The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tt11758 on May 31, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
-
Ok, let's see how this one turns out. Could be interesting.
-
Is applying for Swiss citizenship an option? Its a bit cold, but I like their gun laws and the beer's good. :P Seriously, It won't be Palin for a lot of reasons, her own rational self interest chief among them.
FQ13
-
Is applying for Swiss citizenship an option? Its a bit cold, but I like their gun laws and the beer's good. :P Seriously, It won't be Palin for a lot of reasons, her own rational self interest chief among them.
FQ13
Color me SO surprised!! ;D
-
Color me SO surprised!! ;D
Nothing to with my opinion of her, just facts. The GOP wants a win. They're not going to vote for a lightning rod with baggage. She's a great cheerleader and motivator for a certain wing of the party. She gets crowds and makes a lot of friends and money doing it. Why would she throw that away on a losing bid? She will never get the independent vote, she knows that as well as anybody. But if she rides in on her Harley she can raise a bunch of cash for GOP candidates and keep her brand and influence alive.
FQ13
-
Can't play because you left out the other parties.
Who will be the Libertarian, the Green, and the toga party candidates?
-
While Palin would not be my first choice, she is definitely a better choice than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
-
I can't think of many names I wouldn't vote for other than Obama.
I'd really like to see a 3rd party candidate really have a chance, but until that day Republican will most always be the lesser of two evils in my book—at least on a national and state level. I realize that there are other issues besides 2A, but recent legislation in Florida was pretty much party lines.
As far as Palin, I've never been too "for" or "against" her—but I can't think of anything I don't like about her. The fact that so many lefties trash her kind of makes me like her. :P
-
She might not win but neither did the last person I voted for....
Obama can move to Switzerland with FQ, they'll make a lovely couple...even if he's re-elected, he's not doing any good in D.C. He could leave the country for four years and do less damage. Pay the man double to stay in Europe for the rest of his life and take his dog with him. Not the K9 one, the other one with the big butt and the underbite!
-
Is applying for Swiss citizenship an option? Its a bit cold, but I like their gun laws and the beer's good. :P Seriously, It won't be Palin for a lot of reasons, her own rational self interest chief among them.
FQ13
No, and death is not an option either!
Anti-feminist tool!!!!
This is like shooting fish in a barrel . . . . Or like Flounder said - This is going to be greatl!!!!
-
Nothing to with my opinion of her, just facts. The GOP wants a win. They're not going to vote for a lightning rod with baggage. She's a great cheerleader and motivator for a certain wing of the party. She gets crowds and makes a lot of friends and money doing it. Why would she throw that away on a losing bid? She will never get the independent vote, she knows that as well as anybody. But if she rides in on her Harley she can raise a bunch of cash for GOP candidates and keep her brand and influence alive.
FQ13
Yes she is a lightning rod, because she gets things done. The left hates her, because she indiscriminately goes after the corrupt. Regardless of party, and puts them in jail. That would mean the end of the dems. And as far as baggage is concerned, name me one candidate that doesn't have baggage. Hell even Reagan was on his second marriage!!! I'm sorry, but how many times have we discussed that your personal life does not necessarily affect how you do your job. And I know you are going to bring up the fact that she resigned as Gov. But could you work with a new bogus indictment brought against you every other day. Personally I think she made the right choice for her constituents.
My choice would be COL. West. Oh but wait! He has baggage too!
-
FQ is correct about Palin being "a lightning rod .... She's a great cheerleader and motivator for a certain wing of the party. She gets crowds and makes a lot of friends and money doing it."
But she would not be a practical candidate since the left has had her in their sights for 4 years already and have set methods for trivializing her message and discrediting her with the independent voters. The fact that what they say about her either is not true, or is more applicable to their candidate doesn't matter.
The Dems always go with the "big lie" and most voters are like FQ, to uninformed to believe they are being BSed.
-
Oh Heaven forbid Republicans choose a candidate that's a lightning rod. Somebody might be upset. They need to get someone who is an absolute milksop. Make sure they believe in UFOs, big foot, and global warming too. The kind of person who knows how to care for the "little people", who knows how to enact "common sense" gun laws, who knows better than the common man about the need to dispense with those troublesome amendment things.
Funny, how with all the angst I'm reading, Sarah is at 100%
-
I voted for her as 'the left' is obviously TERRIFIED of her.
-
I'll vote exactly the same way as I did last time. write in mickey mouse.
-
I'll vote exactly the same way as I did last time. write in mickey mouse.
And you wonder why I say the average voter is a f*cking idiot ?
Oh Heaven forbid Republicans choose a candidate that's a lightning rod. Somebody might be upset. They need to get someone who is an absolute milksop. Make sure they believe in UFOs, big foot, and global warming too. The kind of person who knows how to care for the "little people", who knows how to enact "common sense" gun laws, who knows better than the common man about the need to dispense with those troublesome amendment things.
Funny, how with all the angst I'm reading, Sarah is at 100%
Don't be an ass CJ, Only a moron would would purposely set his position where the enemy had already registered their artillery
-
he actually got 3% of the vote in CA.
If anything thats a testament to how crapy are choices really were.
-
The GOP doesn't have anyone more exciting than her, so far. Of course, she is polarizing, but Obama is too and more so at this point. Obama may be the only person she could beat anymore, but I don't know if she'll win.
Since our biggest problems are primarily economic still, I'd say that Romney is the best in that realm. Just like before the last election, I predicted that the problems were beyond being fixed in the oval office and whoever won would look horribly bad. I think we may still be in that boat. Particularly if CA goes belly up. Get me outta here!
-
actually if you look at the result from the last election, obama got LOTS of votes from the moderates. Thats not something she could do.
-
actually if you look at the result from the last election, obama got LOTS of votes from the moderates. Thats not something she could do.
And THAT is where the game is won or lost. Libs and conservatives both hate it and insult the moderates, but at the end of the day the person who can hold onto their base and swing the middle wins. No one ever won a general election by appealing solely to the base. Ideological purity is nice, but its like sexy ligerie. You have to take it off if you want to seal the deal. 8)
FQ13
-
Don't be an ass CJ, Only a moron would would purposely set his position where the enemy had already registered their artillery
If your artillery is inefective, your opponents position is illrelevent. How is it that we're still talking about her if she is such a damaged comodity. At the time of my first post she was at 100%, and even now there is NO real opposition to her (except for Micky Mouse, which explains CA).
-
I'd really like to see a 3rd party candidate really have a chance, but until that day Republican will most always be the lesser of two evils in my book
Just asking for Adams' Lizard excerpt.
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
-
FuzDaddy, LOOK AT MASS ! Romney = BAD
CJ, She has name recognition . She is a great motivator, but she would serve the cause better by getting out support for a fresh face like Bachman, Cain, Perry, or Christie.
ROMNEY IS A F*CKING RINO !!!!
-
actually if you look at the result from the last election, obama got LOTS of votes from the moderates. Thats not something she could do.
Good! The last thing we need is middle of the road nothing. Remember, middle of the road is where you find stinking bloated road kill.
Middle of the road moderates have no spine and no purpose in life. They get elected because they piss off so few people. But all that means is that they muddy the waters gladhanding and buying votes.
-
so I take it you want obama to win his second term?
Palin has zero chance of winning. Rather you like it or not, the moderates are ALWAYS who elect people.
-
so I take it you want obama to win his second term?
Palin has zero chance of winning. Rather you like it or not, the moderates are ALWAYS who elect people.
Not exactly TAB, it was not Moderates who elected either Washington or Lincoln.
"Moderate's" within the Republican party are why the Dems are getting away with wrecking the nation.
They rob the party of the guts to actually OPPOSE the communistic policies of the Traitor dems.
-
I would rather lose voting for something of substance that win voting for crap!
This nation was not formed by middle of the road. We were forged by people with strong opinions that fought it out in closed doors meetings, in public and on the battle field.
Even today you can see who the winners are: Are the abortion and gay Rights people moderate? Hell no! They are in your face loud and proud. What has been the downfall of the NRA? Compromise! We have even been told by our opponents that we are too meek.
