DescentBB

CobGobbler wrote:Nobody alive has any idea what they really intended with the 2nd amendment..

amen. One of my core points in the whole gun argument. Thornes assertions are borderline crazy around the UN(find me that statue for starters).NO ONE has EVER brought up confiscation of all guns in this country. EVER!!

That's another lie. The reason the SC reversed "so-called" precedent is because this is the first time the issue was investigated in-depth. They took into consideration many personal writings of the founders and found the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment as meant by it's authors.

callmeslick wrote:

You want to talk about mental health and violence? Let's start with that paranoid delusion of yours that your gun is going to help you overthrow the government.

Tell that to Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi.

callmeslick wrote:

amen. One of my core points in the whole gun argument. Thornes assertions are borderline crazy around the UN(find me that statue for starters).NO ONE has EVER brought up confiscation of all guns in this country. EVER!!

Doesn't mean they won't.

flip wrote:That's another lie. The reason the SC reversed "so-called" precedent is because this is the first time the issue was investigated in-depth. They took into consideration many personal writings of the founders and found the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment as meant by it's authors.

and it was a split decision. Like I said, it's very murky and could change back to historical precedent with a different SC. Like I tried to say, I know very good lawyers who agree the intent is unclear. Why should you or I or anyone on this board have certainty? I don't know if you are sitting on a law degree, but I was trained as a Biochemist.

CobGobbler wrote:Nobody alive has any idea what they really intended with the 2nd amendment. I'd say it was more of a mixture of personal protection given the hostile nature of much of the country in the early days and the whole tyranny bit. Will, no one is proposing to take away all guns, I can't figure why none of you people seem to understand that. So you can't buy a AR-15, so friggen what? Aren't there hundreds of other types of guns you can buy? Why is there this incessant need for this one type of weapon that has only one true purpose?

Best weapon for home protection is a shotgun. Out and about is a pistol. I just don't understand why you guys say restricting one type of weapon means you're losing them all. No one here is doing house to house sweeps...get real. I'm amazed, I've lived over thirty years in some really **** neighborhoods and yet I've seen multiple people post on here than they've had near encounters in the last few weeks. How about you move to a nicer area? Either you're lying or you need to get out of the slums.

That is crazy talk. Just reading the 2nd Ammendment you get a pretty clear understanding of 'what' and 'why'.
Then hundreds of years later some people try to twist their modern day use of the word militia into justification for turning the 2nd completely upside down. They suggest the rule that says 'government will not be allowed to disarm the public' really means the public doesn't need to be armed because the government has enough guns!

So, an answer to the questions raised must be defined and many historians along with constitutional and legal scholars dive into all the evidence, many documents and communications between the authors of the 2nd and they conclude that the 2nd was intended to be an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Anyone who says we really don't know what the 2nd amendment means is grasping at straws for an excuse to ignore its intent!

As to letting the 'assault weapon' be banned because we still have other weapons you haven't been paying attention to the definition of 'assault weapon'! First it was assault rifle now it's pistols and rifles and according to some at the front of the fight to disarm us it means anything with a pistol grip! That makes it game over! 'Let them eat cake' time!

Just because, when addressing a national audience, a president or senator or congressman says he won't do something doesn't mean he won't! Especially if his actions and other comments indicate he truly does intend to do so!,

That is the reality you are asking us to accept. The definition of assault weapon is completely and purposefully nebulous.

Further, the reason these liars want to attack guns is ridiculous. The people causing gun problems are the root of the real problem. Other than a need for all law abiding gun owners to tighten up their storage habits they have no part in the cause of the problem.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:That's another lie. The reason the SC reversed "so-called" precedent is because this is the first time the issue was investigated in-depth. They took into consideration many personal writings of the founders and found the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment as meant by it's authors.

and it was a split decision. Like I said, it's very murky and could change back to historical precedent with a different SC. Like I tried to say, I know very good lawyers who agree the intent is unclear. Why should you or I or anyone on this board have certainty? I don't know if you are sitting on a law degree, but I was trained as a Biochemist.

That's kind of confusing slick. In another thread you told Woody "it's the law so get over it"....but in this case, since you and someone with a law degree disagree with the law it is 'murky'.

If a law degree is the magic that makes the difference then, among those with the authority to determine that also have a law degree, more of them declare you are wrong than those who would say you are right. So get over it. It's the law.

Will Robinson wrote:That's kind of confusing slick. In another thread you told Woody "it's the law so get over it"....but in this case, since you and someone with a law degree disagree with the law it is 'murky'.

