RON PAUL ON GUN CONTROL - THIS GUY GETS IT!

[Hedgehog]

Swedish people understand basic economic principles.

Take the cheapest materials you can find, it can be anything just as long as it can be held together with pins and white glue. Throw some of the parts in a box, preferrably with some pieces missing. Scribble some lines, loops and arrows on a scrap piece of paper and add some numbers to it with the title "Instructions" at the top. Take a black felt marker and hand print, "Finest Swedish Engineering" on the box. Name the furntiure you just created by randomly picking any letters of the alphabet you like to make a word such as, Tidrslak. Sell it for 400% more than the materials cost to idiots around the world.

 

I take it your house is filled with IKEA.

Actually, I believe IKEA to be pretty good quality considering the price.

Didn't realize it had a bad rep?

[tonymctones]

I take it your house is filled with IKEA.

Actually, I believe IKEA to be pretty good quality considering the price.

Didn't realize it had a bad rep?

LOL its mostly college student crap...it is decent but only b/c of the dirt cheap prices not b/c of the quality

[tonymctones]

Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
 

If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?

B/C you jackass they dont go through goverment and law abiding channels to get their guns you retard...you think taking away or limiting ppl who follow the laws rights to own and carry a gun is going to take guns out of the hand of criminals? LOL please explain that to me.

[lovemonkey]

LOL guys it's too late to even think about removing guns.

Although I do think that guns in the us have contributed to criminal activity and they would be better off with no guns to begin with, it's just too late. Either you allow guns from the start, or you don't.

It's practically impossible to remove them now.

[Benny B]

Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.

Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.

And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.

The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.

But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.

He doesn't get these basic economic principles.


Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
 

If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?


BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.

To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Co-sign - Even eurotrash gets it.

Ron Paul is a fucking wack job, and his moronic followers are just as nutty.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Hedgehog,

What's your opinion on our second amendment?  In your opinion was it placed there solely to protect the rights of sportsmen?

[Soul Crusher]

Hedgehog,

What's your opinion on our second amendment?  In your opinion was it placed there solely to protect the rights of sportsmen?

The second amendment is to protect the rights guaranteed by the rest of the constituion and from a tyrannical govt, not to hunt ducks.

[MuscleMcMannus]

Co-sign - Even eurotrash gets it.

Ron Paul is a fucking wack job, and his moronic followers are just as nutty.

Actually although he maybe short sighted he's a very intelligent person.  Maybe we need a whack job like him in the Presidency.  You really think he'd be worse than anything we've ever had?  They used to say that about Ross Perot.  Turns out we was spot on about everything. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

The second amendment is to protect the rights guaranteed by the rest of the constituion and from a tyrannical govt, not to hunt ducks.

I agree with you, it's another very important check on the government.  Just wondering what Hedgehogs opinion is...

[Hedgehog]

I agree with you, it's another very important check on the government.  Just wondering what Hedgehogs opinion is...

I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.

If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.   

[Soul Crusher]

I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.

If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.   

If you think that the 2nd Amendment is any less relevent today than it was 200 years ago in light of what is going on in the world you are completely delusional.  If anything, it will become more relvent in the coming years.

BTW.  What other rights do you not care about in the consitution?

If you want to minimize gun violence, we need to keep violent criminals locked in jail forever and release non-violent offenders or find alternatives to prison.

 

[MRDUMPLING]

I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.

If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.   

A constitution shouldn't "evolve" as it is not a living organism.  The things written in the Constituion are COMMON SENSE things that a people and government can or should live by that still hold true in today's society. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

If you think that the 2nd Amendment is any less relevent today than it was 200 years ago in light of what is going on in the world you are completely delusional.  If anything, it will become more relvent in the coming years.



 

Exactly. Sometimes I get the feeling Hedge hits the bong one too many times a day.

[Bindare_Dundat]

There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.

Because the authorities will always be there to help you. The authorities always look out for the little guy. Because the authorities aren't corruptable. The authorities can always be trusted to do the right thing, right.... right?

[Hedgehog]

A constitution shouldn't "evolve" as it is not a living organism.  The things written in the Constituion are COMMON SENSE things that a people and government can or should live by that still hold true in today's society. 

I disagree.

The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.

In a time when women had no right to vote.

Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.

Very few disputes that fact.

You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.

I disagree.

Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.

The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.

The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.

So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.

There are so many other things that could be looked into.

As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.

[Soul Crusher]

I disagree.

The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.

In a time when women had no right to vote.

Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.

Very few disputes that fact.

You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.

I disagree.

Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.

The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.

The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.

So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.

There are so many other things that could be looked into.

As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.

You are truly a moron and obviously have not a clue about what you are talking about.  The constitution is silent as to political parties.

What else needs to be revised???  The first amendment??  The fourth???  Why not have a dictator??

[MRDUMPLING]

I disagree.

The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.

In a time when women had no right to vote.

Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.

Very few disputes that fact.

You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.

I disagree.

Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.

The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.

The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.

So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.

There are so many other things that could be looked into.

As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.

I do not dispute that fact/


Your first post implies that you would get rid of the 2nd ammendment.  From my perspective that is a negative thing, but not all of the things that have changed are negative or any proposed future changes may not be either. 

