# Ted Nugent for president!



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Tyler (#3 son) and I have been discussing guns and politics.

I've heard of him, never knew if I supported his views, till tonight. I like his logic, and his straight forwardness. No quarter asked, or taken! He says more here than a lot of politicians do in an entire career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=50vUx0DfGtE

His views are backed up by FBI crime statistics, not just by biased personal beliefs, although they do coincide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ooa98FHuaU0


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I hate the way this country is splitting at the seams over politics... but really, not just politics, but culture and the vision for our future.

Reagan passed sweeping gun control legislation. Bush Senior had a mixed record, at various times putting forth proposals to limit magazine capacity and also banned the sale of foreign made "assault weapons". And now Obama is put into a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation, where the number of shootings has escalated not simply to a yearly or every few years occurrence, but every few months it seems there's another drastic shooting. If Obama does nothing, he looks callous and not in touch. If he does something, he runs into the second amendment. 

I think, what alot of people fail to grasp, is that these issues ~ from wiretaps to "no-knock" police entry to data collection of e-mails, phone calls, credit card and bank transactions, trial without jury, indefinite detentions, and possibly various other infringements on civil liberties ~ aren't necessarily Republican or Democratic in nature, but rather a symptom of a broader problem that plagues this country.

Unfortunately, people are too much at each others' throats to engage in calm, peaceful discourse... which is probably to an extent the way those in charge like it.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)




----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

littlejoe said:


> Tyler (#3 son) and I have been discussing guns and politics.
> 
> I've heard of him, never knew if I supported his views, till tonight. I like his logic, and his straight forwardness. No quarter asked, or taken! He says more here than a lot of politicians do in an entire career.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=50vUx0DfGtE
> ...


Yes, because a child molesting, bear poaching, pants pooping draft dodger would make a great president. :goodjob:

Seriously?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Zilli said:


> Yes, because a child molesting, bear poaching, pants pooping draft dodger would make a great president. :goodjob:
> 
> Seriously?


* * * * * * * ' * * * *

or better yet, try giving us YOUR definition 

of poaching a bear that was never killed?!!!

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/ted-nugents-statement-about-his-illegal-bear-hunt-alaska


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * * ' * * * *
> 
> or better yet, try giving us YOUR definition
> 
> ...


Funny that you could dispute the bear poaching but not the child molesting, pants pooping, and draft dodging. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

What PROOF can you Zilli provide that TN is a child molester?


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Warwalk said:


> I hate the way this country is splitting at the seams over politics... but really, not just politics, but culture and the vision for our future.
> 
> Reagan passed sweeping gun control legislation. Bush Senior had a mixed record, at various times putting forth proposals to limit magazine capacity and also banned the sale of foreign made "assault weapons". And now Obama is put into a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation, where the number of shootings has escalated not simply to a yearly or every few years occurrence, but every few months it seems there's another drastic shooting. If Obama does nothing, he looks callous and not in touch. If he does something, he runs into the second amendment.
> 
> ...


Maybe his main goal is to divide the country? He's doing a good job! Did you watch the full video?


Zilli said:


> Funny that you could dispute the bear poaching but not the child molesting, pants pooping, and draft dodging. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:


If you're saying that, can you back your smack talk up with facts?


----------



## Spotted Owl (Jul 5, 2010)

Zilli said:


> Yes, because a child molesting, bear poaching, pants pooping draft dodger would make a great president. :goodjob:
> 
> Seriously?


The accuser or plaintiff, holds the responsibility and burden of proof. Lets have it. Credible sources please?



Owl


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

I always love the people that will poo-poo what an actor or actress says about political things, and say who cares what they say, they're just a celebrity

Yet are ready to elect a rock musician to the presidency due to what he says about political things


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

Wow, I did some quick searching on some of this shtuff... So he's got eight chirren's with six different women, isn't the best at paying child support, lived in his own excrement for weeks and purposefully gained weight to dodge the draft, and had a penchant for girls of questionable age... 

Man I hope it's not true, as I like his music and enjoyed alot of the Piers Morgan interview...


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Shygal said:


> I always love the people that will poo-poo what an actor or actress says about political things, and say who cares what they say, they're just a celebrity
> 
> Yet are ready to elect a rock musician to the presidency due to what he says about political things


Got your attention, no? I appreciate the fact that this man took a stand, with facts to back up his beliefs. Yes, I wish I could vote for such a person that was running for presidency.

We're pretty darn lacking at the present!


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Google is your friend.....

Ted admits the child thing in a VH1 interview
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/romney-supporter-nugent-admitted-multiple-a

Ted admits the poopy pants draft dodger thing, and yes the quote from Ted is in the story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...ted-nugent-pooped-his-pants-to-dodge-vietnam/


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Joe ~ did you mean Ted, Piers, or Obama w/ the country division question? I think, if you meant Obama, this country's been apart for years at this point. But that's just my thoughts... also, it seems to be drifting further apart each year. =/'


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

JohnnyLee said:


> What PROOF can you Zilli provide that TN is a child molester?





littlejoe said:


> If you're saying that, can you back your smack talk up with facts?


Actually, if you all want to google "Ted Nugent," you will find all you need to know - and then some:



> He lambastes drug users and alcohol drinkers, but repeatedly admits (without a trace of humility, however) to being a serial pedophile. Two relationships (one with his wife and one with âmuseâ Pele Massa, who was 17 when they started dating) were ended due to Tedâs infidelity while on the road, often with underage women. But Ted justifies his behavior with one of his trademark funny expressions: âalternative flesh management.â


http://www.roctober.com/roctober/behindthemusic1.html



> Courtney Love phoned into the Howard Stern Show on Monday before eventually coming into the studio where she made the shocking allegation that one of the first times she had oral sex was with Ted Nugent. She said she was young and she didnât want to say exactly how old she was, but eventually confessed she was 12-year-old â which would have made Nugent approximately 28 years old at the time.


http://rockdirt.com/courtney-love-i-gave-ted-nugent-oral-sex-at-age-12/9131/

Granted, this is Courtney Love, but to the best of my knowledge, Nugent has never denied it.

And here's some more stuff about the bear:

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/ted-nugent-agrees-to-pay-10000-fine.html

Just google it. Google all of it. Google "Ted Nugent pedophile," "Ted Nugent bear," "Ted Nugent poops his pants," "Ted Nugent draft dodger."

Is this really someone who should be president? Seriously?

For some who try to come across as so "moral," you all sure can excuse immorality when it suits you.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Shygal said:


> I always love the people that will poo-poo what an actor or actress says about political things, and say who cares what they say, they're just a celebrity
> 
> Yet are ready to elect a rock musician to the presidency due to what he says about political things


 I want to support an actual leader! I don't want to support someone who fails to prove. even where he is born.


Warwalk said:


> Wow, I did some quick searching on some of this shtuff... So he's got eight chirren's with six different women, isn't the best at paying child support, lived in his own excrement for weeks and purposefully gained weight to dodge the draft, and had a penchant for girls of questionable age...
> 
> Man I hope it's not true, as I like his music and enjoyed alot of the Piers Morgan interview...


 You didn't provide any proof of your accusations WW, or can you even provide hersay? The second link I provided showed actual proof. I don't give a rats rear whether you like the man or not, I respected his views and what he had to say, as well as the proof he offered! More than I can say for others!


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Yes, I saw all of those links. Web development is my forte.

What I asked you was what PROOF you have that he is a child molester. What you provided here is just hearsay, he has never been convicted of child molestation, yet, you SAY these things about a person like they are fact.



Zilli said:


> Actually, if you all want to google "Ted Nugent," you will find all you need to know - and then some:
> 
> http://www.roctober.com/roctober/behindthemusic1.html
> 
> ...


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Wow! Those are some real links to actual facts! I'm so impressed!
I bet you can find some on the validity of Clinton/ Lewiski's affair as well? Or maybe he didn't inhale?



Zilli said:


> Actually, if you all want to google "Ted Nugent," you will find all you need to know - and then some:
> 
> http://www.roctober.com/roctober/behindthemusic1.html
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

In this video, Ted explains about the bear. And I am inclined to believe him.

There are some weird laws out there, and most of them are meant to confuse people.

I even had a Texas fish and game warden tell me I measured 2 fish wrong, and I stood there and watched him measure them wrong, but before I could show him what the regulations said, he threw them back in the creek and wrote me a ticket.

[youtube]bkZez9b4aJo[/youtube]


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Shygal said:


> Yet are ready to elect a rock musician to the presidency due to what he says about political things


Especially if it's about.....*guns.* :hysterical:


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Have you seen this LJ? He sounds like he is wasted.

[youtube]or-inV1KKDE[/youtube]

"In the highly charged debate over guns, it is important for politicians on both sides to get their facts straight. In this case, the available data shows that Clinton was way off-base in his assertion, making an exaggerated claim &#8212; *which his office would not even defend*"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2980231/posts

People like him just make up facts as they go along, just to further their agenda.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

littlejoe said:


> I bet you can find some on the validity of Clinton/ Lewiski's affair as well? Or maybe he didn't inhale?


I thought this thread was about Ted Nugent.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

It is about our constitution and our bill of rights, what is wrong with our country, and how it cannot move forward!!!!!!!!!!

Yep! Ted Nugent was the headline, as well as his views that were expressed in the interview. Do you have a problem with facts?



Zilli said:


> I thought this thread was about Ted Nugent.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

This is definitely not the America I grew up in.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

littlejoe said:


> I don't want to support someone who fails to prove. even where he is born.


Oh, no!

A BIRFER!

(*Birfer:* A nutjob conspiracy theorist who believes President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=birfer&defid=4173587)


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

While we are on the subject, look at how classy our president and first lady are. MO eating with elbows on the table, and BO picking his nose! LOL! 

[youtube]p1m6Vn5uyRE[/youtube]


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

littlejoe said:


> Do you have a problem with facts?


No.....but apparently you do. 

Anyway, since this is not General Chat, and I think we're straying from the spirit of this forum, I will now step out of the conversation.

Peace.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

JohnnyLee said:


> While we are on the subject, look at how classy our president and first lady are. MO eating with elbows on the table, and BO picking his nose! LOL! "D
> 
> [youtube]p1m6Vn5uyRE[/youtube]


Ok, one last comment - since you apparently can't defend Ted Nugent and his disgusting history, I think the fact that you apparently feel the need to drag others (Clinton, President Obama, the First Lady) into the conversation pretty pathetic.

I think that's called.......DEFLECTION. Good job! :goodjob:

Good night.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Sorry maam, I offered crime statistics supported by the FBI. "cuse me, you offered what? I thought you bowed out, just see you offered another comment?

It's way past my bedtime, and I'm headed to check my eyelids for light leaks, since this conversation has offered so many facts.



Zilli said:


> No.....but apparently you do.
> 
> Anyway, since this is not General Chat, and I think we're straying from the spirit of this forum, I will now step out of the conversation.
> 
> Peace.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Zilli said:


> Ok, one last comment - since you apparently can't defend Ted Nugent and his disgusting history, I think the fact that you apparently feel the need to drag others (Clinton, President Obama, the First Lady) into the conversation pretty pathetic.
> 
> I think that's called.......DEFLECTION. Good job! :goodjob:
> 
> Good night.


All I could find that was the least bit suspect (as in on the record and not just hearsay from the likes of Courtney Love) was where he married a 17 year old in Hawaii in 1978.

To this day (in Hawaii) a 17 year old can get married with the parents consent. Does that make him a child molester?

If you watched the video that LJ posted, he explained his feelings about the draft on that show. I included a video about the bear episode, so what have I left out about Nugent's history?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...t-about-his-illegal-bear-hunt-alaska?page=0,0

All I and LJ were asking for were facts, or records or something besides "someone said this". That's all.

Then you can't provide it, so, you get snippy.

Sorry to get your panties in a bunch. Go hug a tree tomorrow or something and you will feel better. Burn some old Nugent LP's in a fire and sing kumbaya or something.

Maybe your Birkenstocks are on too tight???


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Another refreshing, infotmative homesteading for singles thread!:bouncy:


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

It's been so long since I ate at a table, I'm not sure about the elbows thing. Isn't that some sort of macaroni though? And wouldn't it be much neater to put them on a plate, or in a bowl? I'd hate to clean up behind elbows on the table.


----------



## starjj (May 2, 2005)

Had to really laugh about the elbows thing. Who gives a rat's butt where your elbows are when your eating and I agree about the table thing. I rarely eat at the table at home. I guess I am not into fine dining. I DO try not to bite my toe nails at the table when I am eating out. 

As for picking his nose. Since the digit didn't go into his nose I wouldn't call it picking. It was more of a brush. 

I am not an a fan of the president but I think the arguments are seriously reaching for just about anything.

To set the record straight on why the eye roll. The president was being asked about if he had snuck a smoke and being told (teased) someone won't let you.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

My guy is better, your guy sucks!