I said the INTENT was murky. You are talking about an Amendment written by 18th century landed gentry, and subject to interpretation and reinterpretation over two centuries. At NO time did I suggest that the 2nd amendment was not the law of the land. I have every confidence that you can read English, and know full well what I was saying, so my question to you is this: Why are you purposefully attempting to cloud the issue? A little worried, are we?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:That's kind of confusing slick. In another thread you told Woody "it's the law so get over it"....but in this case, since you and someone with a law degree disagree with the law it is 'murky'.

I said the INTENT was murky. You are talking about an Amendment written by 18th century landed gentry, and subject to interpretation and reinterpretation over two centuries. At NO time did I suggest that the 2nd amendment was not the law of the land. I have every confidence that you can read English, and know full well what I was saying, so my question to you is this: Why are you purposefully attempting to cloud the issue? A little worried, are we?

You suggested Woody stop complaining about Obamacare "because its the law" I simply suggest you should do the same about the 2nd amendment.....or quit telling him to shut up about law he doesn't agree with like you don't.

And I'm less worried about your dreams of a shuffling of the Supreme Court than you are hopeful for what it might bring you.
I recall talk of Roe v Wade being overturned if conservatives get their chance in the court but it didn't happen did it? Well the same non-event is likely true with regards to the recent cases affirming that the 2nd is an individual right even if you get the liberals you want in the Supreme Court.

What I worry about is more of these little erosions of freedom that, in the short term, inconvenience me for no good reason other than to help scumbag politicians score points with uninformed lemming voters. And in the long term poison the well from which our freedom comes.

where, Will, did I say I wished the Supreme Court be 'packed'? Where did I ever suggest one way or the other how I wished the 2nd to be interpreted?
The Roe example is a good one....I figure you would be about one conservative away from 'reinterpreting' that one, too, without judgement on which way is my choice. I am constantly astounded at the certainty expressed so often here. Certainty, among other things, is the most dangerous blockade to actual nuanced thinking and intelligent problem solving. If you note, Will, on this issue and others, I am generally keen to express my OPINION, and state it as such, and express extreme caution towards stating that this, that or the other thing absolutely WILL HAPPEN. Be it, healthcare, gun violence, abortion law, or the 3rd race at Gulfstream, I have no crystal ball, and very little certainty for viewing the future. We can use the past as guidelines, but I see far more reluctance on these pages to do that intelligently that I do willingness to declare with absolute conviction what WILL happen in the future.

callmeslick wrote:where, Will, did I say I wished the Supreme Court be 'packed'? Where did I ever suggest one way or the other how I wished the 2nd to be interpreted?
The Roe example is a good one....I figure you would be about one conservative away from 'reinterpreting' that one, too, without judgement on which way is my choice. I am constantly astounded at the certainty expressed so often here. Certainty, among other things, is the most dangerous blockade to actual nuanced thinking and intelligent problem solving. If you note, Will, on this issue and others, I am generally keen to express my OPINION, and state it as such, and express extreme caution towards stating that this, that or the other thing absolutely WILL HAPPEN. Be it, healthcare, gun violence, abortion law, or the 3rd race at Gulfstream, I have no crystal ball, and very little certainty for viewing the future. We can use the past as guidelines, but I see far more reluctance on these pages to do that intelligently that I do willingness to declare with absolute conviction what WILL happen in the future.

When you shout down another's opinion based on current law you are declaring an absolute. You are telling him the discussion is closed. Then you turn around and claim nuanced thinking gives you the right to challenge existing law because nuanced trumps absolute...but the other guy can't be demonstrating nuanced thinking if he challenges the absolutes that you support.

Your excuses are a lot like Clinton's dive into the definition of 'is'.

Will Robinson wrote:When you shout down another's opinion based on current law you are declaring an absolute.

at no time did I do so, right, Will? All I have said all along it that we don't know, and cannot go forward thinking that current interpretation will not be changed. Even Scalia, a very conservative justice, claims the current interpretation is flawed.

You are telling him the discussion is closed. Then you turn around and claim nuanced thinking gives you the right to challenge existing law because nuanced trumps absolute...but the other guy can't be demonstrating nuanced thinking if he challenges the absolutes that you support.

I said that a law was the law, had survived a Supreme Court challenge and would be implemented. What is wrong about that in regard to the healthcare act? The discussion is closed, and the outcome, as I made clear is not going to be seen until we've operated under the law for a few years. Bitching about the existence of the law says nothing.

Your excuses are a lot like Clinton's dive into the definition of 'is'.

and your dance around the very clear distinctions I make is sort of like Gene Kelly's in Dancing in the Rain.

