Open letter from Ronnie Barrett **Read**

[denton]

Justice Scalia has put forth what I think is a very compelling argument against the way some people look at the constitution. What he objects to is people who interpret the constitution to say what they think it should mean. A perfectly good example, in my mind, is people who try to morph the 2nd amendment into something completely contrary to its clear and common meaning.

One of the main functions of the constitution is to limit what the government can do to the people.

If the constitution means whatever someone thinks it ought to mean, then the people have no protection.

If it doesn't mean what it ought to mean, then the route for change is an amendment, not a twisted interpretation.

[fabsroman]

Agreed.

Thing is as time passes, interpretation gets tougher.

If we asked each of the founding father their take on the Bill of Rights, I am sure we would get a bunch of different interpretations of what each Amendment meant. Try getting that 200 years later when none of them are alive.

[Steverino]

With respect to the above post from Lil Red, Amen!!! I've spent alot of time down South and still do as I have family there and I can say with pride that it will certainly be "From My Cold Dead Hands" in the South should any BS legislation ever pass denying us our 2nd Ammendment rights. I will be South of the Mason Dixon line quicker than a jackrabbit being run down by a pack of dogs.

I personally believe that our forefathers, knowing human nature, constructed with the help of God, the most perfect documents that were humanly possible. The anology they used was that this would only serve to be an experiment if the people were vigilant in protecting these rights. Look to Canada and England and ask yourself if they are better off now. I can go on and on but I will stop. There are certainly some things that are worth fighting for and in my book, this rates right on up there!

[iwerk2hard]

Fabs Wrote:

Your post leads me to think that maybe military arms should be available to the masses so that if the gov't were to get out of hand the masses could rise up and put it back in its place.

What was the difference between military fitearms and civilian firearms when the second amendment was drafted and passed? The intention was that the masses be equally armed.

PBR wrote:

What if killing someone with a gun made that person happy?
Would that not contradict life, liberty, and happiness?
I forget the word or phrase (and I'm not looking for it after 65 hours of teaching social studies and book work this week. ) but the government does summarize that we have these rights so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of others.

You answered your own question. Killing someone would most definitely infringe on that persons right to life, therefore you do not have the right to persue happiness in that manner.

What I'd still like to know is why the gun runner mentioned earlier is still a roofer in New York and not a prisoner in a federal prison.

[Purebred Redneck]

Lil red
One of the stars on the confederate battle flag are Missouri's. And being in Southern Missouri, I think that qualifies...
And as far as being a democrat being a bad thing, I'm sure your family's butts were saved just like mine by FDR ( the best or second best president ever). I vote democrat because that party still stands up for the little guy. If forced to, I will vote anti-gun and hippie before I vote pro-business.




He's not in jail because the cops haven't caught him in the act. He could just be the biggest liar on the planet and have all those guns in his basement.

It's like going up to a cop and telling him that you snorted coke 20 years. The cop can't do jack nothing.

[fabsroman]

Okay, there are a couple of good issues here.

Iwerk2hard,

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.


PBR,

As far as voting anti-gun and hippie in lieu of pro-business, that is a rather broad and somewhat ignorant statement. Business is pretty much what controls this nation, and the world for that matter. If we continue to strangle American business, you will soon see all of it move overseas. We are already becoming a country that cannot manufacture anything, make it harder on business and we will be up a creek. We won't even be able to manufacture a tank.

As far as FDR being the best President, I think there are many arguments for better Presidents. How about Reagan or Washington? Does Reagan not count because he is a Republican. I think trying to single out the single greatest President is pretty tough. A President's presidency is pretty much determined by events that occur during that presidency. FDR had World War II to deal with and that made him this great President. Did he also have to deal with the Great Depression? Why is it that other Presidents that didn't have to deal with these type issues are not as good, if not better, than FDR. Just because a President has a quiet presidency doesn't mean that he isn't a great President. Maybe he was so good that he could prevent things like the Great Depression or a World War occurring on his watch. Maybe the President before him was so good that it made his Presidency a walk in the park. Pretty tough to say that one President, above all others, is the best one out there, especially since people tend to look more upon the more recent Presidents' accomplishments.

[Purebred Redneck]

Originally posted by fabsroman
Okay, there are a couple of good issues here.

Iwerk2hard,

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.

Oh i definattly agree with that.

As far as gthe other stuff, I'll have to deal with that this afternoon when I'm not drunk.

[Lilred]

One of the stars on the confederate battle flag are Missouri's. And being in Southern Missouri, I think that qualifies...

PBR, sir, you have missed my point. First of all, under your location, you left it blank. Secondly, and most importantly, just because you are from a "Southern" state does not mean you are a "Southerner" or share a Sotherner's POV.
Southern folk, original Southern folk that is, have always had a different way of lookin at things than most Northerners. Just as the black and white folks. That's just the way it is, nothin in the world wrong with that. Judgin by yer posts, the difference stems from the werd "purebred".
You, comin from a Southern state, iffin you "purebred" bloodline is true, amazes me even more that you are so different from us simple-minded Southerners.

[fabsroman]

Come on PBR,

Last night, I wrote that post above after two glasses of wine, and I almost never drink. You just need to concentrate harder after drinking. LOL

[Purebred Redneck]

got it beat Fabs
I had 7 beers at the bar - sang "I'm so lonesome I can cry" and "ring of fire" on kareoke (and I DON'T SING)
Went back to someone's house and drank a bottle of Boones Farm wine and 6 Schlitz.
Decided to walk 1/2 mile home and halfway there I decided that I wanted a taquito from the gas station. So ended up walking about 1 1/2 miles piss drunk.
Then I get home and you want me to type something constructive? I've done enough concentrating last night


Consistently on polls (you have in changing order depending on the polls)
Reagan
Clinton
W Bush
FDR
Washington
Lincholn
JFK

are on top

And I agree it is very hard to figure out what makes a good president.
Of the people on th elist I mentioned

Reagan - is probably in the top 10 but definatly not the top 5 on my list.

