When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As I have been reading the general postings it is very apparent we have some diverse political viewpoints among our membership. I have no idea how the Canadian gov't fundtions but knowing that many of us are in the USofA, I must ask about some of the ideas some of us have. It has made me doubt the effectiveness of our public schools. Where did some of you get the idea the USA is a republic? We are not. The USA is strictly a democracy that runs on public policy, ie; mob rule. The USA is a communist country that is different from some others only because we still have private ownership of firearms. Other than guns, Karl would be very happy here. Personally I used to consider myself a democrat but have given up on them and now vote Libertarian all the time. If someone out there thinks the usa IS a republic, write and tell me why you think that. DF
Democrats are far closer to Communists than the Republicans. That's why they are known as leftists. The USA has a Senate and House of Reps which equals republic. When you start voting on everything, its a democracy. Guns help prevent Communism and dictatorships. Or so our founding fathers thought so, but what do they know, they only wrote the Constitution!
Let's see... I know the Pledge of Allegiance states ...
I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States Of America; And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands; One nation, under God, indivisible, and to liberty and justice for all.
The United States is a republic that has a democratic government.
There are a great many things that happen in this country of ours that I don't agree with also. I happen to live in Houston and San Jacinto Day is today. This day was founded to represent the battle of the Texas Army against the Mexican Army led by Dictatorial President Santa Anna as he crossed Texas to crush resisitance to his government. Sam Houston led the outnumbered Texans against the Mexicans at San Jacinto, which is about 3 miles east of Houston, and demolished the Mexican Army. General Houston allowed captured President Santa Anna to leave when he could have taken the country of Mexico himself for Texas. Wouldn't Texas be an extremely large country today if he had? No, Texas is being overran with the Hispanics from Mexico in an attempt to take Texas back. This great battle receives only token notice in the newspaper on page 21 and a re-enactment at the battleground. Cinco De Mayo has grand coverage in the local media and a number of parades. Need I say more? 'Nuff said!
The USA is a representative democracy or a republic depending on whose definition of which term you apply. There's no way we can be called a true democracy since we elect others to represent our views in government. There's an interesting article online about this very subject at:
Guys, we are missing the point here. We have metioned the pledge and the constitution, both of which currently mean nothing. Our nation USED TO BE a republic, that is where the pledge came from. Our constitution used to mean something, now it is just some sheets of paper. Try finding an Article III court to hear a case in sometime, they no longer exist. Suppose we go over to Ken's house and steal his truck, but get caught a block away. Ken's truck will get impounded as evidence, our court case will read State of Whatever against Dino. What ever fines there may be will go to the state. Ken won't get anything out of the deal. This is because the State thinks they have been wronged, that their truck was stolen. A republic would run a case of Payne vs Dino, and would give any $$ collected from me to Ken, he is the one who has been wronged. Here in the USA folks can have their property 'condemned' by the gov't and then given to someone else. Right now this is happening in Detroit, because some wealthy people want to build a casino. What is the constitutional justification for that?!There is none, a republic would not allow this to happen, our constitution no longer applies! Our legislature is just as bad as our current courts.Decisions are made to keep the greatest amount of people happy (the mob rules),and the rights of the minority, which would be respected in a republic, are ignored. Can you wear a sidearm out in public where you live? Can you travel without gov't permission? No! Our republic is gone! I am still voting in elections, but am beginning to think we may have to use the cartridge box instead of the ballot box. If you have other suggestions as to how to get our republic back, I'm listening. DF
DF you seem to have stepped over the line a little bit here. First democracy and "mob rule" are not the same thing. What exactly is your definition of a republic and why is it so much better than what we have, irrespective of what term you use? What on earth do you mean by an "Article III court"? Article III states that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress sees fit to establish and ordain. I'd say that pretty much means every court in the nation.
All actions which are contrary to the rule of law, i.e. crimes are considered as being committed against the state. Period. All criminal trials are considered as "XYZ State vs. Defendant". If convicted the criminal will be remanded to the custody of the state for punishment. Should the victim of the crime decide to file a civil suit in an attempt to gain restituition or reparation then he/she is free to do so. Your assertion that these things would be different in a "republic" is patently false. Or does your idea of a republic include vigilante justice ala the old west? Steal my truck and I'll hang your butt!
Yes the government does have the right to condemn property for the purposes of gaining posession of said property. In most cases the government will attempt to buy the property at a reasonable cost from the owner(s) but if the owner refuses to sell then the government can eventually get their hands on it. It happens most frequently in cases of infrastructure improvement, i.e. road & bridge building.