-
M58, you are mistaking "mouth pieces" for those that actually support them. With out public support neight of those two groups would be anywhere.
Just look at CAs last election. we had a gay rights bill( ie marrage) It lost very badly.
Being "loud and proud" blew up in thier face. I know lots of gay couples, both "red" and "blue". Every single one of them said something to the effect of " " those idiots need to shut up, they are going to piss every one off and it will back fire on us". Funny, they were 100% right.
-
Can't play because you left out the other parties.
Who will be the Libertarian, the Green, and the toga party candidates?
Don't forget the Guns & Dope Party either ;D
-
If this is my choice, I'm voting for myself again.
If elected both sides of the house and senate will have to work together to get enough votes to override my veto stamp. :)
-
People like TAB and FQ make me want to puke.
They have strong opinions but they will compromise every damn one of them.
I have principal and I will f*cking kill you or die before I compromise them.
They are the modern nutless "civilized male".
I'm a throw back to when MEN actually had balls.
-
People like TAB and FQ make me want to puke.
They have strong opinions but they will compromise every damn one of them.
I have principal and I will f*cking kill you or die before I compromise them.
They are the modern nutless "civilized male".
I'm a throw back to when MEN actually had balls.
+1 and insert zeros here
-
so tell me tom, which ones have a compramised?
-
And THAT is where the game is won or lost. Libs and conservatives both hate it and insult the moderates, but at the end of the day the person who can hold onto their base and swing the middle wins. No one ever won a general election by appealing solely to the base. Ideological purity is nice, but its like sexy ligerie. You have to take it off if you want to seal the deal. 8)
FQ13
The moderates wouldn't vote for Obama again. They were the first to sour on him.
-
so tell me tom, which ones have a compramised?
I'm not Tom, but let me ask just two questions:
1. What is your drop dead stance on the Right to keep and bear arms;
2. What is your belief on immigration and illegal aliens?
-
define keep and bear arms.
illegals = gtfo, build a wall, fine the hell out of people hiring them. You forget I had a cluase in all my contracts, that if you bring a illegal to my job site, the contract was void. You will be booted from my job site and most likly sued.
immigration is something else, The current system does not work, needs a complete revamp.
I will give you some of my basics on guns
1 cash cand carry, no waitng periods, blah, blah blah.
2 if a LEO can have it so can you/ LEOs need a ccw to carry concealed.
3 I like the texas 30,06 law, only I'd take it one step further, you lose your ccw for a period of time.
4 every one should have the abilty to get a ccw, but it should not be walk down to the police station, fill out a form and pay a fee. There needs to be training envoled. both in the classroom and on the range.
-
define keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-
thanks for making it clear as mud. ::)
-
It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" not, "Should not be infringed"....how much clearer does it need to be?
-
we have had hundred+ years of court cases trying to figure out what it means.
Some people think back ground checks are infringment, others don't. Some people think ccw permits are infringement, others don't.
-
we have had hundred+ years of court cases trying to figure out what it means.
Some people think back ground checks are infringement, others don't. Some people think ccw permits are infringement, others don't.
Then they must be dumb asses because it's pretty damn clear to me! I also don't really give a damn what "they" think anymore!
Again, I forget who I'm arguing with.......
-
I'm not argueing, just simply point out that others have diffrent ideas.
Reality what the SCOUS says is what matters.
-
I'm not argueing, just simply point out that others have diffrent ideas.
Reality what the SCOUS says is what matters.
The Supreme Court is becoming irrelevant. They've been subverted to some extent and they are some of the "they" I was referring too! Make up your own mind and forget what the others think.
We are a country of miscreants who should question our government at every turn, fight every new law, make our voices heard and determine our own paths in life. We are only 235 years past our own Independence and our memory is already fading as to the reasons we made that Declaration!
-
my mind is made up, on somehtings I agree with the SCOUS on others I don't.
-
thanks for making it clear as mud. ::)
BINGO!!!
Right there is a major part of the problem with the voting public!
-
we have had hundred+ years of court cases trying to figure out what it means.
Some people think back ground checks are infringment, others don't. Some people think ccw permits are infringement, others don't.
