(05-03-2013 10:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:20 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think every male should do 2 years of service after HS and then the government funds a portion of their education in return.

I agree. I don't see much of a negative to this. People will learn civic responsibility and (hopefully) possess more respect for this country.

I see plenty of negatives. I've served myself, but the Military Industrial Complex is already rampant. Would you want even more of our GDP to be wrapped up in "defense" projects?
Also, when you do something like this you risk upsetting the thin line between patriotism and exceptionalism.

I would consider two years, but let it be in any one of several ways--military, Peace Corps, some sort of domestic service, maybe other options. NOT community organizing.

(05-03-2013 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:20 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think every male should do 2 years of service after HS and then the government funds a portion of their education in return.

I agree. I don't see much of a negative to this. People will learn civic responsibility and (hopefully) possess more respect for this country.

I see plenty of negatives. I've served myself, but the Military Industrial Complex is already rampant. Would you want even more of our GDP to be wrapped up in "defense" projects?
Also, when you do something like this you risk upsetting the thin line between patriotism and exceptionalism.

I would consider two years, but let it be in any one of several ways--military, Peace Corps, some sort of domestic service, maybe other options. NOT community organizing.

I don't know. I can't see any conscription as being the right thing to do.

(05-03-2013 10:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:20 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think every male should do 2 years of service after HS and then the government funds a portion of their education in return.

I agree. I don't see much of a negative to this. People will learn civic responsibility and (hopefully) possess more respect for this country.

I see plenty of negatives. I've served myself, but the Military Industrial Complex is already rampant. Would you want even more of our GDP to be wrapped up in "defense" projects?
Also, when you do something like this you risk upsetting the thin line between patriotism and exceptionalism.

I would consider two years, but let it be in any one of several ways--military, Peace Corps, some sort of domestic service, maybe other options. NOT community organizing.

I don't know. I can't see any conscription as being the right thing to do.

I certainly do not support military conscription. And my libertarianism struggles with this whole idea. But I am also old enough to remember that when so many served together in WWII, they came home much more inclined to work together than what we have today. We had a prosperous economy for over two decades, we put an end to racial segregation (or at least began to put an end to it), we did a lot of good things. This one is a tough one for me to take a stand either way.

(05-03-2013 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:20 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  I agree. I don't see much of a negative to this. People will learn civic responsibility and (hopefully) possess more respect for this country.

I see plenty of negatives. I've served myself, but the Military Industrial Complex is already rampant. Would you want even more of our GDP to be wrapped up in "defense" projects?
Also, when you do something like this you risk upsetting the thin line between patriotism and exceptionalism.

I would consider two years, but let it be in any one of several ways--military, Peace Corps, some sort of domestic service, maybe other options. NOT community organizing.

I don't know. I can't see any conscription as being the right thing to do.

I certainly do not support military conscription. And my libertarianism struggles with this whole idea. But I am also old enough to remember that when so many served together in WWII, they came home much more inclined to work together than what we have today. This one is a tough one for me to take a stand either way.

I see what you're saying. Even if I could stand by this, we are too far gone to try to force people back together that way. Only something truly awful will do it.

Hope it never happens, hope people realize it never has to happen.
However some of you that think that angry people will not try need to
open a history book. Doesn't always matter whether they think they can win.
If you get people mad enough you cannot
predict what might happen. Quit being so naïve.

I love it. Nullification of federal gun law is going to be on the books in over 30 states by 2020.

(05-03-2013 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:20 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  I agree. I don't see much of a negative to this. People will learn civic responsibility and (hopefully) possess more respect for this country.

I see plenty of negatives. I've served myself, but the Military Industrial Complex is already rampant. Would you want even more of our GDP to be wrapped up in "defense" projects?
Also, when you do something like this you risk upsetting the thin line between patriotism and exceptionalism.

I would consider two years, but let it be in any one of several ways--military, Peace Corps, some sort of domestic service, maybe other options. NOT community organizing.

I don't know. I can't see any conscription as being the right thing to do.

I certainly do not support military conscription. And my libertarianism struggles with this whole idea. But I am also old enough to remember that when so many served together in WWII, they came home much more inclined to work together than what we have today. We had a prosperous economy for over two decades, we put an end to racial segregation (or at least began to put an end to it), we did a lot of good things. This one is a tough one for me to take a stand either way.

