US Senate 2008! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : US Senate 2008!


NoloContendere
09-02-2007, 18:53
Hey everyone,

I wanted to let everyone know that I will be running for United States Senate in 2008 against Thad Cochran.

www.stambo2008.com

One of my biggest issues is to completely abolish the ATF and repeal all gun control legislation.

The website is not 100% yet, but it will give you an idea of what I'm running on.

Any support would be appreciated!

Stephen

NRA_guy
09-03-2007, 19:06
Good luck! That's a big mountain to climb.

Is the election this November? [shows my ignorance]

Will you run as an independent or with party affiliation?

Thad has actually been pretty good. He voted against the amnesty for illegal immigrants bill (unlike Trent Lott).

And NRA likes him, too.

MidnightJMC
09-03-2007, 20:00
I'll be checking out your website regularly for updates. You're gonna have your hands full with this one buddy. Congrats on deciding to run! :thumbsup:

NoloContendere
09-04-2007, 05:30
The election will be next year. I'm busy doing all the prequalification stuff.

My biggest gripe with Thad has been that he hasn't done enough. I know he's rated an A by the NRA, but that is going to seem like an F once the NRA "rates" me. :thumbsup:

He's been in since 78'ish? Maybe it's just time for some new energy to come in.

I will be seeking the Republican nomination. Thanks for the support! I will be using the internet a lot and asking for all of your help once I get signs and other stuff made.

Stephen

BuLC86
09-04-2007, 10:40
GOOD LUCK n You know that you will be getting all of my votes

Lobo
09-05-2007, 23:03
Website looks nice and is easy to navigate. Congrats to you for taking this on.

Chris

lumberjack
09-06-2007, 11:09
Looking good Stephen, you're right, Thad isn't and hasn't done jack in the past 30 years, heck not even a sex scandel.

One thing I love is the tax brackets but equal voting rights. I had to pay 1/3 of my income last year in income tax alone, because I'm self employeed with minimal write offs, yet my vot counts the same.

slewfoot
09-06-2007, 11:21
Good Luck Stephen.:thumbsup:

K.C. Dia
09-07-2007, 17:17
How old are you? You don't look thirty!

NoloContendere
09-07-2007, 20:12
Originally posted by K.C. Dia
How old are you? You don't look thirty!

I will be by then.

I finish my 3rd year in law school in December... and take the bar February.

K.C. Dia
09-08-2007, 21:01
What district do you live in? Have you considered a run for congress instead. A congressman would be easier to take down than a senator with 30 Plus years of seniority. Your chances of defeating Cochran are zero. I repeat, zero.

NoloContendere
09-08-2007, 21:40
Originally posted by K.C. Dia
What district do you live in? Have you considered a run for congress instead. A congressman would be easier to take down than a senator with 30 Plus years of seniority. Your chances of defeating Cochran are zero. I repeat, zero.

Thanks for your vote of confidence. I will not entertain a Congress seat run, and I'm not doing this because it's easy.

Your the first person, out of hundreds that I've spoken to, that has expressed a zero chance of me winning. And this is on a gun board. Amazing.

PARAGON
09-09-2007, 15:25
Originally posted by NoloContendere
Hey everyone,

One of my biggest issues is to completely abolish the ATF and repeal all gun control legislation.

I won't vote for you.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

PARAGON
09-09-2007, 15:30
Originally posted by NoloContendere
Thanks for your vote of confidence. I will not entertain a Congress seat run, and I'm not doing this because it's easy.

Your the first person, out of hundreds that I've spoken to, that has expressed a zero chance of me winning. And this is on a gun board. Amazing.

course, I'm not the person running for a seat. But wouldn't someone that's running need know that the Senate is part of the United State's Congress? Therefore, you are, indeed, stating your intention to run for Congress.

NoloContendere
09-09-2007, 16:18
I understood what the person was referring to.

What do you understand to be a wrong? How is abolishing one of the most unconstitutional agency's a wrong? Am I missing something?

NRA_guy
09-10-2007, 04:59
For some reason (and it is something I have wondered about for decades) US Represenatives are referred to as "Congressmen"; i.e., Congressman Chip Pickering, Congressman Bennie Thompson, etc.

