It doesn't have to be. The Declaration of Independence outlined it as an "inalienable right". Meaning; regardless of what any other document says, citizens should know they have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No government can tell us otherwise.

It also states that if the government becomes "destructive to these ends" it is the "right" and responsibility to alter and/or abolish said government. This is where the second amendment comes in. If the meaning were only that people working for the government could have arms, then how could the people be guaranteed the ability to "alter" or "abolish" said government?

The Declaration is a mindset, a statement made that encourages people to keep their independence, rather than hand the power to make ALL decisions to a select body of people. If the constitution is the brain, the Declaration of Independence is the heart. One cannot survive without the other.

I believe it was Jefferson who said; "If men cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to govern others? Or has god granted us angels in the form of kings to watch over us? Let history answer this question."

We can't agree on gun control.

We can agree that our mental healthcare needs improvement.

NRA offered to help fund mental healthcare in U.S. if they stopped trying to ban magazines/firearm accessories/put further restrictions on average citizens.

If politicians wanted to help decrease gun violence, leave guns alone, and go after mental healthcare. Everybody wins.

Sending a few thousand troops after ISIS is foolish. Trying to eliminate ISIS is foolish. Either action would lead to a never-ending, very costly, conflict.

I believe from the get-go we should have been non-intervening, until they attacked Americans. Then from that point gloves are off, politics aside, we do whatever it takes, regardless of who it ticks off, to get the Americans back. If they are killed, then we strike back quickly and drastically. Redeploy our troops as if we were going to war with Russia. Fight them with everything we have for a few weeks, then pack up and go home. By that point we would have done so much damage, so quickly that they would fear us. Fear= respect in their eyes.

Not to mention other countries that harbor these people would also fear us, thereby possibly eliminating their desire to house and fund this group.

This may sound blood thirsty, but it is the only effective approach. I believe this would be less costly in human lives in the long term as well.

In response to the OP. I believe our Bill of Rights is more important than ever. Technology has changed, but human nature, paths of governments, and tendencies of people haven't.

One could give examples of how gun regulation or lack there of "makes people safer". One could bring up examples of other countries and how they "fixed" their violence issues by passing strict laws. You can also counter this argument, just as easily. Some time ago there was crime statistics on the FBI's website that showed trends of crime in certain areas like Washington D.C. If one were smart, you could see that there was no change in gun violence before and after they lifted the weapons bans/strict regulations. You could also see there was no impact from Clinton's assault weapons ban from the 90's. You could follow through with the lift on Chicago's weapons ban, etc. The violent crimes followed the same statistical curve.

So, one could conclude that gun regulation, in the U.S., as little effect on violence. What does have an effect is the economy. When people have more to lose they risk less. Furthermore, I can't help but theorize that focusing on mental healthcare would help treat the mentally ill. Focusing on either mental health or the economy, rather than attack rights of the people intended to preserve "checks and balances", would create a win-win. Interesting to me how no one wants to do so. Especially since most would agree to do so across party lines.

Its sad to see Americans loose their principles of independence and request more regulation/laws, rather than maintain personal responsibilities.

I think I would have to broaden this statement a bit prior to agreeing. We should expand mental healthcare, not simply take people off meds, as many need them. Those that are truly insane require a combination of meds and treatment, as well as, close supervision.

We lack the "supervision" part these days. We also require a larger volume of medical professionals that specialize in this area. Meaning; its very difficult to effectively treat all types of mental illness as a physician if the patient you have is one of 300.

Furthermore the biggest issue with mental health is medication noncompliance. Medications that treat psychosis often leave the person feeling "dull". And often when a psychotic episode occurs, one can gain a certain euphoria, further decreasing the desire to take medications (hence the need to closer supervision). I can't help but wonder if those who were on anti-psychotics and committing violence, were simply not taking their meds.

The biggest disappointment in all this is back in 2012, liberals, behaving very irrationally, declined the NRA's off to help fund our country's mental health. Instead they just wanted to ban scary-looking weapons.

"Those who trade essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

"Pre-emptive" is not a term I would agree with. They already attacked Americans.

What should have been done a long time ago is simple. The second ISIS took and killed an American hostage, we consider this an act of war. Let our troops go at them un-inhibited for a few weeks, by which time their numbers would be almost non-existent, then pack up and come home. Rinse and repeat, if needed. They would lose followers and Will very quickly as they would look like the sissies they are, and joining them would mean almost certain death.

