Surplus ammo rumor?

[jonboy20]

I was at the range today when I over heard 2 guys having a conversation. They were saying that the UN is asking certain countries to stop selling their surplus ammo so it stays out of the third world countries. They mentioned that it is why SA ammo has not been imported in sometime. Any one else heard this?

[nalioth]

I was at the range today when I over heard 2 guys having a conversation. They were saying that the UN is asking certain countries to stop selling their surplus ammo so it stays out of the third world countries. They mentioned that it is why SA ammo has not been imported in sometime. Any one else heard this?
The UN has long had a resolution that member nations demilitarize their surplus ammo (read "destroy") rather than sell it.

The south african ammo was the end result of some greedy people over there misdirecting the UNs attention.

[M1 Tanker]

The South African should have NEVER been imported. They signed a deal to have it all destroyed between the late nineties and 2005. They have since been caught and are in trouble in their own country.

But yes, the UN has been pressuring nations for YEARS to do that, its nothing new.

[fal_762x51]

Thank god for poor ex-combloc countries.

[okie shooter]

If we could get the mild steel core 7.62x39 hanging around eastern europe in now, heck the let us import ss-109, That said, the southafrician goverment wont let that happen again, they were royaly pissed off that it got sold at all by the folks that promiced to destroy it.

[mrbgt]

''UN pressuring countries to destroy there ammo'' shit the're paying them to due it ,guess where the moneys comeing from

[jonboy20]

OK....these guys were all talking like this just happened. Glad I still have my very small surplus of SA. No shooting the CETME for awhile. But the AR......:rockon: I can still afford to shoot it.

[okie shooter]

I guess in the defense of the UN, there are places you dont want to dump ten thousand rifles, and millions of rounds of ammo. That would create some headaches for the local goverments involved. We in western europe and the US dont see that though since its been years and years since there has been any armed insurections in our neighborhoods(the sixties and early seventies was as close as we got in a long while, and folks like the SLA was better armed than the police forces utilized against them, I dont think any of us want reasons for the army to start doing police actions here in this country). They happen in africia and other places constantly. Thus for the South Africians now, they try to control what might hit the countries in their neighborhoods.(they for years feed the forces in their favor to create political unrest in the neighborhood, twenty to thirty years ago, for political gain, but have given up that policy now)

[pigpen]

I guess in the defense of the UN, there are places you dont want to dump ten thousand rifles, and millions of rounds of ammo. That would create some headaches for the local goverments involved. We in western europe and the US dont see that though since its been years and years since there has been any armed insurections in our neighborhoods(the sixties and early seventies was as close as we got in a long while, and folks like the SLA was better armed than the police forces utilized against them, I dont think any of us want reasons for the army to start doing police actions here in this country). They happen in africia and other places constantly. Thus for the South Africians now, they try to control what might hit the countries in their neighborhoods.(they for years feed the forces in their favor to create political unrest in the neighborhood, twenty to thirty years ago, for political gain, but have given up that policy now)

Okie, please don't defend the UN. They are indefencable. I can understand not selling ammo to the less civilized areas but to us? Don't make no sence. Just like the UN.

[okie shooter]

Pigpen,

There is nothing saying selling ammo here in the United States(heck less than one precent of stuff imported is ever viewed by customs anyway), will keep it here, the problem is what's to keep companies that want to make a buck from trans-shiping the stuff here but then completely moving the containers to ships back to africa.

If you want to undestand the problem, lets move ten thousand f/a ak's and ten million rounds ammo, to inner city gangs, with no one watching the process(or the goverment actually endorceing it) in LA or other major cities, and then hype the kids up on some nice drugs, and tell them to do what they want. Do you think law and order will prevail peacefully, this is kinda of what happens in western africa now. The UN has no power but the countries that decide to demil ammo make the decisions, yours included, the US does not sell loaded ammo, other than thru limited numbers in the former dcm type programs.

Thus, I see more small arms ammo demilled in my job in just testing equipment for demil, than any of us will shoot in a lifetime, as demilling ammo is the offical position of the US goverment. If you want that changed write your congressman.

The company that sold the S/A ammo on the us markets and elsewhere, broke their agreements to demil the stuff as the goverment of South Africia had contracted. The international arms market is such that companies form and disolve so frequently(I have delt with thru my job, some and you would not beleive the big players(multinational ammunition makers) forming corprations to handle demil operations and limit their liablity, just takes one or two guys and a office to get a demil contract with the right backing) so the company that the south africians contracted I imagine doesnt even exist any more.

The south africians have a legitimate consern for their ammo hitting the hot spots in their neighborhood, would it bother the rest of us if this stock of ammo, and proper firearms had hit northern mexico in these amounts?

[SteelCore]

"They were saying that the UN is asking certain countries to stop selling their surplus ammo so it stays out of the third world countries."

It is called the UN Small-arms Non-Proliferation Act.

SA was to be demilled by Germany, but instead they sold nearly a billion rounds of it to europe and most to the US...S Africa was pissed because they dinn't want the stuff to end up in N. Africa to be used against them. BTW, the guy who swoopd in all "Lord of War" style to buy it paid a whopping $25.00 per case...whatta deal! Course, he did buy a billion rnds atta time.

Money talks...that is why it wasnt destroyed.

Read the whole story here:
http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles08/my_round.html

Or the recent story here
http://allafrica.com/stories/200704040112.html

A little history of Armscor, who grew during the Apartedi era:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/safrica/Sarfio00-01.htm

"A prominent member of the National Party, the apartheid-era ruling party, summarized the defense establishment's philosophy: "You cannot be idealistic: if you manufacture a weapon, you must be reconciled with the idea that the weapon will be used. The bottom line is that countries are going to buy arms and if you have the capability of manufacturing them, you will export them.""

[Hoot]

That, by far, has to be some of the most interesting, thought-provoking reading I've ever gotten from this forum. Kinda one of those "and you were there" stories. Thanks for the references Keith.

Hoot

[Rampager]

I can understand how they don't want this ammo being used in 3rd world countries by death squads and 2-bit dictators, but to me there should be an exemption to allow it to be sold to the US civilian market, which is unique in all the world.

After all, the ammo sold here will most undoubtedly stay here and be used to harmlessly punch holes in paper targets....what a great disposal technique. Why not sell it here for a tidy profit and use the proceeds towards helping struggling countries instead? Oh well, I guess I'm trying to understand libs, that's my first mistake. :rolleyes:

[Geilt]

As much as I would love to see the suplus ammo market start to flow again here in the US, I don't think we can be expected to be an exception to the rule. There's no way to fully ensure that the ammo shipments coming in to the country would actually stay here in the US.

[Rampager]

The way I see it, after the SA incident there is no way to tell for sure if it is going to be destroyed either. But odds are very, very great if makes it to the US shores it's going to be used for harmless target shooting, much more so than if it goes to a 3rd country awaiting to be destroyed. $$$ is the biggest deciding factor and there is no more lucrative market for surplus ammo than here in the US.

[okie shooter]

Rampager, there is a easy way after the SA incident for the South Africians to ensure its destroyed, as is any other nation in the world, the military will not be able to turn it out unless its destroyed, like we do here.

You think all the govement should think about is money, but in some places with hostile neighbors and fire fights in the streets they think about other things too. How would everyone like if if 308 was sent out for demil in europe, but hay the Iranians gave more money than the US shooters for the stuff, to use in Iran and Iraq. Hmmm ten million or more rounds rounds sold in one transaction(vs peice meal to wholesalers and maybe a half mill a peice, with a bidder willing to pay ten precent more, vs selling it in the us, thats why goverments and the UN want the stuff demilled. Profit makes the world go round, thus with enough bucks you will get the bang. If you have enough cash your ammo will be there.