But US Senators are refrerred to as "Senators"; i.e., Senator Trent Lott, Senator John Stennis, etc.

It is true. Both houses are part of Congress, but Senators are never referred to as Congresmen.

I'm not sure why.

PS: To you unbelievers---Nolo is young. Thad is old. Most Mississippi voters don't know diddly about candidates. They vote based upon name recognition.

They go in the poll booth and say, "I've heard of this guy. Click."

Nolo is not stupid or naive. He is most likely planning for the long term, not the short term.

NoloContendere
09-10-2007, 05:27
Originally posted by NRA_guy

PS: To you unbelievers---Nolo is young. Thad is old. Most Mississippi voters don't know diddly about candidates. They vote based upon name recognition.

They go in the poll booth and say, "I've heard of this guy. Click."

Nolo is not stupid or naive. He is most likely planning for the long term, not the short term.

:thumbsup:

haras
09-10-2007, 19:17
:patriot: Senator, I think you're missing a good publicity opportunity if you pass on my idea of organizing clean-up of remote local ranges.

This is a résumé' item that won't cost much. The idea is for you to organize the people here (and from wherever you can get them) to meet at one of these rural ranges to clean it up. I'll even donate the garbage bags.

Everyone doesn't have to cross the entire state but could help with ranges within reasonable driving distance to them. No-one has to make every trip.

Carpooling is also an option. Throw some rakes and work gloves in the trunk then pile in for a road trip. Talk guns and shooting on the way there and complain about sore backs on the way home. Before heading back we all could eat lunch at some local establishment (talk more guns).

The local guys would be responsible for disposing of what is collected (that may include appliances if my suspicions are correct). A picture should be taken before and after so a story could be told at some point.

Yeah, the ranges will get trashed again but the helping hand gives the locals a chance to catch-up on the trash. A notice could be posted explaining what was done to clean the place up. It wouldn't be a bad idea to let the property owners know what was done.

You could start a movement......

K.C. Dia
09-10-2007, 19:43
Originally posted by PARAGON
course, I'm not the person running for a seat. But wouldn't someone that's running need know that the Senate is part of the United State's Congress? Therefore, you are, indeed, stating your intention to run for Congress.

I wasn't "dissing" you, but in order to defeat Cochran, you will have to beat him in the republican primary. The primaries are controlled by political bosses, and they won't we willing to ditch a 30 year plus senator for a new face. They will pour more money into the campaign than you can overcome. On the other hand, I think that some of the congressmen are vulnerable. Mississippi keeps reelecting their senators until they die are retire, which ever comes last!

NoloContendere
09-10-2007, 20:32
I understand what you are saying KC, I just have to try. That's all I can do right now. Money might have bought every previous election, but I need to show people that we can do it with little money expended.

Haras,

I like your idea, and will work on that.

Stephen

Gambino
09-11-2007, 13:31
I applauud your zeal. Your platform, from what I have seen so far, is awesome. Long hard trail to conquer non the less. You have my support in Waynesboro.

NoloContendere
09-11-2007, 17:47
Originally posted by Gambino
I applauud your zeal. Your platform, from what I have seen so far, is awesome. Long hard trail to conquer non the less. You have my support in Waynesboro.

Thanks K.

It's already proving to be a difficult proposition, but, I tell you... Nothing worth doing, is easy.

:thumbsup:

ScottWomack
09-12-2007, 14:22
When Mike Sumrall and I discussed him running for Mississippi State Auditor with his degrees in accounting and computer and his 23 years of experience with the State Auditor's Office, no one believed he could do it. In fact in a three man race with Jacob Ray, Todd Brand and Mike Sumrall, most people believed Sumrall would come in 4th in a 3 man race. Imagine the surprise when Sumrall not only came in first in the Democratic Primary spending only $10,300 but went on to win the nomination spending only about $15,000 total. Now Sumrall will go up against MS Senator Stacey Pickering, in the November 7 General Election, in what will be a contest between a politician with a lot of funding versus a common hardworking guy with an accounting and experience. For the first time in 30 years, there is a candidate with the education and experience to know what to do if Sumrall gets to the job.

