Cheesemind

You're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." No, I am not and you must be below 90 IQ points. I actually studied the constitution with REAL PHD holding professors of LAW and all of them had actually practiced law. 4 out of 6 of them agree with me, the 2 that did not said that I was the first person to actually make them consider changing their views on the subject and still use my model to help their students to this day. The court cases you site do not address the portion of my arguement that deals with the CONTEXT of the amendment in the time with which it was written. During the American Revolution, MOST men considered it their duty to serve. Only the very wealthy could even afford to own a firearm because of a lack of mass production. So only people of wealth or those who served in a state militia are those who would ever even touch a firearm. The "right to self defense" that the Heller case uses comes from a prepostorous notion that most are going to be the victim of a home invasion. That is why it does not cover a conceal and carry element, which in most states you need a LICENSE to perform legally. READ the case law before you go citing "facts" that is called research. Although the men that came together to write the Constitution were forward thinkers and some of the most intelligent of their day, even they could never have forseen the day when a home invasion crime would have been viewed as a common happening, even though it is not actually very common at all even today. Also since MOST men served in a state militia as volunteers they were not about to try to over run that state by means of force or martial law because it would jeopardize that which they about to fight for... a new FORM of government not just a new nation. Hence the CONTEXT portion of my arguement. In no court case you can sight will you find an opinion handed down by a ruling magistrate or body of magistrates that addresses the CONTEXT in which the law WAS written. You will only find opinions that address a modern interpretation of the literal writing. A magistrate is better known as a judge. The magistrate hands down rulings that are also referred to as opinions. The law that was drafted as in response to this ruling is a terrible piece of legislation that states the person must feel as if their life is in imminent and immediate danger (added to circumvent the ruling overturning the unloaded disassembled portion that was struck down) to even have the weapon in a functioning capacity. That you even cite the ruling or the law is laughable. Wikipedia to back your arguement is even more preposterous. I also own many weapons including handguns and rifles (two of which I doubt you will ever even see in person) so I can appreciate the percieved "right to bear arms" style of logic. However I am trained (I have spent literally years of my life firing weapons of every type) and hold a license. To issue a firearm to someone without such training is an egregious oversite and misinterpretation of the amendment. Nowhere in the second amendment does it even imply to the "right" of self defense. Try again. So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? Because they say the right isn't just involving militias, and includes the right to self defense. You say wikipedia is laughable, but anyone can verify the case outside of wikipedia to find it accurate. To me, you saying 4 out of 6 professors agree with you on this topic, is laughable. Did you just recently go back to your professors to ask them? Or are you full of chit? BTW, your professors might hold PHD's but they're not on the supreme court. Nor the Circuit Court of Appeals who also agreed that the 2nd amendment didn't just include trained personnel. I think you just want to toot your own horn. Because you're trained at using the weapon, only people of your elect should be able to own them. HAH. Don't hate all gun owners because alot of people are ignorant. Some of us merely own them to defend against home invasions. I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Heh, was reading the 2nd link for the court case and ran into this: Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[10] A majority of the members of Congress[11] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[12] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[11] Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[13]

You're wrong. The fact that you think you know something because you have University education on the subject further makes me believe the Universities have been infiltrated by communists in order to fulfill the communist manifesto(look it up) and secretly destroy the United States from within. But seriously, history has proven that every tyrant has disarmed the citizenry right before annihilating them (germany, russia, cambodia, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[1] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

We'll know if he's the anti-christ if we see GPS tracking chips being introduced to people in order to buy and sell. That's the one thing the bible says about the anti-christ, other than he comes in peace, is widely popular, and turns out to be a bad guy. If we're forced to use certain cards with the Veri-Chip in order to buy and sell, we know it's him Man, I have kids too, they're so screwed!! Not because I'm the dad tho (i know you guys are thinking that), but because they're being raised in a crazy world, where the only thing that matters is money, where your status in life is more important than the time you spend with your family... Where you have to work 2 jobs or share the rent, just to pay the bills... *sigh*

no, i'm not in denial. Which I realize that saying I'm not in denial actually means I'm in denial of being in denial. But I will admit to being in denial about being in denial, not about being in denial that Obama being called the "chosen one" has anything to do with anything meaningful in your context. I admit, you made me laugh. But I don't think that it's unintentional that everyone happens to be calling him the "chosen one" right now. But then again, I am a conspiracy theorist, and I do like to read between the lines more than most. I just love my country and I'm scared that there are some "internationalists" that want to destroy national sovereignty and create a one world government (not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of themselves). Every dictator has dreamed of being King of the World, and now it is more likely to happen than any other time in history. I don't own guns because I want to take over the government, I own guns to protect my family. I hope he doesn't take that away from me.