My biased source, is better then your biased source!


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

JohnnyLee said:


> Yes, I saw all of those links. Web development is my forte.
> 
> What I asked you was what PROOF you have that he is a child molester. What you provided here is just hearsay, he has never been convicted of child molestation, yet, you SAY these things about a person like they are fact.



Um, the man admitted all of it, what more proof do you want? Pictures? Come on.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

JohnnyLee said:


> In this video, Ted explains about the bear. And I am inclined to believe him.


So you believe a video of him explaining about the bear, but not a video of him admitting the underage girls or multiple quotes of HIM admitting the poopy pants draft dodging?

Wow............talk about only believing what you want to hear.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

JohnnyLee said:


> All I and LJ were asking for were facts, or records or something besides "someone said this". That's all.
> 
> Then you can't provide it, so, you get snippy.



Um she proved it, and I did as well, you just dont want to hear it 

by the way, the "someone" that said it, was TED NUGENT or are you not hearing that either?


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

I just realized, there is a huge fortune to be made by marketing "organic cigarettes" People who frown on cigarette smoking and also are fans of "organic" won't know what to do. Especially if you can get a president's wife to endorse it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Zilli said:


> Yes, because a child molesting, bear poaching, pants pooping draft dodger would make a great president. :goodjob:
> 
> Seriously?


Better than the one we currently have!

The little we know of Obama's past certainly isn't a pretty picture.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Better than the one we currently have!
> 
> The little we know of Obama's past certainly isn't a pretty picture.


The little you think you know.

As some said about sweatty teddy, just because it is reported, doesnt make ot true.


People tend to believe whst they want to. 

Facts? Blah!


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

We've seen this coming for sometime now, and I would suppose that if you haven't already purchased the sort of gun you want, it may be a bit late to get started now. 

As for myself, I unfortunately lost mine with around 8,000 rounds of ammo in a really deep river. But for those who are fortunate enough to still have one, I offer some simple rules for their uses outside the hunting woods. 

*A: Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

B: It's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

C: **Cops carry guns to protect themselves,not you.

D: Never let someone or something that threatens you get within your armâs length.

E: Never say "I've got a gun." If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

F: The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

G: The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win â cheat if necessary.

H: Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it'll be empty.

I: If you're in a gun fight*

*1. If you're not shooting, you should be loading.
2. If you're not loading, you should be moving,
3. If you're not moving', you're dead.

J: In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but dosomething!

K: If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense!*



* If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

L: You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.

M: Forget the save the planet nonsense, it doesn't need saving, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.*


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Some i agree with, some i strongly disagree with, mainly the final post.

Our planet is the only one we got. I am one of bazillions. Our planet has many more issues and threats upon it, then i do.

One reason i despise the gun argument. It takes attention away from much more important issues.


----------



## Vickie44 (Jul 27, 2010)

mickm said:


> One reason I despise the gun argument. It takes attention away from much more important issues.


 
Wish I could like this 100 times!


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Actually I do care about manners at the dinner table. Manners are appreciated when there is a gross lack of manners such as children crawling around under the table, eating with their hands, reaching across a plate to grab something, etc.

I hear a lot about the lack of manners these days. I expect much of it comes from not expecting people to have them so when we see the people that represent the USA in a video displaying a lack of manners by having elbows on the table, it is accepted. Not merely accepted but defended.

Where do people learn manners? From their parents? Siblings? People that should be "looked up to"? 

I guess if elbows on the table do not matter then people should not be upset when a child reaches over their neighbor's plate, or talks with their mouth full, or any number of examples of bad manners at the dinner table.

Children, in my humble opinion, grow up to display the manners or lack thereof, that they are taught. Whether they understand how to act in public is a direct result of what they are taught at home. So when they reach a place of "power" or "representation" they should know how to act appropriately regardless of what the "general" population does. 

Personally I find that at an "official" dinner, one should have their best fork forward. The entire world is watching is not a "figure of speech" but a reality and one is judged as much on manners as they are on their speech, clothing, etc. 

Just some thoughts on why manners have devolved over time to the point where children are allowed to crawl under tables, eat off other's plates, have no idea what a salad fork is - things that I am aware that drive people batty today and they say they wish "people would leave their kids home until they know how to act". Can we say the same thing about adults? Or are they given a "free pass"?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mickm said:


> Some i agree with, some i strongly disagree with, mainly the final post.
> 
> Our planet is the only one we got. I am one of bazillions. Our planet has many more issues and threats upon it, then i do.
> 
> One reason i despise the gun argument. It takes attention away from much more important issues.


It's not a gun argument, it's a Constitutional argument! There is no more important issue in the US than the Constitution.


----------



## homefire2007 (Sep 21, 2007)

Have a great neighbor, he and his wife are the epitome of helpfulness. This gun issue has just about obsessed him to the point I avoid him. Don't underestimate my intelligence, don't tell me I am stupid because I have a different opinion. My son has two hunting rifles, you can have your guns if you want to.....I have no problem with it. My life does not revolve around guns, stop telling me I need to pay more attention, that our world will fall apart if we don't have semi-automatics,etc. If I try to change the subject with them it falls on deaf ears. Carry on  I am one of those irritatingly middle of the road folks. :spinsmiley:


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> It's not a gun argument, it's a Constitutional argument! There is no more important issue in the US than the Constitution.


Musta missed the "right to 30 round clip" amendment, our founding fathers put in?

Your worried about the wrong things, dude!

Guns have been "controled" almost since the beginning. Fully automatic weapons, underr length shotguns, felons cant own guns etc, etc, etc....

If ya gonna hate, at least be realistic.


----------



## Vickie44 (Jul 27, 2010)

homefire2007 said:


> Have a great neighbor, he and his wife are the epitome of helpfulness. This gun issue has just about obsessed him to the point I avoid him. Don't underestimate my intelligence, don't tell me I am stupid because I have a different opinion. My son has two hunting rifles, you can have your guns if you want to.....I have no problem with it. My life does not revolve around guns, stop telling me I need to pay more attention, that our world will fall apart if we don't have semi-automatics,etc. If I try to change the subject with them it falls on deaf ears. Carry on  I am one of those irritatingly middle of the road folks. :spinsmiley:


I am so happy to read this ,I was starting to think I was the only one who didnt think this was the biggest disaster ever.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

So can someone tell me what utter disaster falls if someone has their elbows on the table? Does the sun blow up? Why is it considered ill mannered in the first place? What is the difference between forearms on the table (acceptable) and elbows on the table (heathen!) ?

Who decided you could have hands and forearms on the table but the buck stops at the elbow?

If we are having fun and enjoying our meal, thats all I care about.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

ST has turned into General Chat....:catfight:

I spent my entire childhood listening to my mom remind me to get my elbows off the table. She tried so hard to raise us prim and proper!


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

And if someone has a gun at the table, does that affect the importance of elbows?


----------



## Vickie44 (Jul 27, 2010)

In my mothers house you might have gotten shot for elbows on the table !


----------



## GarlicGirl (Mar 12, 2010)

These kinds of subjects in Singletree are very divisive - the opposite of why we are here. Perhaps they are better suited to General Chat or Politics.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Realistic? What do you need mick? Taking rights away from law abiding citizens will do nothing but help the criminal element, it's a proven fact!

FBI crime statistics aren't good enough for you either?

I do believe our constitution is one of the right things to be worrried about. Sorry that you don't feel the need.



mickm said:


> Musta missed the "right to 30 round clip" amendment, our founding fathers put in?
> 
> Your worried about the wrong things, dude!
> 
> ...


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

:goodjob:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

While elbows on the table were once considered bad manners in our society, that is no longer the case. I guess only backward and people not socially acceptable would even think that it is  Times change, and so do "manners".


----------



## homefire2007 (Sep 21, 2007)

My grandmother worked hard to instill table etiquette and manners in me. Dinner was never a relaxed affair. Then I met my husband...he opened car doors for me and any door for that matter. It was with great surprise and delight when we had dinner one evening that he picked up a pork chop with his fingers. "There is just no other way to eat this." he said with a smile on his face. I follow the rules in public but at home I have been known to pick up a pork chop with my fingers...cause there is just no other way to eat them


----------



## starjj (May 2, 2005)

Sidepasser, Geez it is not like I don't care about manners. I am talking about people taking it to the extreme to try to win an argument when it has no bearing on what is being argued. I wouldn't be dining with people that had children as you used as an example and if I was seated next to them I would seriously be asked to move or I would leave. Personally never have seen examples as you described though. I guess I have been fortunate.

I guess elbows is a REALLY serious threat, I had no idea.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> Realistic? What do you need mick? Taking rights away from law abiding citizens will do nothing but help the criminal element, it's a proven fact!
> 
> FBI crime statistics aren't good enough for you either?
> 
> I do believe our constitution is one of the right things to be worrried about. Sorry that you don't feel the need.


Ok joe, one more time, where in the constitution does it guarantee a 30 round clip?

We are not talking about the constitution, we are talking about regulation, and that is nothing new.

Do you honestly think crazy people and felons should own guns? Do you believe all civilians have the right to fully automatic weapons?

You are buying in to paranoia, that just aint true. You are being used .


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

The constitution doesnt guarantee anything except the federal government can't make any infridgements to my to my rights to arm myself.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

I'm a hunter and a big supporter of gun rights but Nugent is a moron and a poor excuse for a man along with helping in no way the image of hunters or gun rights people. He makes us all looks like idiots!


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

What is so hard for you to understand mick? Do you think by outlawing a 30 round magazine the criminal will automatically discard theirs? Wake up, they are already out there and in their hands!!! What good will it do to take them away from what are law abiding people? 

The laws have no meaning to those with criminal intent. 

Yes, I have the right to own a 30 round magazine if I choose to. Do you understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed"? 


Until just a few years ago, fully automatics were legal for some citizens to own. There were a lot of legalities and licensing involved in having one. Were they used in crimes, no. I Don't need one, but I wouldn't deny that right from a law abiding person.

Your ending questions are meaningless. There are already laws to prevent that and you can see how well that works! And you can think whatever you choose to about me. I don't put much stock in it what you say!

I'm saddened by peoples casualness when our rights are being taken. Millions have died to preserve these rights, and many millions more have died seeking what we have.

We are not a democracy, we're a democratic replublic. Those rules/guidelines were created by the people to limit our federal goverments powers, and protect our freedoms.



mickm said:


> Ok joe, one more time, where in the constitution does it guarantee a 30 round clip?
> 
> We are not talking about the constitution, we are talking about regulation, and that is nothing new.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Regardless of what the man has done or not done, he presented himself well and argued his side with facts in the video presented.

You can choose to think of him in whatever way you choose, and yourself in whatever way you choose?



bstuart29 said:


> I'm a hunter and a big supporter of gun rights but Nugent is a moron and a poor excuse for a man along with helping in no way the image of hunters or gun rights people. He makes us all looks like idiots!


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Exactly, it DOES take away from more important issues, that is why these liberals are pushing gun control so much, because they KNOW they can't come up with some "quick fix" for what is wrong with our society today, so they stand up and grand stand and promise that attacking our second amendment rights will solve the problems of mass shootings in America, and that simply is NOT the case.

We need more education, more care for the mentally ill, not more gun laws or gun bans. It didn't work in the UK, and it didn't work in Australia. Anyone that believes that it will here in the US are sorely mistaken.

(yes, this video is from GB, but John Stossel is from ABC's 20/20)

[youtube]UH7tRP_EZ9w[/youtube]

[youtube]OyS3CEIbpJo[/youtube]

I try to find as many sources of my information that I post, since there are so many sources out there that are not reliable. But one thing I come across is the liberal bias of most of the media. They either put a HUGE slant on the reporting of such information, or either don't report on it at all.




mickm said:


> Some i agree with, some i strongly disagree with, mainly the final post.
> 
> Our planet is the only one we got. I am one of bazillions. Our planet has many more issues and threats upon it, then i do.
> 
> One reason i despise the gun argument. It takes attention away from much more important issues.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

mickm said:


> Ok joe, one more time, where in the constitution does it guarantee a 30 round clip?
> 
> We are not talking about the constitution, we are talking about regulation, and that is nothing new.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as a 30 round "clip".

There are 30 round magazines, but not "clips".

And "bazillions" is not even a real number. If you said that you are one of billions, then that would be true, since there is around 7 billion people on this little planet.

[youtube]UoSNHe413rY[/youtube]


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I think this whole thread continues to show the devolution of our country. I saw this so many times during the course of the elections, and it tested friendships I had. Nonetheless, I think that it's only going to be through discourse that these types of issues push people, at the very least, to see others' viewpoints. Personally, I like most of what Joe has to say on most things, even though on this one I'm not entirely in agreement. I say "not entirely" as I'm not fully decided yet which way I fall on the gun control issue.

