Amending the Constitution is no admission that it is flawed. That comment sounds like a Socialist attempt to spin twist the discussion for political purposes. Social values change over time. Technology changes over time. Either issue can be addressed by changing portions of the existing Constitution, or adding Amendments to it. There are only two legitimate processes to make changes and/or additions to the Constitution. When those process are not followed, the end result is invariably a lawsuit over a law passed by Congress that goes to the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of that law. Congress passes laws, and also "feel good" laws specifically for public consumption, all the time, that some feel violate the Constitution. They eventually wend their way through the court system to the Supreme Court, where a determination of Constitutionality is determined. Either the law is thrown out in it's entirety, or portions of it are thrown out. That's part of the system of checks and balances to keep sleazeball politicians from consistently screwing over the public for political purposes. Changing the Constitution, or adding Amendments is not an easy process, nor was it ever meant to be. And that is part of the process to protect the rights of the public. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Prohibition-The Volstead Act. I see nothing "flawed" about a system that works.

I say that when anyone uses that term, tea bagging, he must be a left leaner since they are the only ones who use that term.

As for the other names you called right leaners I think that mostly lefties, only, get excited about people who carry their Bibles around. Since you don't cling to your guns you seem to be at least as left leaning as I had you pointed out to be. Actually, I really wonder how lefties can call a string of names like that and then say they aren't left leaners. Can you explain that part to me?

REPLY The issue that I cover is related to WHO COVERS THE COSTS? Someone always pays the costs. Arguing how to pay the costs is the subject at hand. some of you mention that each gun victim should go to court, hire an attorney and procede on a civil suit. In the meantime the gunshot victim is in the emergency ward (with or without insurance) receiving govenmental obligated emergency treatment. At the end of the day the victim may approach the hospital with four options: (1) "Here's cash."; (2) Here's my insurnce card, which by the way, is paid by my employer."; (3) "I need public healthcare assitance."; (4) "Mr. Hospital Administrator, I'm going to stick you with the costs".

Nowhere among these four options is there a plan for bullet people to cover a healthcare (or other cost the public must pay from their income taxes or sales taxes or property taxes). Instead the gun advocates continually present arguments stating that the bullet has NOTHING to do with teh costs. The analogy would be: "The person I ran over with with my car hass nothing to do with my car." Instead in every state in the USA the legislatoures disagreed and implement compulsary liabilty insurance. I am advocating the PRECEPT that gun enthusiasts block auto registration... whoops! I meant to say "gun registration" and background checks BECAUSE they don't what to be responsible for their bullets. They want the employers, the government and the victims to cover all these costs.

Incidentally, most gunshot vitims in America were caused by acquaintances or family members. Some are caused by criminals. Wh**ever the case: then all the bullet buyers should step up to plate and cover the costs in order that victims, government and employers do not have to.
Since the gunowners here don't want to pay for shot victims I consider them very irresponible! A mature man pays for his follies of "accidentally shooting someone, too." Again, "Don't ask the rest of us to pay for your auto accidents or your gun accidents or for uninsured motorists or uninsured bullets!"