"Obama

maybe it has something less sinister about it. Like......he was chosen by the american people to be the next president? McCain would have also been the chosen one had he won. LOL, in denial? I don't remember Bush ever being called the "chosen one" and he was "chosen" by the people too. Or Clinton, I don't remember people on TV calling him the chosen one either... But whatever, I'm just paranoid obviously. Also, anyone listening to his speech? "If anyone doubts that this is a place where anything can happen, or if they doubt the power of our democracy" Our own damn president still doesn't know this country is a republic... That or he's a communist and wants to call it a democracy like all the marxist media... But of course the media wants a democracy (rule by the masses), as they influence the masses.

Watching TV. Man they keep calling him the "Chosen One". Man, it's almost as if he's the anti-christ. I made jokes about it before, but how many times can people call him the "chosen one" to represent peace, unity, before you start to wonder WTF. The anti-christ comes in peace, and most people will support him thinking he will be for peace, but he ends up being an evil person right? Man, I hope not.

Aha good one. Bookmarked it. Hilarious.

The president doesn't control the debt, the federal reserve does. The president can merely ask the Federal Reserve to make the economy better, and it's up to them if they want to or not. They control it completely, on the national level, and the World Banks control it on the world level. If they want to crash the economy they can, it's very simple. They just haven't been collecting. When it's time to collect it's time to collect, all the president can do is ask for more time. If you want more detail into how the money works, you should watch Zeitgeist Addendum: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a surplus. We owe more in debt, than there is money in circulation. This is because every dollar that gets printed and put into circulation has to be paid back with interest. So if we print 200 million, we owe 200 million, plus interest. How can we pay the interest? It's impossible. Other than "collateral", such as National Parks and forests, land, property, etc, there's no way to pay it (at least with money, maybe they will pay it with lives?)

Awesome, gonna go spend all my food stamps in celebration.

The way the system is set up, you're only choices are one of 2 parties, and both parties are controlled by the rich. Any president who is republican or democrat will never do what's best for the people, as the people didn't pay for their election, the rich people did. Money makes the world go round, and it's the reason people are selfish. And a 3rd party will never have enough money to actually compete with the major parties, especially with the media propaganda that tells you that you shouldn't vote for who represents you best, because it will take a vote away from a possible winner. That line of argument is the worst, as the whole point is to pick the guy that represents your views the best, yet no one ever does. They just vote for the lesser of 2 evils and go about their way. We will never solve anything by voting for these people. The only way is to take action locally, whether it's something minor or something big. Everyone needs to take some sort of action to achieve what they want, or else the ones who do take action will keep getting what they want until they're so rich they own everything. At that point, what do you think they will want to do with us?

Oh yah, you're right. He wanted to make it a crime to use a gun in self defense in your own home. How ludicrous is that? Obviously it takes a communist to push for laws such as this, as centralized government with a ton of obedient (disarmed) slaves is what every dictator wants

Told ya Obama would win Been saying this for months, it's already been planned. And he is very anti-gun. Yes, most of his laws are disagreeable, because criminals don't follow the laws. So there's no point banning handguns or banning assault rifles, because the CRIMINALS WILL STILL HAVE THEM. Passing those types of laws only makes it so law abiding citizens can't have them. And why would you want that? BTW, he even voted to ban hunting shotguns and black powder guns. How many people do you see committing crimes with those guns? They're used for self defense or HUNTING. LOL.

Yeah, gay people are tricked in this situation. Marriage is only a religious institution of your religion practices a form of it. You still have to go apply to the state for the marriage license (which is admittance that the state is sovereign over you). You are then "allowed" to do certain things (benefits from the state treasury like less taxes, etc), but also lose rights, which I won't get into because it's complicated. But basically, you're giving the government more power over you when you get married, and have to apply to them to get married or divorced. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the government controlling my life less, not more. Marriage is a scam. I have a VERY hard time taking anything you say seriously after that stupid Lupe Fiasco crap you said the other day. I just think you're a little too paranoid. You might want to hole up with your guns and get ready for that martial law that's going to be declareds. Maybe call up Tupac too. It just sounds ridiculous to you, because you don't spend any time researching. If you did, you'd be as paranoid as me. Why would bush pass a law that would allow him to declare anyone a terrorist and have them imprisoned without a trial (trial was the judicial's check on the exectuve). Unless he's going to use it, why pass the law? When you look at the laws he's passed, and that have been passed in the last 8 years, you see the direction they're going with this. Of course you won't see all the laws passed on the mainstream media, because they don't want you to focus on the stuff that really matters. They'd rather you be arguing about abortion or gay marriage. I'd rather not live my life in fear. What happens, happens. I have better things to worry about than how Lupe is going to hijack 400235092875 jets and bomb the entire country. The reason I mentioned Lupe at all is because he's friends with Kanye, and Jay Z. They're both freemasons. So when I hear those 3 titles to a CD, they make absolutely no sense in any other context, other than what I presented. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the first thing that came to mind when I saw the titles. Lupe obviously isn't going to Hijack anything, but he might be "chosen" to survive the upcoming chaos. But you can find out more about Jay Z and Kanye's freemasonry connections in youtube if you want, it's amusing, and probably explains why Jay Z is the number 1 paid guy in hip-hop. However, I will admit I have some strange viewpoints, but I believe they're educated viewpoints as I've spent thousands of hours of researching. I enjoy learning and reading about new things, so of course I spend time reading. I just wish more people did the same, because it's not like this conspiracy is very hidden. Anyone who spends time researching will see it. Most people would just rather watch tv, or go to the bar. If the internet was regulated, I may rely on it for facts. The fact that it isn't "regulated" is what makes it the most reliable! The powers that be can just "regulate" the facts right out of your information. If you're too stupid to do follow up research to verify the information, then you will forever be ignorant about what's really going on. You shouldn't outright just believe ANY SOURCE. You should ALWAYS VERIFY every piece of information.