Carry anything you have anywhere you happen to be going open, concealed, stuck up your ass if that's what your into.
That's keeping and being.
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so f*cking difficult for you to comprehend ?
-
so I should be able to carry a nuke anywhere I go?
I've heard people that have posted in this thread argue that.
-
Infringement is a clearer concept than many SCOTUS justices will admit to. If there is a circle drawn on a surface and I put my hand just in past the edge of the circle, the circle has been infringed. If you have a right that is not to be infringed upon, any denial of that right, including any requirement to be able to exercise that right is an infringement. Perhaps the founders shouldn't have put an example of a reason to have the 2nd by including the well-regulated militia clause, but keeping and bearing are having what you deem appropriate and using/carrying as you see fit. Even Jefferson said that a firearm should accompany us all on our walks.
I appreciate TAB's idea of the value of training. But as a requirement? So if I have a certificate that says I completed So-and-So Ninja academy firearm training, does that make me safer than my father teaching me safety all my life? I'd say ultimately that we are all responsible for the actions we make regarding gun handling and we should be able to seek out whatever training that we desire. I may learn some skills that might save my life at the $1000 handgun course, but I can be plenty safe with the basic safety rules and dad's training. I do value some training still, but am absolutely against any requirement for it, or even for the requirement for a permit.
-
Infringement is a clearer concept than many SCOTUS justices will admit to. If there is a circle drawn on a surface and I put my hand just in past the edge of the circle, the circle has been infringed. If you have a right that is not to be infringed upon, any denial of that right, including any requirement to be able to exercise that right is an infringement. Perhaps the founders shouldn't have put an example of a reason to have the 2nd by including the well-regulated militia clause, but keeping and bearing are having what you deem appropriate and using/carrying as you see fit. Even Jefferson said that a firearm should accompany us all on our walks.
Well said. Its an example of how when one is writing a law (or anything else) sometimes its what is not said that is the most important thing. If they'd left it at "shall not be infringed" we could have saved a whole lot of trouble. Sometimes less is more.
FQ13
-
Infringement is a clearer concept than many SCOTUS justices will admit to. If there is a circle drawn on a surface and I put my hand just in past the edge of the circle, the circle has been infringed. If you have a right that is not to be infringed upon, any denial of that right, including any requirement to be able to exercise that right is an infringement. Perhaps the founders shouldn't have put an example of a reason to have the 2nd by including the well-regulated militia clause, but keeping and bearing are having what you deem appropriate and using/carrying as you see fit. Even Jefferson said that a firearm should accompany us all on our walks.
I appreciate TAB's idea of the value of training. But as a requirement? So if I have a certificate that says I completed So-and-So Ninja academy firearm training, does that make me safer than my father teaching me safety all my life? I'd say ultimately that we are all responsible for the actions we make regarding gun handling and we should be able to seek out whatever training that we desire. I may learn some skills that might save my life at the $1000 handgun course, but I can be plenty safe with the basic safety rules and dad's training. I do value some training still, but am absolutely against any requirement for it, or even for the requirement for a permit.
Rather than having a class or certificate requirement how about a written test along with shooting a qualifying score to get your ccw? It doesn't need to be to intense, more written safety based questions but still the need to prove you can get rounds on paper in a low stress situation should be a bare minimum requirement. I'd rather see a system similar to getting a driver's license than getting a "safety class certificate" from some mall ninja. When I lived in Tennessee to get my permit I had to shoot a qualifying score. For my security and PI licenses I had to shoot a qualifying score. I personally believe everyone should be able to carry with the least amount of government intrusion possible but at the same time I don't want some unsafe yahoo running around with a loaded firearm and no real training other than some class at a gun show. I'd like to see a system that is standardized federally, reciprocal in all 50 states but all documentation and records are maintained in your state of residence.
-
Fine, but you also have to take a test to vote. You have to score over 75% on a civics test to prove your competent to vote .
Also, if you miss spell more than 2 words in a single post you lose your 1st amendment rights.
-
Fine, but you also have to take a test to vote. You have to score over 75% on a civics test to prove your competent to vote .
Also, if you miss spell more than 2 words in a single post you lose your 1st amendment rights.
Or just let us exercise our Rights >:(
-
Or just let us exercise our Rights >:(
What an incredible frigging idea !
-
what happened to voting from the roof top ;D
-
Fine, but you also have to take a test to vote. You have to score over 75% on a civics test to prove your competent to vote .
Also, if you miss spell more than 2 words in a single post you lose your 1st amendment rights.
I was just playing Devil's advocate since this is about the max that I could tolerate or accept in the ideal situation. I hate government intrusion but at the same time there are people out there that I don't really want armed.
-
Those people have been with us since the dawn of time, and they will be with us till the end of time.
You can not penalize all society based on the few (er ) who should not be allowed to reproduce.
I know FQ and TAB would oppose that, they could lose their free speech in one sentence ;D
-
I was just playing Devil's advocate since this is about the max that I could tolerate or accept in the ideal situation. I hate government intrusion but at the same time there are people out there that I don't really want armed.
Your tests and requirements, if standardized throughout the Country, would be better that the patchwork quilt of crap that we now have, but they are still requirements/infringements. I would tolerate it over what we now have, but I don't want any requirement to exercise my right either. We all know of people, or types that we don't want to be armed, but even with all of California's restrictions, those idiots are still armed. That includes violent felons.
Less than 3 weeks until I leave Kommiefornia and I already have my Utah CCW permit, which is a huge step up in rights - but still an infringement*. The majority of newer handguns can't be purchased in CA (by a civilian), but I'm already eyeing a (banned in CA) Ruger LCP in UT that I won't have to wait 10 days for! Ain't that America!
* I know a guy on the Utah Shooting Sports Council who explained to me why he helped shut down the recent Constitutional carry bill that came up in UT. He said that it contained a provision that you'd have to notify a police officer of your CCW when pulled over. They felt that was an infringement(not true constitutional) and said that they'd come back and pass a good law without that provision, instead of having to fix a bad law later.
-
Your tests and requirements, if standardized throughout the Country, would be better that the patchwork quilt of crap that we now have, but they are still requirements/infringements. I would tolerate it over what we now have, but I don't want any requirement to exercise my right either. We all know of people, or types that we don't want to be armed, but even with all of California's restrictions, those idiots are still armed. That includes violent felons.
Less than 3 weeks until I leave Kommiefornia and I already have my Utah CCW permit, which is a huge step up in rights - but still an infringement*. The majority of newer handguns can't be purchased in CA (by a civilian), but I'm already eyeing a (banned in CA) Ruger LCP in UT that I won't have to wait 10 days for! Ain't that America!
* I know a guy on the Utah Shooting Sports Council who explained to me why he helped shut down the recent Constitutional carry bill that came up in UT. He said that it contained a provision that you'd have to notify a police officer of your CCW when pulled over. They felt that was an infringement(not true constitutional) and said that they'd come back and pass a good law without that provision, instead of having to fix a bad law later.
I hear you and can understand why you'd want no infringements after living in the PRK. I'm not talking about criminals though when I said there are people I just don't want armed, I'm talking about the average gun show attendee who is buying the same Glock his homey has even though none of them will ever go to the range or actually learn to shoot it or be safe with it. I'm talking about the douche at the gun show table who is waving around the pistol he's looking at while repeatedly covering my 7 year old son's head withe the muzzle. The same douche who then wants to start a fight with me when I tell him he should learn and practice some basic gun handling rules before buying said pistol. No apologies only a "chill dude, the shit aint loaded or nuthin'". And a strike against the dealer who not only wants to sell to the guy but gives me a dirty look over this exchange.
See I'm all for my Constitutional rights but you have to get a license to drive a car and prove you're at least a little competent with it. I know a car is dangerous and can kill but a pistol in the wrong hands can kill even easier. It's very easy to get your CCW here in FL and lots of people have them who have no business carrying a pair of toe-nail clippers let alone a pistol. We just had a ND in Orlando this past week with some Plaxico wanna be gansta carrying a XD9 in his pants pocket, loose with all his keys and crap. I guess he was playing with it instead of pocket pool and threw a round off his thigh and into a tile floor of a crowded restaurant injuring 6 people, including a couple of kids with tile shards. Situations like this are ammo for the no carry of any type lobby to try for more restrictions.
