Democracy is not our government. That's your first mistake.

Ah, so we only need Obamacare because medicine has advanced so far here in 2012, but back in 1789, people had no right at all to even the most basic healthcare.

Oh, God. Here we go ...

Non-responsive.

You're such a ####### idiot sometimes, Joe.

The founders intended for each generation to determine what the general welfare consisted of. That's why they were vague about the terms and went with "general welfare." Moron.

It's interesting how quick you are to defer to "democracy." If 51 percent of the electorate votes to confiscate the entire wealth of the remaining 49 percent, would that be fine with you since it was a "democratic" result? If not, how and where do you draw the lines?

I just can't understand for the life of me how anyone - anyone - would think touchscreen electronic voting machines with no paper record are a good idea.

Stupid questions generally get non-responsive responses...

Democracy is not our government. That's your first mistake.

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.

How much do paper records help?

How much do paper records help? I mean, the hacked machine can give you a receipt for "Romney" when you push the Romney button and still count your vote for Obama.

So "promote the general welfare" became much more expansive in 200 years, while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter.

Voting in MN (My area anyway) you fill out a ballot and it is optically read. But the ballot remains and there is a physical trail for use in recounts and such. Easy, fun, verifiable.

I think the idea is the voter verifies the printed receipt, and the receipt is retained by the election board.

has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that
Americans voted for the status quo – *for* the incumbent President and *for
*a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence,
economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people
voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has
won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off
his own 2008 total....

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost
because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of
liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to
moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the
electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should
be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete
against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss
leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America
is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000
on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they
did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive *two*
*full years* of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both
disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the
books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too
those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay
their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of
free stuff is irresistible....

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral
Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the
difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off
against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff”
– from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the
game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating
jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being
borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free
stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47%
leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode
well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such
overwhelming odds. People *do *vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the
people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a
President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable
conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed,
it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the
clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw
populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote
with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to
produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He
needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws
elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer
medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama
could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a
different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules
were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without
ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the
poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even
acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their
current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get
away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and
squealing at any sight of him.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai
Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson
called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words
were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney
victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their
abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to
Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico
(even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he
will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the
furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions –
in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for
which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which
the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc.,
even though the money is gone. He could do and say all these things because
he knew his voters were dolts.,,,

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of
substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and
platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of
class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual
groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority
groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed
winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply
disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his
record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it
is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton
in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are
collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right
country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting
patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that
Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in
Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly
representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican
Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce
point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile
Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure....

One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus,
odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were
contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The
Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states –
like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large
concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare
apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic
candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey,
for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is
not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have
pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater
that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls
than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an
irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are
not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If
that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die
is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results
demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a
president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile
to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at
Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide
margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is
inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and
will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide
Valerie Jarrett (i.e., *Iranian-born* Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in
Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of
negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon –
and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As
Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is
more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will
succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because
Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of
American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat
– or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than
yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never
distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and
would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more
territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count
Jordan) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry,
for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu
remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome
of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will
force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent
empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile.
The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the
Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily
foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.

The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has
been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that
decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic
excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers
outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across
the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama,
America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner
four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent.
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere
dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the
increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and
the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of
redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And,
sad for the world, it is not coming back.

The point of electronic voting machines is to reduce paper and storage costs for voting precincts.

Suck it up and take another job, and work to further cut the safety net for those moochers below you. That's your real problem right there. Just ask Joe.

For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.

while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter.

Yes it is. The US is a Democracy.

In what delusional, ########## world has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive? How ####### blind to reality must one be to believe that?

Latest e-mail from my favorite right wing pool playing buddy, edited only for length.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.

The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.

Strike two.

Thanks to Bitter Mouse for proving this in #8415

The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead

Joe apparently lives in a world where the 2nd Amendment has been restricted over the course of time. I assume this world also has green skies and purple flavored unicorn poo powers the mind control engines.

Which means, BY DEFINITION, that gun rights HAVEN'T BECOME MORE RESTRICTIVE. Which means you are full of #### above. (To no one's real surprise.)

Really really non-responsive. (Hoping for strike three) If the US is not a Democracy than what is it?

Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little.

That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., *Iranian-born* Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign.

Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time." The "green skies" only exist in the world occupied by people like Sam who deny such basic points of fact.

Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time."

The United States is not democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

First of all, the earlier discussion was about liberal ideology. Second, the Second Amendment assuredly had become more restrictive over time.

I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.

Joe lives in a world fueled by paranoid delusions. The 2nd Amendment has not become more restrictive. The federal state - which is the state being discussed here - has not restricted the 2nd, as you claimed above. Similarly, the general welfare clause is not suddenly more restrictive than "general welfare" implies.

You don't even bother reading the goddamned Constitution when it doesn't support your preferred outcomes, do you?

If Mr. Obama comes to my house, he's a lot more likely to want to lecture me on my choice of light bulb than do anything about my guns. We'd most likely end up watching college basketball and arguing over foreign aid.

