As they would remark in TAXACHUSETTS - "...are you SOFT - MADDEN???" Only DEMBHOLE DOUCHESBAGS [that is the 'GANG-of-FOUR LEFTY-LOSERS on the SUPREME COURT and the few subscribers that still exist 'reading the NYSlimes would agree with yout half-^SSED assertions!!!] concurring that the 2ND AMENDMENT to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is not applicable!!! HAVE FAITH YOUR LITTLE MARXIST WILL SOON BE IN 'POWER' SO YOU AND YOUR HALF-WITS CAN INDULGE IN ALL THE INANITIES YOU HAVE LONGED FOR THESE PAST EIGHT YEARS!!! ZIEG HIEL MEIN SCWARTZE FUHRER OBAMA!!! Do away with all those pesky amendments and the BILL of RIGHTS - or were you absent those days at HARVARD LAW when you studied/discussed them???

Don’t tell me about the latest poll, tell me how we can get a corrupt and worthless Congress to address the problems of our times.

Amen.

What article does not mention is that no matter who or whom takes office they are going to clamp down not upon the corrupt but upon the people as a whole.

If one thing has been proven in the last 63 years it is that the liberal experiment is an abject failure and that the abuse to persoanl liberties by both parties has driven nation to bankruptcy, a need for permanent war footing both domesticly and foreign,and what is becoming more and more apparent is a police state that is going to be approved by majority of its citizens.

It is not the poor that the liberals care about, the poor are not losing their houses or in danger of losing two autos, a vacation home , retirement pensions, affordable health care, and a gov subsidized education for their kiddies so they can keep all the luxuries and tax deductions of having wealth; they who, now find that the federal well is running dry for themselves and being held by just a minority in the Corproate and financial sectors.

In this nation over 50% of employed citizens recive a paycheck from the federal state county or city government directly, some 12% of the remaining employed owe their jobs to supplying the war effort or supplying the bureaucracy.

this nation can no longer borrow, it has to sell its assets to those who loaned opr pay off th4e debts with what they used for collateral, the new cheap labor, lands, and shared profits with foreign investors and the top 10% of wealth holders of this nation.

To set up the necessary infrastructure we are making the populace pay now for an attractive and inexpensive plentiful future energy needs along with globaly balanced wages of unskilled easily trained labor pool.

I am willing to bet that when the middle class and upper income people say we need more industeial jobs for the poor they are jobs they would not 23ant themselves or family to perform but would take over the administration of those factories no matter what foreign nation owns them.

We are seeing the freezing or % slashing of retirement funds, and layoffs in the bureaucracy are just beginning, especially in the resource rich states of the west.

Liberals think they can just pass legislation both to hide what is in reality to just their own advantage, and thinking that they who are not as humane and morally responsible will just follow those rules.

We are a nation of laws are we not?

We have seen a lawless administration supported by a lazy ineffecient bureaucracy, a complelty corrupted electoral system and elected peoples, a judical system that now makes politcal laws on its own or is used by one economic and power faction as a meanss to empower over another economic politcal bloc.

This nation is bankrupt and left with no meanss to pay it down so that most of its people could or can survive at a decent livable state and only around 1/3rd will henseforth have access to its wealth.

The real globalization is just beginning and the turmoil in Us may indeed be great enough to fill the concentration centers built by Brown and Root but I doubt it.

More likely they will be converted to sheep pens, for when they , the sheep wake up and find they whom they voted for have fleeced them once again.

The ideologues of the Supreme Court could not have created a new constitutional right at a better time: when the dollar is steadily losing value, the cost of oil is rising, and the economy is in free fall. The silver lining in all of this is the one increasing statistic: the crime rate. Free and easy access to guns portends a bull market in gun related crime.

I suggest that the world's elite money managers introduce a new financial instrument to offset some of their catastrophic portfolio losses, due to events they couldn't possibly have foreseen and worked assiduously to avoid, such as the real-estate credit crunch; and the slowdown in transportation, manufacturing, services, and construction due to the rising cost of energy. That new financial instrument is the option on violence.

With all the guns around, it makes neoliberal sense to make a market out of the violence that studies show is five times more likely to occur in states without gun control than in states that do have gun control. Ask my brothers (two police officers). The option on violence will act as insurance policy in case you need to discharge your weapon, or in case it discharges accidentally--whatever.

You purchase more of the options depending on the severity of the violence you intend to inflict, from a light peppering (to taste) of your hunting buddies, to all out global thermonuclear war. And if for some reason you believe that in some neighborhood the crime rate goes down, you can purchase put options on violence.

re: Scalia just took your freedom to regulate deadly weapons in your community.

Just so we understand each other, I don't own a gun. Never have and probably never will. However, as previously stated, I have no problem with any law-abiding American owning a gun. It is a well-established part of our heritage, culture and Constitution. That some nitwits will use guns to perpetrate crime is inevitable. But you either have a free society, warts and all, or you make endless laws and restrictions covering every possible negative eventuality -- and then wring your hands because criminals, by definition, don't care about the law.

Scalia, who I loathe, didn't take away my freedom. I have no inherent "freedom" to restrict someone else's freedom. What you really don't like is what freedom entails: The possiblility that some aren't able to handle it properly. But the answer is hardly to create a society that is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Some people will stick a pencil in their eye. Do you ban pencils? Perhaps all sharp objects? It literally has no end.

The real problem with modern society is the idea that somehow all risk should be eliminated. We're fast becoming a nation of paranoid shut-ins.

My Rx: Throw out your TV. Go take a walk in the woods. Go to the beach. Swim. Scuba dive. Learn to fly. Travel. See the world. Quit wasting brain power worrying about the next random act of mayhem and just enjoy yourself. Life is a risk. There are no guarantees. Maybe you'll die in mad pursuit of some wild dream. Maybe you'll die slipping on a bar of soap. Whatever, as long as you do it as a free human being.