Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mind if I add something here?
Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.
Speaking of Art. I Sec. 8 what's your take on clauses 15 & 16? What was the original intent of the relationship between "arms" and "Militias"?
The militia always exists, therefore it need only be called up, as opposed to clause 12, re: army.
Navy (clause 13) also existed.
a. George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed.
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground
Try getting a Cop to stand between you and the bullet fired at you. 
Mind if I add something here?
Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.
Speaking of Art. I Sec. 8 what's your take on clauses 15 & 16? What was the original intent of the relationship between "arms" and "Militias"?
The militia always exists, therefore it need only be called up, as opposed to clause 12, re: army.
Navy (clause 13) also existed.
a. George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize the Militia. This is because an army didnt naturally exist, while the Militia only had to be organized: it always existed.
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) militia system implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence. It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines the militia of the United States to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
b. well-regulated Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground
What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?
Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).
The Tea Party is ridiculously conservative, right off the wall, full of myth, and hate the poor and minorities, even the poor ones. The whole mass of the GOP is misled by greedy rich/corporations...
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?
Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).
The only conservatives that are republicans are social conservatives.
In other words, republicans are not a party of conservatives, they are moderates.
What do 21st Century conservaitves believe.[in]
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Interesting reading, but once again not relevant.
SS is not guaranteed - your benefit can be reduced at any time by any amount as seen fit by Congress.SS is guaranteed; as we saw in October 2008 that ain't so with the financial services industry.
The Tea Party is ridiculously conservative, right off the wall, full of myth, and hate the poor and minorities, even the poor ones. The whole mass of the GOP is misled by greedy rich/corporations...
Funny, I'm Tea Party, and concerning me, you are batting Zero. Next Batter.
So... a statement you made knowing it was not true - and thus, a lie.It's neither a lie or ignorance, it's hyperbole.A proposal that he, and everyone else, knew would never be passed into law by Congress.Al Gore wanted all SS funds placed in a locked box, kept out of the hands of Congress;
This is either a lie, or abject ignorance. Bush proposed no such thing.GWB wanted to eliminate SS and have everyone invest in private accounts.
Be honest:
If they were guaranteed to be voted out of office for doing so, do you think that the liberals that support SS would continue to do so?
Everyone knows Bush advocated allowing some of the employees SS tax be placed into personal accounts.
I was born on 1969. I am the cutting edge of Gen X.I have a feeling that we generation Xr's are going to be SOL when it comes time to collect SS.
I was born in 1980 so I may be a baby boomer and if not I'm X, one of the first X'ers..
"Conservative" is a loose term.
I'd like to think the Bill of Rights tho....
Mind if I add something here?
Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.
Speaking of Art. I Sec. 8 what's your take on clauses 15 & 16? What was the original intent of the relationship between "arms" and "Militias"?
Irrelevant to any rational discussion of the issue.Seems to me this does not describe the middle aged white guys running around the woods pretending to be patriots
Except that they were not- most militiamen brought their own personal weapons; in fact, several federal militia acts required that they do just that.Arms were supplied, according to the original language.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Interesting reading, but once again not relevant.
Actually, yes it is. So was the Magna Carta, and so were the Articles Of Confederation, which protected the Right to bear arms, which the Constitution extended from in principle. The concept of Self Defense is an Unalienable Right. Statist Progressives want the Masses disarmed because it makes control easier. That is the reality Wry Catcher. If you ever decide to step back and see your fellow Citizens equal to you, at least in the Right of Self Defense, Self Preservation, it might sink in. Power is Power, Money is Power, maybe, in some ways that insulates the ruling class from the rest of us. Bottom line is that No One has the means or competence to insure safety, 24/7 cradle to grave. The Courts may play with Gun Rights, they may even Steal them away temporarily, the lie here is claiming that they are serving Justice.
