New NRA Ad Shows Their Low IQ - Will Be Their Downfall

[Joe234]

How is Obama having armed security for his kids hypocritical? He is the President isn't he?
Does this mean by the same standard each adult citizen should have secret service protection?
If not he's hypocritical according to the NRA's standard.

[Bigblue1]

I appreciate you actually have used the Constitution as your basis. So despite our differences we are at least speaking the same language . Can we agree that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and should be followed?

Where we differ on "nessecary and proper" is that the clause refers to laws nessecary and proper toward the implementation of the enumberated powers, found also in Article 1 section 8 paragraphs 1-17. The powers are extremely limited. To apply "nessecary and proper" to any law congress dreams up then enacts violates the enumberated powers both in scope and in spirit.

Now on the other hand, Article 1 section 10 addresses that which the various States "shall not" do. So if a state's constitution provides for education, it certainly may do so as there is no express prohibition.

Not sure I ever welcomed you to the forum. I have to say it is good to have you here... A lot of our friends on the forum want to bend the freedoms that they have had protected by the constitution to their respective frame of mind. It's good to have what appears to be a constitutional historian on board to put any and either of us in their perspective place..... Oh I forgot obama was a constitutional scholar as well...... Guess we'll see what happens.....

[Zimobog]

Thanks, Bigblue1. I assure you that I am just a regular blue collar guy.

[Mdisch]

That just might be the quote of the month.....

and why do CA schools need the national guard.........with all the gangs.....no punk is going to walk up in there and try to shoot the place up....and if he does.......Jesus Ramiro Iglesias will cap his white Nietzsche reading honkey ass


EDIT: That is possibly the worst thing I have ever written..........I know it's wrong........I'm just not sure where

Uhm... Wow. Just.... Whoa.

[sgreger1]

How is Obama having armed security for his kids hypocritical? He is the President isn't he?
Does this mean by the same standard each adult citizen should have secret service protection?
If not he's hypocritical according to the NRA's standard.

I agree the notion of regular people having the same protection as POTUS is completely unfair. What I personally find hypocritical is Dianne Feinstein here in CA (who will die in office she's been here so long), who has a CCW permit but lobbies to not allow CCW permits for regular citizens.

Obama's kids have protection because they are in need of extra protection due to the threats inherent to being children of the worlds most powerfull government figure. I tink we need ot stop trying to DO something to resolve every situation and realize that sometimes in a group of 300+ million people sometimes crazy shit is going to happen. Not sure why we focus so much on gun violence when there are so many other types of violence occurring, not sure why one group has such a fetish with solving gun crime first.

[sgreger1]

Uhm... Wow. Just.... Whoa.

It's the truth though lol. There were so many school shootings when I was in high school, but they were all gang related and targeted at specific people. Personally I am in favor of gang shootings, as it is a self correcting problem (except I wish they spent some time on the range before making a hit, we lose so many civilians to stray bullets from drive-byes).

No one would ever mass shoot up my high school because so many people were armed lol, not that this was a good thing. I was never afraid though because I wasn't in a gang so it didn't really affect me.

[texasmade]

That just might be the quote of the month.....

and why do CA schools need the national guard.........with all the gangs.....no punk is going to walk up in there and try to shoot the place up....and if he does.......Jesus Ramiro Iglesias will cap his white Nietzsche reading honkey ass


EDIT: That is possibly the worst thing I have ever written..........I know it's wrong........I'm just not sure where

Hey, I read Nietzsche. I also know a Jesus or two.

[Crow]

Where we differ on "nessecary and proper" is that the clause refers to laws nessecary and proper toward the implementation of the enumberated powers, found also in Article 1 section 8 paragraphs 1-17. The powers are extremely limited. To apply "nessecary and proper" to any law congress dreams up then enacts violates the enumberated powers both in scope and in spirit.

This clause has been broadly interpreted over the years. That's why they also refer to it as the "elastic clause".

Alexander Hamilton opined on this...

5 Dec. 1791
Papers 10:302--4

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s21.html

[texasmade]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Armed guards in schools is something that should be decided by the school district, and not the government. Some districts already have armed security in place, and some don't.

Personally, I think it's unnecessary. We need sensible gun laws (that won't violate the second amendment) and we seriously need to examine how we are handling mental health problems in this country.

-------------

If we don't approach the issue of mental health, then no conceivable gun law will make this country any safer.

Both high schools I've attended have had armed security, which is understandable due to the high number of gang members, fights, stabbings and shootings that were taking place. But a school that doesn't have those problems really has no need for armed guards.

[Crow]

But a school that doesn't have those problems really has no need for armed guards.

Exactly.

[Zimobog]

This clause has been broadly interpreted over the years. That's why they also refer to it as the "elastic clause".

Ah, the "elastic clause" is not "Nessecary and Proper" but "to promote the General Welfare".

The line "to promote the general welfare" appears once in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 1 and once in the preamble. Hamilton only argued that this was a broad sweeping clause able to go outside the enumerated powers after the Constitution had been ratified. The qoute by Hamilton is from his Report on Manufactures.

Jeffersonians and even most Federalists never felt that it did issue a broad power, a feeling held to this day by Jeffersonians and true liberals. Other writings about the clause tie it directly to the power of Congress to tax the States.

Even other Federalists such as Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that (from Federalist Paper #41):

"...spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.^"

James Madison, a fellow Federalist, also wrote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

...

[W]ere the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

As one can gather from the above qoute from Madison, even stauch Federalists believed that if "general welfare" ever was take to mean more than just taxes and commerce, that Congress could lay power to any cause: religion, transportation, feeding the poor or even *gasp* education. He obviously didn't think that is what it was supposed to be, and this was a man of Hamilton's camp!