I hate giving up any rights but if it keeps people like this from carrying in public I feel like in the long run it will ensure responsible people a better chance of keeping their right to carry. I was more hardline on this before I had kids but anyone who carries regularly knows it's a job to properly stay alert and ready to protect yourself but when you have an entire family's safety as your primary responsibility and concern then you're senses are in hyperdrive in every public space. Knowing someone who has no business carrying is not legally doing it makes it a bit easier.
I won't even take my son to gunshows anymore until he's a little older even though he loves to go because of the increased idiot factor there. Most of these people buy their gun, load it and carry it. No range time, no practice. If they had to shoot a qualifying score to carry they may still own the pistol but are much more likely to leave it at home.
-
Bafsu, you are dreaming if you think you can legislate good sense or good safety practices.
It's been tried without success before.
How often is drinking a factor in car accidents ? They have a lot of laws about that too.
-
Bafsu, I'm sure that I'm especially sensitive after a lifetime of California regulations and I'm not attacking your ideas. Seeking training is immensely valuable and responsible. I agree on all of the idiots at the gun shows and bozos who mishandle guns, but I see those idiots carrying all over the place too. I don't like to take my 7 year old daughter to the gun shows either. I just think that we'll have idiots who will misuse and mishandle guns no matter what and we're going to just have to prosecute them.
I'll swallow a shall-issue permit system any day, over CA's "may-issue if you can prove that a killer is chasing you right now" permit.
Tom, are there any decent candidates putting their names in the hat in your opinion? My endorsement of Romney was only pertaining to economic problems that our Country is facing. His flipping all over on guns drives me crazy, but I hope a man can come to his senses on them. An acceptance that guns aren't the problem and that crime and violence are societal comes slower to some. Maybe they don't try to understand that issue when it doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us. RINO, who's electable that is strictly party line anymore and do we accept any party-line Koolaid anyway. I was a big fan of Reagan and he may have been the most to the right of all candidates in my voting life, but I still find that he was softer on some issues than I would have liked. I'm still waiting for a real candidate to step up. I do like Palin somewhat. She's at least way cooler than Hillary.
-
First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".
Incidents with guns will happen....last I checked the sky was not falling. I am unwilling to trade freedom for a terribly small and insignificant increase in safety. Anyone born before the 60's, and some after that from rural areas, remember death sentences from disease, stroke, heart attack, etc....we live in a safe society.
Prosecute ND's and make it public....this may serve as a deterrent to irresponsible wannabees who will kill you while driving and texting instead.
-
Bafsu, you are dreaming if you think you can legislate good sense or good safety practices.
It's been tried without success before.
How often is drinking a factor in car accidents ? They have a lot of laws about that too.
I don't feel like you can legislate good sense and if I thought I'd see no restrictions or limitations in my lifetime then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately popular opinion or at least media driven opinion is going the other way. Like it or not short of armed revolution we're heading for more restrictions, not less. Seeing as that is pretty much the case I think a Nationally accepted, state maintained standardized licensing system it the best compromise. My point there are going to be some restrictions so why not have the least restrictions possible while still satisfying the largest percentage of both sides.
-
Bafsu, I'm sure that I'm especially sensitive after a lifetime of California regulations and I'm not attacking your ideas. Seeking training is immensely valuable and responsible. I agree on all of the idiots at the gun shows and bozos who mishandle guns, but I see those idiots carrying all over the place too. I don't like to take my 7 year old daughter to the gun shows either. I just think that we'll have idiots who will misuse and mishandle guns no matter what and we're going to just have to prosecute them.
I'll swallow a shall-issue permit system any day, over CA's "may-issue if you can prove that a killer is chasing you right now" permit.