Obama has to show that he's doing something. He can't simply ignore it. Think about whom a large portion of his constituency is ~ Urban city dwellers. In the same way that Bush couldn't exactly overlook 9/11, Obama can't overlook attack after attack after attack. But, again, he's kind of darned if he does, darned if he doesn't. Will banning semi-automatic weapons stop attacks? No. But will it even pass if he tries to ban them? Probably not. So who is he going to side with? The birthers and tea-partyist's who despise him, or his own constituency? Obviously his own constituency, as at least he might score a few political points for trying. 

Still, there is a level of vehemence with those that attack Obama that I don't entirely understand. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone but his citizenship was never questioned, but Obama was born in a state and they still question him. Obama has gone to christian churches for years, while Romney is a lifelong Mormon... but still it's Obama that's called Muslim (meant as a slur, not as a point of fact). People are required to carry car insurance by law, but nobody blinks an eye ~ Obama wants everyone to have access to health insurance (so that they can go to the Doctor *gasp!) and it's creeping socialism. Reagan passed gun control laws, Bush Senior passed gun control laws, Clinton passed gun control laws, Bush Junior vastly cut away at the constitution, but it's only under Obama where all of a sudden there's this huge issue... I just don't get it.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> What is so hard for you to understand mick? Do you think by outlawing a 30 round magazine the criminal will automatically discard theirs? Wake up, they are already out there and in their hands!!! What good will it do to take them away from what are law abiding people?
> 
> The laws have no meaning to those with criminal intent.
> 
> ...


Littlejoe, you hurt me deeply, because i have been lying awake at night, wondering if you like me! My purpose in life is to make people like me!

What you wre saying is that you are against laws, which i disagree with. No law prevents crime. Not a single stinking one.

Now when someone really attacks our cnstitution, i will line up beside you with my gun to protect thst constitution.

I WILL NOT, allow someone else to think or speak for me. It's your choice to do thar.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

JohnnyLee said:


> There is no such thing as a 30 round "clip".
> 
> There are 30 round magazines, but not "clips".
> 
> ...


Thanks for the grammar and personology lesson! If it is called a clip, magazine or thing a,ma jig, nobody needs one. They are not guaranteed in the constitution, and making law outlawing them will not stop mass shootings, but they darn sure wont hurt nothing either.


Oh, and just cuz they disagree with you, doesnt make it liberal media. Yep there is right wing, and left wing media, but plenty of places to get the facts.

They just aint always the facts ya want!


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

They've alway been called clips in slang terms. Everyone being persnickety about calling them magazines is pretty recent. Of course, that is in correct too. They are detachable magazines in correct nomenclature.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

mickm you liked my statement about the 2n amendment but didnt comment. It absolutely takes away the governments ability to deny me of anything I want in a firearm up to and including an automatic weapon or tank it I can afford .

How about we limit your 1st amendment right to disagree with others, then will you feel the same.

Limiting the 2nd will do nothing but cause the loss of the rest, look into history at Germany Russia China First they took the guns then they took whatever they wanted.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

mickm said:


> ...
> making law outlawing them will not stop mass shootings, but they darn sure wont hurt nothing either.


So, you are saying then, that the president and all the senators and representatives that are working and spending all of our tax dollars to push some kind of new gun control laws that we know won't help one bit in preventing mass shootings, that is ok?

Why?

Why should Feinstien be able to spend OVER a YEAR working up an assault weapons ban

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...eases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02

when the people in her state are so broke that they can't afford enough police? And are told to lock their doors and load their guns?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...load-their-guns-because-of-police-downsizing/

Tell me where the logic is in that. Please.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> mickm you liked my statement about the 2n amendment but didnt comment. It absolutely takes away the governments ability to deny me of anything I want in a firearm up to and including an automatic weapon or tank it I can afford .
> 
> How about we limit your 1st amendment right to disagree with others, then will you feel the same.
> 
> Limiting the 2nd will do nothing but cause the loss of the rest, look into history at Germany Russia China First they took the guns then they took whatever they wanted.


Your interpratation of the 2nd amendment is much different then mine. 


When roosevelt signed the nfa, and effectivly banned machine guns, ot was the first dtep to sn all out ban on guns?

Man, they are tskin their time. But, i sm being silly. I think it mskes sense for folks to not have machine guns.

I disagree with your belief, but it does explain your wal mart argument, though.:goodjob:


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

JohnnyLee said:


> So, you are saying then, that the president and all the senators and representatives that are working and spending all of our tax dollars to push some kind of new gun control laws that we know won't help one bit in preventing mass shootings, that is ok?
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



I am saying that something has to be done, and if a nutt has a 10 magazine, instead of a 50 round magazine, and it saves 1 child's life in the next 1bazillion (thats for you johnny) years, then do it!

Are we gonna talk about waste in goverment, really? Lets talk about wby no suitable legislature can get passed. Maybe how much money was wasted looking for weapons of "mass destruction" ? 

Whats the odds of us agreeing on this, do ya think? 

Sorry, another question. I have a lot of them, i guess.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

But again ~ why only now under Obama? I'm yet to hear one person comment on this. Hasn't almost every modern president in the past three decades, both Democrat and Republican, either passed (or proposed to pass) either gun control laws or laws that infringe upon the constitution?


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

You shoulda been here when GWB was president. Only difference was, it was other people complaining. There were even people who swore that he'd do some sort of martial law takeover, refuse to leave office, and declare himself king!! There is no irrational craziness quite like politics. It's like some people think some other people don't put on their pants one leg at a time.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Awww, it's ok mickey, lay your head down and go to sleep now. Then while you sleep, they will take what you have! A little here and a little there, so they don't wake you. But by the time you wake up, it will all be gone.



mickm said:


> Littlejoe, you hurt me deeply, because i have been lying awake at night, wondering if you like me! My purpose in life is to make people like me!
> 
> What you wre saying is that you are against laws, which i disagree with. No law prevents crime. Not a single stinking one.
> 
> ...


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

mickm said:


> Your interpratation of the 2nd amendment is much different then mine.
> 
> 
> When roosevelt signed the nfa, and effectivly banned machine guns, ot was the first dtep to sn all out ban on guns?
> ...


Yep this is the same thing, you debating from a position of ignorance. But don't feel bad about that it's becoming epidemic in this country these days.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> But again ~ why only now under Obama? I'm yet to hear one person comment on this. Hasn't almost every modern president in the past three decades, both Democrat and Republican, either passed (or proposed to pass) either gun control laws or laws that infringe upon the constitution?


Do you people really forget history that fast?

Do you not realize that the assualt weapons ban in 1994 had little to no effect on deterring crimes committed with firearms?

Why Obama? Because he is the one in office now proposing legislation and threatening "executive order" for something that has already been proven to NOT WORK. Whatever previous presidents did, it can be undone if it is not right, or enforced if it is right to do so.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Yea, i dont like arguing politics.

I can ignore stuff like this on the political board. I went in there once and have never quite recoverd!

Truth is, i disagree that this is the begining of complete gun control. I do not believeit is breeching the spirit of the constitution. 

If i did, i would be just as bent as the rest.

We are banging our heads.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Yep this is the same thing, you debating from a position of ignorance. But don't feel bad about that it's becoming epidemic in this country these days.


Yrp, i am the ignorant one:goodjob:

That is something common in this country. I dont agree with you, and i interupt the facts different then you, do i am the one thst is wrong.

I would bet dollars against donuts, i read more history and peruse more different sources of news then a high percentage of people on this board, or anywhere else.

I actually try to make informed, unbiased decisions.

Sorry


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> Awww, it's ok mickey, lay your head down and go to sleep now. Then while you sleep, they will take what you have! A little here and a little there, so they don't wake you. But by the time you wake up, it will all be gone.


Dude, they have already took yours. Actually you gave it to them, because you gave away your ability to think for uour self.

You actually think the NRA and similar groups care about gun owners.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I love history and in researching it they have been chipping away at our freedoms since Lincolns term in my humble opinion, but it sure seems they are speeding up the process these days.

Read the Federalist papers and see if you still feel it doesn't breach the "spirit" of the constitution. the framers all wrote volumes on the subject.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I'm not a big proponent of the NRA to me they where way to willing to concede during the 94 ban they are being way to conciliatory with our rights.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> I love history and in researching it they have been chipping away at our freedoms since Lincolns term in my humble opinion, but it sure seems they are speeding up the process these days.
> 
> Read the Federalist papers and see if you still feel it doesn't breach the "spirit" of the constitution. the framers all wrote volumes on the subject.


I will have to plead ignorance there, because i have not read the Fedarslist.

But

I slso do not believe the writers of the constitution could have imagined the world w we live in today. I mean Lincoln was responsible for the 13th amendment, and i dont think anyone would say thst is bad.

Would you?


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

mick, you're a lot of hot air! You've spoken of facts on several occasions but have yet to offer any.



mickm said:


> Dude, they have already took yours. Actually you gave it to them, because you gave away your ability to think for uour self.
> 
> You actually think the NRA and similar groups care about gun owners.


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

George Washington once said......

mama,,,,,dada.....,,,,,...


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Lincoln had nothing to do with the 13th amendment he was already dead. His idea of dealing with the freed slaves was returning them to africa. He only freed the slaves in confederate controlled areas doing nothing with areas under federal control.

He also suspended Habeas Corpus the first and only time this has been done for the whole country, he also started the long slow slide of states rights in this country putting us where we are today.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

mickm said:


> You actually think the NRA and similar groups care about gun owners.


^^This^^

The NRA cares about the gun industry. 

They enthusiastically help to fuel the panic and paranoia because it sends all the crazy gun huggers to their nearest gun dealers so they can spend their last dimes buying guns and stockpiling ammunition.

Wayne LaPierre, David Keene, the rest of the NRA.....and the gun manufacturers and dealers.....are laughing all the way to the bank.

Even my own son (22), who loves his guns, can see through the NRA and their real motives and who they really work for. He joined the organization when he was 18 or 19 but he quickly figured it out and never renewed his membership beyond that first year.

It's hard to believe there are so many people too gullible, stupid, or blind to see they're being played.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

littlejoe said:


> Regardless of what the man has done or not done, he presented himself well and argued his side with facts in the video presented.
> 
> You can choose to think of him in whatever way you choose, and yourself in whatever way you choose?


You praised the guy for president not I and yes a person's character does matter and Nugent has little. Because of his actions as I said he isn't helpful to hunter or gun rights anyone on the fence on either of those isn't going to take anything he says and consider it and thats my point! His character is about like most politicians tho.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

In this case the Manufacturers and the consumers motive mesh pretty well.

Heck the gun manufacturers are probably Obamaa's biggest supporters he has made them a ton of money.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

vicker said:


> They've alway been called clips in slang terms. Everyone being persnickety about calling them magazines is pretty recent. Of course, that is in correct too. They are detachable magazines in correct nomenclature.


Technically there is a difference between clips and magazines most know what ya mean when ya say clip, growing up we always called them clips and I don't think it matters what you call them.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> mick, you're a lot of hot air! You've spoken of facts on several occasions but have yet to offer any.


Read "Ricochet; confessions of a gun lobbyist" written by a former employee of the nra, or just hit google.

It sint hard if ya wanta educate yourself.

Your choice.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

vicker said:


> They've alway been called clips in slang terms. Everyone being persnickety about calling them magazines is pretty recent. Of course, that is in correct too. They are detachable magazines in correct nomenclature.


We always called them clips growing up and people I knew did also, technically there is a difference but most know what ya mean when ya call them clips.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Reason number 358 that I'm glad I'm banned from general chat


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

Hmmmm.....What was 357. ???????:kiss:


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Lincoln had nothing to do with the 13th amendment he was already dead. His idea of dealing with the freed slaves was returning them to africa. He only freed the slaves in confederate controlled areas doing nothing with areas under federal control.
> 
> He also suspended Habeas Corpus the first and only time this has been done for the whole country, he also started the long slow slide of states rights in this country putting us where we are today.


Um,

Exactly where do you get your history?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Zilli said:


> Yes, because a child molesting, bear poaching, pants pooping draft dodger would make a great president. :goodjob:
> 
> Seriously?


As opposed to what we have?


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> As opposed to what we have?


Unfortunately, that is very close to being determined, and it ain't looking too good.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Excerpt form 1861 state of the union address:



Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861, the legal claims of certain persons to the labor and service of certain other persons have become forfeited, and numbers of the latter thus liberated are already dependent on the United States and must be provided for in some way. Besides this, it is not impossible that some of the States will pass similar enactments for their own benefit respectively, and by operation of which persons of the same class will be thrown upon them for disposal. In such case I recommend that Congress provide for accepting such persons from such States, according to some mode of valuation, in lieu, pro tanto, of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed on with such States respectively; that such persons, on such acceptance by the General Government, be at once deemed free, and that in any event steps be taken for colonizing both classes (or the one first mentioned if the other shall not be brought into existence) at some place or places in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.​ To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition. Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the only legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure effects that object, for the emigration of colored men leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. Mr. Jefferson, however, placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on political and commercial grounds than on providing room for population.​ On this whole proposition, including the appropriation of money with the acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to absolute necessity--that without which the Government itself can not be perpetuated ?
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/lincoln/stateoftheunion1861.html​


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Proclamation suspending Habeas Corpus:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69898


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Oh your right about habeas corpus, although i and most believe it was warranted.

