereby a family can not pay a single dime in taxes, but because they cant quit having kids they cant afford they end up getting upwards of $5000 back at refund time.

   

   $5000 x the number of families who get it is a huge ••• amount of money.

   

   For the last 6 years or so I have figured our taxes and we were supposed to get what we paid in back in refund.

   EVERY single year of those the IRS has REfigured our taxes and sent us back WAY more than we paid in. In one case it was FIVE times the amount I had figured.

   Its not free money, although some people seem to think it is. Its TAX PAYER money that should be being used for something other than going on a big screen TV for a family who wouldnt otherwise be able to afford one.

   

   The numbers I saw were staggering concerning these 'credits' and how much gets paid out each year to pay them. It wouldnt balance the budget to stop paying these ridiculous tax credit refunds out, but it sure as •••• would be a good place to start.

[chopprs]

1) Everyone on Welfare should have to take a drug test once a month to get their check. This would likely eliminate half of the scumbags collecting and spending the money on drugs while they pay no taxes!

   

   2) If we put half of the unemployed back to work instead of collecting Unemployment then they could pay taxes. This sure would help!

   

   3) Close the borders and got rid of all of the illegals we then would have a MASS surplus of money as they would not be in our schools and Hospitals and on Welfare costing us money!

   

   These three things would solve all of the fiscal issues of this country. It really is simple....

[RogueTS1]

Do not forget that when a business is taxed the cost gets passed onto the consumer driving prices up. So by taxing the so called greedy drastically more one drives the consumer prices that all pay for a product up. This has a much bigger effect on those making less money than on those making more.

   

   A tax no matter where it is placed always affects everybody else economically. Place it higher up and the cost gets passed down the ladder and everybody makes less money. Place it lower down the ladder and consumers have less money to spend on wants or needs and once again everybody makes less money.

   

   The moral of the story is; taxes are a necessary evil but they must be managed and kept low. Out of control taxation anywhere on the ladder leads to a breakdown in our economic society.

[chopprs]

.......actually, if you look a little farther down the road a World Economy is what is desired by the Left. This is where they tried to go with the Carbon Tax. They WANT everything to get expensive so they can introduce a new currency, a World Currency. It really is the same old delusional, "Control The World" scenario. The scary part is that it is true!

[jestus]

Lohman,

   

   No offense intended, as I am sure you intend me none. I hear a lot of folks blame Obama for stuff that has really occurred over the past 50 -60 years, sorry to have alluded your membership in that club.

   

   Yes, inflation, agreed (as I tried to indicate with the mean wage index). Consumerism is a big portion of our problem, an ever expanding economy is "impossible" to accomodate.  We have many more possessions than our forbearers. I too have fallen prey to this over the years and I wonder, as my interests, abilities and income changes (or not), what 'good" these "things" are. I think it's a matter of maturation that brings us to a level of knowing what is truly important in life. We, hopefully, all realize this at some point or other.

   

   As to where it's all going?  Entropy. Resistance is futile )

   

   Might as well take George Carlin's advice. Enjoy your life. Mother nature will make the final decision, though it may not be to our benefit.

[Uncle_Lee]

"1) Everyone on Welfare should have to take a drug test once a month to get their check. This would likely eliminate half of the scumbags collecting and spending the money on drugs while they pay no taxes!"

   

   This has been tried.  

   It is not legal.

   It is a violation of their Constitutional rights.  

   

   The only persons not protected by the Constitution is the ones that work and pay the taxes that support the rest.

   

   

   

[chopprs]

Georgia is and has been doing it for over a year now! (I think it is Georgia, one of those Reb states anyway...)

[RogueTS1]

They should just make it voluntary. You do not have to take a drug test. You only have to take the test if you want to be on the program.

   

   I think the easier and much more economical thing to do is what I call the "2 Balogna Sandwich Program." Very economical, no drug testing, nobody starves to death and best of all the taxpayer keeps most of his money.

[lohman446]

I have major problems with the social welfare system as it is set up now and I think it needs to be addressed.  The fact that the people I know who receive food stamps buy better cuts of meat than I do bothers me.  That is another story though

   

   I think that those of us who think we have it hard need to step back and look around.    

   

   I can walk into the grocery store and buy basically anything I want.  Feeding my family on my income is almost a given and having more than enough on the table to go around is no problem.  My grandparents farmed and canned and preserved to be able to do this.  

   

   When I want to go out to dinner I can.  Basically whenever I want.  My grandparents probably not.  

   

   I work about a 9-10 hour work day.  My grandparents likely had 8 in before lunch.  

   

   I have two cars in my driveway, a motorcycle in the garage, electricity that is always on and affordable, too many tv channels to count, access to information via the web at a touch of the button, access to products delivered to my house.  Heat that is reliable and affordable enough it stays on (some of you older people who lived up north will recall your water freezing in the glass next to your bed overnight).  

   

   For all the "OMG look how bad it is" we have it, materially, pretty darn good.

