doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Don't you think it's a little naive to expect that those drafting the constitution would have anticipated the population growth of the nation, not to mention all the needs of the people, 200+ years into the future?

If I did that for health care, I would also have to consider revisions to the rest of the Document because of changed technology in guns, printing, airwaves, TV, DVD, Music, pornography, photography, transportation, phamachology, illegal drugs,...... on and on and on ad infinitum.

I can see where the Consitution and its ammnedments would be quite a different document if the same authors were writing it today. They did not and we still have the greatest country in the history of the world mostly as a result of that document and those that devised it.

To quote Merle Haggard, ..... "if you don't love it, leave it......." If life is SO much better where you pay 60 to 70% taxes, then why are those countries (Like Cuba, Sweden, and others) not experiencing a HUGE influx of immigration as we are? (and always have?) If Life is SO much better there, why aren't those that profess how much better it is packing their bags?

Ireland has a much higher net immigration rate than the US. So does Canada. And Australia and New Zealand, and others. They all have national health care systems. Countries achieve lower immigration rates by having more stringent immigration laws - tax rates and social systems have much less to do with immigration than job opportunities.

Sorry King, but "social reform" isn't something most Americans would trade for freedom, and that's the deal with the devil in place in Cuba. When's the last time they had a free election? What's their equivalent of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Or the 2nd, for that matter? Or various and sundry other ones? I'm guessing that if you ran for office in Canada on Fidel's program for the last 50 years--not what he promised to do, but what he delivered--a majority of Canadians would also vote against making that deal with the devil.

I remember when the late CIA defector Philip Agee, resident in Cuba, came to give a speech at Iowa State. I hit him with the last question during Q&A: "Mr. Agee, do you think a former officer in the Cuban Intelligence Service could give a speech like you just have given, on the campus of a university in Cuba? And if your answer is no, doesn't that tell us something important about the difference between our two societies?" He stuttered and stammered about Cuba being "under attack" from the United States, so certain freedoms had to be curtailed. Laughable.

Question on universal health care in the United States: Do I get to keep the excellent coverage I have now, both as a fringe benefit of my wife's job and my status as retired military? Or do I got thrown into the same pot with everyone else? Any chance I can "opt out" if I wish to do so? I think that's the problem many Americans are going to have with universal health care if it's some sort of a universal mandate: Why should I trade what I have now, and like, for something that might not be as good?

After following this interminable thread, I'd have to agree with a line from Sam Harris: "Civilization is still beseiged by the armies of the preposterous." There's more than one foot soldier on this board.
Will

It's noble to think of the constitution as a finite document, but it's the priciples that are finite, not the document itself. What you say you'd have to do is exactly what we must do: consder the principles in light of the changes that have happened to the nation, the population, the world, and mankind in general since it was written. Many of the major issues we face today weren't even imaginable when it was written; it would be like trying to govern modern day science by the principles set out in a Jules Verne novel - worse, frankly. The writers you hold in such high esteem would never have approved of it; they were far too enlightened for that. The constitution is, and must be, a living document.

In virtually every universal health care system today, individual citizens can enhance their coverage by buying private insurance at their own expense. The universal health care proposals by US policitians all allow those with better coverage to keep it. The notion of being forced into inferior coverage is a product of fear-mongering by the health care industry.

Jack - first off comparing the USA to a cherry picked group of countries is not a valid comparsion to the USA - Why don't you folks up in Minnesota pass your own Universal Single Payer Government Health and - I'll just take my chances. Show us how it should be done.

I will always find it dificult to believe anyone can know what anyone 200 years ago would think today. They have written words that have with stood the test of over 200 years of people desiring a fluid document with modern interpretations. There are few words spoken or written that will stand that test of time.
When I swore so many years ago to uphold the Constitution I didn't opt out by saying only as I enterpret it or when its convienient.
Best,
Ron

Postoak,
You and I have a common thought about each state providing their own universal health care. It would be nice to hear from the state of Mass. since I understand they have such a creature.
Best,
Ron