Also, remember its their ammo, not yours thus, if they want to listen to the UN they can, and all you can do is bitch about the prices you pay, if its worth their peice of mind to not have the ammo end up on the world markets so be it.

[Heath_h49008]

...But I can bitch about my ammo...US Surplus...being wasted and destroyed instead of sold to civilian marksmen or on the open market to offset the taxpayer expense for fresh ammo.

And I do with every vote! (Contact your local pro-second amendment congressman...they will listen)

[Reloader_26D]

A shop up here just received 2 pallet-loads of SA surplus .308. The part that really sucks, is they want $105.00 a battle-pack. I have to step back and take a breather... That's waaaay beyond what I expected to pay. I guess its gonna get much worse...

sad. :cry2:

[ackspac]

Lets not forget why NATO does'nt want any surplus ammo to come here or anywhere for that matter. They're the biggest ANTI-GUN cheerleading team there is. At least here(USA) we can buy our own surplus (Lake-City.ect.) sometimes the govt. takes the powder out then sells it (the ammo)to someone who puts their own powder in, or like the last batch of 5.56 Lake City I bought was sold surplus because it didnt pass the govt.s test ( hint; a leaker in the water test) and sold at Knob-Creek machine-gun shoot.

[Rampager]

Okie...
All I'm saying is there is no safer country to export/import surplus ammo to than the US civilian market. All they have to do is deny it being exported again from the US once it enters to insure it stays here. And what I was saying was the procedes they collect from it could go to help poor countries and help offset the US taxpayers UN costs rather than going up in smoke.

It would be a win, win for all. But I know it's not going to happen because the libs, leftests (UN goons) arent really concerned with helping poor countries...it's all about power and control to them. That and they despise the fact that guns and ammo are available here in the US to begin with.

[Anthropy]

You guys are forgetting that there are a considerable number of countries who hate America for who we are and are in the leadership at the UN. Do you think they really like the US?

Even our top allies the Brit and the Ausie governments have banned weapons from their own people. What makes you think they want us to have any? Then there is the anti gun left in the US gov.

[Geilt]

Lets not forget why NATO does'nt want any surplus ammo to come here or anywhere for that matter. They're the biggest ANTI-GUN cheerleading team there is. At least here(USA) we can buy our own surplus (Lake-City.ect.) sometimes the govt. takes the powder out then sells it (the ammo)to someone who puts their own powder in, or like the last batch of 5.56 Lake City I bought was sold surplus because it didnt pass the govt.s test ( hint; a leaker in the water test) and sold at Knob-Creek machine-gun shoot.

Look at what Okie has been saying... you're not buying US military surplus, the folks who make the ammo is selling it. It may still be headstamped LC but it was never owned by the US Gov't, hence technically not surplus.

[pigpen]

I'm sure the un small arms non-proliferation deal was specifically aimed @ us. Not so much that the items listed in the treaty were even owned by US citizens but just to get the nail in the coffin started. Laws are just like taxes. They start out little but get bigger & bigger until they are all consuming.

[Geilt]

Pigpen - While you have every right to believe what you see fit, I just can't agree that the UN Small Arms Proliferation Act was targeted, primarily, against the importation of ammunition in to the US. The shear amount of surplus ammunition imported in to the US is dwarfed by the amounts brought in to other parts of the world.

One possibility is to flip the argument and look at how the ban has hurt the US ammunition manufacturers. The top four exporters of small arms ammuntion in the world are (1) The US, (2) Spain, (3) France and (4) Canada. Possible? Sure but still not likely. The US gov't itself has done more to limit what can and cannot be imported in to the country.

The rationale many at the UN used to solicit the changes in the trade of small arms ammunition was that small arms themselves can be rendered useless if there is no ammunition. (hey, their thought process, not mine) Also, if the flow of ammunition is interupted on a regular basis the ability to wage affective warfare will be reduced.

Major nations have the resources to sustain an arms and ammunition manufacturing infrastructure but rogue bands of tribes or insurgents can't. They have to get their ammunition from somewhere and buying it at the local Walmart isn't an option. By trying to restrict the flow of ammunition from countries with such a manufacturing capability to smaller nations and independant groups, the hope is to eventually choke the life out of their ability to act militarily or make it too expensive.

The problem is that when something is restricted or made illegal, but the demand isn't reduced, a black market for it will always be created. Yes it does increase the cost and level of risk in completing the sale but it doesn't stop the flow.

Take a look at the following link...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/salwindx.htm

[pigpen]

Pigpen - While you have every right to believe what you see fit, I just can't agree that the UN Small Arms Proliferation Act was targeted, primarily, against the importation of ammunition in to the US. The shear amount of surplus ammunition imported in to the US is dwarfed by the amounts brought in to other parts of the world.


You misunderstood. I meant it was just a primer for future restrictions(or attempts).

:tinhat:

This tin hat is starting to get a little tight.

[Geilt]

Ahhhh, okay.

Hey, if you cut up empty beer cans and piece together a hat using wire, the mind control rays can't get in and it doesn't mind up on the head like some others tin hats. (smirk)

[pigpen]

I made a helmut out of some tin roofing that was left over from when I put a new roof on my shed.

[MicroPilot]

...Take a look at the following link...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/salwindx.htm


This link states that they want to eliminate the trade in small arms because "... light arms are often especially baneful because they are cheap, easy to transport and can be handled by ill-trained rebel soldiers and even children."

If this goal is realized wouldn't this also hinder a people from being able to determine how they are governed? (Think US Constitution 2nd Amendment.) If true then this would kind of support Pigpen's viewpoint.

[okie shooter]

I will put it in easy terms for everyone to understand, what is the primary source in the past for IED's in Iraq, former iraqi explosive shells and bombs. I imagine the bulk of the ammo being shot at us solders in the conflict is stuff that was bought on the open market by sadam during a ban on imports by the un, but with arms dealers not caring thus they got the stuff. Thus if you cannot control the resellers, or the shooters, the only place to try to stop the flow is the suppliers.

I read that after the plo got kicked out of leabnon in the mid eighties thus all of the arms that flowed there, flowed to the balkins thus fuling a religious war for twenty more years. Thus if the supply stays, thus those that hate each other will keep shooting and commiting genocide. Remember those bosian weapons everyone cried over being destroyed by nato forces in photos years ago were used by one side to try to commit genoside to another. Thus one mans neat relic is anothers tool for elimination of folks feared, hated, despised, or wanted to be liquidated for any ole reason, good or bad. Thus think aobut this idea if these were your relatives, family or friends liquidated, killed or other wise delt with.

[MicroPilot]

According to Globalsecurity.org "By 1987 Iraq was self-sufficient in small calibre ammunition, artillery shells, aircraft bombs, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades, rockets, tube- launched rockets, mortars, propellant, fuses, and replacement barrels." (Iraqi Military Industry (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/industry.htm))

This does not mean that Saddam didn't by any ammo on the world market, but didn't really need to.

[okie shooter]

Micro pilot, I can say first hand they wernt, from things I have seen, read and talked to folks about. Or atleast that country was awash with stuff from other nations that took the money and ran.

[MicroPilot]

I trust you.:thumbup:

[Geilt]

Two takes on Saddam;

First, he had the world's fourth largest army and after the Iran-Iraq war ended he probably found his stock pile wasn't where he and his generals wanted it to be. It could take a rather significant time to bring those stock piles back to a strategic safety zone. If Iran had an inkling that Saddam's troops weren't being supplied with ammunition in enough quantity to support combat operations, they may have launched a second war or escalated the existing one.

Second, he was a paranoid SOB so may have thought that if he bought what was available in the region it would keep it out of the hands of his enemies.

[iocane]

Okay, Saddam illegally got ammo. So destroy the market in surplus ammo to keep people who can't legally buy ammo to begin with from buying ammo.They will just get their ammo from Russia, China, Iran or maybe even France.

