J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer".
Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.
"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.
You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess
what, they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for
your opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is
"illegal".

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
right.

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
intent of the Framers. There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the
invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they
want it to. The former is long established in legal history in
our nation.


I find it interesting that you have responded to this post but not to
any in which you are asked to provide some credible evidence to
support yout claim that governement actions benefitting the economy
are unlawful. And I also find it interesting that you don't address
the point that many government actions are going to affect the economy
in some fashion even if they are not intended to, and so by your
reasoning would be unlawful.


I have already responded, but will do so again. The doctrine of enumerated
powers upon which the US Constitution rests, requires that the Federal
government must have *explicit* (Constitutional) permission to do something.
Failing such permission, the activity in question belongs to the states and/or
the individual. In short, the Federal government does not have explicit
permission to intervene in the economy. The "general welfare" clause does
not open that door because reading it as you apparently do would undermine
the *very clear* intent of the Framers that the law of the land be explicitly
enumerated. If you don't understand this line of argument, go read a book
on the writing of the Constitution. If you do understand it, and just don't
like it - and thus want the Feds to do what suits you - you are in the company
of a great many people in this nation who don't care about the law, just as long
as they get what they want ...