P.S.: you really should answer the guy’s questions; if you don’t, you look like you’re avoiding something.

reading is fun-duh-mental here DW.

Was it the

Love it or leave it? No, you can stay here even if you don’t love it. If you open your piehole, expect a response.

I didn’t answer?

Maybe it was this question

Our servicemen are dying to spread democracy in the Middle East and we don’t even have it here?

That you missed my answer of?

And to answer your question, no, Iraq should want better than that.

Or did you want me to answer the silly question of Republican = Republic vs Democrat = Democracy?

So, whose history teacher needs talking too?

Somebody’s history teachers are certainly due for a talking-to, UdderchaOs, but it’s not the person you’re suggesting.

Are you going to step up and say we were founded as a democracy?

Maybe an English teacher needs to be spoken to as well. Questions are usually followed with a question mark –> ?

As for hating America.. no, I love her with all my heart. I won’t bore you with the details. My story is not unlike millions of others.

As for our form of government, it has been taken over by a political class, left wing radicals, marxists, left over communists, judges ruling from the bench, unenforced borders, indoctrinated yoots and various other special intersest groups that feel they are somehow special and want entitlements from others. I’m sure I missed a few in there but I hope you get the point.

Care for some tea?

ps. it makes a bit more sense to put my statement in context. : “I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said. They have all diverged from what this country was founded on, mostly for political gain.“

What is the substantive basis for all this irresponsible rhetoric about tyranny and revolution? Because you don’t always get your way in a democracy? The definition of an “activist judge” seems to be “a judge who makes a decision I disagree with.” Your definition of “legislating from the bench” seems to be “making decisions I disagree with.” It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It has been so since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

vs.

I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said.

One guy refers to Supreme Court precedent. The other guy stamps his foot and metaphorically shrills, “You’re all wrong! I hate you! I hate you!”

Somebody’s history teachers are certainly due for a talking-to, UdderchaOs, but it’s not the person you’re suggesting.

Also: up above you gave the old heave-ho to all three branches of government, saying that you don’t care what they have to say on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you hate our form of government? Why do you hate America?

P.S.: you really should answer the guy’s questions; if you don’t, you look like you’re avoiding something.

Are you about individual freedoms or the most amount of good for the most amount of people? If the government wants to build a road across my land becasue it benefits the majority, should they be allowed to confiscate my land?

Love it or leave it? No, you can stay here even if you don’t love it. If you open your piehole, expect a response.

I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said. They have all diverged from what this country was founded on, mostly for political gain. We have what we have to work with. Are you going to try and tell me that the United States of America was not founded as a constitutionally controlled Republic? If you do, I want to speak with your history teachers. Do you know the difference between the two?

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the socialism inherent in Democracy. And to answer your question, no, Iraq should want better than that.

America love it, or leave it. I’ve heard that before, but nobody has ever told me to take my democracy and leave. Take it wherever I want? How about Iraq? It’s good enough for them, but not for us? Our servicemen are dying to spread democracy in the Middle East and we don’t even have it here? By the way, this is my country, I’m not going anywhere.

Oh, I get it, democracy (Democrat), republic (Republican)? Now there’s some cheapjack partisan semantics for you.

I guess the President didn’t get your memo, Udder. You need to speak to him:

“Our common ideal of social justice begins with self-government. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship — based on shared principles, and shared responsibilities, and respect for all.

For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy. ”

President Bush Discusses Democracy in the Western Hemisphere
Blue Tree Park Hotel
Brasilia, Brazil
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051106-3.html

Aye Chi,
Give me an example of a recent Supreme Court decision that took an affirmative right away from you The Heller decision affirmed a right. And interestingly, it took 219 years and how many Supreme Court justices to affirm that right. If it was so self-evident, why did it take so long to affirm it? Even given that gun control legislation is a recent phenomenon, were all the those Courts since then sitting on their hands?