Its your statement about the 13th amendment i dont quite understand? How did his signature get on it, if he had nothing to do with it?


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

mickm said:


> Oh your right about habeas corpus, although i and most believe it was warranted.
> 
> Its your statement about the 13th amendment i dont quite understand? How did his signature get on it, if he had nothing to do with it?


The suspension of habeas corpus was legal because the constution allows it during a time of revolt(not the exact phrase used but ya get the point).


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

You got me on the 13th, don't know where the head was!


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

It was legal but was it right for a "great" president to enact it for purely political gain against his detractors?

Pretty handy when you can arrest and hold without trial anyone who disagrees with your agenda. And look at the excesses used by border state military districts under the proclamation's protection that where allowed.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Isnt that a question of philosophy?

I believe the ends, justified the means. I doubt many would disagree.

I know many in the south believe it was more about state rights, and i believe slavery was secondary, to Lincoln.

However, i believe the end of slavery was good, no mstter the purpose, or the cost.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

What is done is done, that was 150 years ago and Lincoln was trying to save the country I'll cut the guy some slack.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

bstuart29 said:


> You praised the guy for president not I and yes a person's character does matter and Nugent has little. Because of his actions as I said he isn't helpful to hunter or gun rights anyone on the fence on either of those isn't going to take anything he says and consider it and thats my point! His character is about like most politicians tho.


Well little brian... I wasn't asking you to like the guy. I could care less. Never the less, he made a point in the videos shown, that were backed up by facts. THat is much more than politicians offer! Remember Bill Clinton who is now the lead "rock and roller" for the left wing, had sex with an intern a few years older than his daughter, while married, while president, and perjured himself in front of a grand jury, as well as the rest of America? I did look at the links provided, but the videos had been removed. I can only guess why?



Zilli said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> The NRA cares about the gun industry.
> 
> ...





mickm said:


> Read "Ricochet; confessions of a gun lobbyist" written by a former employee of the nra, or just hit google.
> 
> It sint hard if ya wanta educate yourself.
> 
> Your choice.


This thread had nothing to do with the NRA, folks! It is about our rights being eroded away.

For the record mick, I've read of Feldman. And he has some points that are worthy of thought. Regardless, I think the NRA is a excellent organization, but not without fault. Their training programs and benifits offer so much more than politics! And I do believe without them, our second amendment rights would have been whittled down to the point that all the public would be allowed to have... is a blackpowder musket! And I believe that is keeping within your beliefs of our second amendment, am I right? Or where do you draw the line?


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

I for one will say it wasn't right. As much as school history books would have us believe the civil war was began with the intention of freeing the slaves, that was not the case!

It began over fighting for states rights and taxation. The emancipation proclamation didn't occur until three years into the civil war.



coolrunnin said:


> It was legal but was it right for a "great" president to enact it for purely political gain against his detractors?
> 
> Pretty handy when you can arrest and hold without trial anyone who disagrees with your agenda. And look at the excesses used by border state military districts under the proclamation's protection that where allowed.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

As far as Nugent for president is his past any worse than the last several presidents?


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

littlejoe said:


> Regardless, I think the NRA is a excellent organization, but not without fault.


...

As long as humans are running the show, with their base human natures, nothing ...(no government, no institution, no organization, no relationship, nobody, nothing)... will be perfect and without fault.

My ideals and imperfections jive real well with the ideals and imperfections of organizations like the NRA.

...


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

...

I'm sure not going to throw stones, coolrunnin.



...


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Little joe, as i have said before, i truly do not believe there is a threat to our right to own guns, and if i did, i would be just as mad as you. My point being that there are much bigger threats to our country right now. 

I can assure you that i felt much the same as you, not that long ago. 

I stil


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

......


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

That's cool. I don't expect anyone to have the same priorities as I do. 
And sure 'nuff, there are many big threats to our country and way of life today.

You skipped my question to you... Where would you draw the line for gun control? Would you be happy if all you had access to was a muzzleloader, that had to be broken down into pieces and stored in a safe? And maybe you'd need a permit to even shoot? Does that agree with your definition of owning a gun? I do believe a lot of people in power would like such a scenario. It's under constant attack of more regulations and bans, which do nothing to the criminals except give them more power.

Our second amendment was made 2nd for a reason. It is to protect all others! And it also states this right shall not be infringed! They have already infringed upon it plenty of times. My belief is that there should be no more! 

I'll be gone for a few days, and my internet access might be zilch. Maybe this thread will die with some kind of understanding?



mickm said:


> Little joe, as i have said before, i truly do not believe there is a threat to our right to own guns, and if i did, i would be just as mad as you. My point being that there are much bigger threats to our country right now.
> 
> I can assure you that i felt much the same as you, not that long ago.
> 
> I stil


----------



## tambo (Mar 28, 2003)

He would have my vote too.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

As with most subjects where I'm undecided, I try to do my research and find what information I can so that I can make a more accurate decision as to where I stand. When it comes to the issue of gun control / gun laws though, finding information that is both accurate and current has proven frustrating and illusive. Even wikipedia, one of my favorite sources for information, has fallen somewhat short in this regard.

That being said, the video that littlejoe put up (not the one with the aging rocker ~ the other video) steered me in a starting direction. Some of the things that I have found in putting my puzzle together are as follows: While it might be true that the US has an obscenely higher level of gun deaths in the aggregate when compared to the UK, 2/3rd's of these deaths were a result of gun related suicide. A quick search on wikipedia for suicide statistics yielded information that, per capita, the US has 12 suicides per 100K people... vs the UK's 11.8. 

My conclusion at least with this first round of statistics: Whether a person has access to a gun or not is irrelevant, at least when comparing the US and UK ~ that person will find a means of taking their life. Since we here in the US have access to guns, guns seem to be a favorite method of doing so (but again, I stress, they would have done so whether they had the gun or not).

This leaves the remaining third; The homicides. Here the numbers are more skewed. Some countries, such as Brazil or Thailand, have vastly higher murder rates, despite having restrictive gun laws (mandatory licensing, no access to semi-automatic, no conceal carry, etc). Other countries, such as Switzerland or Israel, have vastly lower instances of homicide by firearm, despite having high rates of gun ownership or gun access.

Even here within the United States, it would be wrong to paint a picture using too broad a stroke. Wikipedia states (and cites evidence for) a large portion of our gun violence occurring in poor or urban areas, but how "large" this proportion is isn't adequately documented. Still, having watched the video from Joe, one could assume it could be at least double in certain areas... higher still in others. 

So I suppose that, as I work through the statistics I can put my finger on, I'm finding that our gun laws are really not that bad, and that while gun deaths do occur at a higher rate here than in some other countries, it's a price we pay for our freedom. However, even then, I weigh whether owning an assault style weapon is truly necessary to defend ones' self versus the risk to society that they may cause. Even if the total number of deaths is low, I question whether ~any~ deaths is a good number. I'm still thinking alot of this through...


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

You shouldn't base your vote on one issue, Leadership is most important in our country right now I don't see Obama showing any nor do I think Nugent would show any either.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

[youtube]6sEYGcXSmpQ[/youtube]


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

1994 Assault weapons ban passes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

1997 North Hollywood Shoot out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The point is, the government can legislate all the laws they want to, it is not going to stop some mad man or mad men from killing people if they want to.

One thing that some people may not realize (I didn't learn this until 1998 when I got my concealed weapons permit), that it is a FELONY to point a gun at someone (at least in OK in 1998) whether it is unloaded or not.

http://public.esquireempire.com/Poi...nt-Oklahoma-Felony-Okla-Stat-tit-21-128916-A1

How many laws did Adam Lanza break? Did ALL of those laws stop him from committing that terrible, terrible act? No, not one of them did.

Yet to placate the masses, when people cry out that something must be done! ALL politicians RUSH in to to politicize these tragic events, to gain political points by proposing "quick fix" ideas that even THEY know won't work.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/

I know something must be done, but more firearm laws will NOT solve these problems. It has been tried over and over and it never works.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> That's cool. I don't expect anyone to have the same priorities as I do.
> And sure 'nuff, there are many big threats to our country and way of life today.
> 
> You skipped my question to you... Where would you draw the line for gun control? Would you be happy if all you had access to was a muzzleloader, that had to be broken down into pieces and stored in a safe? And maybe you'd need a permit to even shoot? Does that agree with your definition of owning a gun? I do believe a lot of people in power would like such a scenario. It's under constant attack of more regulations and bans, which do nothing to the criminals except give them more power.
> ...


I would have to say when they start talking about legislation that effects hunting weapons.

I even have mixed feelings about hand guns, and i know that will not set well with many.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Johny, i would ask what law prevents any crime?


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

In your search for info, don't forget that homicide death also includes justifiable homicides by police and private citizens, as well as deaths caused by things other than a gun.

Another point for you to ponder... how many criminal activities are deterred by the possibility of someone being armed? If 25% of women were trained and able to carry a firearm, how much do you think violent crimes against the weaker sex would diminish? There might be some studies of the incarcerated...I've never looked?

"assault rifles" are a media myth. There are many,many uses for such firearms. From sporting to hunting to self protection...the same as any other firearm. I don't have one, but I support the right for any law abiding citizen to do so.

The FBI crime statistics for 2011 show that while 323 murders were committed with a rifle, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs. Shall we ban hammers and clubs? They are more dangerous than rifles.
Nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use shotguns. People are 60 percent more likely to die from a knife or sharp instrument than rifles and shotguns combined.
It is also true that 67% of homicides are committed by guns, but these homicides are mostly caused by handguns as opposed to the âassault gunsâ Dianne Feinstein believes must be banned.
As homicides with guns have gone down, the data also shows that the amount of people killed by hammers, clubs and other blunt instruments continues to rise each year though not to the level of gun deaths yet.


Warwalk said:


> This leaves the remaining third; The homicides. Here the numbers are more skewed. Some countries, such as Brazil or Thailand, have vastly higher murder rates, despite having restrictive gun laws (mandatory licensing, no access to semi-automatic, no conceal carry, etc). Other countries, such as Switzerland or Israel, have vastly lower instances of homicide by firearm, despite having high rates of gun ownership or gun access.
> 
> Even here within the United States, it would be wrong to paint a picture using too broad a stroke. Wikipedia states (and cites evidence for) a large portion of our gun violence occurring in poor or urban areas, but how "large" this proportion is isn't adequately documented. Still, having watched the video from Joe, one could assume it could be at least double in certain areas... higher still in others.
> 
> . However, even then, I weigh whether owning an assault style weapon is truly necessary to defend ones' self versus the risk to society that they may cause. Even if the total number of deaths is low, I question whether ~any~ deaths is a good number. I'm still thinking alot of this through...


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

[youtube]Ooa98FHuaU0[/youtube]


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Ok, so by your definition that muzzleloader inside a safe, taken apart is fine by you, even when you need a permit to take it out? It's still a hunting FIREARM not a weapon.

If that's your choice it's still Ok with me, but it's not mine! It is my RIGHT to make that choice!



mickm said:


> I would have to say when they start talking about legislation that effects hunting weapons.
> 
> I even have mixed feelings about hand guns, and i know that will not set well with many.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

mickm said:


> I would have to say when they start talking about legislation that effects hunting weapons.
> 
> I even have mixed feelings about hand guns, and i know that will not set well with many.


Then you need to get worried; many of the AR platform guns are configured and have calibers for hunting game and varmints.

even the evil bushmaster builds a outstanding varmint rifle!
http://www.bushmaster.com/electronic-documents/TechSheets/XM15 Model PDFs/Varmint Rifles.pdf


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

mickm said:


> Johny, i would ask what law prevents any crime?


That is just the point! No law is going to stop anyone from committing a crime, so why add more laws that people are not going to follow?

Where does it stop? They ban AR-15's, which are basically just a semi-auto rifle, what are they going to ban next?

(and yes, there are a LOT of people out there that use AR-15's as a sporting weapon)

Will they stop when all we have are lever actions, pumps, and revolvers? I don't think they will. Feinstein herself admitted already that if she could ban them all, she would.

[youtube]yDTB_aXTCUs[/youtube]

I am not a conspiracy nut, but I do believe there is something "rotten in Denmark" when all of these people are calling for more gun control, when all the statistics say that all it does is DISARM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Surely they are all not that idiotic to think this?










Kind of disturbing that I followed the Sandy Hook shooting for two days. TWO WHOLE DAYS, and all of the media outlets were saying that the shooter was found with 2 pistols, a Glock and a Sig 9mm. The reports at first were saying that there was an AR-15, but that was in the back seat of the car, and there is a video on youtube of the police pulling a shotgun out of the trunk. Then a few weeks later, I see SEVERAL sources on the Internet now claiming that he had 4 handguns and USED the AR-15 "assault rifle" in the shooting????

