Teh Ricer Civic!

Heh, you realize that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-2nd amendment right? Of course they are also against government telling you what to do. Against the government trying to run the economy. Against the government TAKING YOUR RIGHTS FROM YOU. Libertarians can be described as Socially Liberal (Liberal in the old sense of the word that includes the right to bear arms) Although there is a split in the party over gay marriage/abortion. Libertarians can also be described as Fiscally conservative (some to the point of pure unregulated markets) They are a relatively misunderstood party, but i feel that a great many of Americans would identify more with Libertarians than any other party if they actually knew who they were and were not afraid to go with a third party. That being said, i know an awful lot of libertarians who are registered republicans. ESPECIALLY young folks. The future of the republican party may be libertarianism, unless the far right continue to hold sway.

And you make your arguments because your liberal mind works that way. No self respecting gun owner wants to kill any person. Animals are... oh... animals and have been hunted for food since the dawn of man. We do not want to deport foreigners, we want to ENFORCE OUR LAWS PERTAINING TO IMMIGRATION. If you come legally then there is no problem, Welcome to America! And While most conservatives would want to "screw gay people of their rights" i personally do not because i don't see how that is the governments issue... It is discriminatory to give preferential tax treatment to "married" individuals as it is. And i do think it is the same thing. A gun by itself is not harmful, nor is a baseball bat. A gun can be used in sports (target shooting), so can a bat. A gun can be used as home defense, so can a bat. Whats the difference? people are more afraid of guns, so they must go. Which brings up the comical line from some movie when 2 guys steal an old ladies car, as they pull out the old lady draws a pistol and shoots at them, the next line from the car jacker is "See this is why i always vote FOR gun control" And yes i would make the argument that the government should not ban marijuana, however assisted suicide is still killing someone willfully. I should make the note that i am a conservative libertarian, not a far right conservative, It would be hypocritical of me to deny homosexuals of their rights if i expect my right to keep and bear arms to be upheld.

Its the national polls, and considering your polls are at least 2 days old it just reaffirms my statement.

Congratulations, you just made the case for the government to do whatever it wants unchecked simply because it makes no mention of it in the constitution. The government is free to kill all dogs on the 2nd Sunday every 3 years because it does not say that in the constitution (well i guess technically they could... but that doesnt mean they should). Plus i find your reference to unregulated weapons a bit of a misnomer. Do you know all the regulations about the length of the barrel on rifles, shotguns? The regulations around owning and possessing a fully automatic machine gun. Here in California the regulations concerning the number of rounds that can be carried in the magazine? The restrictions on how a magazine can be dropped... and if that is considered an assault rifle because of it? California also has a "safe handguns list" which means that only handguns on that list may be purchased... because they are safe. Of course Law enforcement can buy any damn handgun they want because they are exempt. So its good enough for the law enforcement, but NOT for you.

or you could educate everyone of the use of guns. The Swiss seem to do it quite well. Similar with the alcohol argument. And yes i agree, under bush our other rights have severely taking a beating. However i don't feel that one right is better or worse than another right. Under your ideas rifles like.... Have no reasonable purpose, that particular rifle looks like it might be in compliance with the silly CA Assault Weapon laws. Despite the fact that they COULD be used for hunting, or just self defense at home or even just for fun plinking away at the range. And considering that the great state of California already registers ALL HANDGUNS and given the level of HANDGUN CRIME. I am going to go on a limb and say that it doesn't work so hot... other than the cops like to harass us law abiding citizens because they can see that we own handguns. By your reasoning, everyone should have to register any bats they buy. mmm Bricks need to be registered. what else... belts can choke people... need to be registered. Ohhh..... lawnmowers... Ah yes... lawnmowers are very dangerous, they need to be registered.... weed wackers... KNIVES.

Your reading makes the 2nd amendment redundant. Clearly they would not include a redundant statement in the bill of rights. And the DISCIPLINE, means that the congress can DISCIPLINE the militia. THEREFORE, it must infer an individual right. Besides, CRIMINALS get guns anyways. The places with the WORST crime have the STRICTEST gun laws. Obviously to no avail. Gun laws prevent the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from criminals who don't obey the law anyways. But fine, go ahead and lead us down the path of the police state... while your at it you might as well kiss your 1st, 5th and all the other amendments bye bye because they clearly hold no legal sway anymore. The Anti-Gun Brady Campaign recently released a press statement on the dreaded Assault Weapons... Lets see... the press statement, i believe, said that in the time since the assault weapons ban has lapsed (4 years) about 175ish people have been killed and 183 injured by "assault weapons" Now that converts into 358 total injuries/casualties divide that by 4... 90 injuries/fatalities a year or about 44 deaths per year... Now for comparisons sake, about 50 people die from lightning each year and like 45 die from insects each year. So... Wow.... the odds of getting killed by an "assault weapon" are LOWER than dying to lightning or insects.