What is the substantive basis for all this irresponsible rhetoric about tyranny and revolution? Because you don’t always get your way in a democracy? The definition of an “activist judge” seems to be “a judge who makes a decision I disagree with.” Your definition of “legislating from the bench” seems to be “making decisions I disagree with.” It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It has been so since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Saying what the Constitution means is not a recent usurpation on the part of Marxist judges. BTW, one of the Marxist judges in the Heller minority was appointed by Gerald Ford, another was appointed by George H.W. Bush. And that Marxist Justice Kennedy was appointed by his fellow Marxist Ronald Reagan. Pardon the blasphemy.

You are quite correct.

The Left in this country uses the courtroom to accomplish what they could never get done through the ballot box or through legislation.

The Courts in the country, especially SCOTUS, are legislating from the bench.

They are making it up as they go along and they’re dragging us right along with them.

You write that the belief that one more Obama leftist on the court would mean an end to the 2nd amendment must be either ignorance, a lie or hyperbole. And you then include the proper method of amending the constitution. Evidently you don’t understand that the 4 Marxist justices on the court are not interested in the constitution, its language or the proper method of its amending. Their vote, had Kennedy joined them, would have effectively done away with the 2nd amendment. This is what the poster indicated, and quite rightly so. The 4 are interested only in what they believe the document should say, not in what it does say. I should think that this fact is self-evident. They would have “amended” our right to keep and bear arms right out of existence…the “proper method” be damned! Had the vote tragically gone the wrong way, I assume you would have suggested that they “just can’t DO that.” And I’m certain you would have been very sincere. Wrong. Screwed right along with the rest of the American people. Minus our most vitally important right. But undoubtedly, very sincere. Wake up. The left has no interest in proper procedure. They are interested only in the destruction of this nation and in the death of our liberties and rights.

With nearly 50% of America voting for the Demonkrats, I would say, “apparently they would seem to be.” HOWEVER, if many (hopefully most) of them had sufficiently accurate information they wouldn’t dream of voting for the Leftists. The real problem isn’t Americans, it’s the socialist leftist elitists who’s ideology dominates the MSM without whom the Fascists wouldn’t stand a chance. Thank G-d for Conservative blogers!

In a democracy

We were a constitutionally controlled republic. You can take your Democracy and carry it wherever you want.

The people exercise that power at the polls, not at the point of the gun.

You should read more Founding Fathers.

The polls are the first course of action and are, of course, always preferable, but other options must remain on the table as well.

But you did talk about having to use guns against the government.

No, not against the government, but against those who would disregard the Constitution and take away our rights in the process.

The power belongs to the People, not to the Gov’t, and the members of the Gov’t should be ever mindful of that.

And just as a practical matter, if, God forbid, the government did turn on us and the black helicopters took to the air armed with Hellfire missiles, do you really think you could stop them armed with a handgun or a deer rifle? Whatever the merits of originalism as a legal doctrine, haven’t advances in military technology mooted the practical import of much of what you quoted.

You may be correct.

I am sure that it would not be easy for the common citizen if it got to that point, but determination is a factor not to be underestimated.

To the left of you, yes. Rabid, no not really. In fact, I would argue I’m one of the less rabid posters on this blog. I rarely if ever growl or foam at the mouth (Oops, Aye Chi, bodily fluid reference there). The guy in the story, no, can’t say I am. But I’m sure if he started blogging here, he would add something to the discussion.

Aye Chi,

Good use of quotations, seriously. But you did talk about having to use guns against the government. And just as a practical matter, if, God forbid, the government did turn on us and the black helicopters took to the air armed with Hellfire missiles, do you really think you could stop them armed with a handgun or a deer rifle? Whatever the merits of originalism as a legal doctrine, haven’t advances in military technology mooted the practical import of much of what you quoted? In 1789, the playing field was pretty even all around. Everybody had muskets for hunting and war. A cannon was a weapon of mass destruction.

By the way, that last quote was a favorite of Timothy McVeigh.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3341

1. Marxism is an economic system
2. The orginal post was about gun laws and our constitution, which have nothing to do with economic systems