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Criminals dont obey laws. So why create more laws?


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Fowler said:


> Criminals dont obey laws. So why create more laws?


So more law abiding citizens can become criminals...don't you recognize the equal opportunity message in these proposals?


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Isnt it against the law to kill people? Isnt that law enough? A criminal does not care what the laws are. Nether do future criminals. So again, why do we need more laws?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Fowler said:


> Isnt it against the law to kill people? Isnt that law enough? A criminal does not care what the laws are. Nether do future criminals. *So again, why do we need more laws?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Well,,, because thats what they do. If someone stated, we need no more laws, they'd come up with a law disputing said statement.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Once again, ya'll can buy in to this. I aint.

Nobody needs a magazine, clip or whatever you want to call it, that holds 50 rounds. Sorry. Ar-15s may be acceptable varmit guns, but nobody can tell convince me they are needed. . My old model 70 or even a ruger #1 will get the job done jus th fine.


I think we have wasted enough time on this. I understand your arguments. I am not saying they are not valid. I am saying i am not distracted by the paranoia, and ALL it is doing is making more money for gun and ammo manufactures.

Oh yea, check out the leaders of the nra, who is the leader in spreading this bs,.and see who's pockets this is lining.

Follow the money. Look at who benefits, from this imaginary threat.

I choose to not be yanked like a puppet on a string.

Sorry!


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

The nra loves that fbi stat on hammers! Its been everywhere. I even heard ol' wayne himself quote it! 

They dont include handgun stats though.

Odd?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Personally, Id rather that someone shooting at me had a 50 round clip. There'd be a fairly good chance that it would jam.  And whats the difference between someone with 5 ten round clips and someone with a 50 round clip? Whats the difference between someone with a semi-automatic Ruger .223 and someone with a Bushmaster? It is ridiculous. That said, I agree that no one is taking anyone's guns away. It just isn't going to happen. And, Ted Nugent for president is about the most silly statement I've read on HT, and *that* is saying *a lot!*


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

mickm said:


> Once again, ya'll can buy in to this. I aint.
> Nobody is asking you to buy into anything mick. You were presented with differing opinions and facts to back them up..
> 
> Nobody needs a magazine, clip or whatever you want to call it, that holds 50 rounds. Sorry. Ar-15s may be acceptable varmit guns, but nobody can tell convince me they are needed. . My old model 70 or even a ruger #1 will get the job done jus th fine. You are referring to them as hunting guns I assume since you said when they come after hunting guns? THe second amendment was NOT written for hunting!
> ...


 

Then on with the anti NRA rant, when its not about the NRA. You are like talking to the child about the dangers of crossing the street. You'll be the one who runs across a busy street with closed eyes, in hopes that you can , just to prove the fallacy of the danger.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

Yeah, it was silly wasn't it. Still, I think he'd be better than what we have! 


vicker said:


> And, Ted Nugent for president is about the most silly statement I've read on HT, and *that* is saying *a lot!*


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Hickok45 has been shooting for a long time. Anyone familiar with his videos on Youtube, knows that he shot a lot in competition, was a sheriff's deputy, and now a school teacher.

Very wise man. If anyone here has a chance to watch this, he speaks the a lot along the lines of what I believe in. Guess that is why I have been watching his videos for years now. Maybe that or maybe because he kind of reminds me of my step-dad, who was a Korean war vet that taught me and my brother all about guns since I was around 8 or 9 or so.

(yeah, it's a little long, but a good watch none the less, and he covers a LOT of what is being discussed in this thread)

[youtube]0G6tcDRMjTo[/youtube]


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm gonna vote for Ted, how can he screw anything up more than the run of bozos we've been having. And Ted can make a guitar scream too. Win!

And I would have been all over him when I was 12. So there.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

littlejoe said:


> Then on with the anti NRA rant, when its not about the NRA. You are like talking to the child about the dangers of crossing the street. You'll be the one who runs across a busy street with closed eyes, in hopes that you can , just to prove the fallacy of the danger.


Littlejoe, i didnt expect someone being takin advantage of, to like being told they are being takin advantage of. Because you refuse to believe it, and can not think for yourself, does not mean that it is not true.

It is all about the nra, and the politicians in their pocket, they are the ones spoon feedin this imaginary threat to people full of fear and hate.

The people who own the nail factories and are paid by the nail factories, are telling you that the nail factories are closing. 

Its all about money, and taking attention from much more important issues.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

I suppose it doesn't matter whether or not you have guns if there is no ammo...just found a place that had some and it was a 3 box limit per person. I will go back every day until they run out!
Slippery slope, folks!


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

shanzone2001 said:


> I suppose it doesn't matter whether or not you have guns if there is no ammo...just found a place that had some and it was a 3 box limit per person. I will go back every day until they run out!
> Slippery slope, folks!


The Walmart here has a 3 box limit here also, I'm sure they had to put a limit on them because of parnoid nuts that would go buy all they had and there wouldn't be ammo for others to buy.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

> I am saying i am not distracted by the paranoia


I do believe the only paranoia expressed by anyone is the paranoia of those folks who want to outlaw 25-30 round clips, bulk purchases of ammo, and a military style rifle (which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue)...all of which should have already been taken care of by anyone who likes to shoot, hunt, collect, and who also likes the freedoms inherent with being a citizen. 

When Feinstein goes into her own area of California and disarms the Crips and the Bloods, and any of the other multitudes of gang-bangers, she should then start on law abiding citizens, and only then. I got a feeling those folks aren't going to be targeted for enforcement of her proposals. She authored the previous ban on military style rifles and that had absolutely no effect on any crime stat during its tenure. 

Americans pay for freedom with the blood of their sons and daughters. It has always been that way. You can bet my grand-daughters and grandsons already know how to be effective with a military style firearm well before they graduated or will graduate high-school, as well as the mechanics of staying alive around them.


----------



## tambo (Mar 28, 2003)

bstuart29 said:


> The Walmart here has a 3 box limit here also, I'm sure they had to put a limit on them because of *parnoid nuts* that would go buy all they had and there wouldn't be ammo for others to buy.


Hey I resemble that. Don't be hating on us!!


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

tambo said:


> Hey I resemble that. Don't be hating on us!!


 
There is a difference between supporting gun rights and being parnoid the government is going to ban and come take all ya guns which is not going to happen. people that go buy a 10ndays and a pallet load of ammo yes in my opinion are parnoid crazy.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

tambo said:


> Hey I resemble that. Don't be hating on us!!


double post


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

tambo said:


> Hey I resemble that. Don't be hating on us!!


 
Me, too! I am definitely paranoid, and I have also been called nuts. 

Call me what you will, but in the end I will have ammo and hopefully the ones who want to kill me and take my supplies, land, etc won't!!!!


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

bstuart29 said:


> being parnoid the government is going to bans and come take all ya guns which is not going to happen. .


I hope you are right, but I am prepared in case you are wrong.:run:


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I think that, for those that are truly concerned about some form of government takeover, they need look no further than the taliban for pointers. I'll give an example: Here in Texas, there are people by the boatload that consider themselves part of one militia movement or another. They work a day job, and then on weekends head out to the piney woods, drink some beers, shoot some guns, and hold forth on their preps and bug out bags. Some are a little more disciplined though... they have whole compounds, with rope courses, barbed wire pits to crawl through, lectures, etc... and then you've got folks like the taliban. They live this stuff daily. They don't drink at all, train constantly, and don't let something like death mess with their day. And yet ~ for all of that ~ every time we spot them we fly a drone over, launch a missile, and it's bye bye taliban... all that training down the drain.

Point being, for those buying extra rounds to fight against the government, you're bringing the proverbial knife to a gun fight... except in this case it's Apache helicopters with heat seeking missiles, chain guns, predator drones, etc... it's not a winnable situation. They would take out these militia encampments in a few days tops if it was their objective and the stuff had hit the fan.

The above isn't necessarily saying anything pro or anti-gun ~ Only what to me should be painfully obvious to those in the "I saw Red Dawn too many times" demographic... but doesn't always seem to be =/'


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

The issue is one of "inalienable rights" and the infringment upon it. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!! 

It's not about hunting, or who has money enough to buy more guns or ammo, larger magazines than they deem appropiate, simply capitalize on the investment they just made, whether they are a prepper, or maybe they feel jealous or insignicant because others are more prepared for whatever might befall them.

If some are so willing to give up a part of our freedoms, then it is part of the downfall of what has made this nation great. what will be next? Are you willing to continue giving in, when their claims are proven false? Will you give up parts of your first amendment rights? Obama is now criticising FOX news and rush limbaugh for having differing views than him.

I'm done. It's ok for others to have differing views, even if they make no sense.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Littlejoe - Okay, I'm going to play devils' advocate for a second. Rather than focus on what Obama is doing, I would ask "what would you do?": What do you consider an "arm", as set down by the forefathers? I don't want to sound silly with this, but it's a sincere question... should unfettered access to C-4 be granted the ordinary citizen? Could a person purchase a chain gun (and bullets)? What about a smaller machine gun? Or, are machine guns off limits? Should a person, with a proper license, be able to walk through a shopping mall with a samurai sword?... if that sword is bolted to a ten foot long pike? (but with proper licensing or carry permit)? Could a person walk around with an unlit stick of dynamite attached by chain to a grill lighter? What about a mail order purchase of weapons grade uranium from Kim Jong Un? What if someone walked into a church with an RPG, sat down for services, but wearing a t-shirt that says "today I will be one with Allah"?

I know alot of this probably sounds silly. Heck, it's meant to sound silly. But it's also designed to get folks to think, as these are the very questions being asked right now, and it would be interesting to hear what some people believe. What constitutes an arm? What does not? What should the average citizen be allowed to carry, where, and would they need to require a special permit? For as randomly wacky and ridiculous as my examples in the prior paragraph were to some, there are many in this country that consider the idea of owning highly powered rapid firing weapons as being equally as crazy.

What is your opinion Joe? What is enough, and where does it stop?


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

mickm said:


> ...
> 
> It is all about the nra, and the politicians in their pocket, they are the ones spoon feedin this imaginary threat to people full of fear and hate.
> 
> ...


You and others here have poo-pooed the NRA so much that I would like to ask you what organizations do you belong to?

What (if any) organizations would you point to as an alternative?

NAGR? http://www.nationalgunrights.org/

GOA? http://gunowners.org/

Or, do you simply just sit back and "Hope" that things will work themselves out?

I think we have enough people in this country that just want to sit back and complain, and take shots at people or companies for no real good reason. I know this is y'alls opinion and I respect that, but anyone that offers so much negativity about someone or something or some organization without really providing facts or alternatives, really just comes off as not very helpful.

I read this excerpt from Feldman, and I can tell, (at least for me) that I don't have to get the book and read it. This guy in this excerpt to me comes off as a whiner too much and it makes whatever valid points he may have come off as a case of sour grapes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor---=16324652

Anyone can sit back and complain about situations, or one can go TRY to the best of their abilities to change those situations. Get involved, donate time or money and work and change things.

I wish you could see that video I posted, hickok45 said it a lot better than I can.

(he was speaking about the fact that some people don't like the NRA)

"There are issues with every organization. Have you ever worked for a company that was perfect? Have you ever been in a family that was perfect? People aren't perfect, Organizations definitely are not perfect. They are going to make you mad, there's things that go on that you don't like there are people you don't like. That's just life. If you are so young and naive that you don't realize that, come on now, mature up, grow up a little bit. Out of survival, we just have to."


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

Yep, i like his quote JL.

like i said earlier in this thread 



glazed said:


> ...
> 
> As long as humans are running the show, with their base human natures, nothing ...(no government, no institution, no organization, no relationship, nobody, nothing)... will be perfect and without fault.
> 
> ...


:donut:


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

mickm said:


> Once again, ya'll can buy in to this. I aint.
> 
> Nobody needs a magazine, clip or whatever you want to call it, that holds 50 rounds. Sorry. Ar-15s may be acceptable varmit guns, but nobody can tell convince me they are needed. . My old model 70 or even a ruger #1 will get the job done jus th fine.
> 
> ...


At this time in my life I only ask one thing.

My Constitution says that I can bear arm against attack.

Give me equal arm that the people NOT knocking my door have.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Anyone stating an opinion about guns and associating their use with hunting is a moron. They cannot read, they should not vote. Ignorance is not a right giving by our Constitution.

We do not have a king. We allow government employees to manage our game and tell us what we need to harvest. We provide input on arms required. Do you people really thing that game boards do not get input from the general public? IF yours don't..... you need to start getting involved.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Gun and ammo manufacturers need to make money, just like any other valid business. Ammo may get like the price of gasoline. I complained when it was almost 5 bucks a gallon, but would I rather walk and tote the load for the 20 miles that a gallon of gas would fuel my truck for? I don't think so. I'll pay it because its better than walking. When ammo gets double or triple the price I'll still pay the price for the "value added" aspect of having it on hand when I want to use it. As far as I can see, I don't think I'm going to have a problem. 