Yeah, gay people are tricked in this situation. Marriage is only a religious institution of your religion practices a form of it. You still have to go apply to the state for the marriage license (which is admittance that the state is sovereign over you). You are then "allowed" to do certain things (benefits from the state treasury like less taxes, etc), but also lose rights, which I won't get into because it's complicated. But basically, you're giving the government more power over you when you get married, and have to apply to them to get married or divorced. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the government controlling my life less, not more. Marriage is a scam. I have a VERY hard time taking anything you say seriously after that stupid Lupe Fiasco crap you said the other day. I just think you're a little too paranoid. You might want to hole up with your guns and get ready for that martial law that's going to be declareds. Maybe call up Tupac too. It just sounds ridiculous to you, because you don't spend any time researching. If you did, you'd be as paranoid as me. Why would bush pass a law that would allow him to declare anyone a terrorist and have them imprisoned without a trial (trial was the judicial's check on the exectuve). Unless he's going to use it, why pass the law? When you look at the laws he's passed, and that have been passed in the last 8 years, you see the direction they're going with this. Of course you won't see all the laws passed on the mainstream media, because they don't want you to focus on the stuff that really matters. They'd rather you be arguing about abortion or gay marriage. I'd rather not live my life in fear. What happens, happens. I have better things to worry about than how Lupe is going to hijack 400235092875 jets and bomb the entire country. The reason I mentioned Lupe at all is because he's friends with Kanye, and Jay Z. They're both freemasons. So when I hear those 3 titles to a CD, they make absolutely no sense in any other context, other than what I presented. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the first thing that came to mind when I saw the titles. Lupe obviously isn't going to Hijack anything, but he might be "chosen" to survive the upcoming chaos. But you can find out more about Jay Z and Kanye's freemasonry connections in youtube if you want, it's amusing, and probably explains why Jay Z is the number 1 paid guy in hip-hop. However, I will admit I have some strange viewpoints, but I believe they're educated viewpoints as I've spent thousands of hours of researching. I enjoy learning and reading about new things, so of course I spend time reading. I just wish more people did the same, because it's not like this conspiracy is very hidden. Anyone who spends time researching will see it. Most people would just rather watch tv, or go to the bar.

If either man becomes president, it'll end close to 2012 2012 represents the end of the age (or cycle of the planets) according to the mayans. Now some people believe that on this date (dec 23, 2012) there will be some sort of pole shift, that will cause natural catastrophe's so serious it'll mean starting over (supposedly that's when the flood happened). But on the other hand, it could only mean the end of that age (I think we're going to the Aquarian now?). The scary thing to worry about is all the FEMA detention camps here (only to be used in time of emergency supposedly), and all the power centralized into the executive branch. The president practically has dictatorial powers at this point, especially if he has any good reason to declare martial law. That could be good and bad. If the president was a moral and good guy, more power in his hands could save our country. But if he's just a puppet for rich power mongers, then it will most likely be a bad thing, and some serious negative chit could happen. Let's just hope the people start turning off the media and start reading on the internet to find out the truth when chit hit's the fan because the media has always been paid for by BIG MONEY, you know, advertisements. You won't find truth here, hell they've admitted in a court case recently that the media can legally lie to you. If that doesn't show you they're not 100% reliable I don't know what will.

