• Sprott Money
    05/05/2016 - 06:02
    Why is a Deutsche Bank mouthpiece suggesting “negative retail deposit rates or perhaps wealth taxes”? The answer is to (supposedly) stimulate our economies.

10 Examples Of The Clueless Denial About The 'Real' Economy

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

Denial Is Not Just A River In Egypt: 10 Hilarious Examples Of How Clueless Our Leaders Are About The Economy

They didn't see it coming last time either.  Back in 2007, President Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and just about every prominent voice in the financial world were all predicting that we would experience tremendous economic prosperity well into the future.  In fact, as late as January 2008 Bernanke boldly declared that "the Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession."  At the time, only the "doom and gloomers" were warning that everything was about to fall apart.  And of course we all know what happened.  But just a few short years later, history seems to be repeating itself.

Barack Obama, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and almost every prominent voice in the financial world are all promising that the U.S. "economic recovery" is going to continue even though Europe is coming apart like a 20 dollar suit.  But the economic fundamentals tell a different story.  Our national debt is more than $6,000,000,000,000 larger than it was back in 2008, the number of Americans on food stamps just hit another brand new all-time record, and the bankers up on Wall Street are selling gigantic mountains of the exact same kind of toxic derivatives that caused so much trouble the last time around.

But all of our "leaders" swear that everything is going to be okay.  You can believe them if you want, but denial is not just a river in Egypt, and another crash is inevitably coming.

Sadly, many Americans are not even going to see the crash coming because they still have faith in the "experts".  They haven't figured out that the "experts" really do not know what they are doing.

The blind are leading the blind, and in the end the results are going to be absolutely tragic.

The following are 10 hilarious examples of how clueless our leaders are about the economy...

#1 When I first came across the following chart the other day, it made me chuckle.  It is a chart that supposedly tells us the "probability" of a recession, and it was taken from the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  According to the chart, right now there is a 0.16% chance of a recession...

Smoothed U.S. Recession Probabilities

#2 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has also been proclaiming his belief that the U.S. economy will continue to grow.  The following is an excerpt from his recent remarks to Congress...

The pause in real GDP growth last quarter does not appear to reflect a stalling-out of the recovery. Rather, economic activity was temporarily restrained by weather-related disruptions and by transitory declines in a few volatile categories of spending, even as demand by U.S. households and businesses continued to expand. Available information suggests that economic growth has picked up again this year.

And Bernanke also insists that the labor market is "improving"...

Consistent with the moderate pace of economic growth, conditions in the labor market have been improving gradually.

Of course the labor market is not actually improving.  I showed this using the Fed's own numbers the other day.

And you can put stock in Bernanke's forecasting ability if you like, but considering his track record of failure in the past, that might not be too wise.  Just check out what he was saying before the last financial crisis: "30 Ben Bernanke Quotes That Are So Stupid That You Won’t Know Whether To Laugh Or Cry".

#3 Although Bernanke has such a nightmarish track record of failure, Warren Buffett still has faith in him.  In fact, Buffett loves all of the money printing that Bernanke has been doing...

The U.S. economy might be “dead in the water” without the stimulus provided by the Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben Bernanke, according to Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

“I think very cheap money makes things happen, it makes asset values higher. When asset values are higher, people do have a greater propensity to spend,” Buffett told CNBC.

“I think Bernanke has sort of carried the load himself during this period.”

If Buffett thinks the wild money printing that the Fed has been doing is so wonderful, then he probably would have absolutely loved living in the Weimar Republic.

#4 Barack Obama continues to insist that we do not have a debt crisis, but that we will not be able to balance the budget any time in the foreseeable future either.

Even though the national debt has grown by more than 6 trillion dollars under his leadership and our debt to GDP ratio is now well over 100%, Obama does not believe that it is a significant problem...

"We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt"

And Obama certainly does not plan to even come close to balancing the budget during his second term.  In fact, he openly admits that we won't see a balanced budget at any point within the next decade...

"We're not gonna balance the budget in 10 years"

Sadly, the truth is that the U.S. will never have a balanced budget ever again under our current system, but most of our politicians are not willing to go that far and admit that sad fact to the American people just yet.

#5 But of course it would certainly help if the U.S. government would stop wasting so much money.  For example, did you know that the federal government is helping dead people get free cell phones?  The following is from a recent article in the New York Post...

Dead people don’t need cell phones.