Nolo it was good to see you in Walmart this weekend, don't let people disappoint you with negative comments. Just get out there and give it your best try and at least you will have given the voters someone who is willing to put there name on the line when so often most people are trying to push others down around them rather than helping to lift others up in an attempt to make the world a better place.

Now get through with the RO test, get back to the range, and don't let anyone tell you what you can't do. I for one am an AmeriCAN, not an AmeriCAN'T. Just remember the story of the two little boys who walked up to a problem and one little boy said "I can't!" and the other little boy said, "I can!". They were both right. Guess where we would be today if I had looked at the $55Million MS Beef Processors Plant investigation and said we probably CAN'T figure this one out. But when it was assigned to me I said I don't know what happened, and I don't even understand it, but I CAN figure it out.

So long, I've got to helicopter over to Navin's place to sit around the pool deck and drink those little umbrella drinks and plan a strategy on how to knock ole Cliff off the top of the pile of ICORE shooters. Have a great day and call me if you need anything.

NoloContendere
09-12-2007, 16:40
Hey Scott! Thanks for the encouragement. I will most definitely get that RO test done here pretty soon!

I'm packing to leave for Destin for the week. Going out there for a very much needed vacation, and going to do a little deep sea fishing!

Hope you caught an alligator!

Stephen

Dauntless452003
09-12-2007, 17:43
Originally posted by PARAGON
course, I'm not the person running for a seat. But wouldn't someone that's running need know that the Senate is part of the United State's Congress? Therefore, you are, indeed, stating your intention to run for Congress.

....and the apostrophe after United States' should be behind the s, not in front of it, but hey, who's being picky here......

:)

PARAGON
09-12-2007, 18:03
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
....and the apostrophe after United States' should be behind the s, not in front of it, but hey, who's being picky here......

:)

You are.

There is more in my sentence if you want to correct me grammatically and continue to be "picky."

But if you think that someone running for the Senate should not either correct a person addressing him or know the difference between the offices he is seeking, then fine. I, for one, find it hugely important that something such as that to be of utmost importance.

Also, Nolo, if you think that repealing all gun control legislation is the answer to anything and that abolishment of the ATF is the answer, then you don't get MY vote. If you can't see the need for some gun control legislation and a controled ATF then I doubt you have the capacity to serve my interests as a Senator.

Secondly, I find virtually laughable that you are even entertaining the idea of running for a Congressional seat making statements like the ATF is "one of the most unconstitutional agency's."

Hey dauntless, you want to "pick" at that use of apostrophe by Nolo?

NoloContendere
09-12-2007, 18:19
Originally posted by PARAGON

Also, Nolo, if you think that repealing all gun control legislation is the answer to anything and that abolishment of the ATF is the answer, then you don't get MY vote. If you can't see the need for some gun control legislation and a controled ATF then I doubt you have the capacity to serve my interests as a Senator.

Secondly, I find virtually laughable that you are even entertaining the idea of running for a Congressional seat making statements like the ATF is "one of the most unconstitutional agency's."

I live by the Constitution. When the Constitution states that the "right... shall not be infringed" and then there is an agency created to infringe upon it; yes. The ATF is one of, if not THE most unConstitutional agency in existence, at this very moment.

That's fine if you disagree. I want every Representative and Senator on record disagreeing with me. You know why? Because then we can see who is truly pro-gun and who is an anti-gunner in 2nd Amendment clothing.

What gun control legislation do you want? Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land? Without an amendment to the Constitution, any 'infringements' are unConstitutional.

If you are happy with a Senator that is happy with the status quo, then so be it. I am going to do what I think is right, and that is that. If you want to expand on your beliefs about the second amendment, I am literally all ears and would like to hear it.

Further, I'm not sure how you feel about Mexican trucks entering the USA carrying their loads, but I feel pretty strongly against it. Or, how you feel about our unsecured borders? How about the UN? National Debt? (Your families share is $140,000 currently).

Next time you see your Senators, make sure you thank them.