The reason the attempts to disarm Saddam were so fruitless was because our great nation had to go along with the wishes of the UN. Any organization (specificially in this case the U.N.) that includes as voting members every dictatorship in the world is not going to be of much use for disarming dictators. You see its kinda hard to convince dictators that dictatorships should be disarmed.
What could work is putting tariffs on countries that sell weapons to countries that cause problems. Of course then China would probably dump a trillion American dollars on the world markets and there goes the value of a dollar. They actually have that many dollars in their foreign exchange reserves.
If this getting rid of surplus ammunition for peace did work then in the next decade there should be a lot of peace. Don't be suprised if its the opposite.

[okie shooter]

I think in the great scheme of things, the UN dont give a rats bottom about the american shooting public in first thoughts. The photos of the kids shooting aks and other weapons, in western africa,(there was a huge post of pics on the old board), shows what the problem of un controled arms tradeing and what it can do to a unstable nation. Thus if everyone here thinks the UN is going after the american sport mil surplus shooter, I would read about these and other hot spots thruout the world.

[k98k792]

Mankind has always slaughtered each other. Before there were guns and ammo. They will do so after guns and ammo are banned.
If you want to end wars you have to change human nature,all the bans in the world will never work till you do.
I would like to see what the U.N. could do about that.

[subknave]

First, I do not think you could disarm any country, any more than you could disarm the citizens of the US. What happens is the weapons are hidden instead of out in public. A prime example is the attempt to disarm Germany after WWI and what happened? WWII. Once the technology is known it doesn't take much to reproduce it. I am betting that a number of people here could make a working firearm in their garage if they had too.

Second, When it comes to countries there really isn't any legal or illegal. You can't throw a country in jail. It amounts to creating "Sanctions" but unless you want to fight a war and go in to destroy the known weapons (because you don't know about the hidden ones) you aren't really doing anything.

Mostly I think we are bellyachin cause we want cheap ammo and all these politicians are jacking it up.

[okie shooter]

Read the history of Bannerman, and his supply company, I guess at one time he had a operation that rivled the ones you hear about that dismantled the Soviet machine in the former republics. I thought I had read he bought almost the entire surplus of the Spanish American War, and could supply a nation complete arms(abet a smaller nation), from pistols to cannons and most things in between.

Ironically his island was just up river from New York City too.

[SteelCore]

No prob. As they were revealed to me, I reveal them to you! It is an awesome read.

“2 pallet-loads of SA surplus .308 …want $105.00 a battle-pack.”
Don’t pay it. No one should get put over a barrel like that and flogged in the wallet. I recall paying 28-32 bux per BP, and I protested when a case went up to $275.
These dealers smell blood in the H2O, and demand is driving this crappy price.
(btw, I got 2 SA battlepacks from a buddy this wknd for free….well, actually for helping him trench 900yds of field, for water and electricity…over the course of two days…)

“top four exporters of small arms ammuntion in the world”
Sources please. I think the big 5 (on the UN security council) are the ones who dwarf all others on arms and ammo.

“If this goal is realized wouldn't this also hinder a people from being able to determine how they are governed? (Think US Constitution 2nd Amendment.)”
Bingo, MP…that is why it is particularly odius to me.

“the only place to try to stop the flow is the suppliers.”
Thus there will always bee blackmarket arms and ammo, just like the oil-for-food scam skirted the blocades and sanctions against Saddam…or the Iran contra affair supplied guns to folks the US could not be seen openly selling to.
Products of all sorts and manner will be available anywhere, for a price.

“The reason the attempts to disarm Saddam were so fruitless was because our great nation had to go along with the wishes of the UN.”
Plz remember that we armed them in hopes they’d use VX gas against the Iranians, man. In 1991, we went in and had to destroy the stuff we sold them. We supplied that dictator…as did the French (remember the French built nuke reactor the Israel bombed the hel out of in the 80’s?) and Germans…then things went sour.

Th UN’s desire to disarm us it to make the UN a world-governing organization—it wants to dissolve or re-write our constitution, and negotiate our inalienable rights. Make no mistake abt that.

[Rampager]

I think the UN should also be for the banning of knives and machetes to keep them out of African countries as well...after all during the Hutu vs Tootsie blood bath a few years ago that killed hundreds of thousands, I believe the main weapon used to do most of the killing was the machete.

Let's not forget it was the UN's arm embargo that led to the genocide in Bosnia also, preventing the Bosnian government from arming itself in self-defense. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/EM421.cfm

The fact of the matter is the UN is controlled mainly by libs, leftists and elitists. The greatest threat to the power of the elitist is an armed populus. An armed population is an uncontrollable one to the ruling elite. This is why for thousands of years weapons (even swords) have been controlled before firearms existed.

Going by their own track record, the UN and it's "we know what's best you" mentality has allowed those they are "protecting" be marched to their own mass graves by blocking their ability to defend themselves.

The so-called "fourth branch" of our government, as the framers of our US Constitution intended is the 2nd amendment meant to allow us to defend ourselves against just these types IMHO.

:America:

[okie shooter]

Rampager and others here, if you think the UN is against your best interests, take up your case with your elected officals, if they do not take up your interests, work to elect those that will. That said, as long as the US goverment goes along with the policies of the UN, that is the rules we will live by. Thus you vote, you can orginize and rally those who agree with you to join your cause.

[pigpen]

I have contacted my elected officials about making noise against the un(I refuse to capitalize the initials). They have not listened, cared or both. Can I vote for another canidate? Sure, but that would leave me voting for a liberal welfare pusher who is even worse. As far as organizing goes, only my bro, bro-in-law and about 2-3 friends don't think I'm crazy when I mention the subject. Now, I don't mind looking crazy & I could get some members of the KKK or some neo-nazi group to, as your say, "organize & rally" with me but I have a strange feeling that would not help. Any other sugjestions?

[Rampager]

Rampager and others here, if you think the UN is against your best interests, take up your case with your elected officals, if they do not take up your interests, work to elect those that will. That said, as long as the US goverment goes along with the policies of the UN, that is the rules we will live by. Thus you vote, you can orginize and rally those who agree with you to join your cause.

Trouble is we are usually given a false choice. Both candidates will be pro UN that we will have to choose from when it's all said and done. Since when in recent memory does the government go with the will of the people anyway? (At least when it's against the elitists agenda)

Do you honestly think that if the US populus elected "representatives" that wanted to do away with the US involvement in the UN it would actually happen?....:rolleyes:.I don't think so.

Look at open borders and illegal immigration for example where 90% of the populus are against it, but the so called elected officials choose to ignore the will of the people. Again this issue like many fit the liberal elitists agenda.

:America:

[pigpen]

Look at open borders and illegal immigration for example where 90% of the populus are against it, but the so called elected officials choose to ignore the will of the people. Again this issue like many fit the liberal elitists agenda.

:America:

Good example, but lets not talk about that again.

[okie shooter]

Again, your forefathers thought enough in the electorial process to give it to you, the courts protect other rights they thought were important but if you are not willing to go out and join and fight you are just saying you cannot win, and wont deal with the process there, guess there is always Australia. No guns but heck far less illegal immigration( I imagine they have it but heck lot harder to get there)

[Rampager]

So Okie, are you giving us a hint that you are willing to join us in a anti-UN, anti-open border crusade or are you just giving us a civics lessen?:icon_biggrin:

I'm nominating you as our man to steer us in the right direction on these two major issues that face our nation. I'm mean if you don't care about these issues or are pro UN and open border that's cool too. I'm just trying to tell which side of the fence you are walking on.:wink:

Basically you are saying if we aren't cool with the way things are we should leave the country then. Should we go to Australia as you suggest, legally or should we break the laws there too and sneak in? ...just wondering what you think. :icon_biggrin:

Just so you know I really do like these discussions with you here guys. I love like a good debate, but please don't take it wrong. Just havin fun BS'n to me.

:America:

[okie shooter]

At this point I am still placeing my bets with the process, we need to keep working with it, to change things, otherwise the other choice is to advoicate the overthrow of the duely elected goverment which I do not agree with. The of the aims that guys like Nichols and McVeigh after blowing up the federal building in OKC, was to start of Helter Skelter, thus same as the Manson Clan earler too. So I like the elective process, and believe thats the route for change.

One of the things I always state is there are few black and whites out there, the world is plenty of grey, many ideas, many folks, and some are not as far apart as they seem, but the political process is the way to change without calls to arms, we have seen many places in the world that that is the usual way change occours. Heck we change goverments every four to eight years, and that amazes some folks in the world.

[iocane]

“The reason the attempts to disarm Saddam were so fruitless was because our great nation had to go along with the wishes of the UN.”
Plz remember that we armed them in hopes they’d use VX gas against the Iranians, man. In 1991, we went in and had to destroy the stuff we sold them. We supplied that dictator…as did the French (remember the French built nuke reactor the Israel bombed the hel out of in the 80’s?) and Germans…then things went sour.

Th UN’s desire to disarm us it to make the UN a world-governing organization—it wants to dissolve or re-write our constitution, and negotiate our inalienable rights. Make no mistake abt that.

Well that is known by just about everyone.
Ever buy anything from any country that may someday be at war with us sometime in your lifetime? At the very least if a country does declare itself to be our enemy, it needs to cost them.
A lot of the votes in U.N. are held by dictatorships. Those votes will go to the benifit of dictatorships not democracies. Simply a matter of wolves and sheep voting. If the wolves get the majority of the votes, the sheep are in big trouble.

As for making our country better. the founding fathers thought a lot about how to make this country have the checks and ballances to ensure democracy. I don´t think just wanting the current batch of politicians
destroyed is really a plan. Its just hating the problem, not comming up with a answer to the problem. Even if the bad politicians just all resigned, a new batch would follow the path they laid. So we need a improved set of check and ballances.

[SteelCore]

(switching from Ammo to political)...OK...you've obviously thot this out...what are the other checks and balances? How much more will that cost taxpayers, and add to an already overburdened beaurocracy?

I can't take much more Fed power....it has grown beyond its need.

You mention the Founding fathers, a topic near and dear to me...lets see what a few had to say...

Thomas Jefferson said that to have a true working democracy, you'd have to have an armed revolution every 20 years. Thassrite, a Founding father said that.

What he meant was that every 20 yrs, a new generation comes up, and that the next gen of senators, congressmen, lawyers, etc. would be groomed by their parents to be inseerted into those positions...this nepotism kills democracy by raising a new set of 'ruling elite' that is not necessarily serving the wil of the people. Just yesterday they nabbed a dude on corruption charges for making money on deals in the US and N. Africa...I'd bet that is the norm in stead of the exception, and anyone who's anyone in politix has their hands in the cookie jar somewhere. I'm a capitalist, so I do believe that money is the grease in the machine.

So we can continue to use due process until all sleeping, tv fed, comfy notioned sheep wake up, and realise that no, Virginia, not everyone can be president.


"Do you honestly think that if the US populus elected "representatives" that wanted to do away with the US involvement in the UN it would actually happen?.....I don't think so."

-->Toally agree...George Washington warned against it when he said:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
And:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Abe Lincoln foresaw the 'money powers' (corporations, now look at the multinational corps in effect today) in the US starting to trade ethics and morality for greed-based accuing of wealth when he said:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
"

And Washington on the same:
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
and:
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

The ever-cynical H.L. Mencken gives us this thought:
"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."
and:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
and:
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."
and:
"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man."
and:
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. "

"I have contacted my elected officials about making noise against the un(I refuse to capitalize the initials). They have not listened, cared or both."

H.L Mencken has somethingto say about why they don't listen:
"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts."

IN closing:
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."-G. Washington
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."-HL Mencken.

[pigpen]

You got a lotta good quotes in there Steel Core. Too bad most Americans won't heed the warning of our countries founders. I think it has somthing to do with complacency of the population. When will we learn how to truly protect our republic? Remeber the 4 boxes? I hope it does not progress to the point when we have to open that last box.

[Heath_h49008]

The system works, or it doesn't and we simply shoot the leadership.

Is there justification to shoot people now? Yes. Gun control, taxation, welfare, drug laws, the lack of privacy, imminent domain for private development, etc, etc. The Supreme Court should be run out on a rail, and every person who has sworn to uphold the Constitution should be ashamed. I hope we can do it with the ballot box, and the courts...but option #2 is always there...and it always must be!

We do not have the spark that lights the powderkeg. Worse yet, so few people understand the freedoms they have lost, and are losing, that wackjobs like McVeigh and those who want to start a "Race War" and live out there Turner Diaries masturbation fantasy, are the only voices we hear complaining about government intrusion. That seems to be changing.

The internet is doing what the teachers never bothered ... to teach many Americans about the true liberty they were promised. Doubt me? Look into someones eyes when they realise that the Constitution doesn't give them their freedom, and when they understand what the 9th and 10th amendments actually mean.

That's more Revolutionary than breaking stuff and killing people.:America:

[iocane]

(switching from Ammo to political)...OK...you've obviously thot this out...what are the other checks and balances? How much more will that cost taxpayers, and add to an already overburdened beaurocracy?

I can't take much more Fed power....it has grown beyond its need.



Heres some ideas.

Checks and ballances don't actually have to cost much. How about if everytime a judge over ruled a elected official he had to get a jury to agree with a 3/4 majority, Supreme court included. Might cut down on the legislating from the bench problem.
How about if all high schools had to teach basic markmenship. To cut down on people who have a irrational fear of guns.
How about any gun laws go to the voters for approval, with only gun owners getting to vote on the gun laws.
Term limits on congress. How about if the president was allowed to send 5 issues to the voters nationwide every 2 years. So if president didn't get along with congress the people could decide. Give congress the same power for 5 issues. Treaties have to go to the people to vote on. Only allow 5 new treaties a year.
How about if ballots were made out of sheet aluminum (not aluminum foil) and when someone voted a lazer cut a hole to show who they voted for. Make it so theres no interpreting who voted for who. The vote is what the vote is.
Have the soldiers get to vote on if we go to war or retreat from a war. If congress or the president disagree it can be sent to the people. With a catch that it takes a 55 percent majority to over ride the troops.
How about if all goverment secrets had to be released to the public every 20 years. Well with a exeption for nucleur secrets and spy names.
Anyone running for president has to pass a humility test. Like spending a month shoveling cow manure.

Have a none of the above place on the ballot. In which case theres a new election in a month, with the previous candidates banned from running for that election.
Have a extra throw away vote category. You still can vote for the major political party candidate you don't like but have to vote for to keep the other well financed but worse candidate from winning. Theres just a box to check to show who you would actually vote for if you were not worried about throwing away your vote. So your allowed to votes. One only in the category of who your voting for. One only in the category of who you wished actually won. If the never had a chance candidate gets more votes in the throw away votes category then the winner got, the winners votes are nullified. New election in one month, exept its just the winner and the candidate that never had a chance on the ballot.
I think some way needs to be thought up to test ideas before they are ran on a national level.
Well that is a few ideas, theres plenty more.
The Founding Fathers did a lot of weighing the pros and cons, figuring it all out.
Anyone else have ideas?

[pigpen]

Heres some ideas.

Checks and ballances don't actually have to cost much. How about if everytime a judge over ruled a elected official he had to get a jury to agree with a 3/4 majority, Supreme court included. Might cut down on the legislating from the bench problem.
How about if all high schools had to teach basic markmenship. To cut down on people who have a irrational fear of guns.
How about any gun laws go to the voters for approval, with only gun owners getting to vote on the gun laws.
Term limits on congress. How about if the president was allowed to send 5 issues to the voters nationwide every 2 years. So if president didn't get along with congress the people could decide. Give congress the same power for 5 issues. Treaties have to go to the people to vote on. Only allow 5 new treaties a year.
How about if ballots were made out of sheet aluminum (not aluminum foil) and when someone voted a lazer cut a hole to show who they voted for. Make it so theres no interpreting who voted for who. The vote is what the vote is.
Have the soldiers get to vote on if we go to war or retreat from a war. If congress or the president disagree it can be sent to the people. With a catch that it takes a 55 percent majority to over ride the troops.
How about if all goverment secrets had to be released to the public every 20 years. Well with a exeption for nucleur secrets and spy names.
Anyone running for president has to pass a humility test. Like spending a month shoveling cow manure.

Have a none of the above place on the ballot. In which case theres a new election in a month, with the previous candidates banned from running for that election.
Have a extra throw away vote category. You still can vote for the major political party candidate you don't like but have to vote for to keep the other well financed but worse candidate from winning. Theres just a box to check to show who you would actually vote for if you were not worried about throwing away your vote. So your allowed to votes. One only in the category of who your voting for. One only in the category of who you wished actually won. If the never had a chance candidate gets more votes in the throw away votes category then the winner got, the winners votes are nullified. New election in one month, exept its just the winner and the candidate that never had a chance on the ballot.
I think some way needs to be thought up to test ideas before they are ran on a national level.
Well that is a few ideas, theres plenty more.
The Founding Fathers did a lot of weighing the pros and cons, figuring it all out.
Anyone else have ideas?

You got a lot of good ideas there iocane, some I never thought about. One thing I would like to see is making it easier for poor people to run for resident. Maybe a cap on advertisment, make the canidates get off thier ass & do the old fashion meet & greet, baby kiss, handshake routine. At least go to all major cities of each state. I really like the cow crap shovle idea!!

Ill be 35 on Nov. 3rd so I just might announce that I'mm gonna run for president. Naw j/k, too many skeletons in my closet.

[Geilt]

Generally speaking, the American public is quite complancent. To be fair however compare us to much of Europe and we're raving lunatics about our freedoms and rights. Compare us to much of the third world which have never known freedom or think human rights are something the West only talks about.

We can bitch about the ways things are all we like, the bottom line (as I see it) is that we're still the best game in town. Yeah we have our problems and little seems to get done but again, compare us to much of Europe and the rest of the world. Do you think they have it better off than we do?

[okie shooter]

How about any gun laws go to the voters for approval, with only gun owners getting to vote on the gun laws.

So do murders get to vote on laws on that one, heck let drug dealers and users only vote for the drug laws, and heck think about child molesters and rapists.

Not going to get equal protection for everyone under law with those thoughts too.

[Heath_h49008]

Vote on gun laws?

Will a vote make slavery ok?

Do you think this is a democracy?

Democracy is the right of 51 to enslave 49...we have a Republic with natural rights for a reason.

[iocane]

So do murders get to vote on laws on that one, heck let drug dealers and users only vote for the drug laws, and heck think about child molesters and rapists.

Not going to get equal protection for everyone under law with those thoughts too.


So to get equal protection should child molesters, rapist, drug dealers, dead people, cats, Al queada,
get the right to vote?
I had many suggestions. Instead of cherry picking one that you can argue against, it would be a more healthy
debate if you tried to offer up a better alternative.



You got a lot of good ideas there iocane, some I never thought about. One thing I would like to see is making it easier for poor people to run for resident. Maybe a cap on advertisment, make the canidates get off thier ass & do the old fashion meet & greet, baby kiss, handshake routine. At least go to all major cities of each state. I really like the cow crap shovle idea!!

Ill be 35 on Nov. 3rd so I just might announce that I'mm gonna run for president. Naw j/k, too many skeletons in my closet.



I have been wondering how to take away the advantage those who have backers with lots of cash have.
I don't think our taxes paying for candidates election funds will have the desired effect. Only those with rich backers could end up being the ones to pass the conditions for getting to the cash. Haven't come up with any really good ideas on that one so far.
I do have a idea that might have some merit. What if there was a public forum where people could prove themselves as having potential. Unfortunately I don't think much of a audience would show up at such a thing at first.
Which leaves having it at some event that already has a large crowd like a state fair. Have several boxes for the audience to put questions in. One box to test over all ability to actually do the job. So someone running for president could get a question testing knowledge of geography, history, etc, etc.(of course that one probably needs to have the answers checked for accuracy before the candidates tackle them). Second box is questions concerning issues of the day. Lastly questions concerning what the candidates for the office would do if they had to deal with obscure events in the past faced by previous holders of that position. Then after the candidate answers are heared, the actual actions of the past office holder are stated. Complete with the actual results. Put the event on pbs. The audience could vote on the candidates and the top candidates go to a second round. Unfortunately this idea sounds too much like a reality show. Maybe I will eventually figure a good solution. Its a tough one to answer.



Vote on gun laws?

Will a vote make slavery ok?

Do you think this is a democracy?

Democracy is the right of 51 to enslave 49...we have a Republic with natural rights for a reason.

The republic found slavery okay till the civil war. I suggested making it possible for a elected branch of goverment to be able to take issues to the public. Which is still a republic. A direct democracy would be having the public vote on all govermental matters by way of the internet. Hackers would end up ruling the country. Did you notice I set a limit on how many issues could be taken to the public per year. The public can only with intelligence keep track of just a few issues. Also the public wasn't the one picking the issues. Its have the public decide when the elected officials can't agree. Congress already has voted on many gun laws, which is totally against the second admendment. So we need a way to guarantee guns can't be banned. Would be pretty much impossible for guns to be banned if they had to get gun owners votes to do it.


Do you have any ideas of how the country can be improved. The Founding Fathers had many ideas on goverment. Thinking up new ideas made America great.



Yeah we have our problems and little seems to get done but again, compare us to much of Europe and the rest of the world. Do you think they have it better off than we do?

No.

[okie shooter]

Iocane, The founding fathers worked on the system a lot more than the musings and thoughts you and for that matter I, have presented, thus I am tending to work with the existing system of checks and balances that was outlined by them.

You say argue your points so here I go.

Heres some ideas.First slice of pie.
Checks and ballances don't actually have to cost much. How about if everytime a judge over ruled a elected official he had to get a jury to agree with a 3/4 majority, Supreme court included. Might cut down on the legislating from the bench problem.
The founding fathers did include checks and balances, some times they work the ways you and I like them and others they don’t, look at the problem of Cherokee removal where the courts said it was unconstitutional but the president did it any way, thus the courts have not a absolute if congress will not impeach a president over it. I still feel that the courts have the jurisdiction over the validity of laws and if congress feels they need to override, they can rewrite and reintroduce the law or there can be a change in the constitution. Other than that for some ideas I don’t even trust a jury,(heck some times I don't agree with experts on constitutional law, but I bet I could sell a jury that only the army needs guns, because militia is there and that idea has changed and thus you should use modern militia definition over what the founding fathers called the militia)there are Juries out there that will give away the moon for folks because they never see the far reaching sequences of their actions, just like hitting home runs for themselves and plaintiffs. Remember the courts in DC just struck down the laws restricting gun ownership there, thus the citizens have spoken to ban it too, by electing officals that keep the law, and for the most part might keep the ban, negateing this decision too, which the court used the ideas of the forefathers to make, but the jury lives in a modern society.

