Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[WinterBorn]

Horseshit. Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women. You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.

what if it was, truth or dare?

She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.

it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.

I have never had any problem. But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning. You don't want someone to date. You want someone to submit.

do Only right wing women whine about not being able to handle uncommitted sex on their gender studies?

Did I say anything about uncommitted sex? But uncommitted sex and demanding "your turn" are different things.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights. That is not what a militia does. Nor should it be.

that is Your story, bro. it always gets taller the more You tell it.

Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?

You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.

just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.

You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.

It worked for the Romans.

So you are saying the Romans used civilian militia to build infrastructure?

 

[danielpalos]

what if it was, truth or dare?

She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.

it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.

I have never had any problem. But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning. You don't want someone to date. You want someone to submit.

do Only right wing women whine about not being able to handle uncommitted sex on their gender studies?

Did I say anything about uncommitted sex? But uncommitted sex and demanding "your turn" are different things.

taking things out of context is a right wing specialty.

 

[danielpalos]

that is Your story, bro. it always gets taller the more You tell it.

Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.

How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?

You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.

just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.

You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.

It worked for the Romans.

So you are saying the Romans used civilian militia to build infrastructure?

wellness of regulation, what a concept.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

 

[danielpalos]

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

Our federal Constitution is one of express powers. The right wing alleges implied powers. Nobody on the left, should ever take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.

 

[Flopper]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

So the poster admits:

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.

The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.

So this is progress.

But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.

So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?

I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.

If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?

Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.

We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.

His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.

So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?

It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.

No.
The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today. We do not need militias for the defense of the nation. Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid? One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment. However, the founder justification does not exist today.

 

[Pop23]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

So the poster admits:

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.

The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.

So this is progress.

But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.

So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?

I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.

If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?

Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.

We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.

His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.

So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?

It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.

No.
The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today. We do not need militias for the defense of the nation. Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid? One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment. However, the founder justification does not exist today.

I used your exact words.

Accept defeat. It was you that inflicted it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

So the poster admits:

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.

The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.

So this is progress.

But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.

So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?

I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.

If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?

Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.

We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.

His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.

So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?

It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.

No.
The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today. We do not need militias for the defense of the nation. Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid? One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment. However, the founder justification does not exist today.

Complete nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[WinterBorn]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Our 2nd amendment has provided security for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. But there will never be complete security, especially in a free society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.

Where did I ever say they didn't?

Your right to do anything stops if you infringe on another's rights.

IOW your right to swing your fist stops at another person's nose.

This is why I don't understand you control freaks. I have a right to keep and bear arms but I do not have the right to fire a gun anywhere. If I do fire a gun there is no presumed innocence and I have to justify my firing of that gun to the court.

You want to restrict my right to keep and bear even though it poses no harm to you whatsoever

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Our 2nd amendment has provided security for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. But there will never be complete security, especially in a free society.

why do we need alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror the right wing refuses to pay for with appropriate tax rates?

 

[WinterBorn]

What sort of tax rates are you talking about?

 

[hjmick]

What sort of tax rates are you talking about?

Why do you bother?

 

[danielpalos]

What sort of tax rates are you talking about?

wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.

 

[WinterBorn]

What sort of tax rates are you talking about?

wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.

What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?