Stephen

NoloContendere
09-13-2007, 06:01
Paragon,

If you would like more information on the ATF and what they are doing to lawful gun dealers, look no further than Red's Trading Post in Idaho:

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/atf-shutting-down-firearms-industry-at.html



And, what our Congress'people' are doing:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070801.htm

(to paraphrase.... Nothing)

PARAGON
09-13-2007, 07:41
Originally posted by NoloContendere
Paragon,

If you would like more information on the ATF and what they are doing to lawful gun dealers, look no further than Red's Trading Post in Idaho:

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/atf-shutting-down-firearms-industry-at.html



And, what our Congress'people' are doing:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070801.htm

(to paraphrase.... Nothing)

So what?

Every 3 Letter government organization has done something that one would have a grievance with. Doesn't mean you abolish it.

Do you do away with the FBI because of the miscues it has.... using your guidelines. The FBI is an "unconstitutional" institution.


I don't think you have a good handle on anything you propose and suggest you rethink your position if you have any future political plans.

Your Constitutional argument is laughable at best. Your contentions can be applied to nearly every, if not every, Amendment because every one of the "Rights" are infringed upon using your guidelines. The very thought that laws are put in place to regulate and further define the "Rights" is something learned in grade school.

Quite frankly, your message is just as dangerous as the anti-gunners because your message is totally selfish and without regard to the consequences of what you want to have occur. If you truly feel there should be no gun control what-so-ever due to some strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then you are just as dangerous to the United States people as the those that want to re-write the Constitution itself.

lumberjack
09-13-2007, 09:48
Paragon, what does the ATF/NFA do to protect the common person?

I believe in the first year of background checks, they caught 2 "criminals" at the cost of 50ish million dollars.

Since 1936 2 crimes (murders) have been commited with a full auto firearm, both in Ohio, one was by a cop.

50 caliber or larger firearms have been used in how many crimes?

If the government prevents you from effectively protecting yourself, aren't they accepting responsibility for your safety?

Granted, the world isn't perfect, but you gotta start somewhere.

Compare ancient Rome to America, we're following in their footsteps.

PARAGON
09-13-2007, 10:06
Originally posted by lumberjack
Paragon, what does the ATF/NFA do to protect the common person?

I believe in the first year of background checks, they caught 2 "criminals" at the cost of 50ish million dollars.

Since 1936 2 crimes (murders) have been commited with a full auto firearm, both in Ohio, one was by a cop.

50 caliber or larger firearms have been used in how many crimes?

If the government prevents you from effectively protecting yourself, aren't they accepting responsibility for your safety?

Granted, the world isn't perfect, but you gotta start somewhere.

Compare ancient Rome to America, we're following in their footsteps.

Background checks don't "catch" criminals. They stop guns from getting into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

So, 2 murders occured in Ohio since 1936 due to automatic weapons. What about the multitude of other murders/crimes that were committed with automatic weapons since then. I hope you are not intending to state that ONLY 2 murders have occured since 1936.....

What does a .50 have to do with anything? I can go to my local gun store and buy one right now.

ScottWomack
09-13-2007, 10:20
We caught two gators, one was 8'3" and weighed 114 pounds, the other was 4'3" and weighed a whopping 12 pounds. The Rez is so full of gators it is amazing. Last year they caught a gator 10'2" with a 5'2" gator inside that had been eaten.

They have another hunt at the Rez this weekend and then we have two more people drawn for the Pascagoula River the last weekend of this month. So we are planning on trying to catch a couple of really large gators since it is the first time to hunt Pascagoula.

I can tell you from being the President of two organizations in the PAST, and currently the Vice-President of the Central MS Chapter of Certified Fraud Examiners, that in most cases, you have the silent support of the majority, but in my case I got so tired of the complaining and moaning from our hunting camp, that it was not worth me sacrificing time spent with my family to be the whipping boy for a group of ungrateful people. They never seemed to like it when I told them exactly the way I felt and even after beating their longtime favorite candidate by 66%-34% margin, I decided I would put my energy into working with a better group of people so I retired the next year, after having served as a n officer for 6 years, before the election process and now I have time to do what I like to do, like compete in USPSA and ICORE matches and lend a hand to a great group of people who understand the value of having good help. I also don't complain about things because I will never forget that most of the complaining was done by those who put the least amount of effort into projects.