You sure sounded pretty absolute when I challenged the meaning of “general welfare”.

Spidey wrote:You sure sounded pretty absolute when I challenged the meaning of “general welfare”.

well, I don't recall that, but if so, I apologize. Hell, that may be the most absolutely murkey two word phrase in the entire text of the Constitution(before amendments).

This is what I glean of Slick's arguments and his claims about himself, that to this point I have no reason to doubt. He is descended from the very first of wealthy landowners. In his opinion, this country and it's declarations were all instituted for the benefit of those wealthy landowners. Basically he's saying that they created it and it is theirs. Now, he also holds to this 18th century class system, in which these wealthy landowners are the supreme law of the land and politicians are just pawns to do as they will. Now, we all know it's perfectly legal to own a fully automatic Thompson machine gun with a full capacity drum magazine. As long as you can pay for the licenses and fees. You can actually put 30mm chainguns on your helicopters, as long as you can pay the licenses and fees and so on. My assertion is that people like Slick have no fear that they will ever be disarmed because provision will always be made for the wealthy, that provision contingent on wealth, which they have plenty of. I see all of Slick's arguments just as a way to retain claim over all this nations assets as their own, and the commoner is just another asset. So, Slick, I think I can argue with the best of them for 2 reasons. First, I have a great memory, so that gives me instant recourse and basis in any argument and secondly, I will only argue the truth, which is a force all unto itself. I'm not sure there isn't a great deal of you guys on every forum in this nation, constantly trying to subvert peoples minds and convince them to disarm themselves, knowing full well and with complete confidence that you yourself will never be subject if the need arises.

flip wrote:This is what I glean of Slick's arguments and his claims about himself, that to this point I have no reason to doubt.

oh golly, this should be good.......

He is descended from the very first of wealthy landowners. In his opinion, this country and it's declarations were all instituted for the benefit of those wealthy landowners.

actually, second, as the first wealthy landowners were the British crown that sold land to the likes of my forbearers, but so far, pretty good.

Basically he's saying that they created it and it is theirs.

uh-oh, off the rails! I am saying that they created, and built in advantages for themselves that have allowed them to run the show. A subtle difference, but sort of important.

Now, he also holds to this 18th century class system, in which these wealthy landowners are the supreme law of the land and politicians are just pawns to do as they will.

not quite that absolute a thing, in my mind, but still, that's the way it's worked out since the landed gentry stopped being the actual elected officials.

Now, we all know it's perfectly legal to own a fully automatic Thompson machine gun with a full capacity drum magazine. As long as you can pay for the licenses and fees. You can actually put 30mm chainguns on your helicopters, as long as you can pay the licenses and fees and so.

all very correct, but how does this relate to a thread on costs of healthcare?

My assertion is that people like Slick have no fear that they will ever be disarmed because provision will always be made for the wealthy, that provision contingent on wealth, which they have plenty of. I see all of Slick's arguments just as a way to retain claim over all this nations assets as their own, and the commoner is just another asset.

as patrician class types go, I'm far more kindhearted than that, but I can see how the cynical could read it all that way. And, I may well be in such minority that your vision will sort of hold sway over time. The trending is with you over the past half-century. I've tried to buck the trend, but.....

So, Slick, I think I can argue with the best of them for 2 reasons.

....we.trot, confidently, onto very thin ice.....

First, I have a great memory, so that gives me instant recourse and basis in any argument and secondly, I will only argue the truth, which a force all unto itself.

...and, WHAM!!!! Into the murky cold we go.....Flip, there are but few absolute truths, and to claim you only argue the truth is kidding yourself. You proved fallibility already in this one post, and to generalize like this comes off as self-flattery, which I don't think is your intention.

I'm not sure there isn't a great deal of you guys on every forum in this nation, constantly trying to subvert peoples minds and convince them to disarm themselves, knowing full well and with complete confidence that you yourself will never be subject if the need arises.

we sort of plan it all out at Masonic Lodge meetings and annual meetings of the Illuminati......aaaargggh, I spilled the beans!!

....again, what did any of this have to do with healthcare costs?

I'm an opportunist

I'll give you that much......

as patrician class types go, I'm far more kindhearted than that, but I can see how the cynical could read it all that way. And, I may well be in such minority that your vision will sort of hold sway over time. The trending is with you over the past half-century. I've tried to buck the trend, but.....

