Republican Debate on CNN from Florida

Phrost said:
I'm arguing for a smaller federal government like the one intended by the founders of the country. If an individual State wants to have a bloated government, so be it. I can then move to one that doesn't.
Click to expand...

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?
Click to expand...

Are you being facetious about the Second Amendment being moronic, or do you not get the concept that it's a check against the likely threat of a government turning to tyranny by disarming the population?
 
Phrost said:
I'm arguing for a smaller federal government like the one intended by the founders of the country. If an individual State wants to have a bloated government, so be it. I can then move to one that doesn't.
Click to expand...

You mean the one where senators weren't elected and the States were free to take away as many rights as they pleased?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Maybe he'll do a Unity ticket while still keeping the Republican label.
Click to expand...

That is sort of hard to do when the GOP has an official candidate.
Frankly, Paul would have been smart to not bring up the topicor dodge the question.. Now if he does decide to go independent, he will be backtracking and his opponents can make hay out of that.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?
Click to expand...


Why are you so violently against Private Gun Ownership,guy?
 
Phrost said:
Are you being facetious about the Second Amendment being moronic, or do you not get the concept that it's a check against the likely threat of a government turning to tyranny by disarming the population?
Click to expand...

Er, I'm for gun rights, but that's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is spelled out right in the text: A well-regulated militia.

The point was not to cow a possibly tyrannical federal government in the face of possible armed uprising. The point was that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the country having a large, full-time, professional military, but rather having a small professional force and a much larger militia composed of the citizenry to be called up as-needed, as was the situation when the document was written.
 
Cleon said:
Er, I'm for gun rights, but that's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is spelled out right in the text: A well-regulated militia.
Click to expand...
Another proponent of interpreting "the people" to mean only members of an organized militia. If you really want to take that route be prepared for the 1st, 4th, 9th, etc. Amendments to be interpreted in that way.


eta: I feel dirty posting in a MaGZ thread.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Another proponent of interpreting "the people" to mean only members of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

No, not at all, as you'd know if you took the time to read my post beyond the second sentence. The intent (as was, again, the situation at the time), was that the militia would be composed of "the people."
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
No, not at all, as you'd know if you took the time to read my post beyond jerking your knee at the second sentence. The intent (as was, again, the situation at the time), was that the militia would be composed of "the people."
Click to expand...
Then why the comma? Why not use "the militia" instead? Why use a meaning "the people" different than in any other part of the Constitution? The words were not chosen accidentally, and defense of the country was well-taken care of in the Articles.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Then why the comma? Why not use "the militia" instead?
Click to expand...

Er, because they didn't want the right to bear arms to be limited to an organized military body, such as a professional military. A "militia," in this sense, is an ad-hoc military force comprised of the people. In times of war, the government calls up the militia, and anyone who wants to volunteer shows up with their gun and says "here I am, let's go fight for God and country."

That was the purpose of securing the right to bear arms for the people. So that in times of war, the people could take their guns and defend "the security of a free state."

:bwall
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Er, because they didn't want the right to bear arms to be limited to an organized military body, such as a professional military. A "militia," in this sense, is an ad-hoc military force comprised of the people. In times of war, the government calls up the militia, and anyone who wants to volunteer shows up with their gun and says "here I am, let's go fight for God and country."

That was the purpose of securing the right to bear arms for the people. So that in times of war, the people could take their guns and defend "the security of a free state."

:bwall
Click to expand...
Bang you head all you want, but that makes no sense to me. "Militia" has one meaning that according to Websters is "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service". So why use "the people" instead of "the militia"? Call me crazy, but IMHO "the people" means "the people" wherever it may arise in the Constitution.
 
WildCat said:
Bang you head all you want, but that makes no sense to me. "Militia" has one meaning that according to Websters is "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service".
Click to expand...

Essentially correct, but IMO Wikipedia has a better definition:

  • The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
Click to expand...

Questions of legal responsibility (to say nothing of gender) are secondary to the overall concept of "militia" in this sense. It is not a full-time, professional military force, like the US Army. It is an abstract body composed of the people, designed to be convened to fight as necessary.

Switzerland, for example, has no standing army. It does have a militia, an armed populace, that should the need arise will be called for duty to defend the country. The idea here was somewhat different; there was a standing army, but it was very small. The bulk of the military force was comprised of the militia--a defense network consisting of an armed population ("the people").

So why use "the people" instead of "the militia"? Call me crazy, but IMHO "the people" means "the people" wherever it may arise in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
*sigh* At no point have I disagreed with that. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. So I repeat:

:bwall
 
Last edited:
We'll hear from the SCOTUS next summer at any rate. Hopefully they won't dodge.
 
The militia at the time was "the minutemen". Everyday people who would grab their own guns and come out and fight when called to arms. The people.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?
Click to expand...

I assume by "state", you mean national? I live in a state that has affordable "state" health insurance with some federal funds mixed in (I'm not an expert on it), but it is run by the state. I like our state government. Good state governments can be good role models for other states.

You live in London. What do you you think of programs legislated for you to pay for with your taxes, or laws to abide by that make no sense for someone in London because Spain and Germany like things a little different (it could be any other country)? Are you ok with the EU becoming just one country with no identity for each country?
 
Ron Paul should have made the point that he wants to abolish the IRS
since he's advocating this since decades.

Instead Huckabee declared that he wants to abolish it and was hyped
for this remark while Ron is a Nut to say the same thing... :boggled: :rolleyes:

You gotta love the term "Fair and Balanced".
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Ron Paul should have made the point that he wants to abolish the IRS
since he's advocating this since decades.

Instead Huckabee declared that he wants to abolish it and was hyped
for this remark while Ron is a Nut to say the same thing... :boggled: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Huckabee supports the "FairTax," which is a scheme to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax. The plan has some support among some "smaller government"-type Republicans and Libertarians. Paul, for some reason, has yet to hop on the "FairTax" bandwagon.

So the difference here is that Huckabee has an alternative to the IRS, and Paul does not. In other words...Huckabee has a platform and plan, and Paul is just throwing out slogans.

Dislaimer: I am not endorsing the "FairTax." I personally am very skeptical that it's workable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom