I guess if there wasn't such a broad pattern of federal abuse over the last 5 years, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Socialism, socialism, socialism.

Yeah, I hate to piss on your golden calf, but the empirical results of Socialism are that - 0.1% own the social ownership,
- the government "borrows it forward" to bribe the people with entitlements, and
- the result has been to turn our country into a stagnant debt plantation.
Socialism is an inferior existential model. In a medicinal context, it tries to declare every limb broken and put it in a regulatory cast. Theologically, it is an ersatz Sermon on the Mount that fails utterly to provide the necessary spiritual feedback to bring humans into full bloom. If you could manage the weather this way, you'd be decreeing a perpetual summer, until Nature, unable to bear human hubris any longer, let fly with another Ice Age.
The Socialist elements (entitlements) in our country are based upon cheating. Wilson started it, FDR watered it, LBJ expanded it. The 9th & 10th Amendments, meant to cap federal over-reach, are so much shredded chastity belt. We're awash in debt, and have a President who. . .campaigns effectively.
Junk's coming to a head. It's my hope that we have a come-to-Beavis meeting, do a Constitutional Convention and either kick this Socialist cock-up to the curb, or ratify and finally legitimize it, so old cranks like me can STFU.

Why do you H8 Article V? We can keep trying to elect more and more reformers, but until we do something substantial to restore the separation of powers in DC, I don't foresee any improvement in the slow pirouette to tyranny.

The two introductory clauses are interesting, but the ultimate 14 words form a perfect though, like a circle.
Now, statists get them a flag pole woody over the first 13 words. "Aha! Here is our chance to do with the Constitution what Satan did in Genesis 3*. If we can just introduce some ambiguity, we can disarm the population, like Every. Evil. Fascist. Regime. Ever.**"
By the way, I don't actually own any firearms. But I'm as reactionary as they come about any pencil-neck rodeo clowns that absolutely cannot get the facts straight about guns, from that twerp Justice Stevens on down.
--
*I could've picked a non-Biblical example, but I'm trolling you here.
**And a bunch of governments that are not fascist, too.

I can only assume that you're trying *yawn* to be *eyerub* provocative.
I haven't done this. You know I haven't done this. I know you know I know I haven't done this. You stay beautiful.

"when a conservative loses his job for being a loudmouthed idiot it is an infringement of his freedom of speech" is not something I've ever argued. Now, roughly to the extent that Democrats and their sympathizers like to play the race card, I've heard some otherwise conservative people fail to understand that the Bill of Rights restrains the federal government (initially) and state governments (via incorporation). However, I doubt you'll find any evidence of ME asserting that, say Eich had his 1st Amendment rights infringed, any more than YOU have ever accused anyone on /. of racism.
Anybody past the FNG level in Constitutional studies understands that "private sector" = "private property" = "Bill of Rights moot"

I do not understand your point.

Someone just sent troops into Poland, after all.

Go ahead. Make your argument for how any of those people had their freedom of speech impeded. You have plenty of conservative talking points to support you on it, go ahead and bring them.

Show us your superior understanding of all things constitutional. Tell us how when a conservative loses his job for being a loudmouthed idiot it is an infringement of his freedom of speech, but when it happens to a liberal it's just market forces at work.

I did not say you said that. Rather I said that you are again simultaneously claiming President Lawnchair to be powerless ("rodeo clown") and wielding power. Those are mutually exclusive traits.

I was calling the politicians cowardly. I have no idea how your response is supposed to be a reply to that.

You really should stick to terms that you are familiar with the meaning of. There is no socialism at play here.

This being the second reply apparently presuming that I was referring to some sort of government-approved licensure process, I feel compelled to point out that I by no means meant to imply that either situation should require such approval.

I was merely pointing out the absolute fact that properly trained people are far less likely to misuse a tool than people who are not properly trained.

Proof in the pudding: the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

I am GP, and I could not have said it better myself.

We, the American community, can train each other in the proper operation of the tool known as a "firearm" without the nanny-state looking over our shoulders, as we do with so many other specialized tools. To whit, if one wants to learn how to use the tools needed to build guitars, they apprentice with a luthier, not some government agent.

You excel at jumping to precisely the opposite of a reasonable conclusion, sir. Bravo.

When did I say that the American people are powerless at election time, again?

As solutions go for our society, it would be final.

I'd place the probability of a split today as lower than the 19th century. Socialism is about imploding into a lump of fecklessness, not exploding.