Well, I see this as the very reason the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are kept cold turkey, to preserve us from those whims of the heart

EDIT: Slick, you may a find great deal of people here like to communicate in PM's, I am not of that sort. My point with the helicopters, as you ask, is that even if there is a complete ban and confiscation of weapons, the wealthy will write provision for themselves to not be subject to it. So, every Joe Schmoe in America would be disarmed except for you. You have nothing to lose, because it's your fishing buddies who write the laws.

flip wrote:

as patrician class types go, I'm far more kindhearted than that, but I can see how the cynical could read it all that way. And, I may well be in such minority that your vision will sort of hold sway over time. The trending is with you over the past half-century. I've tried to buck the trend, but.....

Well, I see this as the very reason the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are kept cold turkey, to preserve us from those whims of the heart

but, in the minds of many scholars, those very things entrench a small cadre of wealthy landowning gentry. While I am a bit unsure of that, history is on the side of that analysis. And, to clarify for you what I'm saying, in terms of history:
1. The Civil War--post war rules were written to preserve the power of the Southern Gentry
2. Robber Baron era--would have continued on into nouveau serfdom, but that trend was checked by....ta-da!! A member of the patrician class, Teddy Roosevelt.
3. The depression resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the old money. Depressions and recessions most always do. The damage was finally controlled by....once again, ta-da!! A member of the same patrician family, Franklin Roosevelt.

other signposts mark the way, in less obvious fashion, but my point is that nowhere is the Constitution(although a fine governmental framework, just as it's designers seemed to intend it) an inherent protector of the little guy. In fact, one could argue that it provides the framework for the gentry to change things to keep the whole ball of wax from getting too onerous and falling apart.

The Jekyll Island duck hunt that created the Federal Reserve

The only reason I post this is because of you making light of secret collaborations, when you must surely be aware of there reality, but concerning Mason's in general, the ones I have met have turned out to be very decent people in deed.

but my point is that nowhere is the Constitution(although a fine governmental framework, just as it's designers seemed to intend it) an inherent protector of the little guy. In fact, one could argue that it provides the framework for the gentry to change things to keep the whole ball of wax from getting too onerous and falling apart.

One could argue that, but the real battle is convincing people of it

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:When you shout down another's opinion based on current law you are declaring an absolute.

at no time did I do so, right, Will?
....

I said that a law was the law, had survived a Supreme Court challenge and would be implemented. What is wrong about that in regard to the healthcare act? The discussion is closed, ..

So the discussion on health care act is closed but the discussion on the individual right to keep and bear arms is not....according to slick.

Sounds pretty absolute in one case and not at all in the other.

attaboy, Will, miss the point altogether. I'm done pointing out the difference, so you just enjoy yourself.

Evidently slick, your pointing skills seem to be lacking as it looks like Will is absolutely right. You flip flop worse than Algore did back when he was running for president.

woodchip wrote:Evidently slick, your pointing skills seem to be lacking as it looks like Will is absolutely right. You flip flop worse than Algore did back when he was running for president.

I just said it's a waste of time debating future outcomes we have yet to see, nor a full implementation we have yet to see. All you brought to the table was a faulty analysis of an IRS report, and then you and others contributed a bunch of 'educated guesswork'. My point wasn't to say you cannot make your guesses, but that it simply appears you are sniping at a bill you don't like. And, to that end, I suggest that the bill isn't going away any time soon, so let's see how it works, and come back with real numbers.
As for the 2nd amendment stuff, all I've ever done is question the certainty that seems to come from others on here about the intent, or the certainty of the future interpretation by the SCOTUS. In other words, I have always accepted that the law is one the books now, and isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon, consistent with my position on the ACA.
No flip-flops, and there really shouldn't have ever been a need to point that out. Sadly, some folks refuse to read for meaning here.

Dunno about faulty. You have yet to show where the payback info is to be found (and no I'm not looking it up for you). While there may be special cases for the truly indigent, I will take the word of the IRS over yours as they will be the ones handing out the fines.

callmeslick wrote:...
As for the 2nd amendment stuff, all I've ever done is question the certainty that seems to come from others on here about the intent, or the certainty of the future interpretation by the SCOTUS. In other words, I have always accepted that the law is one the books now, and isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon, consistent with my position on the ACA.
No flip-flops, and there really shouldn't have ever been a need to point that out. Sadly, some folks refuse to read for meaning here.

Bullshiite! Complete lying in denial blatant bullcrap.
You started a thread ranting on the subject and said the following:

callmeslick wrote:Would the founders even envision the need for a 2nd Amendment in a nation that had a standing army?

(Which, by the way, is one of the stupidest things ever said in this debate)

And:

callmeslick wrote:The second amendment has been used to get us to an unconscionable reality. It's time to change it,
radically and severely.