How about if all high schools had to teach basic markmenship. To cut down on people who have a irrational fear of guns.
Not a bad idea, but who is to say gun ownership or even knowing about guns,(heck if gay rights get written into the constitution, do you want every kid take a class on that lifestyle too, get first hand experience to overcome that fear) is demanded by the constitution, there are plenty of folks that don’t want their kids for some rational ideas and irrational ideas handling guns and until you get a change in the constitution I think that’s the parents job, Heck most folks think the schools take too much responsibility away from parents these days any way, thus you are advocating they take this one too (like sex education, and historically other ideas that were taught in the home)

How about any gun laws go to the voters for approval, with only gun owners getting to vote on the gun laws.
Been here, done that. Additionally though, everyone is a potential gun owner, as the other ideas I posted earlier, thus laws are by everyone for everyone.

Term limits on congress.
Its there, its a states rights thing, many states have it already.

How about if the president was allowed to send 5 issues to the voters nationwide every 2 years. So if president didn't get along with congress the people could decide. Give congress the same power for 5 issues. Treaties have to go to the people to vote on. Only allow 5 new treaties a year.
Where does it say we are a democracy, we are not, the system of government is a republic. If the founding fathers had wanted one man, one vote they would have worked it that way, heck they didn’t even think a large part of the population should vote, look up the three fifths compromise, women’s suffrage, if we really want why not make government a call in game show, like American Idol, if not make sure the folks you put into power represent your ideas. In some ways remember that not everyone even registered to vote, votes.

How about if ballots were made out of sheet aluminum (not aluminum foil) and when someone voted a lazer cut a hole to show who they voted for. Make it so theres no interpreting who voted for who. The vote is what the vote is. The thing in Florida was a anomaly, for the most part, heck shoot the news people that published the predictions before the polls closed in the state(western Florida, heavy with military bases is in central time not eastern), or just use a better ballot system, not needing such overkill.

Have the soldiers get to vote on if we go to war or retreat from a war. If congress or the president disagree it can be sent to the people. With a catch that it takes a 55 percent majority to over ride the troops.
Heck why have a government at all, we have a government and leaders to make decisions, War and most of the army is not democratic, just how many guys are going to say, heck lets not fight today, that has happened before but thus it was illegal and subject to court marshal. We have a government to make common and sometimes the tough decisions, thus giving the solders the right not to fight almost defeats the reason to have a army and discipline, "aw general we are too tired to fight today, lets fight tomorrow or heck I joined for the educational benefits, not to kill some one". The constitution was specific about this, the President runs the war, congress declares it.

How about if all goverment secrets had to be released to the public every 20 years. Well with a exeption for nucleur secrets and spy names.
There is something to this effect, most things are reviewed periodically and as you suggest some things are kept sealed (heck the government would stifle it self under the paperwork to keep everything secret), some longer and some shorter(some by agreement, the MLK files the FBI has for example), try the "freedom of information act” for starters though its there.

Anyone running for president has to pass a humility test. Like spending a month shoveling cow manure.
Not a bad idea but remember you vote for the person, they just run, thus you have that input by questioning their backgrounds and pasts, nothing stays hidden it all comes out in the wash, so if you beat kittens and puppies as a kid, the news will find it out. Do you want other qualifiers for running for office, colon x rays, and such too? Like I said that’s already there, the media even gets the dirt on everyone, and everyone has some dirt, look at Thomas Eagleton sometime to see what I am saying.

Have a none of the above place on the ballot. In which case theres a new election in a month, with the previous candidates banned from running for that election.
Why have elections at all, if all you want with this is to throw out the entire slate, if the nomination process doesn’t work, fix that, rather than waste elections. Elections cost millions just for local, state governments(remember there is no such thing as a national election, even in the presidential election your state runs it and you elect electors, then congress in one fell swoop declares the winner), but if you think your local government can afford additional elections go for it, just what happens if no one gets a majority, but three in the race split the electorate, thus one might be perfectly fine just needing a runoff, but heck you say toss out the baby with the bath water there.
Have a extra throw away vote category. You still can vote for the major political party candidate you don't like but have to vote for to keep the other well financed but worse candidate from winning. Theres just a box to check to show who you would actually vote for if you were not worried about throwing away your vote. So your allowed to votes. One only in the category of who your voting for. One only in the category of who you wished actually won. If the never had a chance candidate gets more votes in the throw away votes category then the winner got, the winners votes are nullified. New election in one month, exept its just the winner and the candidate that never had a chance on the ballot.
Part of your idea is called the primaries, if you get involved you choose who is on the ballet or have a say in it too, for other ideas here, see above, you don’t have to vote in ever race on you ballot, there is no one that says you do, and some states have blank areas within the ballot to vote for too. Just because your man didn’t make it, that’s why they are not on the ballot, work harder for your person in the primaries.

I think some way needs to be thought up to test ideas before they are ran on a national level.
There are, they are called polls, scientific ones more than just internet ones, that judge who can rally rather than who will vote.
Well that is a few ideas, theres plenty more.

The Founding Fathers did a lot of weighing the pros and cons, figuring it all out.
Anyone else have ideas?
Many of the thoughts you have would require a rewrite of the Constitution, thus heck lets rewrite the Constitution, remember though in a Constitutional Convention, if we had one, everything’s on the table too, which of your current rights are you willing to see go, if someone else doesn’t like them and can get the convention to write it out. Remember also, after a convention you can either ratify or reject, cannot cherry pick after the fact.

You accused me of cherry picking, there you go, sorry in my first comments I didn't have time to write but for good or bad, and for what everyone here thinks of it, here are my musings on the comments made, good that we have a country that interchange of ideas is out there though.

Hmm, all this talk of cherries and pie is makeing me hungry, where is the roach coach when I need it.

[iocane]

"Iocane, The founding fathers worked on the system a lot more than the musings and thoughts you and for that matter I, have presented, thus I am tending to work with the existing system of checks and balances that was outlined by them."
Exactly how do we even understand what they did without figuring checks and ballances for ourselves. A lot of checks and ballances have been added to the system long after they were dead. They built the foundation. We need to do maitenance on what the built from time to time. Otherwise slavery would still be legal. Women would not have a vote. The important thing is to reinforce what the founding fathers built, not tear it down.



'Been here, done that. Additionally though, everyone is a potential gun owner, as the other ideas I posted earlier, thus laws are by everyone for everyone. "
Yep, nothing to stop anti-gun people from buying a gun so they could vote on matters concerning guns. I figure just owning a gun would convert a few to are side. Plus others just wouldn't get over there fear of guns enough to buy one. So it would cripple their ability to get the general public turned against guns. What would really be best is if the supreme court just struck down a whole lot of gun laws. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has not done the best of job at ensuring that laws are constitutional.






"Where does it say we are a democracy, we are not, the system of government is a republic. If the founding fathers had wanted one man, one vote they would have worked it that way, heck they didn’t even think a large part of the population should vote, look up the three fifths compromise, women’s suffrage, if we really want why not make government a call in game show, like American Idol, if not make sure the folks you put into power represent your ideas. In some ways remember that not everyone even registered to vote, votes. "
Actually plenty of states already let the populace vote on issues. My idea was just a very limited form of that.



"Other than that for some ideas I don’t even trust a jury" Do you think trials would be any more just if there were no jury?
As messed up as juries are, Judges are often even worse. Basically we need better methods of jury selection.





"The thing in Florida was a anomaly, for the most part, heck shoot the news people that published the predictions before the polls closed in the state(western Florida, heavy with military bases is in central time not eastern), or just use a better ballot system, not needing such overkill."

Thanks to that controversy many voting machines are being replaced anyway. It isn't the only place having trouble. The current governor of washington didn't have the votes to win the election till the second recount. From what I have found the average cost per electronic voting machine appears to be $3000. For something that could actually be worse then what its replacing. Unfortunately cnc lazer systems start at 3 times that. Still the price is comming down with time. Till then maybe just have a hole puncher and ballots made out of some sort of plastic. Plus have a machine to verify to the voter that the machines would see the same votes that they just thought they voted. The problem with electronic voting machines is they just record the vote electronically. So if something goes wrong good luck trying to do a recount. What we need is something that can go through a recount and not have any room for interpretation.