It would be a mistake to try and kill them all. It's an impossible feat that would lead to a never-ending conflict. But a quick, very hard/effective "slaughter" would send a message; "There are easier people to mess with than the U.S.". This is the only way ISIS can actually be dealt with.

Curious; Has he mentioned putting tariffs on imports from china? Regulating the outsourcing of jobs?

What is his plan for ISIS?

Haven't followed politics as heavily the past few years as I did in 2008...

I'm getting the impression that Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. However, I haven't yet seen any other candidate wanting to crack down on Chinese outsourcing and crooked banking. Nor have I seen any other candidate stand up for liberties quite as firmly.

My only issue would be his foreign policy, which I don't disagree with. We just need to make sure we still attack quickly and harshly if physically threatened. Ron Paul made mention of this back in 2008. He was never "anti-war", as many believed. He was merely against never-end occupation of foreign soil.

I think what I miss most about Ron Paul is his debating style. He used facts, history, and theory as his tools. It seemed no one actually wanted to debate him intellectually. They would merely shout out slogans and sling dirt (which no one ever had any dirt on Dr. Paul). The media was certainly against him during his campaign. To call him a "sore loser" though.... I question the validity of this accusation.

You want to fix our economy...

Enforce our own laws on imports,
Refuse to accept imports from slave and child labor,
Tax imports that are subsidized from other governments,
and drastically lower American Corporate tax rates (as we have the highest rates in the world).


Increasing minimum wage puts pressure on small, developing businesses. Not to mention, potentially drives up the cost of living thereby defeating itself. One could argue that this, in fact, helps big business by eliminating potential competition.

So, you are saying; "It's popular so it's the right thing to do."

I disagree with this notion.

I also believe that attention should be given to multinational corporations and the laws surrounding them before attacking small businesses.

It's important to realize that the minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage.

It's quite arrogant of fast food workers thinking they deserve a wage of $15 an hour when a Licensed Practical Nurse, for instance, starts at $17 an hour with more than a year of special training and licensing on top of college prerequisites, and has a much MUCH more stressful, as well as, important job.

Priorities anyone?

Problem is the lack of "middle income" jobs, which are getting outsourced. Making low income/minimum wage jobs pay as though they were middle income, is quite foolish.

Indeed it is. But if the system is broken, is it wise to merely throw money at it? At what point are we spending to much for what we receive?

By the time you do the math, most Americans are paying half their income or more on taxes. I wonder what we could all afford if our incomes suddenly doubled...

So the raise in taxes will come from retirements and things like property being left to family members. Sounds like a pretty hard hit to the middle class.

Except now that same CEO pays an EXTRA 10-15% federal, and possibly, state income tax on the remaining $900,000.

You are forgetting that American taxes hit people from many directions.

Amazing how many middle class americans get hit every time someone comes up with a "tax the rich" plan. Reminds me of the plan to "tax the rich" by going after dividends.

Would there be less war? There would be less open combat, probably. I could see the declaration of war would never be made, yet somehow I predict there would be more casualties...

I find this interesting and rather disturbing. So according to you a "right" is a limitation placed on foreign governments' powers over our citizens in the event of an invasion?

Perhaps I didn't pick up on the intended sarcasm?

We hear this a lot. Do you really believe the world is more violent now than it was 300 years ago? What has changed?

I hope you also realize that government controls are blanket policies that effect the innocent as well as guilty. Not to quote a movie but, the government is a "broad sword" being called in for situations needing a "scalpel".

If we were to follow this popular policy of removing everyone's rights until no one can do any wrong, we we find ourselves literally being born into prison cells with strict rules. The flip side of that is the fact that prisons are very corrupt and violent institutions, rendering all of these supposed efforts to be vain.

First of all it is important for everyone to acknowledge that the existence of utopia, in which there is no violence and no criminals, cannot exist in this physical universe.

Secondly, these tragic situations will continue to be more prevalent until mankind learns to accept and embrace personal responsibility, instead of forcing someone else to take responsibility for his/her action.

Interesting standpoint. I don't mean that sarcastically either. I'm not surprised to see an objection to my opinion. I am surprised at the manner it was objected to, in this case.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I hope you are not disappointed by my appreciation...