Monday March 30, 2015
Jump to content
Wrong, Pat. You can carry a gun in Arizona with or without a permit, openly or discreet carry. OTOH, if you have a concealed carry permit, you can purchase a firearm from a dealer without undergoing the violation of your Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search of your private records on government databases. But you still have to suffer the violation of your Fourth Amendment right to be secure from enduring an interrogation under threat of criminal sanction, and your Fifth Amendment right to be secure from deprivation of your rights without due process of law, and your Tenth Amendment right to be secure from the enforcement of null and void color of law the authority for which is not delegated to government. Newsflash: The federal government is not even delegated the authority to license gun dealers, let alone compel the waiver of rights as a precondition to receiving permission to exercise a right.
Oh, and BTW: I'm sorry you don't trust people who exercise their fundamental rights (which, BTW, is keeping you safer than you would be otherwise), but your lack of trust compels no specific performance on my part. And my exercise of my rights does not place you at risk -- in fact, it reduces your risk.
Noble, you seem to think the Supreme Court has judicial supremacy over law, but you are wrong: There is no such thing as "judicial supremacy;" there is no such a thing as "legislative supremacy," and -- contrary to what the First Enemy Agent infesting our White House believes -- there is no such a thing as "executive supremacy."
There is only Constitutional Supremacy. The Supreme Court is not infallible, and you get it just as wrong as Justice Taney got it in the infamous Dred Scott decision and Antony Scalia got it in Heller: The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, designed and constructed to give force of law to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence describes rights as "inherited and unalienable."
You know what "unalienable" means, Noble? It means no lawful power to infringe. Not by the Supremes, not by Congress, not by petty little executive tyrants in the White House, and not by you. Period. full-Stop. End of Story.
Let me explain how Scalia got it wrong in Heller: We most certainly do have a fundamental, absolute, inherited and unalienable, right to keep and bear arms. However, the State (not the federal government except on its own properly ceded property) does have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms: Where, when, under what safety procedures, under what parameters for self-defense, etc. But neither the State nor the federal government has anything lawful to say about our right to keep and bear arms, or our right to redress grievances against the government, or our right to be secure from violation of our Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search and seizure in the absence of probable cause when buying a gun, and our right to be secure from deprivation of our rights without due process when buying a gun, and our right to be secure from color of law promulgated without delegated authority when buying a gun.
You speak of rights, Noble: Can you think of any other right that the exercise of which requires an interrogation under threat of criminal sanction, and a search of private records on government databases, as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) government permission to exercise? Can you think of any other right that can be summarily taken away from a citizen without due process of law? Or would you like your right to free speech to face the same kind of barriers to ensure your Marxist ideology is "pure"?
No, Noble, the issue is not the "legal" restrictions on our rights, for there are no legal restrictions on our rights unless the exercise infringes upon the rights of another. Keeping and bearing arms, for example, harms no one, and something like 250 million times a year protects someone from harm.
Once again your attempt to justify tyranny and oppression of free citizens falls flat on its leftist statist tyrant's face.
Okay, let's have a real discussion. You go first.
Wouldn't you rather live in a powerhouse economy in which medical care is subject to market forces and you could pay for it out of your own pocket change, and not have to support hundreds of thousands of paper pushers who produce nothing? That's what a free market economy provides for you, Nancy. A pre-existing condition is irrelevant because you are buying state-of-the-art medical care and paying for it out of your own pocket at a price you can easily afford. You don't need no stinking insurance company because competition in the industry has not only produced the very best cutting edge medical technologies, it has also produced the very lowest prices. And as a side benefit you receive care that corrects the problem instead of keeping you in the system and milking you dry.
Yes, I have. I lived under what is internationally considered the best socialized medicine program of all: Australia. It paid the entire cost of my daughter's birth, including pre- and post-natal care, and a ten-day stay in the hospital afterwards, plus we received A$40 bonus on the deal for improving the population numbers. But the four years I was there the patient contribution increased 300+%, doctors were going on strike every six months because despite having to buy A$20K worth of medical equipment for their clinics they were prevented from charging more than A$7 for an office visit; they were prohibited from setting their own hours of operation because they might prove that a free market is a bigger economic powerhouse than a controlled market, and all the other businesses are controlled by government "boards" who determine both subsidies and prices lest someone make too much money and provide too many jobs and prove the socialists wrong. And their socialized medicine system has gone bankrupt twice because their strictly service economy and more-than-100% taxes on products sold at retail on top of more-than-100% duties on anything imported for sale is not sufficient to prop up their economy AND pay the HORRENDOUS cost of medical care. The four years we were there saw two bank holidays in which they had to devalue their currency and they were right on the edge of full national bankruptcy when major mineral deposits were discovered in the Wittenoom Gorge area that saved their bacon. The point is, Chuck, if they didn't totally destroy entrepreneurship and innovation and the overall economy by spending upwards of seventy percent of their gross national product paying for medical care and micromanaging everyone's lives at the street level to prevent people from producing and succeeding, the pensioners wouldn't be starving to death. Australia was subsidizing every business in Australia, and then turning around and running Egg Marketing Boards and Dairy Marketing Boards and Bread Marketing Boards and every kind of marketing board you can imagine to keep the prices up to support the commissars and starve the pensioners, and it was the same with medicine. You may have found socialized medicine to be wonderful, but the cost in living standards, education, working conditions, innovation, inventiveness, is unbelievably high because most of the revenue goes to pay people who produce NOTHING.
