"An item on that agenda that comes up every single election....
ending the electoral college process and replacing it with a straight vote for president."

It is only brought up by the losing side, however.

You'll find full agreement from me on returning to the Senate representing the States and not the people. In my formulations you go one step further: convert income tax into an apportioned state tax. Take each state's percentage of the U.S. population and charge that state government that percentage of the federal budget. However the individual state wants to legally obtain that money - such as via income taxes, property taxes, etc.. - is up to it.

Combining these two would, in my view, be a significant roadblock to expanding government largess as well as a strong incentive to reduce it. My reasoning goes along this line:

If the Senate, in whom we entrust the purse strings, is chosen by the State's government (I'm conceptually OK with appointment by Governors even but I think recursion is the proper solution here) and the state gets an invoice then you have a means to directly tie one aspect of performance to the Senate. More commonly you highlight the net effect of a Senator's votes on spending by making it explicit.

Right now Senators are elected generally on what they "bring back from Washington". And the costs of these "victories" are hidden because it is all rolled up into an amount the average person has great difficulty comprehending.

The political effect of even just the state apportioned fee as opposed to direct citizen taxation at the federal level leverages the fact that Senate representation is constant - bigger states don't get more Senators - and this disproportionately (which is not inherently a bad thing) favors the states with smaller populations because the more the government spends the more per-capita they have to collect - and the more direct the impact can be felt by the average voter.

You could then track and show a Senator's "track record" by correcting their votes against the changes in the state's "union membership dues". "Senator Fubar's votes in favor of X directly increased Vermont's federal taxes by $NNN" has a decidedly different tone than what we have now.

Alone this change would do pretty well in the service of lowering federal expanse and largesse. However, by combining it with State government selection of Senators you place the responsibility for selecting said Senator into the hand(s) of those who have to directly deal with the financial consequences - the State (via Governors or legislatures) itself.

It is possible the above combination would place a greater emphasis on the same fiscal awareness in the House elections, but that would be icing on the cake.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution define the nature and character of the country. The Bill of Rights specifically limits intrusive and offensive power of the government against the People (not just citizens). If the 2nd Amendment can be waived with regard to some, then any of the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution can be waived. But keep in mind that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are there to restrict governmental intrusion, not to enable anyone to receive any benefits, such as welfare or Medicare. But then again, I am reading into the original documents, which for all intent are just museum artifacts...

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0a...

Should citizens receive Medicare?

It doesn't matter what amendment the example is as you specifically and literally stated "...any US right or benefit covers non-citizens". As you so duly noted the example is one of the fourth amendment, which would fall under "any US right or benefit". Also not I am limiting the discussion from my end to rights specifically.

So since it meets your criteria, please answer the question directly rather than avoid it.

Either the constitution referring to "people" or "the people" applies to anyone in the country, or it does not. You don't get to be selectively assert that in this part or that part the same terminology doesn't mean the same thing just because of an unfounded fear on any site aimed at or centered around objectivity and reason without getting called on it.

Your purported "large body of non-citizens" attempting to overthrow the government is not a second amendment related issue. That is armed insurrection - an act of war. Also note that the times an armed overthrow of the government has happened it was by citizens, not by non-citizens. Not just here in the U.S. but broadly across history.

History teaches us you have more reason to fear armed overthrow of the government by citizens than by non-citizens. Combine this with the naive assumption that if the non-citizens somehow are excluded from the right to defend themselves, that a large group of them intent on armed insurrection would obey gun control laws is absurd. Doubly so when you add into the mix that they are already, presumably in the context above, breaking the law by being here.

Though if you dig through the history of Texas you can find it happened there, though the scenario is different than the one you are projecting. In that case it was citizens and non-citizens banding together against part of the ruling government with the use of arms.

Technically you could make a plausible argument that after the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers and their military were non-citizens of British Empire which at the time was the legal government of the thirteen colonies, thus making the American Revolution a "large (enough)" body of non-citizens using their "second amendment rights" to overthrow the entire government.

Yet somehow this is something you "support"?

Also, the example you describe is not a violation of the second amendment. It is the fourth amendment, and again, how would an officer know to pursue a non-citizen.
What wouldn't I support? A large body of non-citizens using their "second ammendmemt" rights to overthrow a potion of the elected government.

How would one know this person isn't a citizen?

Should non-citizens receive Medicare?

Respectfully though, most of these "laws" spewed forth from the central government are unconstitutional to begin with within the States.

One must unravel the proverbial Gordian knot of unrecognized Marburyian void-from-the-get-go premises to get into the clear. Which does exist, dammit (with all respect), despite the widespread pessimism. This is what I value Objectivism for.

Very good point. My thoughts exactly, and hence the oath upon gaining citizenship.

Which Obubblehead slightly changed.

That is not categorically true. It can only be said to be categorically true of felons which have not had their rights restored.

Under your assertion someone who is convicted of, say, jaywalking would be banned from owning a gun. If that were the cas the second amendment would be useless rubbish.

So you think if a legal visitor to the U.S. is walking down the street a cop can simply walk up to them and search and detain with no cause or warrant? I don't see that espoused in the constitution nor in basic rationality. Nor is it in our enlightened self interest to enact such a policy.

Not contradictory.

If you allow me to come into your house I entered legally. If I insist in staying after you tell me to leave I am trespassing - I would be there illegally. This is essential what jdg is saying.

The wording of the 2nd clearly recognizes the existence of the right, as opposed to the establishment of one. "...the right of the people to..." grammatically refers to something extant as opposed to de novo.

I don't understand how any US right or benefit covers non-citizens, but that's me.

You are in this country ILLEGALLY and therefore you do not have the same rights as a person born in the country to parents who were born here before they were.

isn't society penalizing criminals and illegals, who are criminals,
with the denial of an article of property -- the gun? -- j
.

Yes, you do. We have so many laws now that the typical American breaks at least three of them every day and doesn't know it. Nothing wrong with a police state if you are a part of the police...AKA, the ruling class.

Your Grandma worked hard to become good citizen. I heard an illegal say that they wanted to come here to get a piece of the pie. If things keep going like they are, there won't be any pie, just the pits.

Every time I think about it, I get pissed off. I remember my Grandma studying to become a citizen. Her Russian/Polish accent was very thick, but every time I came to visit she asked me about such things as the three parts of government, the "judisshil, the legishlative, and the seksecutive."

I agree with you, Herb. Seems to me that illegals already enjoy the rights of citizenship....from gun ownership to welfare to voting.

Since the second amendment was there for the purpose of keeping bad government from overly forcing themselves on an unwilling public, I would say that the simple ownership of a gun by anyone should not be illegal. USING the gun to violate peoples' rights should be illegal, however. Otherwise, whose rights are being violated if I have a stash of guns in my basement?

If you read the preamble to the Constitution, it was a pact between the citizens to form the union. As far as I can tell, illegal aliens never agreed to those terms, which means that they're not participants in it. Until someone formally acknowledges that he or she agrees to the terms of the Constitution, he or she can't claim participation in that pact.

Great. It absolutely does not, nor does any other of the bill of rights apply to them

Yep, I agree, to putting back the appointed part. This would resolve term limits, along with other issues.
I've been trying to educate people about this for a long time now. Amazing how many people think how the governments wants them to think.

I remember seeing a video out there somewhere on youtube where Eric Holder endorsed using brain washing techniques to control the population. Guess he read Hermann Goering's comments about how they controlled the German people and thought it was good idea.
.

If being here illegally was a felony, they would not be allowed to have firearms.

Failing that, their is no universal bar to their having firearms under current law that anyone has been able to cite.