[RogueTS1]

I agree but if we look at what the Governments are taking percentage wise and where that money is going everybody should have a big beef. I, no matter how much I have, do not work so others can benefit from it. I think it fair that I should have the choice to choose when I have enough to be happy with and then can plan my lifestyle accordingly with more or less work to do so. I do not think it fair that I have to work more to keep what I have so another who does not or even can not can live closer to my lifestyle.

   

   Now that is talking about the fairness in relation to those that can still have basically what they want. Let us consider the working stiff who works hard all week just to make ends meet. When you add them to the equation and the welfare shopper is looked at; this working man and his lifestyle are leap frogged and the welfare person is now living better than the working man without putting an ounce of effort into it. That is just wrong no matter how you look at it. He tries and gets nowhere while the lacky does not try and is rewarded.

   

   I believe this to be a fair summary of what drives most of us crazy. Remember "charity" is a voluntary thing; "welfare" is done at the muzzle of a gun.

[lohman446]

I understand what you are saying Rogue and I think that is one of the hardest points of the debate.

   

   What is a reasonable tax rate?

   

   Let's step away from the idea of a flat tax and assume a progressive tax rate (where you pay a higher percentage the more you make) is acceptable.  What is the lowest reasonable tax rate?  What is the highest?  

   

   The problem we run into is many of those who are accused of "not paying their fair share" are paying over 50% of their income in taxes by the time you add up the taxes they are paying.  I just want to know what the max reasonable tax rate is to other people.

   

   I don't know where the bottom is.  Let us say 1%.  The top I would argue is less than 50%.  I would also argue that any future changes should involve "across the board" so that we can force our politicians to stop playing bread and circus politics.

[lohman446]

A government, through its very existence, owes some duty to its citizens.  The exact boundaries of those duties are up for debate.  IMO some form of a welfare system falls within those duties though our current form has gotten out of hand.

[redhawk4]

In the UK in the 70's there was a 90% income tax band, which I know my Dad fell into at one point and so put some money in to pensions to avoid - kind of a no brainer, would you like to keep 10% of your money or put 100% into a pension. I'm not sure what the level was exactly, but it couldn't have been that high, while my Dad earned decent money, he was certainly not some tycoon in the city or a movie star/pop star.

   

   Of course now they have a 19% sales tax and are still broke - the price of socialism

   

   Creating a fair tax system is indeed a complex issue and certainly not something you will ever likely get all those who pay taxes to agree is fair.

   

   What is happening with the national reciprocity thing? - I've not heard anything lately

[bud]

As of April 17th 2012:

   

   

   Dianne Feinstein

   

   WASHINGTON -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits.

   

   Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a "race to the bottom" in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.

   

   "Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers," Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

   

   "In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states."

   

   In putting a hold on both bills, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," and the "Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," Feinstein is denying them the easiest avenue of passage: unanimous consent.

   

   The hold does not eliminate the possibility of passing the bills through regular order, with 60-vote requirements to start and end debate. But it's unclear whether enough support actually exists in the Senate. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), for instance, has said he would oppose the first bill, which cleared the House of Representatives in November with 43 Democrats supporting it and only seven Republicans voting against it.

   

   If, in fact, both bills stall in the Senate, it would constitute a rare defeat for the gun rights lobby, which has had a series of legislative wins on both the state and federal level. And for that, Feinstein's hold gave fellow gun control advocates a rare reason to gloat.

   

   "We hear regularly that senators of both parties are getting tired of being ordered around by the gun lobby, and forced reciprocity is exhibit a," emailed Mark Glaze, the director of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "It has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with replacing individual state decisions about public safety with the NRA leadership's wish list."

[redhawk4]

Thanks Bud, if I had had to guess on who might be involved in holding this up, Dianne Feinstein would have been in my top 10 LOL.

   

   My guess is there are many in Washington who would have an issue with this bill and would be happy if it were held up until after the upcoming election because their opinions differ too greatly with the majority of those who elected them.

[jestus]

Louiethelump,

   

   Yes, I did speak in error regarding the current tax rate as being the lowest since inception. U.S. Income Tax chart for your perusal (adjusted for inflation):

   http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets">http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

   

   However, tax rates were not at 1% flat rate, as you state. For the first 20 years rates remained fairly stable but in 1941 the rates skyrocketed and the brackets were changed.

   

   Louie, you are out of line casting me as a know-it-all and by  judging all liberals as the same. Should I be judge of you in the same manner? You set the table, sir.

   

   I am certainly willing to learn and research material. As for the Crusades, it was still a holy war. And Holy and War don't really jive in my book. Zealots are zealots no matter whose holy book they wave towards heaven. As for the "the Christian world stopped doing that 500 years ago." tell that to the Native Americans who were slaughtered in the path of a Christian nation.

   

   Go ahead pull the high and mighty card and cast me off. Just proves you must be the true know-it-all on the board. At least I'm open minded and open to opposing views and corrections when due.