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

W Bush is too new to figure out where he stands. I personally despise the coke head alcholic and put him somewhere in the back 20. But that doesn't mean the rest of the U.S. agrees. If after this war everything works out, I could go as high as probably 10-15

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him other than the fact he kept the nation halfass together. Somewhere in the top 20-30 I'm going.

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30. Perhaps the civil war was enevitable, but his election was the straw that broke the camel's back. He represented perhaps only 1/3 of the country - the northern republicans

JFK - nothing special about him. He was shot at the height of his popularity and was probably going to go downhill fast. 15-20 maybe

Not included in the polls I remember seeing is Teddy Roosevelt.
Now he is definatly in my top 5


My top three would probably consist of (in no order)
Both Roosevelts and Clinton

[fabsroman]

PBR,

You definitely had me beat in the drinking category, but if I had drank as much as you I wouldn't have even been awake, much less walking 1.5 miles.

Just to put this right out there, I despise Clinton and I don't think he really did much for the Nation. Yeah, the economy was doing well, but was that really a result of his Presidency? I doubt it since the economy is cyclical and it takes time for any policy change to have a dramatic effect. I think he set the economy up for a downfall with the take off of the stock market. Greenspan kept urging people to stop buying on credit by relying on their paper profits (i.e., unrealized capital gains in the stock market because they had not sold the stocks yet). The market hit the crapper and look at the economy since. People were having a great time during the stock market boom and they love Clinton as a result.

What happened with the first bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton's watch? If you do not remember, that was the bomb that went off in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. Did Clinton do anything about that. NOPE. I know some diehard democrats that live in New York that decided not to vote for him after that incident.

On top of all that, he was a womanizer, a liar (not that all politicians aren't), he didn't inhale, and worst of all he lied on the stand under oath. That I cannot stand. I find it hard to swallow when LEO's lie on the stand to try and get a conviction, but the President of the USA lieing under oath? What type of dignity is that. Let's compare Nixon and Clinton. Nixon took the fall and in his Presidential library he has a wealth of information on the Watergate scandal. Clinton tried to lie his way out of it and he has very little, if anything, in his Presidential library about the Lewinsky scandal. Oh yeah, how about the White Water scandal of Clinton's where the person with all the knowledge conveniently ended up committing suicide. Personally, I think this country is trying to recover from all the wrongs of Clinton, of which the economy and terrorism are included. Do you think the terrorists that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't here planning this thing while Clinton was in office? George W. Bush came into office and within less than 9 months 9/11 happened. Somehow, I doubt the terrorists put that entire plan into motion in less than 9 months. Further, if Clinton had hammered them like Bush has been doing, maybe they would have had less free time on their hands for planning and less resources for carrying out missions. Reagan bombed Quadafi and that was the last we ever heard of that man. Clinton should have done the same to Osama and the rest of his crew.

Don't even get me started about he and his wife falling asleep during Reagan's funeral. We'll see how many people attend Clinton's funeral.

Let's also look at another thing. The Presidents that you are ranking highly have been some of the most recent Presidents. Something tells me that you don't know much about all the Presidents' legacies and what they did. You definitely do not know what they all did during their Presidency and I rarely rely on polls because they are based on people's experiences while they are alive. Almost nobody will know what the 5th President of the nation accomplished. Hell, I don't know that either.

To really come down to who is the best President of them all, it would take a bunch of educated/smart people years of studying all of the Presidents' accomplishments and then voting to come up with a semi-legitimate list of the best and worst Presidents.

Would I put Clinton in there, probably not. Most Blacks would rank Lincoln rather high along with JFK. I also agree with you that JFK is famous because he got shot. A lot of Presidents are popular because of events that happened during their Presidency, not because they were great Presidents. You have to ask yourself, why couldn't we have prevented World War II or at least lessened the destruction from it (i.e., Pearl Harbor, D-Day), the Civil War, or 9/11. Why wasn't the Great Depression prevented or foreseen. How about Black Monday which I think occurred under George Bush's Presidency. How about the current disaster with the stock market? I am sure there are plenty of other incidents in there, but that is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

[Purebred Redneck]

Oh I totally agree with you. (Clinton aside )
It wouldn't take years to come up with an educated list, but I would sure get a headache reading up on all of them and making the call.

I know there are some great presidents early on. I was just commenting on the recent presidents because that's who the public voted on.

[TreeDoc]

Clinton! Ha!....don't even get me started PBR. What a friggin' JOKE!!!!!

I'll tell ya, PBR.....the democraps that voted for FDR and JFK, just like the men themselves, are FAR DIFFERENT than the today's democraps.

[Purebred Redneck]

I agree he might be a joke for you and most on this board, but for over half the country he represented the overwleming magority's of this nation's interests, kept relative peace, was in office for one of the greatest economical and technolocal advances in our nation's history, gave us a surplus economy all in amist of hatred by republican politians.
There is little doubt in mind that he would still be president this very day if there were no term limits. I think the only person capable of defeating him in 2000 and 2004 would of been McCain (who I think would also do a good job).

I think for the most part, democrats today are similar to democrats of the last say 75 years.
I highly doubt 40% of the nation vote democrat soley on the the fact they like abortion, hate guns, and protect the environment. Different radical interest groups are present in every election and political party.
The economy, labor, "work benifits", social programs, etc have been and are the reason why most democrats vote that way.
Most democrats are not liberals just as most republicans are not conservatives. You only have about 20 or so % vote that are hardcore democrats or republicans. Most are undevoted moderates or those whom slightly lean to one side.

[TreeDoc]