The Constituion recognizes no party.  If you want to talk about our balloting system then we can agree, especially allowing third parties allowed to participate in the debates etc.  Our Bill of Rights needs to stay intact as they are common sense laws.

[Hedgehog]

You are truly a moron and obviously have not a clue about what you are talking about.  The constitution is silent as to political parties.

What else needs to be revised???  The first amendment??  The fourth???  Why not have a dictator??

The current system favors the two major parties.
With a different system, there would actually be a point in voting for eg a libertarian party (perhaps headed by Ron Paul), as they would actually get a few seats in the congress if they could get 5 or more % of the popular vote.
The political scene would be more diverse.
I don't understand why you would oppose that?

Again, I believe that changes can and should be made to constitutions over time.
  Over here, a change in the constitution needs to be confirmed twice with an election in between.
One change that was made a couple years ago was to extend the the time in office to four years instead of three.
Another one was some thirty years ago when the legislative body was re-modeled into one chamber instead of two.

No offence, but I think you're being a little bit paranoid.

And again, I don't understand why you oppose a change that would open up for a multi-party legislative body?
Instead of the current system that favors the two old ones. 

[MRDUMPLING]

Our system favors the two party system...not the Constitution itself.  While I favor more political parties, it is basically different rules set forth by both Republicans and Democrats who play by different rules than other parties. 

Republicans weren't even in power when the Constitution was written.  Lincoln was a third party candidate known as the Republican party.  We have ammended our Constituion, and I don't disagree totally with what you are saying.  It just seems that you want to regress our Bill of Rights.  There is no need to do that.

[marcus]

CCW in action

[Bindare_Dundat]

CCW in action

damn

[Soul Crusher]

damn

That's what im talking about!

[Bindare_Dundat]

That's what im talking about!

That guy had all the authority he needed to help him out of that situation. 

[www.BrinkZone.com]

The current system favors the two major parties.

Which has nothing to do with the US Const. Best to not comment in things you know so little about.

With a different system, there would actually be a point in voting for eg a libertarian party (perhaps headed by Ron Paul), as they would actually get a few seats in the congress if they could get 5 or more % of the popular vote.
The political scene would be more diverse.
I don't understand why you would oppose that?

To repeat, you don't know anything about the system or the US Const. Worry about your own country, and save your advice about ours. I voted third part Libertarian myself. We have not laws nor Const. related articles that force any type of 2 party system here.

Again, I believe that changes can and should be made to constitutions over time.

Lucky for us, no one cares what you believe.

Over here, a change in the constitution needs to be confirmed twice with an election in between.
One change that was made a couple years ago was to extend the the time in office to four years instead of three.
Another one was some thirty years ago when the legislative body was re-modeled into one chamber instead of two.

Good for you. Our Const was written by some of the greatest thinkers ever to grace this planet. We hold what they wrote as essential to Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy, and no ignorant twits here or in your country will ever change that.

No offence, but I think you're being a little bit paranoid.

No offense, but you should keep your opinions about our Const. to yourself, made all the worse by the fact you don't actually know much about it.

And again, I don't understand why you oppose a change that would open up for a multi-party legislative body?
Instead of the current system that favors the two old ones. 

See above comments...

[Hedgehog]

You're amusing.

Which has nothing to do with the US Const. Best to not comment in things you know so little about.

It does.

If the congressmen votes for each state weren't decided by a majority vote in each precinct, but would be spread out evenly to the parties getting a certain amount of votes in that state.
Eg, lets say Missouri would have 10 congress seats.
Then in the congrss election, lets for arguments sake say the Democrats would get 30 percent and 3 seats. The Republicans would also get 30 percent and 3 seats.
Then some new parties would get percentages as well. The Libertarians perhaps would get 20 percent and 2 seats.
A radical left party, the Socialist party, would only get 4 percent, and that would not be enough to get a seat. Perhaps a new local party, The Southerners that perhaps caucus with the Republicans, would get 15 percent and the two remaining seats.   

To repeat, you don't know anything about the system or the US Const. Worry about your own country, and save your advice about ours. I voted third part Libertarian myself. We have not laws nor Const. related articles that force any type of 2 party system here.

Where do you get the idea that I don't know anything about the US Constitution?

I actually took the Democracy class my senior year in the USA. Did you?

Where do I claim that there are any rules that forces a two party system?

I'm not.

What I am saying is that the current political system in USA favors the two old big parties.

If you by any chance followed the election, it's gone so far that not even the two parties will battle for every state in the presidential race, only in states they think are close.

Is that democracy?

Lucky for us, no one cares what you believe.

We've been having a great discussion here.

What's with the attitude, sport?

Our Const was written by some of the greatest thinkers ever to grace this planet. We hold what they wrote as essential to Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy, and no ignorant twits here or in your country will ever change that.

Exactly what have I've been wrong about?

No offense, but you should keep your opinions about our Const. to yourself, made all the worse by the fact you don't actually know much about it.

No offence taken.

Again, give me an example on how I am wrong about the US constitution.

See above comments...

Sorry, but I don't see much in your post other than personal attacks and keyboard warrior antics.


It would be awesome if you could prove me wrong however.

Good luck with everything, sport.