The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: twyacht on September 24, 2011, 05:01:12 PM
-
Here's what the "Ken Doll" Romney stated.
BUZZER,....Wrong Answer Masshole.
Here's Perry.
OK Good enough,....He also agrees that "Two Hands" promote good gun control.
Herman Cain
Hmmmm,....don't know about states trumping/or "f" ing with a Constitutional Amendment
Ron Paul
I don't think I would have a problem on 2nd amend. issues with Paul
Jon Huntsman
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Jon_Huntsman_Gun_Control.htm
In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, the host asked, "Governor, let's close with four quick issue sets to get you located on the political map. Would you veto an assault weapons ban?"
"I would not veto an assault weapons ban," said Huntsman.
After the interview, Huntsman's campaign said the former governor "would absolutely" veto a weapons ban, and Huntsman immediately issued a statement to affirm it:
"Hugh, I clearly misunderstood your question regarding the assault weapons ban," Huntsman wrote in an email to Hewitt. "I would absolutely veto the ban. I have always stood firmly for 2nd Amendment rights, and my record in Utah reflects it. With a name like 'Huntsman' it really goes without saying."
Source: ABC News report on Hugh Hewitt interview Jun 17, 2011
Something reminds me of a used car salesman with this guy. Honest mistake? Or a Freudian Slip?
Rick Santorum
Invited to the NRA Leadership Forum Speech,....OK. Thumbs up.
Newt Gingrich Best answer of any candidate.
Caught him at the NRA Conference in Charlotte, 2010....He gets it.
Michelle Bachmann
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Michele_Bachmann_Gun_Control.htm
Pretty much gets it, but I have some doubts about "for the children" type of reactions and possible regulations, I maybe wrong.
The rest I don't think even stand a chance in hell of getting much further in the process.
-
I'm not sure why you picked Gingrich's answer as the best. I'll admit to not watching it. My answer is based on the fact that if it takes you 15 minutes to answer a question about where you stand on guns, you probably don't get it.
Need I remind you of the global warming ad he did with his girl Pelosi? Do you really think he wouldn't sell us down the river?
-
I'm not sure why you picked Gingrich's answer as the best. I'll admit to not watching it. My answer is based on the fact that if it takes you 15 minutes to answer a question about where you stand on guns, you probably don't get it.
Need I remind you of the global warming ad he did with his girl Pelosi? Do you really think he wouldn't sell us down the river?
This was STRICTLY 2nd Amend. The answer Newt gives is a history of why it is second and not lower down the list. I hope you watch it, and post a follow up.
I'll bet he covers more history of this country in 15 minutes than modern schoolkids get all year.
-
This was STRICTLY 2nd Amend. The answer Newt gives is a history of why it is second and not lower down the list. I hope you watch it, and post a follow up.
I'll bet he covers more history of this country in 15 minutes than modern schoolkids get all year.
He did major in History. His personal life aside, he is an insightful man. He's a bit weak when it comes to crunch time....another week with the government shut down in the 90's and he would have had Clinton on the ropes.
-
Cain screwed the pooch!
100% for the Second Amendment, but it is ok for state and local government to have restrictions.
Have your cake and eat it too - It don't work that way Hermy Baby >:( However, the same crowd that elected BHO will buy into that as a good answer.
-
HerkNav, If don't watch any of the others, watch Newt. His actual answer is the last 15 seconds, the other 14 3/4 minutes are needed to set the stage for it.
Ron Paul comes in 2nd best, he gave basically the same answer, just not as well.
-
Cain screwed the pooch!
100% for the Second Amendment, but it is ok for state and local government to have restrictions.
Have your cake and eat it too - It don't work that way Hermy Baby >:( However, the same crowd that elected BHO will buy into that as a good answer.
Gotta disagree with ya. Herman said it is a States decision (nothing about local). Do YOU want a national CCW run by the feds? I sure a s hell don't. The 2A restricts the FEDS and acknowledges an individual right (a preexisting right). Look to your states constitution for any restrictions or clarifications. Keep the Feds out as much as possible so that WE keep control at the lowest practicable level, which in my opinion is state level.
-
Haz, It is NOT a states decision any more than Free speech is a States decision.
What God giveth, let no man taketh away.
I'm stunned that you of all people would make such a blunder.
-
States set the 'bar' for CCW permits (as in class time, range time, etc) and I think it should be that way. They are not allowed to infringe on that right (McDonald case). I have no problem with that.
-
Explain to me again why we need CCW permits or state standards to keep and bear arms.
-
Gotta disagree with ya. Herman said it is a States decision (nothing about local). Do YOU want a national CCW run by the feds? I sure a s hell don't. The 2A restricts the FEDS and acknowledges an individual right (a preexisting right). Look to your states constitution for any restrictions or clarifications. Keep the Feds out as much as possible so that WE keep control at the lowest practicable level, which in my opinion is state level.
Let me point out. the movement is not about a National CCW, but about reciprocity between the states for CCW holders...just like there is for Driver's License holders. As Tom B. pointed out, there might be a bit of federal input but the driver's license system is hardly under the thumb of the feds. Very similar to how marriage licenses work too.
-
I wasn't talking about that movement but about what Cain said re: states. I am all for reciprocity.
M58 I have no problem with 'constitutional' carry but I think if your going to get a permit issued by the state for concealed carry (which I think should be by permit) then the state should set the standards.