Im not down with conscription. I have no problem with giving incentives to serve voluntarily. I have oppose this use of force on principle. There are enough young people in this vast population that are willing to voluntarily serve without putting a gun to peoples heads. I understand that the need for soldiers in WWII was immense. I have to point out that most of those men volunteered for service due to the nature of the threat. I would expect that would happen again given similar circumstances. I seems to me that when you have to set up a draft instead of depending on volunteers..that maybe the war may not in which you need to engage in the first place.

(05-04-2013 09:04 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I love it. Nullification of federal gun law is going to be on the books in over 30 states by 2020.

Is it anything more than ornamental? Where do states have the authority to "nullify" federal law?

(05-03-2013 10:29 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I highly doubt its going to happen. Sadly I say we're leaning more towards a Civil War than an revolution. Not saying a Civil War will happen either. I think people needs to work together rather than being pissed off about everything. Polarization is scary sh*t tho.

Come on now, it's just bluster.

With our obesity epidemic, what portion of Americans can run a mile, let alone launch a revolution? A bunch of uneducated tubbies with semi-auto rifles taking on the US military?

Hilarious.

I lol'd.

Before any type of fight happens, it has to be drummed up first and not just by every day citizens either. Americans, no matter how angry, don't have the get-up-and-go to act on anything on their own. If we ever get to the point where extreme enough rhetoric brings in advertising dollars to media outlets, then we'll be in an interesting position.

Some of you sounding off about Americans being over weight and not having the get up
and go that they used to are certainly right. Years ago if they said millions were streaming
across our borders we would have seen thousands go there to stop it themselves. It was
a different world. Political correctness and various other things have changed this country a lot.

(05-04-2013 10:11 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 09:04 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I love it. Nullification of federal gun law is going to be on the books in over 30 states by 2020.

Is it anything more than ornamental? Where do states have the authority to "nullify" federal law?

Anywhere the federal government violates the Constitution.

If you have a gun manufactured from materials entirely in a state ... purchased in that same state ... and it never leaves that state ... it is NOT subject to regulation under interstate commerce and therefore cannot legally be regulated by the federal government. That is the basis of all gun nullification legislation.

That's true. Federal government shouldn't be able to interfere in intrastate manufacturing and sells. Federal government should be more equal to state government anyway. They have just taken more and more authority away from the states over the decades.

Saw a program, believe on HBO, the other night showing how guns of any sort are manufactured basically by hand in the Philippines. Any sort of gun you could imagine. If they can do it, can be done by anyone with enough skill.

(05-04-2013 12:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Anywhere the federal government violates the Constitution.
If you have a gun manufactured from materials entirely in a state ... purchased in that same state ... and it never leaves that state ... it is NOT subject to regulation under interstate commerce and therefore cannot legally be regulated by the federal government. That is the basis of all gun nullification legislation.

While this sounds good, it is incorrect. Look up Gonzales v. Raich. If growing a little bit of pot in your backyard for your own personal consumption can be regulated because of its impact on interstate commerce, and it can, so could a gun built entirely within a state.

This means they can probably get to the 3D printed guns the same way, although enforcing it might be a little difficult.

(05-04-2013 08:00 PM)jh Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 12:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Anywhere the federal government violates the Constitution.
If you have a gun manufactured from materials entirely in a state ... purchased in that same state ... and it never leaves that state ... it is NOT subject to regulation under interstate commerce and therefore cannot legally be regulated by the federal government. That is the basis of all gun nullification legislation.

While this sounds good, it is incorrect. Look up Gonzales v. Raich. If growing a little bit of pot in your backyard for your own personal consumption can be regulated because of its impact on interstate commerce, and it can, so could a gun built entirely within a state.

This means they can probably get to the 3D printed guns the same way, although enforcing it might be a little difficult.

The Supreme Court got that wrong. The Supreme Court is not by any stretch infallible. See: Dred Scott.

And just what are the feds going to do if Kansas says "screw you we're not gonna listen"? Without locals to do the enforcement, the feds are f*cked. See: pot in California. Also, in several states, the law authorizes locals to arrest feds trying to enforce. In SC it is a HIGH LEVEL state offense for any federal government employee or representative to try to implement or enforce Obamacare. You go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

(05-04-2013 10:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 08:00 PM)jh Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 12:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Anywhere the federal government violates the Constitution.
If you have a gun manufactured from materials entirely in a state ... purchased in that same state ... and it never leaves that state ... it is NOT subject to regulation under interstate commerce and therefore cannot legally be regulated by the federal government. That is the basis of all gun nullification legislation.

While this sounds good, it is incorrect. Look up Gonzales v. Raich. If growing a little bit of pot in your backyard for your own personal consumption can be regulated because of its impact on interstate commerce, and it can, so could a gun built entirely within a state.