Just a few of my thoughts as you go through this process. At least you will have the experience of actually trying to become a part of the process and make some change, and it is amazing where your path will lead you when you are willing to get out of your comfort zone and actually do something. Quite a few people have failed when trying to do something, but even more have failed by not trying to do anything...........

TheGreatGonzo
09-13-2007, 13:53
Originally posted by NoloContendere
That's fine if you disagree. I want every Representative and Senator on record disagreeing with me. You know why? Because then we can see who is truly pro-gun and who is an anti-gunner in 2nd Amendment clothing.


Stephen,
To be perfectly frank, that kind of statement scares me. I appreciate what you are doing and that you are making an effort to make changes, but to say that just because someone disagrees with you in some form or fashion regarding the 2nd Ammendment that they are an "anti-gunner in 2nd Amendment clothing"? Personally, I don't want a leader who believes in "group think", even if I happen to agree with them on many things. It reminds me of a whole lot of folks who say, "You are not a real Christian because you don't sing the same hymns we do in church.". Those sort of statements are no less scary than the things I hear many liberal politicians say. "If you vote against this welfare bill, you reveal yourself to be someone who does not care about homeless orphans!!"; basically, "You must believe exactly as I believe, or else...you must be a heretic (or anti-American or anti-gun, etc, etc, etc)!!". No thanks. I'm more of a "freedom-to-believe-as-I-wish sort of guy". I figure as a military vet and (more importantly) as a citizen, I have earned the right to my own opinion wihtout being branded "anti gun".

No, I don't think that abolishing the ATF is a great idea. Certainly some changes need to be made, but the fact of the matter is, the agency does a lot of good work. I have many friends who are ATF Agents. Despite your belief, they are not anti-2nd ammendment, trample-the-consititution, jackbooted thugs. They are dedicated cops who regularly risk their lives chasing down and arresting gang bangers, terrorists, and outlaw motorcycle gang members. They are also good Christian men, fathers, husbands, and responsible gun owners. Each one that I know owned guns long before they went to work for ATF and each one, based on what I know of them, plans to do so long after they retire. They have no interest in coming to your house and taking away your guns.

Now, I guess that would make me, in some people's opinion, an "anti-gunner in 2nd ammendment clothing". Oddly enough, the folks who actually know me would never describe me that way. In fact, they would be pretty quick to describe me as a "gun nut" and slightly right of Attila the Hun. I believe our borders are a joke. I believe we ought to cut the Border Patrol loose to do their job and and all but shut the borders down completely. I believe we need to let American citizens actually keep most of the money they earn. I think the courts need to actually prosecute and punish criminals instead of coddling them. I think we need to forget about political correctness and let cops and soldiers do their jobs effectively. I think the completely mis-named "Assault Weapons Ban" was an absolute load of crap. I think I should be able to own an AK or an AR simply because I want to, and I should not have to make up any excuses about "sporting purposes". And, unless I am out committing criminal acts with them, I don't believe it is any of the government's business how many guns I own. But, I guess to some folks, I must just be a poser and a leftist since I don't agree with them 100%.

That being said, if more people actually ran for office and tried to make a difference, like you are doing, I think we would be in a lot better shape. Heck, if more people just voted I think we would be in a lot better shape. I admire your willingness to put yourself out there and fight for what you believe in, even if you consider me one of the bad guys. ;) There are a whole lot of folks I admire that I would not necessarily vote for. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't do like most politicians and make it a lifelong career. Remember, those same guys who penned that 2nd Ammendment that we all value so much believed politics was a temporary job. Even most of the "pro-gun" politicians seem to have forgoten that little detail.
Gonzo

MidnightJMC
09-13-2007, 17:33
I can pretty much sum up my views on guns in this article I wrote for the Hattiesburg American not long after the incident at VT; I don't think this was my original title but that's besides the point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Ownership Requires Safety

Because of the recent events at Virginia Tech, the debate over gun control has once again come into the spotlight. Questions about who should be allowed to own guns are being discussed daily in government offices, the workplace, and in casual conversation. Each discussion ends on the same terms it begins simply because neither party is, or will be, satisfied. The 2nd amendment states it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms; however it is not absolute as certain actions can revoke this right. And for some, mental and physical incompetence makes gun ownership hazardous.
Simply stated, not everyone should own a gun. A gun in the hands of someone with physical impairments or mental and emotional problems can be the focal step in the pathway to tragedy. It is easy to see why some view gun ownership as more of a privilege than a right. Regardless, both sides of gun debate will agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of those with ill-fated intentions but the battle over gun control rages on.