Tom, are there any decent candidates putting their names in the hat in your opinion? My endorsement of Romney was only pertaining to economic problems that our Country is facing. His flipping all over on guns drives me crazy, but I hope a man can come to his senses on them. An acceptance that guns aren't the problem and that crime and violence are societal comes slower to some. Maybe they don't try to understand that issue when it doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us. RINO, who's electable that is strictly party line anymore and do we accept any party-line Koolaid anyway. I was a big fan of Reagan and he may have been the most to the right of all candidates in my voting life, but I still find that he was softer on some issues than I would have liked. I'm still waiting for a real candidate to step up. I do like Palin somewhat. She's at least way cooler than Hillary.
Not Tom but from a gunowner standpoint I think our best presidential candidate is Jim DeMint. GOA says he is seriously considering a run and he's rated A+ on gun issues and isn't and does not desire to be a career politician.
-
First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".
Incidents with guns will happen....last I checked the sky was not falling. I am unwilling to trade freedom for a terribly small and insignificant increase in safety. Anyone born before the 60's, and some after that from rural areas, remember death sentences from disease, stroke, heart attack, etc....we live in a safe society.
Prosecute ND's and make it public....this may serve as a deterrent to irresponsible wannabees who will kill you while driving and texting instead.
I agree and knew someone would bring that point however I'd be willing to bet if automobiles existed when the constitution was written then they very well could've been mentioned in the same way. I used that as a reference since aside from the constitutional argument both already need some type of license to operate (carry) yet you only (in most places) have to show proficiency in one. Anyone who thinks that all infringements will suddenly go away is living in a dream world. They're already here and have been getting worse rather than better. Rather than making them all go away at once lets steadily change the rules and make them progressively better so the other side has a little easier time swallowing it. Unless you want to go the route of another civil war style revolution we are not going to get to a place of absolutely no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not looking to start a revolution but would gladly sign on if it happened. Until then why not try to make things better a step at a time?
-
First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".
We need to get that kind of thinking out of our heads. We are giving the government control of rights that they do not have under the Constitution.
As I have said before, there IS a constitutional guarantee for "the right to drive" and all other human activity that is not precluded by the Constitution. It is the 9th Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Driving IS a Right and not a privilege. It cannot be a privilege as the government has no privileges to grant The People unless given that authority by The People in the Constitution......unless we allow them to usurp that power by complacent thinking.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the government does have the power to regulate a Right. Drivers Licensing is an example of that where it is pretty much done correctly.
One downside is that should the Powers That Be decide to restrict who can drive for the wrong reasons, they can make the requirements unattainable. This is a strong concern with testing for 2A rights.
Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect. This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.
Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.
-
I agree and knew someone would bring that point however I'd be willing to bet if automobiles existed when the constitution was written then they very well could've been mentioned in the same way. I used that as a reference since aside from the constitutional argument both already need some type of license to operate (carry) yet you only (in most places) have to show proficiency in one. Anyone who thinks that all infringements will suddenly go away is living in a dream world. They're already here and have been getting worse rather than better. Rather than making them all go away at once lets steadily change the rules and make them progressively better so the other side has a little easier time swallowing it. Unless you want to go the route of another civil war style revolution we are not going to get to a place of absolutely no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not looking to start a revolution but would gladly sign on if it happened. Until then why not try to make things better a step at a time?
Again, The 9th Amendment.
Consider this.
The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People. NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.
BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?
-
We need to get that kind of thinking out of our heads. We are giving the government control of rights that they do not have under the Constitution.
As I have said before, there IS a constitutional guarantee for "the right to drive" and all other human activity that is not precluded by the Constitution. It is the 9th Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Driving IS a Right and not a privilege. It cannot be a privilege as the government has no privileges to grant The People unless given that authority by The People in the Constitution......unless we allow them to usurp that power by complacent thinking.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the government does have the power to regulate a Right. Drivers Licensing is an example of that where it is pretty much done correctly.
One downside is that should the Powers That Be decide to restrict who can drive for the wrong reasons, they can make the requirements unattainable. This is a strong concern with testing for 2A rights.
Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect. This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.
Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.
Again, The 9th Amendment.
Consider this.
The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People. NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.
BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?
+1
I have made the same (almost verbatim) case over steaks and beer several times in the past. ;)
-
First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".