This means they can probably get to the 3D printed guns the same way, although enforcing it might be a little difficult.

The Supreme Court got that wrong. The Supreme Court is not by any stretch infallible. See: Dred Scott.

And just what are the feds going to do if Kansas says "screw you we're not gonna listen"? Without locals to do the enforcement, the feds are f*cked. See: pot in California. Also, in several states, the law authorizes locals to arrest feds trying to enforce. In SC it is a HIGH LEVEL state offense for any federal government employee or representative to try to implement or enforce Obamacare. You go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

But state legislatures don't get to decide which laws are constitutional. Trying to do so is, ironically, unconstitutional.

(05-04-2013 10:40 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  But state legislatures don't get to decide which laws are constitutional. Trying to do so is, ironically, unconstitutional.

The only way for states to challenge erroneous Supreme Court decisions is to fight them like this and force the issue to be reheard at the SCOTUS and correctly righted. Just like with civil rights. To side against the states fighting against a blatantly wrong federal government on gun control is to also side against states which fought against unjust federal civil rights laws.

(05-04-2013 10:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The Supreme Court got that wrong. The Supreme Court is not by any stretch infallible. See: Dred Scott.
And just what are the feds going to do if Kansas says "screw you we're not gonna listen"? Without locals to do the enforcement, the feds are f*cked. See: pot in California. Also, in several states, the law authorizes locals to arrest feds trying to enforce. In SC it is a HIGH LEVEL state offense for any federal government employee or representative to try to implement or enforce Obamacare. You go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

It doesn't matter if they got it wrong or not. That's the current state of the law. Scalia and Kennedy might be willing to change their votes and overrule Raich but it's no sure thing. Plus it's not clear how Roberts & Alito would vote - only Thomas is left from the dissenters. And there has yet to be a single vote in favor of a restriction on the commerce clause by a liberal judge so those four aren't any help.

I imagine what the feds will do is shut down a couple of dealers and seize all of their inventory as evidence. It will be interesting to see how the other dealers react. I'm guessing that guns aren't like pot. It actually takes some money to start up a shop and stock inventory so selective enforcement will be much more effective.

Since all judges are obligated to uphold federal law even at the expense of contrary state laws I'm not sure how South Carolina thinks it is going to stop the ACA from being implemented.

I'm really curious about which unjust federal civil rights laws the states forced the Supreme Court to reconsider.

(05-04-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  I imagine what the feds will do is shut down a couple of dealers and seize all of their inventory as evidence. It will be interesting to see how the other dealers react. I'm guessing that guns aren't like pot. It actually takes some money to start up a shop and stock inventory so selective enforcement will be much more effective.

Since all judges are obligated to uphold federal law even at the expense of contrary state laws I'm not sure how South Carolina thinks it is going to stop the ACA from being implemented.

I'm really curious about which unjust federal civil rights laws the states forced the Supreme Court to reconsider.

Disagree strongly. If you have a punch press and a stamping machine ... you've got all it takes for an AK-47. There are already 3D printing gun fabrication parties. You show up ... pay for the raw materials ... they 3D print stuff like the magazines and you press the button on the punch press and stamping machines ... TAHDAH ... you have manufactured your own firearm and bypassed nearly all federal gun restrictions as a private manufacturer.

Again ... without local cooperation, the feds cannot enforce these things effectively.

Regarding your SCOTUS question:
Pace v. Alabama
Plessy v. Ferguson

Other similar non-civil rights but freedom related SCOTUS overturns:
Adler v. Board of Education
Bowers v. Hardwick
Citizens United

I agree that individual manufacturers will be hard to stop, regardless of whether it's state or federal. But commercial dealers are a different story. And most people want to buy their guns, not make them, so if they can force compliance by the commercial dealers they will go a long way towards enforcing their restrictions.

(05-04-2013 11:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Regarding your SCOTUS question:
Pace v. Alabama
Plessy v. Ferguson

These are both cases upholding discriminatory state laws that were later overturned. They were overturned by individuals suing the states, not the states suing the federal government.

Quote:Other similar non-civil rights but freedom related SCOTUS overturns:
Adler v. Board of Education
Bowers v. Hardwick
Citizens United

Again, only Citizens United involves a federal law. And all the challengers were private citizens.

Still not seeing any evidence of states fighting against blatantly wrong federal civil rights laws, especially not by trying to arrest duly authorized federal employees carrying out laws that have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.