That’s the message Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas wants to send Congress, after he says a controversial government-backed program that helps provide phones to low-income Americans ended up sending mobiles to the dead relatives of his constituents. Griffin has introduced a bill that targets the phone hand-out program, which has ballooned into a fiscal headache for the government.

And of course a lot of living people are abusing the free cell phone program as well.  Rep. Griffin says that he has heard of some people getting as many as 10 free cell phones from the government...

"I’ve also gotten calls from people who say their employees were bragging about having 10 phones."

#6 Meanwhile, the most prominent economic journalist in the United States, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, continues to insist that it is a good thing for the government to be running up so much debt...

First of all... that trillion-dollar deficit is overwhelmingly the result of a depressed economy. And when the economy's depressed it's good to run a deficit. You don't want the government to try and balance its budget right now.

Krugman is also operating under the delusion that the federal government "can't run out of cash", that it can just print money whenever it wants and that printing giant piles of money would not hurt anything.

The United States is a country that has its own currency--can’t run out of cash because we print the money. If you even try to think what would happen--suppose that investors get down on the United States. Even so, that would weaken the dollar, not send interest rates soaring, and that would be good. That would help our exports

It is frightening that the top economic journalist in America has such little understanding of how our system actually works.  I would encourage Krugman to read a couple of my previous articles so that he won't be so ignorant in the future...

-"Where Does Money Come From? The Giant Federal Reserve Scam That Most Americans Do Not Understand"

-"10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve"

#7 Many Americans have wondered why the federal government never seems to go after the big Wall Street banks.  Well, now we know why.  The other day, the Attorney General of the United States admitted that the federal government is very hesitant to prosecute anyone from the big banks because of what it might do to the global economy...

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy"

So I guess we now live in a world where there is a different set of rules for the big banks, eh?

Most of us already knew that this was the case, but it is quite chilling to hear the Attorney General of the United States publicly admit this.

#8 Many of the big Wall Street banks are absolutely giddy that the Dow keeps setting new all-time highs, and many of them are projecting wonderful things ahead for the U.S. economy.  For example, here is one forecast from Morgan Stanley's Vincent Reinhart ...

"In the Morgan Stanley forecast for the US, the trajectory of economic activity marks an inflection point midway through 2013. The severe financial crisis of 2008-09 necessitated significant downward adjustments by the private sector to the levels of aggregate demand and efficient supply. As the event recedes further into history, however, the drag on growth from these ongoing level adjustments plays out.

In our forecast, the expansion of real GDP steps up to around 2-3/4 percent in the second half of this year and beyond."

#9 Vice-President Joe Biden is pushing economic optimism to ridiculous levels.  Apparently he believes that most Americans are "no longer worried" that a major economic crisis is coming...

But all kidding aside, I think the American people have moved -- Democrats, Republicans, independents.  They know that the possibilities for this country are immense.  They're no longer traumatized by what was a traumatizing event, the great collapse in 2008.  They're no longer worried, I think, about our economy being overwhelmed either by Europe writ large, the EU, or China somehow swallowing up every bit of innovation that exists in the world.  They're no longer, I think, worried about our economy being overwhelmed beyond our shores.

And I don't think they're any more -- there’s no -- there’s very little doubt in any circles out there about America’s ability to be in position to lead the world in the 21st century, not only in terms of our foreign policy, our incredible defense establishment, but economically.

#10 Right now, many in the financial world are projecting that this will be a year to remember for the stock market.  During a recent interview with Fox Business, Wharton School of Business Finance Professor Jeremy Siegel declared that the Dow will cross the 16,000 mark by the end of this year...

"I think by the end of this year, we’ll be in the 16,000 to 17,000 range."

Of course it is true that other analysts have a much different view of things.  Many of them are absolutely amazed that the U.S. economy has become so disconnected from economic reality.  For example, just check out what Steve Russell and Hamish Baillie, fund managers at the Ruffer Investment Company, recently had to say...

"If this was explained to a recently arrived Martian he would no doubt be puzzled – US unemployment has almost doubled since 2007, GDP [gross domestic product] growth is a third lower and debt as a percentage of GDP is within a whisker of doubling. The market is forward looking but this is extreme"

So who is right and who is wrong?

Time will tell.

Fortunately, it appears that the American people are getting fed up with the constant stream of lies that they have been told.

According to a new Pew Research survey, just 26 percent of all Americans trust the government to do the right thing.

