Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
so you are suggesting that because it is the 21st century and not the 18th, that the limitations on federal power listed in the constitution should no longer apply?
|
Your assertion that we should look to people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for an answer to the current healthcare crisis is asking a lot, and presumes an almost supernatural role to each man. It has less to do with federal power in general, and has more to do with the fact that times change, and thus solutions change. It is clear that the current health care system is not the cure for what ails us on a large scale. While it may be more than adequate for the rich, for many people it suffers from many problems. We can't just say "No more big government!" to every problem we see. Nothing is that simple (something Ron Paul will probably realize on his death bed). In order to solve real world, complex problems, we need to develop real world, complex solutions.
I love the Constitution. I think it's one of the most amazing things humanity has ever produced. It's not an oracle, though. There are some problems to which the Constitution has no answer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The amendments do not 'live', nor do they 'breathe', like most liberals tend to intimate. To further this part of the argument would require digging up an old thread or starting a new one though.
|
If the Constitution were unchanging, you would not have the right to bear arms as a part of a well regulated militia. You have your second
Amendment, as proof that the Constitution is a changing document. There is no argument against this fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I don't 'rely' on them, although I am not saying they don't provide a benefit, however, I do not NEED them to protect myself nor my home. Having been trained in both security matters and how to fight jet fuel fires (thank you USMC) I'm pretty secure in my knowledge of how to fight most fires. Equipment to do so is the deciding factor. Pity the city won't let me hook up to the fire hydrant.
|
Assuming you really were trained in fire fighting, you know well that different fires behave in different ways. You know that a jet fuel fire burns completely different from a brush fire, which burns completely different than a house fire.
The point is that without police protection, you wouldn't be able to defend your family. Once you've run out of ammo, in a world without police, and shipments of ammunitions are intercepted and production stops, you'll be down to hand to hand combat and only those who get ammunition illegally will have guns. So, how about we leave the inevitable "I can protect my family from anything" testosterone contest just this once. Please.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The answer is no, simply because you are looking at things backwards. They provide the contingency because THEY are not around me 24/7/365. Because I am the most immediate person surrounding myself, I alone am completely responsible for mine and my [family's] protection. The police are my backup. To put it in terms YOU might understand, If a small group of thugs managed to break through your homes defenses, who is going to protect you and yours for the few minutes it takes a policeman to arrive?
|
No one. We go into the basement in an emergency involving someone trying to get into the house. Then the police arrive and deal with it. See? I don't have to kill anyone, and the police do their job. Fortunately, the odds of my house being broken into are so low that it's not really a concern.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
do you carry a cop with you wherever you go? Does ted kennedy have a bodyguard everywhere he goes?
|
There would be a thankless job. Watching the black sheep of the family drink himself stupid and squander his family name.
Time to get away from the "I can protect my family" talk, as it's a threadjack. You would call 911 if someone came around your house whether you shot them or not, so case closed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
apples and oranges in fact. With public roadways, I can use them as often or wherever I want. With public healthcare, there WILL be limitations and things not covered.
|
You can't park on the highway with our public roads, and you can't get a nose-job with public medicine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
|
Why do you always do this? Post a link to a story that's an exception, then present it as the rule. You do the same thing with gun crime.
He came here because the system for the rich in the US is actually quite good. No one has argued to the contrary here.