[r9etb]

Which does seem to imply that you would find government intervention a positive, more often than I would, does it not? Care to elaborate?

Sure -- I have no problem, for instance, with speed limits near schools. I have no problem with reasonable regulations, roads, armies, or legitimate "common welfare" sorts of things. You know -- stuff that's spelled out by the Constitution.

[RegulatorCountry]

"You know -- stuff that's spelled out by the Constitution."

I'm in complete support of a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, myself. That "common welfare" thingie, though, has tended to get out of hand over the years.

[jmc813]

I have no problem with reasonable regulations, roads, armies, or legitimate "common welfare" sorts of things. You know -- stuff that's spelled out by the Constitution.

Do you have an absolutionist view of the 2nd Amendment?

[chronic_loser]

As a matter of fact, the Constitution spells out no such thing. It rather leaves those matters to the states and the people, and forbids Congress from doing what it does anyway, which is poke their nose into every conceivable avenue. Now, as a result of such idiocy, we have Congress attempting to regulate the use of steroids in baseball, regulating gun proximity to schools, telling states that clauses agreed to by consenting parties that establish judicial jurisdiction are not binding, and all sorts of nonsense expressly forbidden in Amendment 10. They simply ignore it.