"Heck why have a government at all, we have a government and leaders to make decisions, War and most of the army is not democratic, just how many guys are going to say, heck lets not fight today, that has happened before but thus it was illegal and subject to court marshal. We have a government to make common and sometimes the tough decisions, thus giving the solders the right not to fight almost defeats the reason to have a army and discipline, "aw general we are too tired to fight today, lets fight tomorrow or heck I joined for the educational benefits, not to kill some one". The constitution was specific about this, the President runs the war, congress declares it."


Really, when was the last time they actually declared war? Never said anything about giving the troops the ability to decide
to fight or not. Would be nice though if once they are sent to fight a war the troops themselves could declare it a war.



"Not a bad idea but remember you vote for the person, they just run, thus you have that input by questioning their backgrounds and pasts, nothing stays hidden it all comes out in the wash, so if you beat kittens and puppies as a kid, the news will find it out. Do you want other qualifiers for running for office, colon x rays, and such too? Like I said that’s already there, the media even gets the dirt on everyone, and everyone has some dirt, look at Thomas Eagleton sometime to see what I am saying."

Theres also all sorts of laws about how they have to run the campaign, rules to get on the ballots etc. I wasn't referring to
a get the dirt on the person test. I was reffering to something else they should have to do to get on the ballot. Just a simple humbleness test.


"Why have elections at all, if all you want with this is to throw out the entire slate, if the nomination process doesn’t work, fix that, rather than waste elections. Elections cost millions just for local, state governments(remember there is no such thing as a national election, even in the presidential election your state runs it and you elect electors, then congress in one fell swoop declares the winner), but if you think your local government can afford additional elections go for it, just what happens if no one gets a majority, but three in the race split the electorate, thus one might be perfectly fine just needing a runoff, but heck you say toss out the baby with the bath water there"

Never said anything about anyone needing the majority. How likely is it that 3 candidates get a perfectly even vote? My idea really would only kick in during the rare occaison that a long shot candidate was actually the one people would vote for if the candidate had a chance. Some countries (maybe some states to) actually have elections with many many candidates, the top two then face off in a final election. I just wanted the best of both ideas.


"Part of your idea is called the primaries, if you get involved you choose who is on the ballet or have a say in it too, for other ideas here, see above, you don’t have to vote in ever race on you ballot, there is no one that says you do, and some states have blank areas within the ballot to vote for too. Just because your man didn’t make it, that’s why they are not on the ballot, work harder for your person in the primaries. "

Primaries are to choose the candidate a political party supports for a election. You might have noticed Lieberman lost the primary yet still is a senator. He won the general election.


"There are, they are called polls, scientific ones more than just internet ones, that judge who can rally rather than who will vote."

Polls are not test of ideas, they just see how popular a idea is. Mostly ideas are tested by becomming law in one state.
Then the other states watch how that turns out. Could be useful if political would actually test and and fine turn there ideas before they are made law. Wouldn't work to well if the goverment did the testing. The political parties should do it themselves. Even a good idea could have bad results if its to be carried out with a badly written law.
No need for a constitutional convention, just maybe some more amendments. Heres a list of constitutional amendments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As you can see there, amendments can do all sorts of things.

[okie shooter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by okie shooter http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=21411#post21411)
"Other than that for some ideas I don’t even trust a jury" Do you think trials would be any more just if there were no jury?

Iocane, please show me where this quote attribituted to me comes from I cannot find those words in that order in my post above. If you are going to counter my quotes, please cut and paste them in order, as I did your arguements to maintain continuity of thought. You quoted half a sentance plus omiting the explination that this is a Constitutional Law issue not a criminal trial issue, you always get a criminal trial of your peers, thats a given.

Heres is my quote there in its proper context. Not on trials but your idea of backing up an legislateing judge from changing laws, which is a idea within the spectrum of Constitutional law, you brought up the idea. Thus, its a Constitutional law question, not a Criminal question. The problem here is what happens when someone is found innocent on a letter of law judges decision, and its application in a criminal court? With your arguement they would need to still convince a jury of it too? Why even have judges(to be deciders on whats right and wrong within the law) if they canbe overuled by a jury, on letter of law application.

Your quote,

Checks and ballances don't actually have to cost much. How about if everytime a judge over ruled a elected official he had to get a jury to agree with a 3/4 majority, Supreme court included. Might cut down on the legislating from the bench problem.

My responding quote, with the bite you quoted bold(12 words), and the rest of the sentance blue(83 words)

The founding fathers did include checks and balances, some times they work the ways you and I like them and others they don’t, look at the problem of Cherokee removal where the courts said it was unconstitutional but the president did it any way, thus the courts have not a absolute if congress will not impeach a president over it. I still feel that the courts have the jurisdiction over the validity of laws and if congress feels they need to override, they can rewrite and reintroduce the law or there can be a change in the constitution. Other than that for some ideas I don’t even trust a jury,(heck some times I don't agree with experts on constitutional law, but I bet I could sell a jury that only the army needs guns, because militia is there and that idea has changed and thus you should use modern militia definition over what the founding fathers called the militia)there are Juries out there that will give away the moon for folks because they never see the far reaching sequences of their actions, just like hitting home runs for themselves and plaintiffs. Remember the courts in DC just struck down the laws restricting gun ownership there, thus the citizens have spoken to ban it too, by electing officals that keep the law, and for the most part might keep the ban, negateing this decision too, which the court used the ideas of the forefathers to make, but the jury lives in a modern society.


And on this thought,


Really, when was the last time they actually declared war? Never said anything about giving the troops the ability to decide
to fight or not. Would be nice though if once they are sent to fight a war the troops themselves could declare it a war.


I really don't care what you call it, it can be a war, police action, Iraqi freedom, or what the hell ever. Korea, and Vietnam wern't declared wars, go and tell their families different, all it is, is a word, As XO said, "America isn't at war, its at the mall"(sorry if I am not quoteing you right there). Those men still die, thus still it took congressional vote, to give the president the power to do the action. Calling it a war, just changes the last word on a mans tombstone, from "iraqi freedom" to "Iraqi Freedom War". This ain't going to get america out of the mall and into this war, I don't think that one word would do it. If you do, I say lets name it the Iraq War and move on, Still good men will die in a place most of us will never go, but defending freedoms and our security that we all love.(I think it would almost take a Pearl Harbor overt action by an defineable ememy nation to actually move this nation back to a war footing like it was in WWII, heck it did take that for us to take the thing seriously, the damm Bundests(yes virginia, there was a american NAZI party, a puppet of the German propganda machine) in the thirties wanted the USA to love Hitler and be frends with Nazi Germany, but the soon faded when December 7th, 1941 passed, remember the actual fighting started on September 1, 1939 some will argue with China eight years earler)

[Rampager]

This thread is getting kinda convoluted, even for me...:icon_biggrin:

:America:

[SteelCore]

“something to do with complacency of the population”
Ya think? I agree.

“To be fair however compare us to much of Europe and we're raving lunatics about our freedoms and rights.”
Oh, the complacent populations that already lost their rights?

“We can bitch about the ways things are all we like, the bottom line (as I see it) is that we're still the best game in town.”
Sounds like a justification of complacency to me, man.

“Do you think they have it better off than we do?”
Ugh. This is like comparing apples to oranges…some of Europe still has soverign powers, and NONE have laws based on the right of the INDIVIDUAL.

“The republic found slavery okay till the civil war.”
??? Even the Framers found it odius. Here’s Washington Again:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.”

[Heath_h49008]

Exactly...we got rid of slavery...it took 60 years, and one hell of a lot of blood...but we did it.