I would rather Smith & Wesson, Winchester, Hornady, Remington, and Browning be making insane profits than BP, Exxon, Shell, or whatever their names are these days. 

Get to it quick and outshoot your opponent.
practice, practice, practice.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

The second amendment is not threatened.

Not gun control, gun regulation. Spent way too much time on this, and nothing i have wrote has obviously been read or understood.

I didnt expect folks to agree, but i did expect them to understand. 

Not gun control, gun regulation.

Made up paranoia. 

Keep listening to people like ted nugent, 

Ya gotta be kidding me?


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

A few posts back I posited to those seemingly more "pro gun" than not at what point they would draw the line as to what kinds of arms remain legal and available vs what aren't. I'd ask once more, as I'd like to hear what they thought. 

I'm really just listening back and forth right now, but it's becoming difficult to say I'm "on the fence", as right now I don't even know what that fence demarcates.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Anytime there is any regulation weapons or accessories that is an attack on our rights the constitution does not regulate the citizens it regulates what the government can do to the citizens, what part of the 2a says anything about government regulation?

As far as what arms should be controlled or regulated my answer is* NONE*! If you can afford the arm and can afford the amunition to feed it why should it be denied you? Only time I can see regulation is if you have been convicted of a felony ( and the meaning of felony needs to be overhauled) or found to be mentally ill by competent authority.

Militia's where made up of regular citizens in those days supplying there own modern era arms and ammunition. Thru much of our history the citizens were better armed than the military.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm kind of with WarWalk and MickM (anybody who quotes E.F. Schumacher is OK, in my book) on this one. I own guns, I use guns, and I'm not aware of anyone trying to take my guns. Even if someone takes my guns, my own freedom is far too precious to me for it to depend on whether or not I own a gun.

Additionally, it just seems kind of hypocritical to wave the Constitution around and cry over limitations on the 2nd Amendment when the same people doing the crying handed over or are in the process of trying to hand over the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Amendments.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

The 9th Amendment should have been the first amendment. Of course, human nature being what it is, there is no way the document could foresee the changes in the next 223 years. Who among the signers could have foreseen that there would come a day when you couldn't freely ride a horse down main street? It would have been(and still is) impossible to enumerate all the rights that were once taken for granted, and new "rights" based on newer technology. It's a whole different world now. And, like us, the framers of the constitutions, bill of rights, and all amendments since then were primarily human, and secondly, politicians. Humans are known for their proneness to err. Politicians are known for their fondness for getting re-elected at any cost.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

we have let too many of our rights be eroded over the course of this nation, I am against any further erosion and taking back what was once ours, we need to dump the nanny attitude and expectations that government can protect us from ourselves or most external threats.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> Anytime there is any regulation weapons or accessories that is an attack on our rights the constitution does not regulate the citizens it regulates what the government can do to the citizens, what part of the 2a says anything about government regulation?
> 
> As far as what arms should be controlled or regulated my answer is* NONE*! If you can afford the arm and can afford the amunition to feed it why should it be denied you? Only time I can see regulation is if you have been convicted of a felony ( and the meaning of felony needs to be overhauled) or found to be mentally ill by competent authority.
> 
> Militia's where made up of regular citizens in those days supplying there own modern era arms and ammunition. Thru much of our history the citizens were better armed than the military.


For better or for worse, the Supreme Court of the US, which is the Constitutionally defined body for deciding what is Constitutional and what is isn't disagrees with you on whether or not the type of arms available to the citizenry can be regulated.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@CoolRunnin ~ I appreciated your answer of 'none' regarding which arms should be restricted, but I think it kind of hearkens to the root of the issue; primarily, "what is an arm"? This is what is really hanging people up, and from where alot of the divisiveness springs.

Websters defines arms, in this context, as either "instruments or weapons of offense or defense", or in a legal sense "anything a man takes in his hand in anger, to assault another with; an aggressive weapon". So based on this definition arms could be anything from a thermonuclear device all the way down to a stick. If one were to use the latter definition presented, we could rule out the totally outrageous, but we could still carry any manner of bazooka, flamethrower, rpg, etc...

This is why I'm kind of looking to those that are "pro gun" for lack of a better word for their definition. Do you feel that the above examples of arms should be allowed? Or should it be limited to rifles, pistols, or other weapons that fire a bullet type projectile, automatic or not?


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

I still own a Super Soaker water gun.....They were pulled from the shelves years ago....

Oooooh,,,,maybe I shouldn't make this known,,,,hmmmmm


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> A few posts back I posited to those seemingly more "pro gun" than not at what point they would draw the line as to what kinds of arms remain legal and available vs what aren't. I'd ask once more, as I'd like to hear what they thought.
> 
> I'm really just listening back and forth right now, but it's becoming difficult to say I'm "on the fence", as right now I don't even know what that fence demarcates.


Dunno if this was aimed at me, since I am not really "pro gun" I am more like pro second amendment. I own guns, and have owned them and enjoy shooting and hunting for most of my life, so I suppose if that is "pro gun" then maybe it was aimed at me.

I am ALL FOR ENFORCING THE LAWS we currently have, instead of making new ones that have proven in the past to not solve the problem.

Guns are inanimate objects, yet most in the media these days will make you think that guns are "evil", or guns do bad things.

As an example I saw this as a headline on the msn.com page the other day.

"Gun kills Ill. woman's 4th child"










Like it just got up on it's own, ran out into the street and started shooting. And this happened in Chicago, a city that has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Just because society is going to hell in a hand basket, doesn't mean we should all turn in all of our rights in a vain hope that limiting a magazine to 10 rounds will stop mass shootings. It is just not logical.

And this is the problem.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain realizes this, but instead of using that 1/2 or more of a brain, they are letting their emotions rule over common sense. Banning weapons or passing more laws only serves the people that are looking for a quick fix that doesn't really address the real problems that cause these shootings to happen, but makes them "feel good" knowing at least they TRIED to do something about it, all the while knowing that the real way to stop these things from happening will take much, much longer and holds little political short-term gain.

If anyone thinks that Diane Feinstein worked for "over a year" on the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" that she introduced to congress last Thursday in an effort to stop mass shootings, then you are sorely mistaken. All she did this for is for her OWN political gain, and to get back at the republicans for letting her 1994 assault weapons ban expire in 2004. ("The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by*" *http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

Plain and simple.

Please, read that legislation and point out just where in it is anything that would have stopped the shooting in Colorado or Connecticut.

You won't find it in there anywhere.

I really try to look at both sides of every issue. I am not a republican, but I am not a democrat either. I am more of a Ron Paul supporter. I TOTALLY believe in less government and strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States. 

Almost my entire career as a Software Engineer has been with working for the government as a contractor with the DOD, DOT and DHS. I have worked in software support of several different weapon systems, so I know for a fact that there is no way in hell that we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government these days so why bother with owning these "assault weapons" for that purpose? The fact is, that since I do know so much about how our government does work, I know that they will never be happy with just "banning" these types of weapons. That bill doesn't even do anything about all of the illegal weapons out there on the street. Does nothing to disarm all of the people out there that should not have access to any type of weapon in the first place.

I am not trying to get anyone at all to like the NRA, or see things my way, these are just my thoughts and opinions on the matter. I am not going to whine and cry like mickm did and claim that no one "understands" what I am talking about. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@LA ~ *meanwhile, deep within the bowels of some dimly lit government office, a red light has begun to blink... *camera pans to a view of boots quickly running down a hallway, and then pans to a screen: super soaker alert super soaker alert, illuminated in green letters across a black background...

(I had this happen with my lawn darts  )


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Yeah, it's Fox News, so sue me. But at least scroll down to the video and watch it, you don't have to read anything.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/2...n-control-saying-the-problem-is-not-gun-laws/


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Johnnylee ~ I'm a Ron Paul supporter too! Very cool. I wasn't "aiming" at ya tho... I really am on the fence with alot of this. I think that almost everyone here is Pro 2nd Amendment to one degree or another, I just think that what the founding fathers didn't know (couldn't have known) are how advanced weaponry would have become over the following 225 years or so. I see how most gun deaths occur in certain areas, and how criminals don't follow the laws. But I'm also looking at, if even a few of these mass shootings could be stopped, whether there is merit in keeping certain types of arms out of the hands of the general public (heck, it's kind of the model we follow now for full-auto I believe? Some have full-auto but they must be registered and you have to have a letter from the chief of police I think?)


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Johnnylee ~ You're also right about the verbicide taking place in alot of the media. Not only in the choice of wording but the quality of wording. Stories aren't always carefully written, and in many cases smack of muck raking. Take, for instance, the issue right here in Houston a week back. The headlines were "another mass shooting" at Lone Star College, when in fact three people were injured due to an argument gone wrong, and the weapon was a pistol. But, for those that failed to read the story, they would've subconsciously simply lumped it in with Columbine and all the others. I'm not a fan of this type of yellow journalism that seems to have taken hold of mainstream media.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

@no clue do you honestly believe that an arm of our government always has the best interest of the citizens at heart? Or could they have preservation of their system at heart! 

@ warwalk Now there is the quandary for sure, Some weapons systems probably shouldnt be out there for all just because it could cause the country as a whole more damage than good, examples would be warhead tracking systems that countries that wish us harm would use to advantage.

As to anything from artillery down to the proverbial stick, the only restrictions I can see being placed would be where you can use them, and only because you can't contain the damage radius to guarantee no one's rights are infridged upon. Private ownership of crew served weapons has protected citizens in many cases from the revolutionary war to 1812, to the Indian wars. Up to and thru WWI since there where 6 regiments privately raised for that conflict. I'm also with Johnnylee this isn't a pro-gun anti gun debate it should be a pro constitution debate.

if they want to regulate anything they need to put forth an amendment.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

NoClue said:


> I'm kind of with WarWalk and MickM (anybody who quotes E.F. Schumacher is OK, in my book) on this one. I own guns, I use guns, and I'm not aware of anyone trying to take my guns. Even if someone takes my guns, my own freedom is far too precious to me for it to depend on whether or not I own a gun.
> 
> Additionally, it just seems kind of hypocritical to wave the Constitution around and cry over limitations on the 2nd Amendment when the same people doing the crying handed over or are in the process of trying to hand over the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Amendments.


How can you say your own freedom is precious to you if you are willing to have others guaranteeing that freedom?

I would be interested in what your definition of freedom is?

And I agree with you we have allowed the government local to national to erode our freedoms in the name of security and you know what Ben Franklin said about that
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
Benjamin Franklin Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html#UtwgGy56P3LSgPtI.99 
​


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> How can you say your own freedom is precious to you if you are willing to have others guaranteeing that freedom?
> 
> I would be interested in what your definition of freedom is?
> 
> ...


 
Well, in part because I'm a veteran and spent 13 years in the Navy, and I know that most of what the military does has very little to do with guaranteeing my freedom or anyone else's. 

I'm quite capable and willing to protect my life and property, and my owning firearms is only one very small aspect of that capability and willingness. Simply put, I don't see anyone, anywhere, trying to take my freedom, and the only time I run in to any limits at all on my behavior are those times, when quite frankly, I'm getting a little bit carried away.

I supposed I could say, "I have the right to own and operate an M-60 machine gun, and who are you to tell me I can't?" I can't afford an M-60 machine gun though, and I honestly don't feel the need to own one, so how on earth am I being oppressed?


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

Funny story about why I don't own a gun (one of several reasons) despite supporting the right for others to do so:

When I was a kid, perhaps ten years old maybe, my dad took me out to the woods one day and put a paper plate up on a tree. He squeezed off some shots from a little distance, and then put the gun in my hands and told me to do the same. *pow... *pow........ *pooow. I shot over and over until the box he'd brought was gone. He went to examine the plate. Brought it back. He grabbed me by the shoulders and said "Son, you just saved the family". Being a kid, I didn't exactly know what he was talking about, but tried to be serious. He got a tad bit more serious at that point, kneeled down just a tad, and said to me "If ever there's a time when I'm gone, or if ever I'm away, you're the man of the house and need to act like a man. If anyone ever, EVer tries to hurt this family or your mother, you've got to protect them. Do you understand?". I nodded that I did indeed understand, but he repeated the question... I hastily said that "I understood".

Fast forward a few months. There was a kid named Billy, kind of fat, that constantly was picking on my brother. Since we lived close to school there in Charlotte we were in the "walkers" group. One day this kid followed my brother home, kicking him in the butt, pushing him down... my brother came running through the door and then "SLAM" went the door, my brother breathless as Billy could be heard running up the steps and then "bam bam bam" as he banged on the front door.