Well, if it is "gibberish" to you, I guess that explains why you don't understand reality. But if you are a Nam vet too, you ask a pertinent question: "This is what we fought for?" That's the point I made: Why did you fight to protect the Vietnamese from the evil tyranny of socialism/communism over there, only to bring it home with you and support it here?
Oh, BTW, Ted: If you and your ilk would get off this gimme-gimme-gimme jag you're on and start holding government accountable to the limitations imposed on it by the U.S. Constitution that created it -- which would have the amazing result of government getting out of the way of the manufacturing and entrepreneurial sectors -- IF this effort were successful against all the other societal leeches out there who thinks government owns them a living and medical care and 55-in HDTVs, etc., it wouldn't be ten years before you could pay your wife's medical bills out of your pocket change at the end of the day. In fact, it would likely not be ten years before medical science could cure her condition permanently. You could buy a car, more advanced than anything available today and it wouldn't cost you more than a couple of months wages. You could buy a state of the art home and have it paid off in less than a year, as people could in 1900 before the bankers suckered us out of our gold and silver coin. Trouble is, TANSTAAFL would be the order of the day and social leeches wouldn't prosper as they do today. There would have to be a mindshift away from where your head is at today.
Yeah, haters, Ted. I noticed the typical "straw man" non sequiturs you just couldn't resist taking on to the end of your LTE. Don't worry, Ted. I had a rebuttal letter in before you finished reading your letter.
I wouldn't count on it, Ken. This crap has never survived anywhere in the world without higher and higher premiums being forced upon the captive audiences until the entire system collapses. The only way collapse can be forestalled is to establish what amounts to "death panels" staffed by Marxist apparatchiks who have the absolute power to decide whose medical care is "cost effective" to government and who gets to die. I lived under this kind of system in Australia for four years, and in that period of time a doctor's office call increased from A$7 to A$8, but the premium increased from A$1.50 a fortnight ( 2 weeks) to $4.75 a fortnight, a 300%+ increase. Ted crows about $628/mo. premiums with a $6,000 deductible, which is being paid for by all the other folks who can't afford insurance at all and are paying godawful taxes to support his wife's medical bills. And he has the nerve to object when people call him a freeloader, a socialist, and a communist. I'm waiting to find out what he thinks of his Marxist system next year when he's likely to be paying $1250/mo. with a $12K deductible.
Ted, you lament the vilification you have received because, thanks to President Obama, you have finally gotten insurance for your wife, who suffers a pre-existing condition. You complain you have been called a freeloader, a socialist, a communist (even though you are a Vietnam Vet).
Well, Ted, I thank you for your service, though apparently you don’t know what you were fighting for over there. You were fighting for liberty from socialism/communism; and I have to wonder why you brought the enemy’s tyranny home with you.
Having a loved one with a medical condition is bad enough; being unable to obtain insurance for that condition must be devastating. But your “need,” devastating though it may be, does not compel specific performance on the part of anyone else. It does not, or at least should not, require the rest of us to be illegally and unconstitutionally robbed at the point of government’s very big gun to subsidize your wife’s medical condition.
You claim you are somehow vindicated by the fact that Obamacare “is not free,” because you have to pay $628 a month with a $6,000 annual deduction. You seem unaware your coverage is not free for the rest of us either: Those who can’t afford Obamacare at all, and those who have lost all their insurance because of Obamacare, just so you can get coverage you couldn’t get until the rest of us are robbed blind.
You seem unaware you are not the only one requiring medical care you can’t afford. You seem unaware you are depriving productive people of their ability to pay their own medical bills, save for the future, get ahead in life, and contribute to the economy to the benefit of everyone, including your wife.
There is a worse case: The socialist and ultimately communist system you are crowing about also pulls thousands of people out of the productive sector, sits them down in front thousands of thousand-dollar gray metal government desks and requires them to push paper around all day long instead of producing something of lasting value to society.
ObamaCare, like all socialist/communist systems, is a huge bottomless pit into which slaves are required to pour their productive labor at the point of government’s gun. Because it does not and cannot produce anything other than a luxurious lifestyle for the commissars, it eventually devolves into absolute despotism and serves only to keep the slaves alive until they are no longer useful. Like your wife, Ted. And you.
“Freeloader, socialist, communist” is the system you are advocating; a destructive economic system based on your “need” being paramount while everyone else’s survival is irrelevant. Trouble is, like Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Last login: Wednesday, March 18, 2015