Yeah, gay people are tricked in this situation. Marriage is only a religious institution of your religion practices a form of it. You still have to go apply to the state for the marriage license (which is admittance that the state is sovereign over you). You are then "allowed" to do certain things (benefits from the state treasury like less taxes, etc), but also lose rights, which I won't get into because it's complicated. But basically, you're giving the government more power over you when you get married, and have to apply to them to get married or divorced. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the government controlling my life less, not more. Marriage is a scam. I have a VERY hard time taking anything you say seriously after that stupid Lupe Fiasco crap you said the other day. I just think you're a little too paranoid. You might want to hole up with your guns and get ready for that martial law that's going to be declareds. Maybe call up Tupac too. It just sounds ridiculous to you, because you don't spend any time researching. If you did, you'd be as paranoid as me. Why would bush pass a law that would allow him to declare anyone a terrorist and have them imprisoned without a trial (trial was the judicial's check on the exectuve). Unless he's going to use it, why pass the law? When you look at the laws he's passed, and that have been passed in the last 8 years, you see the direction they're going with this. Of course you won't see all the laws passed on the mainstream media, because they don't want you to focus on the stuff that really matters. They'd rather you be arguing about abortion or gay marriage.

Yeah, gay people are tricked in this situation. Marriage is only a religious institution of your religion practices a form of it. You still have to go apply to the state for the marriage license (which is admittance that the state is sovereign over you). You are then "allowed" to do certain things (benefits from the state treasury like less taxes, etc), but also lose rights, which I won't get into because it's complicated. But basically, you're giving the government more power over you when you get married, and have to apply to them to get married or divorced. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the government controlling my life less, not more. Marriage is a scam.

Abortions, sometimes, should not be looked down upon. Gay marrige, what effect does it have on you? Isn't the tax raise only on families making upwards of 250k a year? (Which doesn't effect most people.) I HIGHLY doubt Obama would ever attack another religion. it doesnt but who wants it? do you? and most people are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS. army depots. everything like that. and if hes attacked everything else then why wouldnt he go ahead and go through with attacking religions? Obama attacking religions is the last thing you need to worry about during his presidency. We're about to be faced with economic meltdown, and a dictatorship type power in the hands of the executive branch. Worry about that. Good thing for the checks and balances system. Have you been paying attention? Bush totally annihilated checks and balances. He also gave the president the power to declare martial law for anything, and during martial law, the president has the power of a dictator. Checks and balances is only in effect in times of peace, and I don't know if you know it, but we're in a "time of war" right now. Ie, he has full power to do whatever he wants.

Abortions, sometimes, should not be looked down upon. Gay marrige, what effect does it have on you? Isn't the tax raise only on families making upwards of 250k a year? (Which doesn't effect most people.) I HIGHLY doubt Obama would ever attack another religion. it doesnt but who wants it? do you? and most people are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS. army depots. everything like that. and if hes attacked everything else then why wouldnt he go ahead and go through with attacking religions? Obama attacking religions is the last thing you need to worry about during his presidency. We're about to be faced with economic meltdown, and a dictatorship type power in the hands of the executive branch. Worry about that.

more wire, better current flow. and sometimes its hard to get 2+/0, so more runs of 1/0 will do the same, How do you know if you need more than 1 run of 1/0 gauge? Does anyone know the max each wire can conduct, or does that purely depend on the wire? Is there a rough estimate? Like 4000 watts can transfer through 1/0 or something like that?

Well without the big 3 your upgraded alt isn't really doing anything. That is your first step. I personally have no issues with Everstarts and actually think they are a good buy. They are what I use in my boat for the trolling motor since in that application they seem to last as long as an Optima anyways. In this case more is better than a better battery anyways. The other thing I see are people using cheap headlights that are overly sensitive to voltage fluctuations. If you thought you were cool and bought some fake Xenons or cheap blue bulbs expect them to dim much, much more easily. (not inferring you did that just making a point, but I will ask if you have changed your headlights?). Actually I recently did change my headlights, but I bought the expensive ones at wal-mart. The only reason I did is because they were advertised as lasting 2-3 times longer than regular headlights, and I didn't want to have to change them again. I shoulda paid attention to the power it sucked down, I didn't realize it was just based on the extra electricity you had available.

I don't think you guys understand. Bush and Obama are related. They both are supported by BIG MONEY. They both have allegience to big money. Therefore, they will be doing what the big money wants them to, because big money is what got them elected. You think they're going to do anything for the common people? Of course not. THERE WILL NOT BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2. The only difference is the MANNER IN WHICH they take our freedoms, and centralize government.

They barely talked about McCain at all in the media, compared to Obama. Obama went to visit a ton of cities and it was like a major event in every city he went to. McCain didn't come anywhere near us. To me, he's playing a good "fall guy". Also, when I say he's been trained his whole life, I don't mean trained to be a good president. I just mean trained to be charismatic (like Clinton), so that when the time came, he could run for president and win it, so that the elites had public support. He's very eloquent with his speech, which is going to be needed if the elites plan to take away weapons, and attack foreign countries. Without a keen mind to justify the actions, there will not be public support, and that's what they need right now if they want to take weapons away, round up citizens (they will call them terrorists), attack pakistan, etc.