Apparently my brother got the better of ol' Billy that day, and was calling him some pretty funny stuff as he easily outrain the big fat kid. I told Billy to get out of there, and Billy said "no, he was coming in". The words of my dad hung in my ears for a second, and I went to my parents bedroom and grabbed the .22 under his bed. When I opened the door, Billy was surprised to be staring down the barrel.

Billy was p*ssed tho... he was coming in. I told Billy I didn't want to shoot him, but he'd better get the heck out of there before I had to. Billy said "no way", and that he was coming in. I told him not to move or I'd have to "shoot him dead". Billy zigged, Billy zagged. I did what my Dad told me. I pulled the trigger and the trigger went "click". After a brief moment of shock (both on Billy's part as well as mine, my Dad had had the good sense of not keeping any ammunition around), Billy proceeded to beat the snot out of me, and while I got in a couple of good licks definitely didn't win that round.

When my Mom got home, I told her what happened, and she spanked me something furious. When my Dad got home, he did so as well... with one of those thick embossed 70's style belts... and that was a rarity indeed. I thought the whole time about the unfairness of it all, and how I'd only done ~exactly~ what my Daddy told me to do. Shortly after my Dad gave the gun to one of his brothers... This is why I don't own guns... with four young children. I just won't risk it, as my life could've turned out faaar far different had that gun been loaded.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

My children were raised around guns and even took gun saftey classes, they have been hunting since they were eight. My children knew to never touch a gun and was showed what it can do and told what would happen. They all respect guns and I have never had any issues.

Sounds like your dad didnt give you enough information. And led you to believe you have to shoot anything that threathens you and your family. He was wrong in how he dealt with the sitiuation.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Fowler ~ I don't think he was wrong with the information he gave, rather that he just never expected the potential possibilities that could come about. I'm glad that you and your' children never had any issues... to be fair, in a roundabout way, our family never had issues either. Only nearly so. 

If you really really really (really really?) feel like you've had a firm lock on your children, then so much the better for you. I, myself, do not. I never have known 100% that they would listen to me. 99%? Possibly. But it's that one percent that gets a person... every - single - time.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

NoClue said:


> Well, in part because I'm a veteran and spent 13 years in the Navy, and I know that most of what the military does has very little to do with guaranteeing my freedom or anyone else's.
> 
> I'm quite capable and willing to protect my life and property, and my owning firearms is only one very small aspect of that capability and willingness. Simply put, I don't see anyone, anywhere, trying to take my freedom, and the only time I run in to any limits at all on my behavior are those times, when quite frankly, I'm getting a little bit carried away.
> 
> I supposed I could say, "I have the right to own and operate an M-60 machine gun, and who are you to tell me I can't?" I can't afford an M-60 machine gun though, and I honestly don't feel the need to own one, so how on earth am I being oppressed?


First good on you for you service, and you make my point that no one is going to protect you or yours like you will. You may not feel the need for a M-60, but how does that give anyone the authority to deny your neighbor of one if he feels that is what he needs to protect his and himself?

As far as your freedoms are concerned how about the attempts at book bannings in the past, patriot act and the expanding of it, we seem to loose freedoms every time congress goes into session. You may not always feel the loss as the fire under the pot is slowly turned up! To me it pays to question every motive of every statute enacted.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Warwalk said:


> @Fowler ~ I don't think he was wrong with the information he gave, rather that he just never expected the potential possibilities that could come about. I'm glad that you and your' children never had any issues... to be fair, in a roundabout way, our family never had issues either. Only nearly so.
> 
> If you really really really (really really?) feel like you've had a firm lock on your children, then so much the better for you. I, myself, do not. I never have known 100% that they would listen to me. 99%? Possibly. But it's that one percent that gets a person... every - single - time.


Your story is a perfect example of what not to do in gun handling. Dad took a little different tact with us, he set out several cans of tomato juice and we fired on them, then he had us examine the cans and tomato juice sprayed everywhere and told us this is what happens when the trigger is squeezed! It's a pretty good method of demonstrating the power of firearms.

Punching paper just doesn't give you a sense of the power you hold. In my humble opinion

We were also pretty fortunate I guess in that at an early age we watched and participated when the hog and steer were dispatched and butchered on the farm so we saw early on the finality of death


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

(we were in the suburbs... we had only the vaguest notion of where our meat came from unfortunately. I wish I could say otherwise, but we seriously only had the most academic of notions). We never saw an animal drop. Never saw... well, for a gun forum that should be sufficient, but for a meat forum we never saw any of it. Just never knew.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

And I guess that's a part of it, to both Fowler and Cool. And its' not saying for yes or for no about the subject, but simply that there are whole families out there that have no idea of the proper respect for a gun. It's highly plausible that my Dad had no idea about gun safety, despite his attempts at teaching it. For those that grew up around chicken dispatchin' and cow / hog slaughterin', they probably cringed with what my Dad did... but what he did was not abnormal. It was well-intentioned, and for those not living in a subdivision (I apologize I didn't ask, Fowler... were you in a rural or urban / suburban setting?) this is about what middle america knows for gun safety.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

For all the Paulite's out there, here is the disgusting reality of what will happen for those blades of grass that hold their heads too high in front of the lawnmower....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE[/ame]

It doesn't matter ~ Democrat or Republican. This is what my man says...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TD1HHMp7QA[/ame]


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

[youtube]XeCpLcjxOq4[/youtube]


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

I know I said I'm done posting on this thread...I'm not arguing any points on here, just saying thanks for searching these you tube videos out. THey very well illustrate the sickness of our great nation! ANd YAY for Ron Paul to have the balls to stand up and say it!


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> First good on you for you service, and you make my point that no one is going to protect you or yours like you will. You may not feel the need for a M-60, but how does that give anyone the authority to deny your neighbor of one if he feels that is what he needs to protect his and himself?


Under natural law, no one has the right or authority to tell anyone else what they need or can have, so long as they have the means of acquiring/producing it. We do not however, live in a system of natural law, but of Constitutional law, and Constitutionally speaking laws have been created and upheld by the judiciary that limit one's ability to own an M-60. You or I may not like the law, or agree with it, but until the law is overturned or replaced with a different one, it remains the law. 

If you don't think that Congress has the right to create such a law, and that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to hold such a law valid, then your problem is really with the Constitution and you have only a limited number of choices: Change it, throw it away, or live with it.



> As far as your freedoms are concerned how about the attempts at book bannings in the past, patriot act and the expanding of it, we seem to loose freedoms every time congress goes into session. You may not always feel the loss as the fire under the pot is slowly turned up! To me it pays to question every motive of every statute enacted.


I'm a transcendentalist, personally (a la Victor Frankl). The way I interact with society might be up for legislation, but my freedom isn't. Nothing I own or am allowed to own or not allowed to own has any bearing on freedom. Life has limitations - some of those limitations are imposed by nature, some are imposed by society, other I impose on myself. There is no such thing as life without limitations.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

NoClue said:


> ...
> If you don't think that Congress has the right to create such a law, and that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to hold such a law valid, then your problem is really with the Constitution and you have only a limited number of choices: Change it, throw it away, or live with it.
> ...


Anyone can disagree with a law and debate as to whether that law is constitutional or not. Just because the Constitution allows such freedom to pass such laws is proof in itself that it is a solid base.

I highly doubt anyone but a total anarchist would agree with you that just because someone might not like a law, then we should think about changing or doing away with the Constitution.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

JohnnyLee said:


> Anyone can disagree with a law and debate as to whether that law is constitutional or not. Just because the Constitution allows such freedom to pass such laws is proof in itself that it is a solid base.
> 
> I highly doubt anyone but a total anarchist would agree with you that just because someone might not like a law, then we should think about changing or doing away with the Constitution.


 
I'm mostly of the live with it or change it school of thought myself. 

My point was that there is a Constitutionally defined process for determining whether or not a law is 'constitutional', and if one finds that this process is producing unsatisfactory results (i.e. the Affordable Health Care Act, the Federal Firearms Act, the Patriot Act, the legality of governance through Executive Order, etc - all of which have been upheld in whole or in part by the Supreme Court) there are only a limited number of possible responses: Live with the Constitutional process as it is; Change the Constitutional process, or reject the Constitutional process completely and come up with some alternatative. It is Constitutionally allowable to change the Constitutional process, and the Constitution itself outlines the process for doing so (it isn't easy, nor should it be). The fact remains, however, that if the Constitutional process is producing unacceptable results, the flaw isn't only the results being produced, but the process that is producing them - the Constitution itself.

ETA: Regarding the changing of the Constitution: It bears pointing out that the original Constitution, as it was originally written, was only successfully ratified on the condition that it be immediately changed - by adding the first 10 amendments know as the Bill of Rights.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

NoClue said:


> ...
> The fact remains, however, that if the Constitutional process is producing unacceptable results, the flaw isn't only the results being produced, but the process that is producing them - the Constitution itself.
> ...


Sorry, but that is not a fact.

The "process that is producing them" is the way that the president, congress, and the courts interpret the Constitution, depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing at the time.

Blaming the Constitution for "unacceptable results" is like throwing out a cook stove just because the cook is bad.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> For all the Paulite's out there, here is the disgusting reality of what will happen for those blades of grass that hold their heads too high in front of the lawnmower....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE
> 
> ...


Ron paul is a fool and pollanyannish in his vews. For the record during Katrina the gun take away was down by the stupid local officials not the federal government.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

bstuart29 said:


> Ron paul is a fool and pollanyannish in his vews. For the record during Katrina the gun take away was down by the stupid local officials not the federal government.



Fool I doubt it!! His ideas may be a little simplistic by todays standard but who says it has to be complicated?


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@BStuart ~ We're each allowed to our views on those in public office. I myself don't see Ron Paul as a fool however. If Ron Paul would've had his way, we wouldn't have gotten into the mess which was Iraq. We'd be looking more closely at the federal reserve and its' role in the boom-bust cycles that have hammered the middle class while benefitting only a few. We'd be allowing states to handle certain hot-topic items that continue to plague this country, allowing the state to address the issues as best benefitted the constituents thereof. We'd be defending our own borders rather than the borders in other countries. Civil liberties would see a rebound. The patriot act would be done away with... I don't consider those things to be foolish. I consider them to be common sense. 

Ron Paul's views might be extreme, but they're hardly polly-anna'ish. Why do we protect Asia from the Chinese... by borrowing money from the Chinese? Why do we protect the Arab Gulf States... by borrowing money from the Arab Gulf States? How is it that we can spot a trained Taliban fighter creeping down a mountain pass in the dead of the night, but we can't spot thirty men, women, and children crawling across the desert... along paths choked with garbage from the thousands who crossed in the very same spot over the prior year and years before that? Ron Paul is for protecting America, not intervening in other countries' affairs, keepin our money right here at home, balancing our budget, and with any luck paying down at least a portion of our national debt. 

Ron Paul is a good man, and one of the few with the cojones to actually tell America what is really coming down the pipe in the next few years if we continue on the course we are on.


----------



## bstuart29 (Jul 11, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Fool I doubt it!! His ideas may be a little simplistic by todays standard but who says it has to be complicated?


Those are too words that don't mean the same thing. Paul wants to live in a utopian world and doesn't understand the world is a dangerous place that what I mean bu pollyannish and that why he didn't get the republican nomination.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

bstuart29 said:


> Those are too words that don't mean the same thing. Paul wants to live in a utopian world and doesn't understand the world is a dangerous place that what I mean bu pollyannish and that why he didn't get the republican nomination.


How much of the danger do we bring on ourselves with our policies regarding other countries and their sovereignty. We didn't have wars with other countries to speak of until after WWII. and our campaign to be the worlds policeman.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@BStuart ~ I think it's actually kind of the opposite. Ron Paul doesn't want to live in a utopian world. He realizes that the world is a big fat mess, that folks that we aid today can fly planes into our buildings tomorrow, that some folks will hate us regardless of how much money or aid we give them. He wants to pack up our toys and bring the troops home... and then keep them home. That's not utopian, that's common sense. Utopian is when we give money to Pakistan so that they won't get "too radical", when all the while they're harboring O'sammy bin Laden. Utopian is when we invade a country such as Iraq, thinking that if we just help em' out a little they'll all of a sudden put on powdered whigs and hammer out their own version of the Bill of Rights. Utopian is believing we can bomb the carp out of people, then build them a school, and they'll stop hating us. To me, it's the Dem's and Rep's that have the Utopian ideas. 

(and Ron Paul wasn't elected as the Republican nominee in no small part because frankly, he's a Republican in Name Only. His views were / are so vastly different from most others on the stage that he simply couldn't make the headway necessary. That, and not only the liberal media, but the conservative media as well, actively sought to marginalize him or discredit him)


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

...

One of my passions has been awakened.

:stars:

Utopia?

How about the recent revelation that the United States would actively move to arm a foreign volatile power ... even while it spews threats our direction?