[jestus]

National reciprocity does have it's "issues". Certainly allowing someone involved in domestic abuse any access to firearms is a dangerous move (ref. Florida case). As any cop will tell you, domestic violence cases are the most dangerous scenarios (and all too common).  

   

   Certainly some plain language and common minimal standards can be set in place to allow interstate concealed carry, just as there are with driving licenses. And, though no one really needs to be reminded,...  cars kill more people each year than guns, yet guns save more lives or prevent more crime than any car will (save for emergency responders). Common minimal standards...But is this possible?  

   

   "Politics" aside, the Constitutional rights need to be interpreted for the society we have become. We are no longer a small nation of ~2.5 million as we were in 1776. We are now over 300 million with all the layers of complexity that entails. Who do we want to be as a nation and individuals? If we are a nation of individuals what do we see in the mirror each morning? Do we want some hostile, emotionally unstable person judged legal to carry in Florida (not referencing Zimmerman) to carry into "our" state, where domestic violence charges limit gun carry for our family's safety? ( There's a good argument for a standard set of minimum values.)

   

   BTW, I mentioned earlier about arms registration in the Revolutionary War. No, there were no serial numbers, but if you owned a gun your name was registered (by the Colonials) and your affiliation was noted (for or against the British). Gee, I wonder whose guns were marked for confiscation?

   

   Jeffrey Snyder in his "Gun Rights" column in "American Handgunner" magazine (Nov/Dec 1996) explained the two basic differences in crimes as noted in English common law.  (Quote) "...crimes that were "malum in se", or morally wrong in themselves, like rape, murder or robbery, and crimes that were "malum prohibitum",  wrong because prohibited by a legislative pronouncement."

   

   What happens in a man's pursuit of a safe society for all, is that "malum prohibitum" restricts the law-abiding in order to protect from the outlaw. We are then ruled, not on our morals, but on the lack of morals of a few. A true social quandary. But Jeff was a little too basic in his original argument. We cannot trust an untrustworthy person to NOT buy a gun. We cannot trust an emotionally unstable person to NOT buy a gun. If we follow that we all have a "right" to bear arms, then we have just afforded a common right to an "uncommon" person. Do you see how complex this gets? What is "uncommon"?  What is "normal"? Do we truly want that known nutcase next door to own a gun?

   

   If we afford the right to own and carry to all citizens, does that not put everyone in jeopardy of a few? Then the only law abiding would be that of  "malum in se" or "after the fact". When we look down at a shot child, then we can say, "a law has been broken, he shall hang". A lot of good that did the child and the future of the good family's gene pool.

   

   Is that the basic tenet of this argument of the Second Amendment? That any citizen shall have the right to bear a gun without respect to his/her moral standing or historical record? By following that tenet, you have just empowered the lawless. Where does "upping the ante" stop? Machine guns?, missiles?  

   

   At some point, some level of common sense has to pervade in a society of men (and women). Society is the ability of a group of people to lead reasonably safe, hopefully, productive lives. The society, like a herd, if you will, is supposed to protect itself for the sake of continuation, if nothing else.

   

   And therein may lie the answer, "common man". A convict is not a common man. He has broken the commonality. An insane man is not a common man. These folks are exceptional. Each an individual among individuals.

   

   Now multiply that by 300 million. )

   

   No, I don't have an answer. How could anyone? The tenets of the Constitution were written for simpler times. Could they have imagined the current population, economy, industry, technology, science, communication and with that, the concurrent expansion of man's talents and evils? Man has expanded his world and his possibilities, both good and bad. Are we "too big to fail".

   

   Good Gawd! I think I'll stop writing now  (you are welcome ) and go get a beer.  BTW, a driver's license is a "privilege" not a "right", yet it is honored in all 50 states. Does that help us any in this discussion?  I need an antacid...

[lohman446]

Laws and Constitutional authority prevents the right of the few from being trampled by the will of the many.  

   

   I know it sounds like a sound bite but its a single premise that is stated as such.  You seem willing to reject it as a valid premise.  Once it is rejected you move to a system where laws are built on a utilitarian logic where the needs of the many and of society are more valuable than the autonomy of individuals.  Moral autonomy is tossed out the window along with the theory of legal autonomy.  

   

   Having looked at where utilitarian society leads, even with the best of intentions, you will have to forgive me if I argue that utilitiarian logic must be applied sparingly and with utmost care

[jestus]

Lohman,

   

   I will consider your post but do not have time at present to respond (it's my lunch hour).

   

   Just a quick thought.. so, then, why do states laws trump the 2nd Amendment and, why, then, are several on this board upset that some fed. law wants to make it possible to better exercise the 2nd Amendment by National Reciprocity? There are a lot of conflicting views represented here, unless you throw out all the laws since The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Is that the point? And I thought a democracy was run by the majority (the will of the many)? Lots of innuendo and shades of definitions running around here. Does anyone have a plan? Or is this a colloquial "free for all" cluster f---?

[bud]

Jestus,

   

   Where do you work that allows you to spend all this time on the computer?

   

   You must be in the union!