Wireless Technology Blog

I understand the the US Constitution is the overarching document, but at the same time wouldn't the State have evaluated its powers to 'regulate' against that? Or is the practice just to legislate and wait for the screaming?
Mostly the legislation is in reaction to the screaming
legislation may sometimes ignore the potential opposition
Hilarious hyjinks ensue, making lawyers across the land rejoice

It's a combination. What Garthh said is right. But there's also the realization, (by government entities), that most sheep don't scream at all. They just get irritated for a minute and go back to grazing.

I think some of what you witness on here, is that the sheep that do scream feel that they need to scream louder. And to a certain extent, it's true.

I'm always interested in hearing how we in the US are viewed by others. Positive or negative.

Oh Oh this is fun

we can do our own version of Farmville

who are the wolves?

History is filled with stories of "invade, neutralize their forces, take over". America is armed to the teeth. If any power were to defeat our armed forces and they tried to invade they wouldn't just walk in and take the place (think Germany and Poland). ANY invaders would have a street by street battle from sea to shining sea (lame I know, but had to throw that in). Landing here and attempting to take over would be near impossible.

I'm no fan of guns at all. And I hate the price we pay to have this right. But America will always be sovereign because our founding fathers placed these things in to our Constitution. These were not 18th century ideals, they are the rights that all people should have regardless of where they live or the time in which they live. They were right for that time, they've been right up to this time and they will remain right in the future. We pay a high price for freedom, I wont argue that. But we are free and always will be. If that right is threatened you'll see the 2nd amendment in action.

We cherish our rights here, keep your hands off my phone!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

hello Andy, about post #58 and #62

your philosophy is European, not American. so is your understanding of why we have the 2nd amendment. i will put it in caps so the big reason is understood. IT WAS SO THAT WE COULD PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. that is why it will never be removed. only a well armed citizenry can make a government behave. if you take away citizens guns then the government is all powerful . here in the US, our constitution makes the citizens all powerful and the government is designed to do the will of the people, not the other way around.

It sucks, doesn't it?

"when you signed for your drivers license, you signed away your 4th Amendment rights"

But you do this in effect every time you agree to be subject to any set of rules associated with some voluntary involvement. E.g. Campus rules, FAA rules, Hotel rules, Tenancy rules, Company rules, Game (football, baseball, ...) rules, on and on.

Now if it said in the Constitution, you have the right to bear arms and drive a car, it would indeed be a Constitutional matter.

So thanks for clearing up my confusion earlier. (last para here)

It seems not all Americans have 'rights' and 'voluntary' blurred, just the ones that think they have a 'right to drive'.