1&3 are largely correct, there are a couple small points in regards to eminent domain, however.  Personally, I am in favor of it with a strict system of oversight by the public.  Eminent domain should ONLY be used for the good of the community and it is up to the community to decide that. 

2.  Yes, Right to Bare Arms is an outmoded right of citizenship, within reason.  Owning a firearm in your own home, having it registered for your own protection is something which I am in favor of, even if I would never do it myself.  However, that does not follow onto allowing people to own assault weapons in Washington D.C.  The entire reason the second amendment was inserted was to allow people to defend themselves from encroaching federal government.  Since most people choose to ignore the entire text of the second amendment, I'll post it here.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From the wording of the ENTIRE amendment, its clear that the entire reason this was put in, examining historical context, was to allow the states to resist a corrupt federal government (Which we do have).

Now the reason that this is COMPLETELY outmoded is because there is very little ability for a single individual or even a state run militia to defend themselves against the federal government and the full weight of the U.S. Military.  It provides a false sense of manhood and security against the government.  Allowing for people to own automatic and semi-automatic weapons serves no one.  There is NO purpose to own them and no reason you can't have more strict regulation and registration of weapons.  The only reason the right to bear arms still is such an issue is because politicians make it so.  Republicans take any attempt to register weapons as a move to outlaw all weapons but that is simply not the case.  There is no need to outlaw all weapons but more stringent government controls on them are needed.



Ok, in regards to less spending and less taxing......46 cents out of every dollar goes toward the military.  I see this as one of the largest "pork" areas of spending, cut there and spend the  money on social welfare programs.  Cut 2% from the annual military budget and you could provide base health insurance for every single American.  Just to compare....European countries which have similar taxation rates provide more than 5x the average social benefits per citizen than we benefit from in the U.S.  So yeah, I agree that we can cut  funding from many, many programs, but I disagree with your assertion that taxation is the problem....Its where the money taxed is going.  If it actually went back to the benefit of the people who paid it (Including you) then it wouldn't be a problem, but it isn't.  So fight to change that.


My reference to failed free-market policies was not JUST referring to the current crisis, but to consequences on the rest of the world, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the social problems created by companies moving plants overseas....etc etc etc....In regards to the current crisis, the government should not have gotten involved, but keep in mind who was responsible for the initial policies.  The insured loans which you refer to were put in place by politicians attempting to cater to the free market by encouraging growth.  This insurance was lobbied for endlessly by, well, lobbyists for these companies.  The government should never have caved to this, but oh well.....

The second amendment is now a joke.
I'm a firm believer (and I believe Jefferson implied) that the second amendment is as much to protect people from each other as it is to give them the means to one day fight an oppressive government. I seriously doubt they had nukes, battleships, and stealth bombers in mind as the government's weapons of the future; they probably thought that individuals could own the same weapons of war the government owned - or at least within a reasonable margin.

From Wikipedia:

Well, there's this amendment:

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)

So if you want to take that, then yes, McCain is a "natural born citizen". Obama's mother was a US citizen, as well, therefor so should Obama - whether he was born in Hawaii or outside US soil.