Redstate

There is no difference between oversensitive people that overreact against perceived bigotry and the Nazis?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

when the outcome is the same.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Until the PC police start firing up the ovens and invading their neighbors I'll hold off on saying that the outcomes are the same.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

long after the PC Police in brown shirts started enforcing their beliefs at the expense of the freedom of others. Fascism does not, by definition, require the physical extermination of the oppressed, only the extermination of their rights.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

1. These people are oversensitive about bigotry. I can't comment about this specific instance but in general its about personal power. They want you to do something and if you don't they use whatever particular PC card they can to club you.

2. Is there any difference between Hitlers final solution and Stalin annotating a death list with comment "6000 more names I don't care from where" ? The PC people arent doing this yet but give them time.

3. They are allready partaking of the same early stage tactics.
A. Book Banning
B. Shoutining down dissent
C. Public strongarm tactics
D. Smear tactics against foes

I included the theocrats in their for the same reasons.

1. Who specifically are these people?
2. Whether Stalin is the equivalent of Hitler is irrelevant. You equated the PC police to the Hitler AND Stalin. They aren't the same.
3. You just described the extremsists on both sides of the ditch.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Sorry, but they're both on the same side of the ditch, just different extremes of Socialism.

Communism vs Fascism isn't Left vs Right. It's Collectivism along 'Class' lines vs. Collectivism along 'Race' lines.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

only Leftists try to ban books?

You think only Leftists use strong arm tactics to suppress dissent?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I was commenting on your specific assertion that communism and nazism were totally different. They're not. There are at best minor differences between the way the Nazi's ran Germany and the Soviets ran the USSR. There are also very few differences in their ideology.

that Nazism and Communism are actually very different in ideology, where did I say that communism and nazism were different?

The ditch I was referencing was the Left/Right ditch of today's political spectrum.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

"where did I say that communism and nazism were different?"

Maybe you were refering to something different when you said that Hitler and Stalin weren't the same, but that's how I interpreted your previous reply.

But Nazism and Communism aren't as different in ideology as you seem to think. Have you ever read the Nazi party platform and the communist manifesto? There are a surprising number of similarities. The main differences were that the Nazi's blamed most problems on racial impurity and the communists blamed the bourgeoisie.

I said that the PC police were not the same as Hitler and Stalin.

Fundamentally Nazism and Communism are different. Nazism is a form of fascism in which the govenment creates policies which further private industry. Communism doesn't believe in private ownership of ANYTHING.

So while there may be some similarities they are more than offset but the fundamental difference of their economic systems.

FTR, fascism operates just as effectively in a completely open market as it does under a socialist state.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Have you read the history of Musolini? He was an early mover in the Socialist movements, but realized that nationalism could be used to stir up people as well as (or better than) class warfare...

"Nazism is a form of fascism in which the govenment creates policies which further private industry."

That's just wrong. In both Facism and it's cousin Nazism, the needs of the STATE were primary. Limited private ownership was still allowed but not of primary significance to their policies.

Both the Facists and Nazis thought that SOME personal property rights should be preserved temporarily as long as the "Needs of the State" were met. Both governments left nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private citizens (except the Nazis confiscated property not owned by Arians) but dictated what was to be produced. The facists believed that the state would eventually take over all ownership which would lead to a socialist utopia.

You are stuck with the fact that Nazism DID recognize private ownership. The fact that it pushed nationalism above all else doesn't change that.

You are speaking about how the various dictators used these systems of government for their own personal needs. In that regard, there is very little difference between Stalin, Hitler, Musalini, or the Japanese military cabal.

You have any links that support your theory that the fascists believed that the government would eventually own everything?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

Though it doesn't get much into the internal working of the ideal facist economy, it does mention the eventual development of the corporate state which was the state owning all the means of production.

Many lefties get hung up on the word corporate in "corporate state" but their meaning was state ownership of the corporations rather than corporations owning the state.

