Mike Irwin
Staff
Deleted, as I quoted myself. Not having a good day here.
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited October 23, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited October 23, 2000).]
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
George W. Gore?
- Thread starter glockten
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Mike Irwin
Staff
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Christopher II:
Mike, Mike, Mike...
YES, the Constitution DOES have to specifically mention something for it to come under government regulation!! That's the entire point of the Constitution, to describe in EXPLICIT detail the ONLY things that the government can do.
And the logic of "the government doesn't BAN drugs..." could just as easily be taken as to give the government the power to enact any gun control they like short of a total ban.
BTW, sorry about the yelling. I'm a bit excitable today. I need to go shooting...
Later,
Chris
[/quote]
Chris, I know where you're going, and while I generally support that direction, it is also incorrect in a practical and historic context.
To say that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY requires a product to be mentioned by name (Heroin and Morphine was unknown in the 1700s, Opiates were very rare, Cocaine may have been know, and hemp was used for rope) flies in the face of what the Framers of the Constitution wanted.
What the Federal Government did in expanding its powers, especially during the Civil War, also flew in the faces of the Framers to a large degree.
However, the Constitution itself INVITES this sort of regulatory reinterpretation.
Please read the sections that I have noted (I've corrected the section and clause citations).
Authority to control importation of products, including an exclusionary ban on them, is drived from the Article I.
This also extends to interstate commerce.
I would agree with you that many federal laws regarding the growth on private property of marijuana and poppies may well be unConstitutional, but to date not a single one that has been challenged up to the Supreme Court has been struck down.
Result? De facto Constitutional law and regulation.
As for the extension of "Ban" to enact gun control legislation.
1. It's already happening, and
2. There is no article in the Bill of Rights which begins "A well-toked Crack Head..."
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
Mike, Mike, Mike...
YES, the Constitution DOES have to specifically mention something for it to come under government regulation!! That's the entire point of the Constitution, to describe in EXPLICIT detail the ONLY things that the government can do.
And the logic of "the government doesn't BAN drugs..." could just as easily be taken as to give the government the power to enact any gun control they like short of a total ban.
BTW, sorry about the yelling. I'm a bit excitable today. I need to go shooting...
Later,
Chris
[/quote]
Chris, I know where you're going, and while I generally support that direction, it is also incorrect in a practical and historic context.
To say that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY requires a product to be mentioned by name (Heroin and Morphine was unknown in the 1700s, Opiates were very rare, Cocaine may have been know, and hemp was used for rope) flies in the face of what the Framers of the Constitution wanted.
What the Federal Government did in expanding its powers, especially during the Civil War, also flew in the faces of the Framers to a large degree.
However, the Constitution itself INVITES this sort of regulatory reinterpretation.
Please read the sections that I have noted (I've corrected the section and clause citations).
Authority to control importation of products, including an exclusionary ban on them, is drived from the Article I.
This also extends to interstate commerce.
I would agree with you that many federal laws regarding the growth on private property of marijuana and poppies may well be unConstitutional, but to date not a single one that has been challenged up to the Supreme Court has been struck down.
Result? De facto Constitutional law and regulation.
As for the extension of "Ban" to enact gun control legislation.
1. It's already happening, and
2. There is no article in the Bill of Rights which begins "A well-toked Crack Head..."
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
No minimum wage??? Okay, how many Libertarians are out there who have told their boss' that they'd rather work for 2.00 an hour as a matter of principal???? Get real.
Open the borders?? I won't even comment on that one.
Bush all the way!!!!
------------------
"Charlton Heston is my President"
Danny45
NRA, NAHC, Buckmasters
[This message has been edited by Danny45 (edited October 23, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Danny45 (edited October 23, 2000).]
Open the borders?? I won't even comment on that one.
Bush all the way!!!!
------------------
"Charlton Heston is my President"
Danny45
NRA, NAHC, Buckmasters
[This message has been edited by Danny45 (edited October 23, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Danny45 (edited October 23, 2000).]
The arguments by the advocates of third parties have convinced me to look closely at their candidates at the local, state and congressional levels. But, I'll be voting for Bush.
Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said many times before. If even a simple majority of the gun owners voted 100% RKBA, even Al Gore would campaign and govern our way. There would be _no_ way a candidate could dismiss us. But we have too much dissention and apathy in our ranks. So we get candidates who, at best, fudge the issue during campaigns. Seeing the NRA in action with the union workers in Michigan gives me a tiny bit of hope.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said many times before. If even a simple majority of the gun owners voted 100% RKBA, even Al Gore would campaign and govern our way. There would be _no_ way a candidate could dismiss us. But we have too much dissention and apathy in our ranks. So we get candidates who, at best, fudge the issue during campaigns. Seeing the NRA in action with the union workers in Michigan gives me a tiny bit of hope.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danny45:
No minimum wage??? Okay, how many Libertarians are out there who have told their boss' that they'd rather work for 2.00 an hour as a matter of principal???? Get real.
[/quote]
Did you ask the government what salary you should be paid? I sure didn't. I worked it out with my employer when I was hired. If someone doesn't want to work for less than a certain amount, then he won't take the job. I would rather work for $100 an hour, so I want a regulation that requires my employer to pay me $100/hour.
No minimum wage??? Okay, how many Libertarians are out there who have told their boss' that they'd rather work for 2.00 an hour as a matter of principal???? Get real.
[/quote]
Did you ask the government what salary you should be paid? I sure didn't. I worked it out with my employer when I was hired. If someone doesn't want to work for less than a certain amount, then he won't take the job. I would rather work for $100 an hour, so I want a regulation that requires my employer to pay me $100/hour.
Shooter 2.5
New member
I talked to a business owner about this a month ago and he stated that there was no way that he could hire anyone for minimum wage. What I object to is the combination of no minimum wage and open borders. You see, right now, no one is hiring, that I know of, at minimum wage except maybe entry level high school kids. We can't compete with immigrants coming into this country who share an apartment with 20 others. Are we going to compete with educated people who are willing to travel here, stay a year of 2, and then go back to a country like India, Pakistan, Russia or any number of countries that still produce electronics, medical, or aviation personnel? Check the companies that are putting the internet together and you will find workers that are on temporary visas, then multipy that by 100,000.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Shooter,
I don't know where you're at, but here in the DC Metro area we've got something of a worker crunch.
The result?
McDonald's & other fast food restaurants are hiring at starting rates of upwards $9 and hour. They have to, or else they would totally lose out to other industries that are also screaming for low to moderately experienced workers.
Consequentially, it's getting tougher and tougher to order a Big Mac around here without speaking either Spanish or an Oriental language.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
I don't know where you're at, but here in the DC Metro area we've got something of a worker crunch.
The result?
McDonald's & other fast food restaurants are hiring at starting rates of upwards $9 and hour. They have to, or else they would totally lose out to other industries that are also screaming for low to moderately experienced workers.
Consequentially, it's getting tougher and tougher to order a Big Mac around here without speaking either Spanish or an Oriental language.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
In my view the republic has taken 3 rounds to the center of mass-chest. First round was Clinton in '92. Second round was Clinton in '96. Third round was impeachment that failed. In three cases we missed the opportunity to minimize damage to the republic, but for whatever reason we passed. The situation is critical. We must stop the bleeding. In my view the republic is in triage where we must deal with survival. 4 years of GoreClinton will end it for us and our children.
I am not happy with Dubya in general and the Republican specifically. The cowardice Republicans displayed during impeachment is unforgiveable. Dubya is a way of stopping the bleeding and repair some of the major damage. Let's get that done then worry about other issues.
I'll vote republican on Nov 7 and then register libertarian on Nov 8.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
I am not happy with Dubya in general and the Republican specifically. The cowardice Republicans displayed during impeachment is unforgiveable. Dubya is a way of stopping the bleeding and repair some of the major damage. Let's get that done then worry about other issues.
I'll vote republican on Nov 7 and then register libertarian on Nov 8.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
116K.
Time for a part 2.
Closed.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
Time for a part 2.
Closed.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
- Status
- Not open for further replies.