Damn. I kept reading this thread. Oops.
Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.
|
Radar, do you believe that the right to keep a well organized militia refers to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms or that it refers to having a state militia (currently, the coast guard)? Since the West interprets the term in the former way and the Southeast interprets the term in the second way, which segment of the American population is completely and utterly wrong? How will you go about proving to them that they read the Constitution in a completely and utterly wrong way? What was the original intent of writers of the Constitution -- keeping some military power with the states or allowing the citiZens to remain armed so as to prevent abuses of power by their government? Which words of Jefferson will you use to prove that you are irrefutably correct?
Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.
|
This one really irked me. Since you emphasized "effected", I believed that you were pointing out poor use of grammar by the person you disagreed with. However, the person you disagreed with used "affected", which is the proper term for the situation. I found it very annoying that you accentuated this.
As I recall, the reason we switched from using largely tariff-based taxes to largely income-based taxes was that we found tariffs to be a cause of dissension (ref: Civil War) and to be bad for business. You seem to be quite pro-business, so why do you want to return to a more detrimental tariff-based taxing system?
(edit: sentence error fixed)