Here's a pointer to a translation of the Fascist Manifesto. Most of the points fit the Democratic party platform pretty well.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39164

we are done.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.

b) A minimum wage.

c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.

e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.

f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:

a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.

b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:

a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.

c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

All of those points were in the manifesto. As I said, looks a lot like the Democratic party platform.

Another source also pointed out that the Fascists enacted a strongly progressive tax on estates (tying this to a previous thread).

I'm not offended. It's just obvious that you aren't looking to have a good faith argument.

Please show me where in the Democratic Party Platform they advocate the nationalizing of any industry.

Please show me where in the Democratic Party Platform they advocate the seizure of religous organizations.

Please show me where in the Democratic Party Platform they advocate instituting a draft.

But I suspect you knew all this already but instead choose to go for the cheap thrills of equating the Democrats to the Italian fascists.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

That was a direct cut and paste. True a few of the points don't fit exactly and are specific to the Italian situation of the times (particularly the seisure of church assets, though your side normally prohibits any religious expression outside a place where YOU consider it acceptable).

As for the nationalisation of an industry, haven't you seen your party's call for nationalising health care? I suggest you look into Hillary's health plan.

I've seen MANY Democrats call for a draft in the last few years. Nope it's not in the platform, but it's what your leadership is saying.

I'm not going for a cheap thrill, only pointing out that the Fascists developed from the Socialists and shared many of their ideas (many of which are still shared by the modern Democrats). You seem to be ignoring the minimum wage, progressive taxes, large estate taxes, etc.

Anything other than cheap shots?

Your comment on religous expression has nothing to do with the discussion but you say it to get a cheap shot in.

A single payer health care system is not nationalizing health care. And bringing up something that happen 13 years ago as proof that the Democrats advocate nationalizing industries is pretty amusing.

You've seen many Democratic politicians call for the draft? Care to give a few examples of some of the ones that have that are not name Charlie Rangel?

I hate to break the news to you but the Republicans are in favor of the existing minimum wage laws and progressive taxation as well.

This is all absurd because it is an attempt to smear the Democrats for no reason. The Democrats weren't part of the conversation until you pulled them in to score easy points.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Flyerhawk, I started in this thread after you equated the fascists with the political right. They're not, and I have pointed out in several ways that their ideology was based on socialist ideology (though not identical in every detail).

But for cheap shots, I believe it was you who first equated them with my side. They belong with the socialists (as do modern Democrats).

Is Charlie Rangel no longer a Democratic leader? But you are ignoring that there were 14 co-sponsors, all Democrats too.

How is single payer health care (when the single payer is the government) not a nationalisation of an entire industry? (actually 2 industries, health insurance and health care).

And yes, I don't mind scoring points against the Democrats. I find their socialist policies to be dangerous at best and most commonly destructive. I find no harm in pointing out other places where they've been tried and failed.

Did I equate the Fascists to the left OR right? Please point out the post in which did such a thing.

You are apparently spoiling for a fight in which you can switch between socialism as a concept and socialism as a party whenever you would like.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Perhaps it was in your posts describing them as being on the oposite sides of the left/right ditch. Assuming you place communism on the left, that leaves fascism on the right.

They both belong on the left side of the ditch.

I'm not switching between a concept and a party. I'm stating that the current Democratic party bases most of its ideals on socialist concepts and that most of those concepts are wrong.

This bill sponsored by Charles Rangold
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&#summa...

"SUMMARY AS OF:
1/7/2003--Introduced.
Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females. "

Has been pushing the draft bill for years. He gets absolutely no traction with it from either side. He's playing politics because he believes that African-Americans are disproportionately represented in the military.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

he believes that African-Americans are disproportionately represented in the military.

He has instant access to actual data. This has nothing to do with fact or truth, he's a race baiting poltroon; always has been, always will be.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

the ways and means committe-he gets to control the purse strings to some degree. That is hardly a "nobody" in the DNC.

You are right that he has been trying to pass the draft legislation for years, but that doesn't make him something other than a democrat or somebody who has socialistic leanings, and he sure enough has power, standing and clout in the DNC.