Incidents with guns will happen....last I checked the sky was not falling. I am unwilling to trade freedom for a terribly small and insignificant increase in safety. Anyone born before the 60's, and some after that from rural areas, remember death sentences from disease, stroke, heart attack, etc....we live in a safe society.
Prosecute ND's and make it public....this may serve as a deterrent to irresponsible wannabees who will kill you while driving and texting instead.
2 comments on Rastus's post, first off, The comparison between driving and gun's, in this case, is valid.
The reason being that the subject was not based on the Right/Privilege debate, simply on the fact that irresponsible use of either one can get some one killed. Despite the requirement for "Drivers Ed", Licensing, and wide spread campaigns against dangerous driving practices, (drinking, texting etc. ) cars are still the number 1 cause of death in the US.
Another point, this debate on further restrictions on law abiding citizens ignores the fact that while gun ownership has sky rocketed in recent years the rate of violent crime continues to fall. I have a question for those who would surrender still more of their rights for the illusion of safety, haven't you noticed that while crimes short of murder, or armed robbery seldom make the news an ND in in East Overshoe Wisc. gets broadcast world wide ? Could this be because it is in fact a fairly rare occurrence being hyped by the anti gun media ?
My 2nd comment on Rastus's post is that I think the bold line is dead on the mark.
Again, The 9th Amendment.
Consider this.
The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People. NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.
BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?
I had not thought of it in those terms, I had been considering it exactly the opposite, that like good roads, facilitating public transport was as much a part of Govt as regulating the safety of Rail Roads. The history of this is that after WWI the Auto companies began buying up the public transit systems that existed in every city and most large towns. They then dismantled them to boost car sales.
FuzDaddy, YES !!! Pawlenty looks good, Bachman, Cain has officially announced, Rick Santorum has been sniffing around NH, Christie and Perry are both being encouraged to run as well. There are a couple RINO's trying to get in on the act, some former NM Gov and another guy, both I never heard of before, otherwise, leave out the retreads like Romney, Paul, Newt, and Rudy G. and it's a pretty good field.
-
Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect. This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.
Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.
Agreed, and it's the registry part that scares/concerns me the most. At the same time though you're delusional if you think you aren't already in some "gun owners database" within the government. Unless you have purchased every gun you own through private sales or other back channels, (never had a background check called in) have never had any type of firearms license be it CCW, Security etc. then you are already in somebody's database that the government has access to. I'm not even talking about filling out 4473's which is another topic of debate. Sure they stay in the shop but BATFE can come in and look at them (and even though they're not supposed to copy/scan, they do) any time they wish. Furthermore if a shop goes out of business or an FFL is surrendered like I did with mine during the Clinton days those 4473's get turned in to the BATFE for "storage".
I recently received a visit from a BATFE federale (about 3 months ago) who was asking why I've had so many purchases the last year. He was implying I was running guns to Mexico or something. The only way they'd know the number of transactions I'd made is because they track the background check data. He asked to see how many of these guns I still had, if I had bills of sale etc. I told him I was simply a collector and admirer of various firearms and I liked to buy and trade as a hobby. He then said with my volume I should get an FFL at which point I laughed and said "you're the same agency who told me I needed to give up my FFL because I was using it as a means to a hobby or to obtain discounted firearms and was not making a concerted attempt to earn a profit as a firearms dealer". I asked him which is it. He couldn't answer me then but asked to come in and see my collection and any records. I told him I'd be glad to show him what he was asking for as soon as he returned with a warrant. I haven't heard a word since.
I may be an extreme case since I've had at least 80 call-ins in the last year or so but you can be guaranteed if you've obtained any firearm legally from a FFL dealer then you're already in federal databases and are a known gun owner. There is no hiding from the Feds. I was at least hoping through my idea the database would at least be maintained on a state level.
-
Fine, but you also have to take a test to vote. You have to score over 75% on a civics test to prove your (you're) competent to vote .
Also, if you miss spell (misspell) more than 2 words in a single post you lose your 1st amendment rights.
I don't usually play grammar police, but I couldn't resist in light of your last sentence. BTW, do commas count? You missed one after "post". ;D
Seriously, you have a good point.