But we should, if we mean to fully understand the meaning of "general welfare" look to the writings of the man himself who penned it:

"This phrase,... by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase, 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first or are distinct and coordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

In fact, to show how even the "general welfare clause" was NOT used to provide education, I submit that the Department of Education in the US was established in 1979 and began operating in 1980. A previous version of it operated as a part of the President's cabinet but the States provided for taxation and standardization of local education facilities and not the Federal government.

I think the "General welfare" clause meant that the Federal taxes ought to be used to buy all of us a roll of General snus, and since it would be free it would be "welfare" .

[Crow]

Ah, the "elastic clause" is not "Nessecary and Proper" but "to promote the General Welfare".

I never said that the elastic clause is specifically "to promote the General Welfare". I was referring to the clause, as a whole.

Hamilton only argued that this was a broad sweeping clause able to go outside the enumerated powers after the Constitution had been ratified. The qoute by Hamilton is from his Report on Manufactures.

Right, and it is this very broad sweeping clause that has allowed Congress to go outside the enumerated powers.

Jeffersonians and even most Federalists never felt that it did issue a broad power, a feeling held to this day by Jeffersonians and true liberals. Other writings about the clause tie it directly to the power of Congress to tax the States.

Even other Federalists such as Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that (from Federalist Paper #41):

James Madison, a fellow Federalist, also wrote:
...

As one can gather from the above qoute from Madison, even stauch Federalists believed that if "general welfare" ever was take to mean more than just taxes and commerce, that Congress could lay power to any cause: religion, transportation, feeding the poor or even *gasp* education. He obviously didn't think that is what it was supposed to be, and this was a man of Hamilton's camp!

But we should, if we mean to fully understand the meaning of "general welfare" look to the writings of the man himself who penned it:
...

In fact, to show how even the "general welfare clause" was NOT used to provide education, I submit that the Department of Education in the US was established in 1979 and began operating in 1980. A previous version of it operated as a part of the President's cabinet but the States provided for taxation and standardization of local education facilities and not the Federal government.

I'm not saying that Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, or any of the other forefathers intended it to be used in such manner (i.e. Department of Education), but they acknowledged that it could be exploited in that manner..... and it has.

It's worth keeping in mind that every founding father had their own perspectives and personal goals... They weren't uniform in ideology. Such is politics.

But there are lots of loopholes such as the elastic clause in our constitution, and this is no accident.

Politics. It was the same in the days of our Founding, and it's the same today. And by that I mean, all political outcomes are the products of individual preferences and institutional procedures.

[wa3zrm]

[Zimobog]

I'm not saying that Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, or any of the other forefathers intended it to be used in such manner (i.e. Department of Education), but they acknowledged that it could be exploited in that manner..... and it has.

It has indeed been expolited. And that is what went wrong with government. When people used, as Jefferson said, "a grammatical quibble" to back a "sweeping pretention" that is at best illegal and at worst tyranny.

It's worth keeping in mind that every founding father had their own perspectives and personal goals... They weren't uniform in ideology. Such is politics.

But there are lots of loopholes such as the elastic clause in our constitution, and this is no accident.

Politics. It was the same in the days of our Founding, and it's the same today. And by that I mean, all political outcomes are the products of individual preferences and institutional procedures.

The "loop hole" does not exist in the sense that is said. It is clear from the writings of the FF that they were well aware that very early in the founding of the Republic that people were abusing it, and the vast majority decried it. It tells me that no government is perfect and the FF knew this, and this is why they made sure the posterity they left behind was able to arm themselves against it.

As far as individual preferences, we have plenty of room to breathe in the very large country we live in. There is room for many different views and as far as that goes, I accept them all as I do your opinion. There are 50 different States, each one different enough to attract the kinds of people who best belong there. No one State is right for everyone, and no State is perfect.

I think what I love best about the FF is that the vast majority were of the belief that each of us has inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, that no amount of government or public opinion can legislate. The belief that all men are created equal, and that one has no right over another.

In my opinion, there has throughout the ages, only ever been two political ideals. The first is that government should rule over people, and the other that people should be free. I am placed deep in the second opinion. These two options have gone by different titles over human history, but they are really the only two there are.

[SnusoMatic]

I am covered up with work or i might jump in the middle of the education thing. all I will say is that i don't think the Constitution gives over education to the fed.

My wife works in a public school, my daughter is a public school teacher, my son is finishing up his education to be one and my mom was a teacher. That don't give me an extra qualification about the Constitution but I hear school this and school that WAY more than daily. I seriously doubt many of you have worked in a more political environment. Talk about needing to know someone to get hired.... geeee.

I would say most but I will say many educators don't put the kids first. It is a job to them and most just care about moving up or having the right friends. The feds (president or his wife) comes along every few years with a "new" education plan. From the things I hear it's all a game for most teachers. They teach the kids what or how they need to so the school system can get funds from the fed. School lunch program is ran to try and profit from money that comes from the fed. The higher ups try to have as many 'free lunch' kids as possible because it pays better. The school are forced to feed the kids certain types of food. it don't matter what the food is as long as it falls into these groups. they eat lunches like pizza and french fries, the pizza is a bread and a vegetable and the fries are a starch, for example.

Some of you may think this is bs but here at least to grade 6 they don't even teach history or government. These kids don't even know what a Constitution is or what its for. It may be different where you are but here that's how it it.

Don't think racism is dead in schools either. White kids have it made compared to some blacks. Although I would say that how much money a kids parent earns has more power than color of skin. Some of these issues are locally related. the bs environment thrives because the feds try to micro manage every school in the country according to what is politically correct at the moment.

i hate seeing kids treated unfairly.

Yall have fun and try not to hurt each other ;-)