Which is why it is clearly stated as so in the CONSTITUTION itself. Here is the argument i made for it in the other thread... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So as i casually peruse the US constitution, i found a few interesting things. Article I (powers of the legislative branch) Section 8: Article II (presidential powers) Section 2: The president, as commander in chief, obviously can call upon these people (once again national guard) OR in times of war during a draft, he can call upon the great unorganized militia (aka draft). And finally, the Second Amendment: Now, since the creating of the militias is defined by the Constitution itself the second Amendment would seem rather repetitive and thus useless to your typical anti-gun person. However, since it IS defined in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment DOES exist, one could only logically conclude that they were referring to individuals rights to bear arms. As such, the first half of the sentance can basically be ignored since that part is already covered in the Constitution. Therefore the only logical way to read the 2nd Amendment in this context is to believe that the government cannot infringe upon their right to either keep firearms (which Heller v. DC provides for), but also to bear them which suggests open carry and concealed carry rights. Of course this is all within reason, a convicted felon or other convicted criminal is stripped of their rights upon being found guilty (as they have breached the social contract) as such, by my interpretation of it, it is fully constitutional for these people to have their right to keep and bear arms deprived. However, to deprive law abiding citizens of this right is unconstitutional by this reading of the Amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid an organization fight to protect something that's explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment! Cause, you know, NO democrats from the south belong to the NRA right? Democrats have made anti-2nd Amendment a part of their platform, but the NRA only fights for one thing, to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. Your social views are not affected by that... in fact true liberalism would promote that right. But then again, i know California is one of the most anti-gun states, so it does not surprise me that you believe that the NRA are extremists... despite the fact that well over half the nation believe in the right to keep and bear arms (albeit in various forms). And as to the minute men, well if the gov aint doing there job then there is nothing to prevent them from making citizens arrests or alerting the border patrol.

Down from +8s to +14s thats a tightening

Rasmussen Tracking 10/13 - 10/15 3000 LV 50 46 Obama +4 Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking 10/13 - 10/15 1208 LV 49 44 Obama +5 Hotline/FD Tracking 10/13 - 10/15 817 LV 49 41 Obama +8 Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* 10/13 - 10/15 2143 LV 49 47 Obama +2 Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* 10/13 - 10/15 2312 LV 51 45 Obama +6

Well the national polls are quickly tightening back up

Army men are fun, i think i got a whole stash of parachuting ones somewhere.

I am not aware of any tax advantages of an S-Corp to a sole proprietorship... not to say that there aren't any.

What the hell are you talking about? an S-Corp has shareholders like a C-Corp but it is not double taxed, it distributes earnings to the shareholders just like a partnership would. I suppose you could have an S-Corp with only 1 share that's owned by one man but its a little different.

Eloquence does not necessarily make a good leader. Hitler was quite eloquent you know. ... although hitler did manage to lead his relatively small country to dominate an entire continent... i guess that is good leadership... I dont know where i am going for this. But Obama did very little to sway me to vote for him.

"Rob the software engineer" is not a business owner. Businesses that can not afford to expand as well (especially given a bad economy) certainly would be even more harmed by a large tax hike. There are a lot of BIG businesses out there that are hurting, you want to increase their taxes too?

Probably not, but symbolically it is a poor message to send. "You really shouldn't do this, but if you do then its okay, the people of america will take care of you"

Women as a % tend to be more liberal. Therefore they would identify with obama even if he was not as eloquent. Also why men tend to favor McCain.

Okay. If i went out, drank alcohol every day, got cirrhosis of the liver... would YOU pay for my meds? would YOU pay for my liver transplant? This ENCOURAGES behavior which many consider undesirable, and judging my Obama's tone he finds it unfavorable too.

But without "Joe" one of those other plumbers would become "Joe" Or worse there wont be any plumbers without "Joe" Small businesses employ a LOT of people across this country.

Hmmm Obama wants us to help those single mothers who decided not to have an abortion. why should >>I<< have to pay because some idiots decided to screw around? Why should >>I<< have to subsidize their abortion for that matter? Its YOUR fault YOU deal with it... unless of course said person was raped... that's a different story.

Uh huh. So state taxes are irrelevant right?

Hmm seems fair. that is 25% tax on their REVENUES. Not necessarily profit, but REVENUES.

Right cause Europe doesn't have deductions too right?