-
I disagree with a permit to carry period. I can accept that if you fall into a situation where your Rights are revoked your ID needs to be flagged, but that is the same for all Rights (can anyone say voter ID?).
Allowing state regulation brings about the patchwork mess that we have today where one state allows one thing and another state another, one city says this, and a county says that. We have created a mess that is noting more than infringement at its purest definition.
I agree with States' Rights, but a State can not remove a Constitutional protection of a Right from its citizens.
-
States set the 'bar' for CCW permits (as in class time, range time, etc) and I think it should be that way. They are not allowed to infringe on that right (McDonald case). I have no problem with that.
I wasn't talking about that movement but about what Cain said re: states. I am all for reciprocity.
M58 I have no problem with 'constitutional' carry but I think if your going to get a permit issued by the state for concealed carry (which I think should be by permit) then the state should set the standards.
There is no "competency test" for voting, you do not have to be able to spell to exercise freedom of the press.
States have no legal right to place any limits on firearms ownership. and that includes limiting it to "law abiding citizens".
-
There is no "competency test" for voting, you do not have to be able to spell to exercise freedom of the press.
States have no legal right to place any limits on firearms ownership. and that includes limiting it to "law abiding citizens".
Find a court rulling that says that.
I've never seen one.
-
Find a court rulling that says that.
I've never seen one.
You're 30 years old....there's a bunch you haven't seen!
As to the court case, it's moot. Read the 10th Amendment!
Courts are wrong on occasion there Kid, that's whey there is a court of appeals and higher courts. Once you get to the SCOTUS, the bucks stops but they're still wrong on occasion!
-
You're 30 years old....there's a bunch you haven't seen!
As to the court case, it's moot. Read the 10th Amendment!
Courts are wrong on occasion there Kid, that's whey there is a court of appeals and higher courts. Once you get to the SCOTUS, the bucks stops but they're still wrong on occasion!
you forget, up until heller, there was no court case that said we actaully had a right to even keep arms. It was just implied...
So please show me a case.
-
The Bill of Rights prevails.
Courts are meaningless in that regard. The Supreme Court of the United States is there to ENSURE that the Constitution is not violated not re-write the law so your point is moot!
-
The Bill of Rights prevails.
Courts are meaningless in that regard. The Supreme Court of the United States is there to ENSURE that the Constitution is not violated not re-write the law so your point is moot!
actually up until heller it didn't. atleast when it came to owning guns.
-
actually up until heller it didn't. atleast when it came to owning guns.
I've owned guns my entire adult life there youngster. I never had to ask permission until I moved to Massachusetts. I didn't even need permission when I lived in your f***ed up state for two years, well before you were born!
Heller only reinforced incorporation of the 2nd Amendment! Something that should have not been an issue in the first place.
It meant nothing to me!
-
TAB, I offer you the Dredd Scot decision to to point out how both of you arguments are wrong.
The reason SCOTUS ruled Scot (a slave ) was not a US citizen and therefore had no right to petition them was based on the fact that if they ruled otherwise he , and all other slaves, would be entitled to all the other rights of a citizen including the right to keep and carry arms when and where they wished.
Justice Taney's decision specifies keeping and carrying arms as an undeniable right of citizenship and dates to before the Civil war.
That fact that the decision was overturned illustrates that the courts decisions are based less on actual Constitutional meaning than on political expediency and following the latest PC fad.
Just because a politically appointed court makes a ruling doesn't mean it is correct.
The ultimate interpretation of the Bill of rights is what are you willing to fight for .
-
I listened to Newt. It was a fascinating history lesson. However, I trust Newt to not sell us out about as much as I trust my Lab puppy to not chew my wife's socks.
-
I listened to Newt. It was a fascinating history lesson. However, I trust Newt to not sell us out about as much as I trust my Lab puppy to not chew my wife's socks.
True with any politician. But I am glad you watched it, and posted a follow up. Do I think Newt is the nominee of choice for the Rep.?
No, Not really.... A former Washington Inside the Beltway politician is exactly what we, IMHO, do NOT need. However, to my OP, and the 2nd Amend. He is the ONLY politician with the stones to state that the 2nd Amend. Is not there for hunters, target shooters, or even personal self defense,....
Those are a given inalienable right granted by Our Creator.
It is, as the Founders ingeniously knew, as the ultimate "fail-safe" from a rampant, corrupt, tyranny. (Which we are very close to BTW)...
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
President Thomas Jefferson
Newt, despite his Presidential/Political shortcomings, historically and realistically, understands what our Founding Fathers meant by the 2nd Amend.
If he is the nominee, and that is a big IF,,......I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him, and not have to hold my nose like I did for McCain. BHO must go PERIOD.
As I posted they could put up BoBo the clown and he would get my vote, just to get this POS out. (I'm already on a list or three so no worries),... ;)
tw
-
Anybody else think it a tad ironic, even borderline arrogant, for TAB to be asking somebody to back up their contentions? ;D
-
Anybody else think it a tad ironic, even borderline arrogant, for TAB to be asking somebody to back up their contentions? ;D
That fact is only lost on TAB....the rest of us pretty much got that too!
I was pretty arrogant when I was his age too but I always listened to those with more knowledge because you can always learn something! The minute you think you know everything, you're quickly reminded that you're an idiot!
;)