Guns, Waiting Periods and Anger

at heart they honestly do not believe in individual rights and liberties

they believe in a VERY different America than the founders (federalists and anti-federalists alike) set up.

determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment

individual values must be derived from and work to support the (nanny) state.

I also believe that a certain part of the population should not be allowed to have guns people like convicted felons, people what are diagnosed with mental disorders and so, I believe that we as a civil society should do more to stop them from having guns

The reasoning behind the second Amendment is certainly controversial. Please explain to me the STRICT construction of "A well regulated Militia…."

After many years, I trust him explicitly not to be such an idiot again, and truely he is a different man.

Doesnt anyone find it odd that Congress DOESNT know what DHS is up to and has to ask them?

"And the fact that you can quote some cases in which courts ruled is meaningless to the fact that the principles themselves are wrong." You stand corrected.

The "Patriot Act?" Classic 1984 Doublespeak.

In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[9] This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006.[10] In the period 1979–2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved

Gallup poll response to the question "Based on what you have read or heard, do you think the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" showing that between 2003 and 2004 nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough.[50] In response, the Department of Justice established a website, www.lifeandliberty.gov, that defended the Act from such organizations as the ACLU (which itself had created a website that campaigned against the Patriot Act called Safe and Free).[51] At the same time, Attorney General Ashcroft toured 16 cities giving speeches to invite only crowds defending the Patriot Act and touting its importance.[52][53] In the speeches — which among other things made allusions to Bunker Hill, Antietam, the Argonne, Iwo Jima, Normandy and Abraham Lincoln

Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.

There's plenty of blood on the hands of Dems and Repubs for this one.

Any time you advocate a pre-crime measure, that measure by definition will be infringing on individual liberties in an attempt to provide a bit more "security in advance" to "society." That is necessarily going to intentionally and illegitimately infringe on individual liberties in an attempt to purchase a bit of security.

Says the guy who supports Voter ID laws... To prevent a non violent crime that hasn't has a single proven occurrence in decades, that completely co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.

If you think that the United States has been anything like the Founding Fathers intended for at least the last one hundred fifty years, you are even more delusional than I thought.

The Founding Fathers themselves didn't want it to stay the same, or they wouldn't have written the means of change into the constitution. You didn't "sign up" for the Founding father's nation, guessing at your age, you signed up after at least 10 amendments after the death of the very last founding Father.

Perhaps you would prefer to return to slavery, non-applicability of most of the Bill of Rights to state laws, male only suffrage...

Luckily for the rest of us, you don't get to choose.

First of all, voter fraud is indeed one of the most violent acts that can be committed against both a society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it. If you don't think that legislation is a form of controlled violence, then you really do know nothing about political theory.

First of all, voter fraud is indeed one of the most violent acts that can be committed against both a society and the legally-valid individuals that compose it.

But of even more interest is that if there are not any occurrences, then I'm really baffled how you can so confidently state: co-incidentally will disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republicans.
If there are no "proven" occurrences, then HOW could you know what bloc of voters would be "disenfranchised?"

Somehow, I think having my brains blown out would be just a might more violent than some Marine voting in the wrong precinct.

No response needed, but it bears repeating just to show how completely bizarre your thinking is.

In a court hearing here in PA, state lawyers were unable to present evidence (not proof, merely evidence) of a single case of in-person voter fraud in recent history.

...but to counteract this non-existent problem, Republicans passed a law that required government-issued ID to vote. Got that? No evidence that this crime exists AT ALL.

Several independent studies show that those without valid Photo ID are more likely to be Democrats (city dwellers, younger voters)...

The nation envisaged by the Founding Fathers failed in less that ninety years, ending in a civil war that reversed the relationship between state and federal governments, I merely pointed out some realities of that previous utopia that you repeatedly assert was morally superior.