Please show me where in the Democratic Party Platform they advocate the nationalizing of any industry.

Now I am not sure if it is in the actual platform, but many a democrat advocates healthcare being nationalized.

Also, while the US isn't so much like this, if you look at several oil rich countries, the oil industry is often owned and run by the government. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that some in the US don't want the government to own and run the oil industry (but I wouldn't specifically say the democrats as a party advocate this).

Please show me where in the Democratic Party Platform they advocate the nationalizing of any industry.

Now I am not sure if it is in the actual platform, but many a democrat advocates healthcare being nationalized.

Also, while the US isn't so much like this, if you look at several oil rich countries, the oil industry is often owned and run by the government. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that some in the US don't want the government to own and run the oil industry (but I wouldn't specifically say the democrats as a party advocate this).

Communists didn't ? There is precious little difference in the way the two groups treated private property. If you were in a favored group or well connected what's was yours is yours if you werent you would find that was yours was yours.

The upshot is that PC-Left people also have very little to distinguish themselves in their views of private property. With them its not yours and they feel the government should have the right to seize it and redistribute to groups/people they feel are more deserving.

There is a smidgen of differentiation on the part of the theocrats in that they would agree that the pious have a right to their property. That right subject to the appropriate tithing.

The bottom line is all four groups have unity in their view of the relationship between the state and citizens and dissent.

Why don't we compare recent examples, flyerhawk:

On one side, you have some wacko parent trying to get the Harry Potter books thrown out of her school, and failing.

On the other side, you have schools throwing teenage girls in jail for expressing a non-PC opinion.

If you want to try to equate those two, good luck, because I don't.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

I seem to know more congressmen running for office and former persidents on your side that try to censor things they dont like to hear. has a little more weight when you have a hand in the fcc than when you are a wacko parent.

that this happened in England, right?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

About this story and none of it is saying that it happened in England. If I hadn't read it in a RedHot before it hit the radio, I wouldn't have known any better either.

...Rather scares me, honestly. Sounds like the Left is testing the waters to see how Americans would really react to something like this...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

The story has a lot of shock value so I wouldn't surprised to see media types downplay the fact that it didn't happen here.

I honestly don't know what to say about your 2nd paragraph. So you think there is a secret Leftist cabal that throws out trial balloon stories like this?

You don't think the fact that this sort of law would be Unconstitutional might be a obstacle for said leftist conspirators?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And yet it still stands.
I fail to see your point.

Keep in mind that even Hitler didn't just come straight out with "I want all Jews dead and the Aryan Master-Race to rule the world through Germany's Third Reich!"
He took incremental steps to get people to buy into, "Oh, it's not so bad, we're only doing this and it doesn't really hurt anyone..."

Is there a Leftie Secret Cabal? I don't know. Might there be? Certainly.
Is it more likely that certain individuals, acting separately, are testing the waters to see where their personal plans might take them if they took what they see as the next step right now? Most definitely. And this is the option I choose. (mostly because people are Constantly doing exactly that sort of thing).

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

1. What makes McCain-Feingold unconstitutional?
2. So you think that some people convinced a 14 year old girl to say something offensive, have the teacher overreact, and have the police get involved in order to see what the reaction of the blogosphere to this story would be?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Did congress make a law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press when it passed McCain-Feingold?

Okay, it's not really an answer. It's more of a question.

I think that the answer to my question is obviously "yes".

That's what makes it unconstitutional.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

...to ensure the removal of any confusion regarding the location of the event.

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, Flyer and Raven.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

until they do away with the 1st Amendment, I continue to be confident that this isn't going to happen anytime soon in the US.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Are you sure that the 'penumbra' to the Constitution does not have an exception to the First Amendment for racists?

I am not sure one way or the other, myself, as this section is missed out of all the copies I have read. But we do know that the penumbra repeals the Second Amendment, extends the interstate commerce clause to include things that are neither interstate nor commerce, and includes a right to abortion.

What else it might contain is a mystery to me.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

did the 2nd Amendment get repealed?