So what about you?

Do you trust what the government and the "experts" are telling you?

Do you trust them to do the right thing?

Feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below...

LOLCat - Photo by Koruko

 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 03/14/2013 - 14:48 | 3330267 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

Write your congressman/woman and US Senators...

There can be no (zero) compromise on our Second Amendment rights.  I understand the Senate Committee has approved an assault weapons ban and that it is on its way to the floor of the Senate.  The expansion of the Federal Government since 9-11 is unconscionable and must be reversed.  It is becoming clear to the American people that both parties are bent on continual increase of the central state.  This is not how or what our country was founded on. 

 

I have recently reviewed the CBO budget outlook for 2013.  I am amazed to see that in the baseline budget projection that they anticipate our Federal Government will DOUBLE in size over the next ten years!!!  This is entirely UNACCEPTABLE!  You need to be doing the exact opposite.  Washington DC has grown so large, corrupt, and over reaching that it is absolutely destroying both our economy and our civil liberties.  We have out of control agencies (read EPA, DOJ, DOA, DOE, DOT, et al) that regulate every aspect of our lives.  These unelected bureaucrats need to be reined in at every level, regulatory burden reduced, and the majority of these functions need to be returned to the states.  There is way too much duplication at the federal and state levels and Washington DC does not need to be telling the residents of the various states telling them what is good for them.  This reduction of regulatory burden along with a complete simplification and over haul of the tax code is the only way back to prosperity and freedom.

 

I urge you to return the Federal Government to its Constitutional Principles.  I understand this is no easy task, nothing worth anything ever is.  The path Washington is currently on will ultimately lead to our destruction.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 14:59 | 3330316 Hohum
Hohum's picture

SmallerGovNow2,

In case you cannot read or lack research skills....

"A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seems like banning assault weapons might be constitutional, at least according to the plain language of the Second Amendment.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:07 | 3330341 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Denialism lives. Ponzism dies and all that cash that goes with it. Bare your arms to fight for what's left over and there ain't going to be much.

Hunger will supercede freedom and liberty.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:23 | 3330400 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

This 2nd amendment bullshit NEVER ENDS... decade after decade the same fucking circular arguments. 

Anyone on the sidelines starting to suspect that maybe it's an issue TO DISTRACT YOU MORONS rather than a legitimate debate??? 

Other issues used to distract brain dead Americans: religious freedom, abortion, marriage equality... 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:59 | 3330482 mr. mirbach
mr. mirbach's picture

Even if it is a distraction, Americans are losing unalienable rights at an accelerated pace.

The US Constitution was a contract that RESTRICTED powers and authorities of the government but that fact seems forgotten, just like the lost Preamble to the Bill of Rights which states:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

What this means is that the Constitution contract says that .gov has no authority to pass laws infringing on Natural Rights, which existed long before even the first government was ever established.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:11 | 3330555 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

Even if it is a distraction, Americans are losing unalienable rights at an accelerated pace.

Not just accelerated but shocking. On a frequent basis tyrannical decisions are arrived at by the executive, judicial and supreme court which are very lightly discussed by the common news outlets. 

Some of the lack of coverage is probably because it's 'impolite' to discuss all the bad things .gov is up to behind the scenes. But the other half of it is why discuss anything of importance when you can have a completely idiotic debate on >insert wedge issue here<

What this means is that the Constitution contract says that .gov has no authority to pass laws infringing on Natural Rights, which exisisted long before even the first government was ever established.

By 'natural rights' I take it you mean the magna carta on which the US constitution was largely modelled? Because outside of such documents there are no 'natural' rights. 

And on the other 'topic' - the gun debate is probably the best wedge issue because it's so easy. On one side you have someone who is 'pro' gun ownership because of the 2nd amendment, best defence against xyz etc. and you have someone who is 'anti' gun because people with guns kill other people etc. Any idiot can easily understand the debate. 

So, basically two extremely simplistic yet emotionally charged positions with neither side being able to compromise go at it. And the debate is so basic that you get easily digestible sound-bites that fit well between commercial breaks. 

Anyway, rest easy simpletons because regardless of which 'side' of the issue you are on you're well represented in congress ensuring nothing of substance will come to either side. 

So why the fuck play into this?? This article isn't about the 2nd amendment, people discussing it ought to try and use their gray matter for something other than regurgitating moronic arguments that get endless airplay on most other news websites. Go to fucking Huffington post or something and you won't even have to hijack threads to 'get the word out' on the 2nd amendment. 

 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:29 | 3330623 hapless
hapless's picture

Squirrel!

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 20:08 | 3331208 Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

"...By 'natural rights' I take it you mean the magna carta on which the US constitution was largely modelled? Because outside of such documents there are no 'natural' rights..."

Yes and no.  It's true that the Founding Fathers drew heavily from the Magna Carta of 1215 when determining the structure of the Declaration of Independence, but note the words they ultimately used, verbatim:

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [property]..."

Very close to the timeframe of our own birth as a nation, France was also undergoing their own revolution.  A huge difference between our two countries' foundings was the difference in credit given to where the people's rights come from.  In France, they attributed rights to men (i.e., government), and the fault with that is that if government can bestow a 'right', then it can withdraw it as well.  In fact, when France signed its first Constitution in 1791, it lasted only two years before it was re-written.  Not amended with additional protections for the people, but re-written because it was vastly flawed to begin with.  France re-wrote their Constitution so many times that they began labeling them with "of the Year" and added Roman numerals for identification:
 
 
Revolutionary Era:
     Constitution of 1791
     Constitution of 1793
     Constitution of the Year III (1795)
     Constitution of the Year VIII (1799)
     Constitution of the Year X (1802)
     Constitution of the Year XII (1804)

Restoration of the Monarchy:
     Constitutional Charter of 1814
     Constitutional Charter of 1830

19th Century:
     Constitution of 1848 - established the French Second Republic
     Constitution of 1852 - established the French Second Empire
     Constitutional Laws of 1875 - established the French Third Republic

20th Century:
     Constitutional Law of 1940 - Vichy France
     Constitutional Law of 1945 - Provisional Government of the French Republic
     Constitution of 1946 - established the French Fourth Republic
 
 
France has not held together very well.

America, on the other hand, clearly attributed our 'natural' rights as coming from our Creator - God.  Whether or not you personally believe in God, the concept that our rights come from a source higher than men (government) is what set our country apart from others.  Even if the Constitution were to be abandoned entirely in favor of a new document, the concept of natural rights is paramount to a strong and successful nation, and the only way true liberty can endure.  Our liberties are being eroded in recent years because we've elected dangerous people into office who are acting under the belief that they can withdraw certain rights that inconvenience their goals.  We must resist.

The only rights we keep are the ones we are willing to fight for.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 20:59 | 3331347 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Actually you have it backwards, the US constitution is a famously secular document - rare at the time. 

The constitution & declaration of indepndence are not the same thing last I checked. And also, the consitution has had many amendments. 

And also to clarify, I was saying the US constitution was based on the magna carta. 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 21:12 | 3331384 knukles
knukles's picture

Natural Laws are those deemed to have been blessed upon man by God.  That which men interpret to be placed in documentation are that which they claim to be God Given Natural Rights.
And betcha those right will vary amongst men predicated upon their differing views as to a Higher Power.

"Denial is not a river in Africa"
Somebody's been to one of them meetings and dealt with this stuff already... kudos....

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 23:54 | 3331603 Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

@James_Cole,

The Constitution is very much undergirded by a direct faith in God, and is not - and was never - a secular document.  That is a falsehood which has been foisted on the public over the past few decades by secularists.  Do not succumb to it without looking into the facts for yourself.

A full response would take a LONG letter, so for brevity's sake I'll keep it to a few points.

Any incorporated entity (stemming from the Latin word "corpus", or to "embody" from intangible ideas to a structured entity) must first present a few required documents.  An S-corp, C-corp, or LLC would have a "mission" statement and a set of "articles".  The former declares the intention, and the latter shows the structure.  The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation - later to evolve into the improved Constitution - are two inseparable documents that are legally entwined together, and cannot exist without the other.

That being said...the Declaration makes four clear references to God, two in the opening sentences and two in the closing:
 
1.  "...the laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
2.  "...they [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
3.  "We, the representatives of the United States of America...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."
4.  "...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of Divine Providence..."
 
 
As for the Constitution, note that on June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Pennsylvania, after weeks of heavy arguing amongst the delegates (including disagreement between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan), Benjamin Franklin gave his famous "God governs in the affairs of men" speech in which he specifically called upon the delegates to return to their reliance upon God for guidance.  He concluded his speech requesting that "daily prayers be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service".  The motion was seconded and passed, and for the next two and a half months they held daily prayer as they smoothed out the structure of the Constitution.

If you search (Google) the National Archives, you'll find that the draft they were working on at that time said in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 (how a bill is passed) that if the President did not sign a bill within 7 days of it being submitted by Congress, it would pass by default.  After Franklin's reminder to seek guidance from God for wisdom, they changed it to 10 days and inserted the note that Sundays were excepted (out of respect for the customary norm that Sundays were set aside for church attendance).  Furthermore, they added the text "...in the year of our Lord..." which was not there before.  If you search major government documents of the day (both American and European) you'll find that most did NOT contain those words (Y.O.O.L.), so it was NOT the norm.

Respectfully, sir, you have the facts backwards, but most people who are not versed in the those documents also do.  I strongly encourage you to study them yourself.  It's an amazing eye-opener.  :)

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:11 | 3330352 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You act like words on paper matters.

Well, if so, you ought to understand how militias are properly regulated.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:49 | 3330477 Gift Whores
Gift Whores's picture

Whaaa??? How about properly regulated fiat? /sarc

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:57 | 3330712 max2205
max2205's picture

Unlike most I just want the market to get more volatile.  The last 6 months are just silly

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:12 | 3330357 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

The person who cannot read and/or lacks research skills is you.

The link below is to a 2004 opinion by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE discussing Amendment 2 in detail and concluding that it refers specifically to a right of individuals.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:16 | 3330375 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Too bad that isn't an accurate quote.   It reads, "the right to KEEP and bear arms".  The word KEEP has been well defined by jurisprudence, as has the definition of "arms".  Attempting to ban "assault weapons" is directly contrary to the meaning of the second amendment.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:32 | 3330435 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", as in "We The People".

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:09 | 3330551 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

... except ... you are *NOT* THE PEOPLE.  You are "Citizens".

 

^To fully grasp the meaning of the above, you MUST understand “[t]he United States government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state” (19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883). To put it simply, the United States is FOREIGN to American (State) nationals and the State republics. When an American national contracts with the FOREIGN corporation United Sates, the Commerce Clause and the Contract Clause apply and then you are considered a “subject”. [SoL]

 

In other words, the Constitution does not apply to you!

So you can stop quoting the 2nd and start memorizing the 14th.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:27 | 3330606 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Uh, rrrrrright.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:35 | 3330635 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

 

 

  • Are you one of the People of the United States, as contemplated by the U.S. Constitution Preamble?

 

  • Or, are you one of the citizens of the United States, as defined in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment?

 

Amendments not available to U.S. Citizens:

2: Right to keep and bear arms

... read more

 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 17:05 | 3330730 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Ratified in 1868.

So its null and void. See how easy it is to change shit? They do it to us all the time because its for our own good or so they tell us so the new  "we the people" government can too.

Why should you obey the law when they don't? Good slave aren't you?

 

Fri, 03/15/2013 - 05:24 | 3331828 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

Wrong. Every human being is a person, therefore, every US citizen is a person. And since 'people' is a form of plural of 'person' every US citizen is one of The People. Therefore Amendments are available to US citizens.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:16 | 3330376 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Since when does FREE STATE mean federal government? Asswipe.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:21 | 3330388 sodbuster
sodbuster's picture

A militia (pron.:),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

CITIZENS! People who bring their own weapons to the fight- ANY weapons! What part of "shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand???????????

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:36 | 3330645 MagicHandPuppet
MagicHandPuppet's picture

I don't support the initiation of violence or force... but I'd understand if all the enemies of the second amendment were rounded up and dealt with swiftly by the supporters.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 19:18 | 3331120 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

It's much simpler to understand if you substitute the word control for infringe.  Which mean all gun control is unconstitutional at a federal level.  Period.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:05 | 3330424 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"well regulated" in the context of the 2nd amendment means disciplined and trained and the concomitant necessity of being well supplied, as in possessing the firearms and ammunition necessary to the security of a FREE state, meaning every citizen should be allowed to posses currently an automatic AR-15 with at least two 30 round clips and M9 sidearm with at least two 15 round magazines (and probably more).

"well regulated" has nothing to do with the obscene modern context of regulating soda or ammunition clip size.

How free can a state be FREE if the citizen militia cannot posses and bear the same weapons as the police and military?

How can citizens defend themselves and the Constitution against the tyranny of the state with inferior weapons and supplies?

Hohum - you also left out "the right of the people to keep" and bear arms.  The People, not the military or police, but "The People" as in "We The People".

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:31 | 3330431 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

Where is the word "arms" defined?  Here's a hint, fucktard:  It's not!

arms n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements of war, weapons system, munition]

All gun laws are unconstitutional.  

Yes, it might be tough for you to wrap your pea-brain around this, but I actually can drive an Abrams tank down my street and I'm not a criminal until I fire a shell into my neighbor's house.  

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:01 | 3330525 Mad Mohel
Mad Mohel's picture

Yeeee-fuckin-haaaaa that's what I am talking about. I trust Bob down the street with a bazooka over any fuckin Holder goon.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 18:40 | 3331042 Overfed
Overfed's picture

A bazooka isn't a gun.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 22:58 | 3331551 BidnessMan
BidnessMan's picture

Hmmmm.... A tube that emits a projectile when the trigger is pulled. So why is it not at least a smoothbore gun?

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 22:58 | 3331552 BidnessMan
BidnessMan's picture

Hmmmm.... A tube that emits a projectile when the trigger is pulled. So why is it not at least a smoothbore gun?

Fri, 03/15/2013 - 02:32 | 3331756 dunce
dunce's picture

A bazooka fires a rocket.

Sat, 03/16/2013 - 02:12 | 3334629 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

In other words,  its projectile acceleration is driven by the expansion of a gas and the resultant momentum transfer.  Exactly like a bullet from a gun barrel, eh dunce.

Good moniker, BTW.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:40 | 3330453 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Read some history.

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

-----

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:46 | 3330468 fuu
fuu's picture

You are an ignorant vagina.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:56 | 3330499 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Did you mean "cunt".

Now that is a terrible word in America, but having spent too much time in Britain, I am prone to use it way too much. Over there it is more of a generic swear word and can pertain to men or women. They seem to especially love that word in the urban parts of Scotland. But there it does not carry the same power as in the USA. My woman was especially troubled by it's use, and I never ever let it slip around her!

 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:16 | 3330576 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

I think he actually meant vagina.  Cunt is an arbitrary, vulgar insult.  Calling someone an actual vagina let's them know that they're smelly, foul, and useless 25% of the time, while the rest of the time they're only good for my pleasure and only up until the point where I eject bodily fluid in its direction, which then suddenly makes me want to ignore it and get back on ZH.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:25 | 3330612 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Meat hammer, That was just so fucking rude that I was forced to give it an up arrow. Good god man, just speachless.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:32 | 3330628 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

You're welcome

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:39 | 3330650 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

fuu is typically right on the mark, so I was just helping illustrate that.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:55 | 3330700 fuu
fuu's picture

<bow>

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 19:20 | 3331126 20834A
20834A's picture

So sorry you have such hangups. Is all sex dirty to you? They have counseling for that. Or maybe you just prefer anuses?

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 15:59 | 3330518 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

"Well regulated" means "functional."

"Militia" refers to "The People."

Next. . .

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:25 | 3330607 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

... next ... comes the 14th Amendment

which says you ainT PEOPLE.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 17:44 | 3330837 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Er, wrong.

People are just more than one "Person."

"Citizens" are people born in the U.S. or naturalized.

Why is this shit so hard for you to understand? 

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:25 | 3330608 Steve in Greensboro
Steve in Greensboro's picture

Amend the Constitution or move to Canada or do nothing, but regardless STFU.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 16:27 | 3330611 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Uh...the 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT. Get it????

It amends, among other parts of the Constituion, Article 1, Section 8 which specifies that Congress is responsible for ensuring a well regulated militia which means a well-equipped and modern militia capable of kicking ass.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

 

So the 2nd Amendment amends that, saying that even though a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms WILL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 17:00 | 3330717 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

At the time the militia was all able bodied free males. All of them. Well regulated at the time meant well prepared, effective, well equipped. At that time. Also, note the SUPPORTING subordinate clause containing the well regulated militia bit is...subordinate to the statement of law: The right to keep and BEAR (outside of the home included) arms shall not be infringed. Arms meant arms usable in military action by infantry. Back then many canons were privately owned. That's the backdrop of Miller and Heller. It's the way our law is written.

Thu, 03/14/2013 - 17:04 | 3330727 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Cannons? Not only that, also whole warships. Think privateers

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!