In one of the clearest signs of where we are headed to date, current American leadership seems determined to go ahead with delivery of F-18 fighter jets and some 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt. 

Or something like that ... has it changed since last week?

This is in spite of the fact that many of us, and clearly the State Department and intelligence services, have seen video of Mohammed Morsi calling Jews the descendants of apes and pigs, and calling for their destruction ... He's on record urging Egyptians to continue to ânurse the children on hatred,â declaring âthe hatred must continue.â 

That's what's wrong with nearly the entire Muslim world, certainly the Arabs ... for generations now, the young have been indoctrinated with a steady diet of hatred ... they get it at home, at school, on television and in the mosques. 

We've seen how visceral they are when they flood into the streets for one of their monotonous demonstrations of hatred.  

Unbelievably, this Morsi fellow has called not only for âdeath to Israel,â but also to those who support Israel ... presumably that means us... or, well, used to be us. 

And yet we are in the process of arming these lunatics with some of the most sophisticated conventional weapons in the world ... ?! ... while we have threads like this one where we wonder if our own right to bear arms is safe/secure?!

Yes, utopia alright mhmm ... and no man-made government is going to get us out of this mess.

...


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I agree with what Glazed said. Those folks aren't our friends over there. They're never going to be (or, at least not in my lifetime). She makes a good point that so many of these Muslim leaders are pumping out the anti-American rhetoric on one end, but then acting like our bestest of Amigos on the other... all for more money, more armaments, etc...


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

JohnnyLee said:


> Sorry, but that is not a fact.
> 
> The "process that is producing them" is the way that the president, congress, and the courts interpret the Constitution, depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing at the time.
> 
> Blaming the Constitution for "unacceptable results" is like throwing out a cook stove just because the cook is bad.


 
Bad analogy - a stove doesn't have checks and balances that are supposed to keep a cook from botching the job. The Constitution does.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

NoClue said:


> Bad analogy - a stove doesn't have checks and balances that are supposed to keep a cook from botching the job. The Constitution does.


A stove doesn't have checks and balances? So you are saying that there is no way to control the temperature on a stove, it's either all or nothing? Really?

Think what you want to think. I am not here to argue with you










Or try to teach you the error of your illogical ways.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

JohnnyLee said:


> A stove doesn't have checks and balances? So you are saying that there is no way to control the temperature on a stove, it's either all or nothing? Really?
> 
> Think what you want to think. I am not here to argue with you
> 
> ...


You haven't addressed my logic at all, but I do like the Lincoln quote, not that my logic is the one question here.

Again to reiterate - Following the constitutional and legal processes without any apparent violation, results are occuring that many of us feel are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Speaking from a strictly legal perspective though, once a law has been upheld by the Supreme Court, that law IS, for all practical purposes Constitutional.

The simplest solution is to create a new law repealing the old law, but that doesn't change the fact that old law was in fact Constitutional. The Constitution, by itself, doesn't preserve freedom, and it doesn't prevent government encroachment. A good example would be Prohibition - obviously a violation of individual freedom, but completely Constitutional, and in order to correct that problem, the Constitution itself had to be changed.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

At first you said that the flaw was with the "Constitution itself" to which I replied,

"The "process that is producing them" is the way that the president, congress, and the courts interpret the Constitution, depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing at the time."

So, now you are saying "results are occurring that many of us feel are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution", which is what I was saying to begin with.

The flaw is not the Constitution itself, it is the way that all of the branches of government view a particular bill or proposed bill at that time such action is being considered, i.e "depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing".

Take for instance this recent court ruling.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...nts-unconstitutional-20130125,0,1401126.story

This court found that the recess appointments that Obama made were unconstitutional. But LOTS of previous presidents have done this before, but all of a sudden it is unconstitutional? Personally, I am glad that they found it unconstitutional, and I was hoping that the Supreme Court would find that the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare), but they didn't. Since the majority were in favor of his policies, they decided to say it was constitutional IF they called the individual mandate a tax, and not a "penalty", which then obviously made a liar out of Obama, since he then started calling it a "tax".

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...olutely-rejected-mandate-as-a-tax-127545.html

This is why I am a Ron Paul supporter, since he totally believes in strict adherence to the Constitution, more than any Republican or Democrat.

Our government, and our Constitution should only work for us, the people, not to further some political agenda of these two parties that can't agree which way is up and which way is down.

Time for MORE common sense, and less political grandstanding.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

JohnnyLee said:


> At first you said that the flaw was with the "Constitution itself" to which I replied,
> 
> "The "process that is producing them" is the way that the president, congress, and the courts interpret the Constitution, depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing at the time."
> 
> So, now you are saying "results are occurring that many of us feel are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution", which is what I was saying to begin with.


So maybe what we have is some miscommunication... and possibly a presumption of the other's opinon.

Regardless, the results occurring, are Constitutionally valid an no amount of invoking the Constitution is going to change that.

Saying that well, if we had different people things would be better. History doesn't support that. The Federal government began expanding its power and creatively interpreting the Constitution during the Washington Administration, and the very same men who insisted that 'oh, we have a very limited federal govenment, with just enough authority to get the necessary job done...' were the same men doing the creative interpretation - no less egregious than anything going on today.



> The flaw is not the Constitution itself, it is the way that all of the branches of government view a particular bill or proposed bill at that time such action is being considered, i.e "depending on which way the political winds happen to be blowing".


I happen to disagree that the flaw is in the Constitution itself. It is isn't a fatal flaw, it could be fixed, but still flawed in my opinion.

The flaw is a result of two invalid assumptions on the part of the authors:
1. That all of their successors would, more-or-less, be men like themselves with essentially the same values and philosophy.
2. That no one individual or group would ever have sufficient resourses to co-opt all three branches of the government at the same time, thus no safeguards were put in place to ensure against such an occurrence.

My proposal would be to institute a 'Bill of Restrictions' analogous to the Bill of Rights, but explicitly enumerating and delineating restrictions on the government.



> Take for instance this recent court ruling.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...nts-unconstitutional-20130125,0,1401126.story
> 
> ...


Ron Paul believes in a stricter adherence to the Constitution than the men who wrote it did. There are things I like about Ron Paul (I got to meet him once and ask him a couple of hard questions), but other things he stands for that I'm vehemently opposed to.

Please don't misunderstand me to mean that I endorse things such as the Affordable Health Care Act when I argue that they are constitutionally valid, nor that I think that they should be constitutionally valid. All that I'm saying is that for 220-odd years, the Constitution has allowed some pretty wretched travesties of legislation to pass muster (read up on the John Adams administrations and you'll discover some doozies), and until we're willing to consider that we ought to do something about it, it's going to continue to.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Noclue ~ I agree, there are several things that Ron Paul supports that I'm not in favor of. In some ways I swing more towards Gary Johnson. One thing often overlooked is that RP's district has recieved alottalotta government pork. RP has always called this "taking back what is ours", or something similar, but it still doesn't always ring true. Still, amongst many politicians, he remains at the top of my list for his unwavering stances over the past few decades. The way I always justified it was that I'd be willing to forego a few issues I disagreed with him on in return for my complete trust in him with the other issues. By comparison, Romney would tell me ~exactly~ what I wanted to hear (or, what he thought I wanted to hear) but I simply didn't trust the man. I actually have a buddy with Romney "flip flops"... the sandal style, but play on words intentional and written right on them. I shoulda' bought me a pair, lolz


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

NoClue said:


> ...
> 
> I happen to disagree that the flaw is in the Constitution itself. It is isn't a fatal flaw, it could be fixed, but still flawed in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Again, I have to go back to what I alluded to earlier. The beauty of the Constitution is that it CAN CHANGE. So if there is enough support, it can change to suit what is needed by the American people.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. What you see as flawed, I see as it's greatest strength and why (if followed correctly) this "law of the land" document will serve *another *200+ years or more.

I can't help but see the irony here between your view of the Constitution and what a lot of people out there are saying now about firearms. You are saying the Constitution is flawed, we should change it, the gun grabbers are saying that firearms are bad, let's outlaw them.

A firearm is just a tool. Used for good, it is a very effective tool. Used for evil purposes like this sick mentally ill person did at Sandy Hook, it is evil, and extremely devastating. But it is JUST a tool. Outlaw it, ban it, pass a million more laws to restrict the ownership and control of firearms, there are STILL going to be sick and mentally ill people out there that will do whatever is necessary to do bad things!

Same with the Constitution. It is just a tool. It has the ability to be interpreted and changed in many different ways. If the majority of the "powers that be" decide to push some law that is blatantly unconstitutional, if they have the support of the house, senate and courts, then there is nothing we can do about it until we vote people in that will undo the harm that has been done.

I was about 11 or 12 when my nephew (my oldest sisters only child) came to live with us when he was very young. He grew up with my brother and I and became like a little brother to us both.

Shortly before his 20th he was killed by a drunk driver in Dallas. That is about as close as I have come to loosing a child and I admit I still don't know what that is like and hope to never have to go through that.

No one should ever have to go through that.

That being said, at the time, I was mad and angry, and wanted the worst possible punishment for the woman that killed him with her car, driving drunk that night. She had been arrested a few times before for driving under the influence, yet it didn't matter one bit about what laws were on the books, because of her actions, she took a member of our family that was only 20 years old and had his whole life ahead of him.

Not once did I think of outlawing cars.

Not once did I think of outlawing alcohol.

I just don't see the logic about people going after things that in and of themselves, do no harm whatsoever. We all benefit from cars and there have been studies that have suggested that alcoholic beverages are good in small dosages. Anything can used in the wrong way, we have to hold the people accountable for their actions, not blame inanimate objects when people do bad things with them.

There is just no logic at all in that.


----------



## doodlemom (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes, but if we could restrict cars so that they can not go over 20mph.....like the bad subway trains.....lol


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

Oh, and I also don't agree with everything that Ron Paul has done either. As with anyone and everyone in this world, you have to take the good with the bad and hope that the GOOD they do, will out weigh the bad. We are all human, non of us are perfect.

I don't totally agree with anyone 100%. But as far as my views and my opinions, someone that is Constitutionally conservative will be what helps this nation in the long run (if it is not too late already).

We have suffered enough from this bi-partisan bickering and gone down this road way too long with one party or the other once getting into power pushing their political agendas. We need people in Washington that will remember that the government is there solely to do the will of the people, not the people to do the will of the government.


----------



## JohnnyLee (Feb 13, 2011)

doodlemom said:


> Yes, but if we could restrict cars so that they can not go over 20mph.....like the bad subway trains.....lol


And I totally agree with that. If you watched that whole video in this post

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/6414241-post136.html

Hickok45 mentions that too. Something to the effect of do we really need cars that go 100 mph? We could save a lot of lives AND energy if all cars were limited to 50mph. Why are people not having congressional hearings on that?


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

I"m having a hard time digesting all of what has been written here about the constitution. We are a *democratic replublic*, not a democracy. Yes, it is for the will of the people, but within the rules given! And they were given to us to preserve us as free country! NO LESS THAN!!!

THe federal goverment was created by the states (people) and the guidelines were given to restrict it from overgrowing it's boundaries, or in the event it happened, to be overthrown. It's history, written by writers who founded this nation, who spoke of the meanings of the rules governing us as a nation.

Yes, I sincerely believe that the constitution has been misconstrued, disregarded, and interpreted wrongly. And it has happened over a lengthy period, they take a little bit here and a little bit there, and if you sleep, it will all be gone!


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

This is part of an essay I found on another site that I believe dovetails nicely in this discussion.

It is sickening to travel the supposed Second Amendment sites and realize they are embroiled in discussions on how to comply with the upcoming laws banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Comply? These sites should be alive with plans to defy and nullify these laws, not through some silly strategy of registering some guns and not others; not through selling these weapons in other states to get a good price while prices are up. Are they insane?

http://tlinexile.blogspot.com/2013/...howComment=1359560204461#c3958500142832415161


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heck here is another to chew on.

There are two stories in the news lately that need to be highlighted and confronted. There is the Nathan Haddad story, which I have highlighted in a previous post, then there is the Keith Pantaleon story out of New Jersey. Each deal with arrests over banned weapons and/or magazines, clear violations of the Second Amendment.

http://tlinexile.blogspot.com/


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

JohnnyLee said:


> Again, I have to go back to what I alluded to earlier. The beauty of the Constitution is that it CAN CHANGE. So if there is enough support, it can change to suit what is needed by the American people.
> 
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. What you see as flawed, I see as it's greatest strength and why (if followed correctly) this "law of the land" document will serve *another *200+ years or more.
> 
> ...


I agree with your sentiments completely. The only thing that I can see that you and I are disagreeing on is whether or not such restrictions can be done in a Constitutionally valid manner (and I'm not sure we're even disagreeing about that). I'm saying they can, because it's been done in the past. I don't believe that these things should be done, and am arguing that the only way to keep them from happening is to amend the Constitution.


----------