Nothing penumbra about the expansion of the welfare and interstate commerce clauses.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

As I said, my copy of the Constitution does not include the penumbra, but I have noted that the courts allow all sorts of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Actually, I already know your view on this, that if any weapon is allowed the RKBA has been maintained.

You are correct that the 'penumbra' was not specifically cited in, for example, Raich v Gonzalez, but it nonetheless designated as interstate commerce activities which are plainly nothing of the sort. It was by no means the first case to do so.

I didn't even mention welfare, but thanks for bringing it up. Also not mentioned in my penumbra-less copy of the Constitution.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

The right to bear arms has ALWAYS been limited to some degree. Most military use weapons have been restricted, and with good reason.

Do you think that laws that forbid felons from handgun ownership are Unconstitutional? Cause I don't see any exceptions in the 2nd Amendment for restricting gun ownership to only SOME citizens.

There is no question that the courts allow far too much to be included in the commerce clause. The drug war is the clearly insult to our Constitution. Not a penumbra. Simply an expansive definition.

If your copy of the Constitution doesn't reference the general welfare, I suggest you get a better copy of the Constitution. Make sure it has a complete copy of Section 8.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I think that laws that forbid ownership of handguns for felons are, in fact, unconstitutional. I can understand why people think it's a good idea, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

(Please note, I didn't say that it wasn't understandable, I just said that it wasn't constitutional)

Also, I'm pretty sure that "General Welfare" refers to The States themselves, rather than The People... which completely changes the reading of the clause, to my mind.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

references just the enumerated portion of the Constitution (and the ability to tax for that purpose), not everything generally under the sun as it has been distorted.

the framers specifically talk about this in the federalist papers. One comment is something like, "if we expected the government to just spend whatever they wanted saying its for the general welfare, we could have stopped writing the document at that section"

I can reference more if needed but i dont think I need to. It is really disheartening how Congressmen have duped the citizenry based on a simple lack of understanding of english. But then again I doubt that they themselves even know exactly what is written.

But even back in the day there was a lot of disagreement over this matter. Hamilton, the primary author of the Federalist papers, worked very hard to expand the role of the Federal government. At the time there was no mechanism for the Federal government to receive tax funds and a lot of opposition to creating federal taxes. Heck the excise tax, the primary revenue source for the Federal government for the 100+ years of our history, was bitterly disputed to the point that a few angry moonshiners threatened to revolt against the government.

Having said that I'm not sure what you mean when you say that General Welfare dealt solely with the enumerated powers. Which enumerated powers specifically? And how do you know?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

One, a simple understanding of english.

There are two places where the General Welfare is mentioned in the Constitution. The Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Basically this says in order to promote the general welfare we establish these rules. It doesnt say. In order to promote the general welfare you can do what you want, quite the opposite. Trying an end-run around this would be the same as saying "in order to provide for the common defence" the government can bug everyones house, in the name of security.

And in section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

this is solely a section that mentions the power to collect taxes for that purpose within the guidelines of these rules. Again, if you want to expand general welfare you would have to expand common defence to mean anything you want too. If the general welfare meant an blank check it would not have been put in as such a specific referenc to collecting taxes.

And two, the federalist papers and other documents (all emphasis mine):

Federalist 41 (James Madison (dad of the Constitution)): "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?

Madisons veto of a federal works bill in 1817 and other quotes:

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

I hope you're having fun arguing with him, because you're never going to get anywhere.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Why do some of you love to take these shots at me?

Of course I'm not going to have some sort of epiphany and say "Gee now I see the light!". And none of you are going to either. The only difference, it would seem, is that I understand that and some of you don't.

The point of these dicussions is not to get the other person to cry uncle. The point of these discussions is make your own reasoning stronger and, perhaps, change the other person's view just slightly.

Some of you seem to think it is simply inconceivable that people can have opposiing views based on logic and reason so you assume that any arguments against your views MUST be based on snark or trolling or contrarianism.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Oh, I know full well that some people can have differing assumptions that lead logically to terribly wrong conclusions.