Please explain how the rights of the minority would be more respected in a republic than they are now.
I don't want to wear a sidearm in public. No sane person would, why not just paint a target on your forehead and walk around with a sign that says "take your best shot". I much prefer to carry my weapon concealed, which I have a permit to do. I do think that the 2nd Amendment is being assaulted on a regular basis but I fail to see how allowing people to swagger around like a bunch of dimestore cowboys with 6 shooters on their hips would help the situation.
You're certainly free to hole up with Tim McVeigh's ol' buddies but I don't think armed insurrection is the answer to this country's problems.
Hey Bill, glad to see I have provoked some thought and disscussion. In a constitutional republic, like our nation used to be, the legislators realize that they are writing laws for everyones benifit, not just to please the greatest amount of people, while getting a few pissed off. Our gov't used to realize that the constitution was a limitation document from the people on the gov't, now it is believed to permission from the gov't to the people. George Orwell would be pleased. An Art. 3 court would be 'the supreme court for the united states of america', what we now have instead is the 'united states supreme court', this is not what Madison and Jefferson had in mind, our current courts operate as corporate entities of the gov't, against the people. How can the state consider itself the victim of every crime? If I steal your truck and survive, a prosecutor could file the case on your behalf. That is what his job is supposed to be, filing Bill v Dino, not the state v Dino. The legislation was all done in 1861. You prefer concealed carry, me too, less chance of the general public freaking out. But if you have to ask for a permit the choice is with the gov't and not with you. If by McVeighs buddys you mean the michigan militia, he was not a member. His friend Nichols and Terrys brother James are members of CCM, as am I. The CCM is the Citizens for Constitutional Michigan, the Nicholses are in the eastern division and I am in the western. DF
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 21-Apr-01 AT 11:02 PM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 21-Apr-01 AT 10:59 PM (EST)[/font]
Sorry but human society is not a "one size fits all" organism. It's impossible to write laws which suit all of the people all of the time. Even the most fundamental principles of law based on the tenets of whatever scripture you choose to follow, like not indiscriminately slaughtering your fellow human beings, are not "right" for all of the people. So the laws must be written to provide protection from the consequences of what most people would consider unacceptable behavior. The key phrase there is most people, not all because obviously McVeigh felt it was acceptable behavior to blow little children to pieces. The fact that you and some others disagree with some laws doesn't make them wrong, it simply means that you don't agree with them but you still have to obey them. You and your CCM are free to try to convince enough people to change the law or you can sit around and clean your guns and bitch about it. Your choice...aren't you glad you live in a country that allows you to have that choice?
I still fail to see what the distinction is between the mythical "supreme court for the united states of america" and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court interperets the Constitution, it does not try cases. For that matter neither do the appellate courts, that is left to state and municipal courts. What would you have, one single tribunal of gun-toting, like-minded militiamen to decide every stupid lawsuit filed in this country? This is a civilized society not the Fraternal Order of Water Buffalo fercrissakes! Obviously you see a need to kill people who commit property crimes so that covers the vigilante question. BTW that'll get you put in jail just in case you're interested.
Since the state legislature made the law, like it or not you and I have to follow it. If you break it then regardless of the victim, it's still the state law you broke. That is why it is the State vs. Defendant in a criminal trial. As I said before civil trials are different. There you have Plaintiff vs. Defendant.
Finally I'm fortunate to live in a state where all I have to do is ask for a CCW permit and if I haven't committed any felonies or been treated for mental illness I'll get one. In Michigan it's different, you have to prove why you need one and the local sheriff decides whether or not you get one. I think that's a bad thing and it should be changed. Interestingly enough however Michigan does recognize my CCW.
The USofA was a Republic at one time. It is being sorely tested now. The left has got quite a strangled hold and it is something to watch the propaganda issue forth when they are ?. To say the republicans are exempt from all that would be wrong but they are better defenders of the Constitution then the left or the libertarian ticket. Our nation has a set of checks and balances. They may not be reading level at the moment but neither are they stuck on one side. To vote libertarian -well that's your choice. Karl Marx, if he were here would be a champion on the democrat side.
Bill: be very glad you can get a permit. I would apply for one here in Kansas if I could - but even if it was granted, in all likelihood I wouldn't carry. But to have that option available, I'd take it. That would make us a republic. Freedom to choose what I want to do.
Going back to the dinosaur: If you wanted to make a change how would you go about it? Voting the libertarian ticket or to start shooting? Or maybe there is another way. And yes, there is. Marx would NOT care for that.