It's almost entirely idiotic semantics at play. Joe is harping on "not a democracy" because "Democrats" are for democracy, and "Republicans" are for constitutional "republics." It is literally devoid of any intelligent meaning or merit at all.

It is true that many states and cities have very restrictive gun laws, of the sort that a fair reading might find unconstitutional. However, the idea that the Democrats are "after the guns" is ludicrous. I think a lot of their supporters would like them to be - I would believe it if you said "Andy" or "Zonk" or "Robinred"* wanted to ban private ownership of guns.

But the idea that the Democratic Party and the leaders holding office from that party are going to do this is absurd. They have had countless opportunities to try and, whether it is from cowardice or heartfelt belief, they haven't tried and aren't going to try.

Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time."

The idea that liberals have totally surrendered on the Second Amendment is fantasy at best, dishonesty at worst.

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Not saying these particular guys are against me owning guns

I have friends almost daily tell me Obama is coming for my guns.

Which is a subset of the larger class of governmental form known as Democracy. I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

I am no expert, but it appears that muzzle-loaded rifles, of the type used in the 18th century, can be carried without a license in New York under an 'antique firearms' exception. If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.

If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?

In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.

In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.

stuff and reasons.

If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?

I'm going to save you guys some time and point out that you're both working under separate definitions of the word "democracy".

Those aren't federal Democrats and I, more or less, agree with you. I'm just referring to this insane craze that goes around after every Democratic president is elected where gun owners go berserk thinking the ATF is days away from kicking their doors in.

So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This entire debacle of an attempt to reason with the Nutjob Fool came about thusly:

Fool: "The general welfare clause must be read more restrictively than 'general welfare' because the founders generation didn't have Ibuprofen!"

Sam: "The document says 'general welfare' because the founders were specifically vague in their terms, in order to account for changing views of what the proper application of general welfare might be over time. They left that to the people of each generation to decide."

Fool: "So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?! HAH! GOTCHA!"

Sam: "No, you simpering idiot, neither of those clauses of the Constitution has become more restrictive over time. Take your ####### meds, jackass."

So one halfhearted sentence about gun rights, followed entirely by the liberals' desire for more "regulation," "conversation," and "enforcement."

Do you really want a lecture on the process underwhich ideas become laws here in the US? Or are you asking from a moral standpoint, because neither Democracy nor a Constitution (nor both together) guarantee morality?

Regardless, the point was, if the vague language of the "general welfare" clause gave rise to Obamacare and is enforceable on the states

OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?

OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?

And even if so, so what? The US was designed to change and evolve over time. That is why they built in the ability to alter the constitution.

I am pretty sure it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is a process here.

via activist judges

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire.

Why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?

Are you going to pretend that liberals haven't been in favor of gun control, or of the nonsensical "collective" interpretation* of the Second Amendment?

The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. If you are not happy with that you can try to get that changed, I hear there is a way to do that.

Why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?

If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?

I hear there is a way to do that.

If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?

Wait, so the U.S. is a democracy, except when it isn't? This is all very confusing.

Ack Acka Dak

Let's be real traditionalists then. Absolutely no restrictions on ownership of weapons. No registrations, no permits, no limit to where they can be taken, the whole ball of wax. However, to stay true to the text of the Constitution, you're limited to only carrying weapons that existed at the time of it's adoption. Deal?

If the definition of "arms" as it appears in the Constitution is allowed to evolve, then so is the definition of "general welfare".

while liberals simultaneously claimed a contraction if not elimination of Second Amendment rights.

The "evolving" was quite selective, and more than a little contradictory.

Right, based on the "well regulated" part that conservatives and gun nuts seem to skip over all the time.

A Democracy with rules (A constitution) is still a Democracy. No where in the definition does it say anything about "and there can be no limits at all to the desires of the majority."

The gun laws in Chicago and D.C. and elsewhere weren't "regulation" — they were bans.

Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.

Playing devil's advocate, there were no gun bans. Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.

Joe, honest question, do you believe that you and I should be able to possess, say, grenade launchers?

Is the desire to maintain the freedoms associated with gun ownership part of a larger project of maintain all freedoms. In other words, it's not so much that freedom to own guns is important, so much as any kind of freedom.

Or is there a concern that a society that restricts gun ownership is particularly dangerous.

I guess those two motivations aren't necessarily distinct from one another.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment sums it up nicely:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.

If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.

They didn't expect everything to stay in stasis.

(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.

The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.

McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.

When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.

"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."

I don't mean this to be as combative as I'm sure it sounds...what is the perception of the gun laws of other nations from advocates for gun freedom?

But in the face of mounting competition from nonunion grocers, labor's victory may be short-lived. Supermarket industry expert David Livingston said Raley's workers will enjoy robust benefits for the next few years, but "the price that they pay for getting the benefits today is that their job will be eliminated some day down the road, because the overhead is too much. With the pressure on full-bore from big-box food sellers like Walmart, which relies on low-wage and part-time workers, grocery stores have to continue finding ways to cut costs to stay competitive"