And:

callmeslick wrote:Frankly,as a society, we simply do not deserve, nor have we earned, the freedoms we have in terms of gun ownership.

That, as well as other things you have said that clearly indicate you dont accept the law as it is on the books!

You are so full of it you are once again overflowing with bullcrap.
And you certainly don't have a grasp of the intent of the 2nd other than to occasionally give lip service to it when cornered like you just did in your last post!

At least have some courage behind your convictions. But no, you want to be tyrant and still get revered as some kind of Robin Fricking Hood!

sorry, Will, but your quotes illustrate my point. I accept that the 2nd Amendment exists. I merely questioned whether the original intent was relevant, and later wondered if it should be scrapped if people are going to continue using it for ends that lead to an unsafe society. No crystal ball projections, merely opinions, and in the case of the 2nd, there is considerable evidence and history both ancient and recent from which to launch a debate. Completely different from looking at a law that is, as yet, only halfway to full implementation, and guessing how it works out.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, Will, but your quotes illustrate my point. I accept that the 2nd Amendment exists. ....

I rest my case against your contention that you accept the 2nd. It was never that you knew it existed as you try to parse words for cover it was whether or not you accepted it the way you expected Woody to accept the ACA....
Anyone following this tangent will have read your comments in context and understand what you are all about in that regard.

(edited to move 2nd amendment specific stuff to other thread)

once again, what does ANY of this have to do with healthcare outcomes? Will, there are entire(long) threads devoted to the gun issue. I've said my peace on those, but wonder why everything comes back to guns. Sorry if you don't see the difference in my reasoning about healthcare, or gun laws being watered down under the guise of 'protecting 2nd amendment rights', but doing a thread hijack isn't going to clarify anything.

woody, in an attempt to return to your original topic.......here is a link from which you can play with various incomes and situations to determine actual costs to individuals/families. Play around and get back to me:
http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx

Ok, I'll copy and paster 2nd amendment portion to your other thread and you can dodge it there...

by the way, just for fun, I entered a 2014 income of $60,000 for a 60 year old individual in a pricier state. The cost of the policy stated was $20,000, but the tax credit(subsidy) is around $16,000, so the individual has out-of-pocket premium costs of around $4000. That is for a health insurance policy that has a $6300 or so cap on total out of pocket health care expenses. Seems like a fair deal to me.....

Will Robinson wrote:Ok, I'll copy and paster 2nd amendment portion to your other thread and you can dodge it there...

I won't dodge anything. I stand by my words. But, moving this to the other thread makes sense. Thanks.

callmeslick wrote:by the way, just for fun, I entered a 2014 income of $60,000 for a 60 year old individual in a pricier state. The cost of the policy stated was $20,000, but the tax credit(subsidy) is around $16,000, so the individual has out-of-pocket premium costs of around $4000. That is for a health insurance policy that has a $6300 or so cap on total out of pocket health care expenses. Seems like a fair deal to me.....

And I suppose that subsidy came out of thin air?

It’s just cost shifting…as I stated sooooo many times before.

callmeslick wrote:by the way, just for fun, I entered a 2014 income of $60,000 for a 60 year old individual in a pricier state. The cost of the policy stated was $20,000, but the tax credit(subsidy) is around $16,000, so the individual has out-of-pocket premium costs of around $4000. That is for a health insurance policy that has a $6300 or so cap on total out of pocket health care expenses. Seems like a fair deal to me.....

Where is this subsidy detailed...or where can I play with inputting the numbers because I'd like to afford health care coverage and at this point I don't care how it gets paid. They broke the system and I'll make do with the pieces until it gets fixed...

So +/- 16,000 x how many millions of Americans = helping reduce the deficit. I never did understand the new math.

woodchip wrote:So +/- 16,000 x how many millions of Americans = helping reduce the deficit. I never did understand the new math.

minus federal reimbursement to hospitals for indigent primary care in emergency rooms, etc, etc, CBO says it adds up, and to return to my theme, let's wait and see what happens.

I’ve got this ticking time bomb in my hand…let’s just wait and see what happens.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So +/- 16,000 x how many millions of Americans = helping reduce the deficit. I never did understand the new math.

minus federal reimbursement to hospitals for indigent primary care in emergency rooms, etc, etc, CBO says it adds up, and to return to my theme, let's wait and see what happens.

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Tuesday that President Obama’s signature healthcare law will cost about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

The figure represents a slight increase since August, when the nonpartisan budget office estimated that the law would cost about $1.17 trillion before 2022."

Can this country afford another bloated bureaucracy? So where is the 130 billion cost going to come from? Taxing the rich more?