I have more hope now than I have in quite some time...this very forum, and thousands like it, are the restoration of the town hall and crier. AWB could never have slinked it jackbooted butt past this generation, for example.

As for the structure of the Republic...call me a "Restorationist" Republican/Libertarian. I don't care about religion, abortion, or increasing welfare. My candidates are More like Ron Paul...but without the isolationist crap. Which lands me squarely with Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter.
We do not need a new government...we need to restore the balanced and rational system we had prior to this century, while retaining the equal protections we have found. (No, I do not want a return of Jim Crow)

I see no real difference between McCain and Clinton MkII, they are simply Socialists, and the enemy of freedom and the Constitution.

[Rampager]

We do not need a new government...we need to restore the balanced and rational system we had prior to this century, while retaining the equal protections we have found. (No, I do not want a return of Jim Crow)

+1 to this and most of what you said. My thought's exactly.

[okie shooter]

Hmmm, and this thread started with a conversation about ammo by two guys on a rifle range. :)

[pigpen]

Hmmm, and this thread started with a conversation about ammo by two guys on a rifle range. :)

It kinda reminds me of that game we would play in school. One person would wisper somthing into anothers ear, that person would wisper the same thing into anothers ear & so on. By the time it got to the last person What was originally stated had been twisted & convoluted into somthing almost totally different.

But at least in our case we are discussing somthing worth while.

[Rampager]

It was all good stuff, good posts by all BTW. Whether we can agree on everything or not I'm always impressed by the quality of our conversations on this board here. It's like talking (BS'n) with intelligent friends...something I'm not used to being able to do at work. :wink:

:America:

[iocane]

Quote:
Originally Posted by okie shooter http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=21411#post21411)
"Other than that for some ideas I don’t even trust a jury" Do you think trials would be any more just if there were no jury?

Iocane, please show me where this quote attribituted to me comes from I cannot find those words in that order in my post above. If you are going to counter my quotes, please cut and paste them in order, as I did your arguements to maintain continuity of thought. You quoted half a sentance plus omiting the explination that this is a Constitutional Law issue not a criminal trial issue, you always get a criminal trial of your peers, thats a given.

Heres is my quote there in its proper context. Not on trials but your idea of backing up an legislateing judge from changing laws, which is a idea within the spectrum of Constitutional law, you brought up the idea. Thus, its a Constitutional law question, not a Criminal question. The problem here is what happens when someone is found innocent on a letter of law judges decision, and its application in a criminal court? With your arguement they would need to still convince a jury of it too? Why even have judges(to be deciders on whats right and wrong within the law) if they canbe overuled by a jury, on letter of law application.

Your quote,


My responding quote, with the bite you quoted bold(12 words), and the rest of the sentance blue(83 words)



And on this thought,


I really don't care what you call it, it can be a war, police action, Iraqi freedom, or what the hell ever. Korea, and Vietnam wern't declared wars, go and tell their families different, all it is, is a word, As XO said, "America isn't at war, its at the mall"(sorry if I am not quoteing you right there). Those men still die, thus still it took congressional vote, to give the president the power to do the action. Calling it a war, just changes the last word on a mans tombstone, from "iraqi freedom" to "Iraqi Freedom War". This ain't going to get america out of the mall and into this war, I don't think that one word would do it. If you do, I say lets name it the Iraq War and move on, Still good men will die in a place most of us will never go, but defending freedoms and our security that we all love.(I think it would almost take a Pearl Harbor overt action by an defineable ememy nation to actually move this nation back to a war footing like it was in WWII, heck it did take that for us to take the thing seriously, the damm Bundests(yes virginia, there was a american NAZI party, a puppet of the German propganda machine) in the thirties wanted the USA to love Hitler and be frends with Nazi Germany, but the soon faded when December 7th, 1941 passed, remember the actual fighting started on September 1, 1939 some will argue with China eight years earler)

So my idea is a jury that would not weigh their opinion of the law in question. They would just say Judge this decision of yours is invalid till you rewrite it so it does not function as a law. So no taking away powers from the courts, just making certain they don't make laws.

Not certain what bring up the nazi bund has to do with the subject, but if you happen to want to destroy the bund I am all for it. I hate them. During my childhood it was a constant reoccuring event to have crazy people tell me as soon as they overthrow the goverment I am going to a concentration camp. I despise nazis. (especially the bundests)

[okie shooter]

Iocane,

The problem is judges need that sort of power in some cases, to nullify laws, and make decisions that the sometimes conflict with what laws say, thus they need to be able to overturn sections of laws that are voilate the constitution. Just because congress makes a law, and they are elected officals, they are not always right.

The only thing is you have more influence in the act of making laws(congress by the fact they are elected), not in their interpitation as a voter, as judges are appointed for life, and for a reason, thus to keep them out of the political process. Judical opnions have always been interpted as law, thats why laywers cite precidents to make cases. In some cases there is a quantium jump from the past to the present thus what you feel is makeing law. Jim Crow(go read the decision of Plessy v Ferguson) was legal for a long while, but then the courts slowly struck them down.(Brown v Board of Education) Miranda wasnt the law of the land, thus cops could just take and hold you, question you without your knowing any rights. Were these courts making law or just changing views of how laws can exist within in the frame of the consititution.

Its more the responsablity of the law makers to make sure the laws they pass, are up to snuff so they are not overturned, and thus what you feel is the courts making laws. Both sides work under the same set of ideas set forth by the forefathers.

[iocane]

Nullifying a law isn't making a law. Never said anything about taking away a judges power to take down a unconstitutional law. In that case its just determining one law over rules the other. Where in the constitution does it say judges can make laws?

Chief Justice John Roberts " Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire."
Judges don't agree on if Judges should be making laws or not. Its appareant that the ones who say they can, have a conflict of interest.

"Precident" get power from the idea that judges follow the law. So if one judge rules on something, all the other judges should be making the same ruling in theory. Of course legal cases often have all sorts of little differences to them.

Here is the Dredd Scott Decision
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm
Theres a introductory explanation, then it has the actual words of the ruling. You might find it interesting. It does actual cover some of the point we have been discussing. The Dredd Scott Decision ruled congress can't ban slavery, not in their constitutional authority. Also the Dredd Scott Decision banned a whole lot of people from ever becoming citizens. Its not written like something from uneducated ignorant people. The decision is a finely crafted and well thought out peice of evil.
Of course that was over ruled by the emacipation proclamation. Which is a case of a president over ruling the supreme court, not entirely legal. Well the constitutional admendment solved that. Of course the constitional admendment was ratified with help of former confederate states that were conquered and under Union occupation. That same supreme court Justice during the war ruled Lincoln couldn't suspend Habeas corpus. Lincoln just ignored the decision. If the south had not broken off to form the confederacy, then Lincoln might have lost the next election. Really all they needed was to win the presidency back before the supreme court could be stacked with anti-slavery people. Basically slavery got destroyed by the slavers trying to take what they thought was the easy path to ensuring slavery.
Its just plain messy. If the supreme court is the one tearing up peoples rights its just plain a mess to fix it. Theres nothing that guarantees a court is more trustworthy then any other branch of goverment. They can and have just decided peoples right don't matter. Slavery is just plain obviously taking away peoples rights. So its not like they made a mistake.
Actually I don't think the jury idea would work for the Supreme Court, just lower courts. People wouldn't accept 12 no bodies making such decisions. Still there needs to be better checks and ballances for it. Maybe have the Supreme Court required to have a 2/3 majority to over rule congress.
They still have the power, just its harder for any political group to use the Supreme Court as a means to make laws that would have gotten any elected official out of office if they tried the same.

If you don't like my ideas you should come up with a better idea yourself. There is no branch of goverment that could be trusted without some well built limits. Any ideas?