That doesn't mean I want to see endless debates with those people on Red State, though.

There are sites on the internet geared toward that sort of thing, and I have reasons for not reading them.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Thats how I became a conservative. I remember it well it was during a lecture on the theory of parralel processing operating systems. When the lecturer got to to the point explaining how any of the systems utilizing centralized control collapsed under their own weight it hit me, you could apply the same principles to government. I never looked back.

Raich was purely interstate commerce clause.

The key is that the Court said that even purely intrastate commerce can impact interstate commerce. That is consistent with the FDR series of cases regarding prices controls, etc.

I strongly disagree with the holding. I can't believe Scalia went along with it.

Growing marijuana in your own backyard for your own use is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

For all those who hate O'Connor, at least she was honest enough to hold on the right side of this case -- which happened to have been the dissent. She was there with Rehnquist and Thomas.

I dont know exactly what the date was in Chicago when they repealed it but it happened. It has also been effectively repealed in NYC too.

You can get a firearm whenever you like in New York or Chicago, provided you aren't excluded for being a felon.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

compared to the "Restricted Speech" rules that have been implemented on university campusesand the resticted speech laws enacted under the guise of campaign finance reform.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Certainly not according to the 1st Amendment. Maybe that's one of those penumbras.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But interstate commerce is not part of the 1st Amendment.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Or, at the very least, the 10th.

I don't know why it should be automatically assumed that the Feds have the constitutional authority to regulate this.

Wait, let me guess. "Interstate Commerce".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

You don't think the Federal government should be allowed to regulate federal elections?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

As for the "penumbra" it's certainly the only part of the Constitution I can figure that gives the "Right to privacy" the Left always argues about.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

While it's not explicitly in there, I hope to get the other person to acknowledge that just because it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that they get to say that The People don't retain it.

Once the burden is shifted, the conversations about it tend to trail off.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But you and I are certainly in the minority on this here.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

If you mean stuff like saying "you can't deny people of color the vote" then, yes, absolutely. If you mean stuff like saying "you can't have a poll tax" then, yes, absolutely. If you mean stuff like "you have to use paper ballots, you have to have a semi-private area in which to vote, you have to use a #2 pencil" then... well, yeah... I suppose they have the power to regulate that.

If you mean "you can't buy time on television within 30 days of an election to talk about how you go to church every Sunday, Wednesday, and Holiday" then heck no.

If you mean "you can't give money to this guy so he can buy time on television within 30 days of an election to talk about how he goes to church every Sunday, Wednesday, and Holiday" then double-heck no.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But this is nothing more than personal opinion.

Either they can or they can't. Pretty simple really.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

"Regulating Federal Elections" does not cover "telling people to vote for you (and maybe even why) in October."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Even if you go to the original idea that people should always have access to a printing press, they still cost money. Especially the really good Heidelbergs.

I think that this will result in a lot more people saying "what the heck?" and "that's not why we passed those laws!" and perhaps even "these people don't represent me!" than it will result in "better do as I'm told."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

that in England you can, and will, go to prison for defending your person, your family or your home in the face of a criminal, and that you will probably spend more time behind bars than the criminal; that a person who breaks into a home or business for robbery will probably not be prosecuted but rather given a warning and released; that a criminal who murders someone will likely serve less than 10 years in jail.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Was meant to be a shining example of anything except where we might be headed if we keep letting those on the Left have their way.
Besides, last I saw, England's Crime Rate didn't change with the "Gun Control" laws. Violent criminals just changed weapons.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I just referer to those on the left who inevitably, in a 2nd amendment argument, say "oh yeah, well england has no guns and they have lower crime."

yes they have lower crime, but they did before the laws, as you stated. actually they are having a bigger problem with gangs these days and their gun crimes are going up not down. (kind of the 'if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" scenario).

you have a good point too. if all guns are outlawed, will they come after your knives next?

...which I believe is already outlawed in Britain.

See here.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

amazing. everyone better hide their cricket paddles and golf clubs because they're next.

wow.