For those who can legally purchase and own a gun, not all will choose to do so. However, deciding what is best for you and your family is a decision that cannot be taken lightly. People who choose to own guns have a responsibility to society to learn how to safely handle them regardless of whether the gun is used primarily for hunting or carried on a daily basis for self defense. Ownership combined with the failure to be able to accurately and efficiently use a gun is dangerous, but with proper training and safety habits guns can be an effective tool in the defense of our homes and families. There are several key rules to gun safety. Remember to treat all guns as if they are loaded and always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. This will ensure that should there be an accidental discharge there will be no one in the bullets path. Keep your finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire and never, under any circumstances, point a gun at anyone or anything you are not prepared to kill or destroy. Never pass a loaded firearm to someone and by all means, every time you pickup a gun, make sure it is unloaded. Check it then check it again.

The rules I have mentioned are in no way a complete list. Books have been written on gun safety and courses are taught on this subject. If you choose to own a gun you have taken on the responsibility to learn how to handle it safely. If you believe having a gun makes you cool or popular then does us all a favor; get rid of it. If you choose not to own a gun that is fine, but I strongly suggest you come up with some type of plan to defend your home and family. You will be the first on the scene should you encounter an intruder in your home or an attacker on the way to your car. Your planning, decisions, and actions, or lack thereof, can ultimately affect your outcome.

Jason Carlock is a Hattiesburg resident and can be reached at Jason.Carlock@comcast.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen, it's obvious you have really put some thought into what you are doing and I commend you for that. You're attempting what many would consider the impossible. I wish I had the courage, myself, to do something like this. I agree with probably 99% of your message.

Let me know if I can help.

NRA_guy
09-14-2007, 04:49
You have to be very careful when you agree that the government has the right to limit our constitutional right to bear arms because we "might" use one improperly.

We will eventually see the same thought process applied to freedom of speech and religion and assembly and trial by jury. Indeed, we are already seeing the Politically Correct liberals attempting to limit our rights in several of those areas.

The issue, of course, is WHO gets to decide those limitations and WHAT CRITERIA they are to use.

But as always, some have agendas, and they do not try to eat the whole elephant at one time.

First they prohibit machine guns. (Any reasonable person would agree to that, right?)

They they limit us to no assault weapons. (Don't NEED those things for hunting, huh? Notice how the camel's nose is now under the tent. The constitution says nothing about a right to hunt.)

Then they limit places we can bear arms---schools, government facilities, any business that posts a little notice. (Hey, they own the property; why can't they limit our rights there?)

Then they allow large cities and some states to ban handguns and certain long guns and magazines over 10 rounds. (State's rights there. Tenth amendment, you know. Wonder why that is the ONLY place they advocate state's rights?)

Pretty soon gun owners are marginalized as a bunch of kooks and the rest of the non-thinking moderates will go along with an outright ban similar to England and Australia.

Gun ownership has been eliminated without ever amending the Constitution.

We need to draw the line in the sand now, and fight anybody who crosses it.

NoloContendere
09-14-2007, 05:54
This is great exchange!

Gonzo, I don't believe all ATF agents are anti-gunnners coming to take away my guns... But, I do believe that the ATF's mission is to get rid of gun dealers, which has the same effect of denying me my 2nd Amendment right.

As far as your religion comment goes, it's not really the same. I understand your analogy about people not believing "your" way or "my" way, but the 1st Amendment covers religion. And you have the freedom to worship however you want.

What if we had an agency similar to the ATF for Churches? And they got to decide and put arbitrary and capricious rules in effect to "rule" over churches?

"Your Constitutional argument is laughable at best"

- Why?

"Your contentions can be applied to nearly every, if not every, Amendment because every one of the "Rights" are infringed upon using your guidelines."

- Yessir. You are correct.

"The very thought that laws are put in place to regulate and further define the "Rights" is something learned in grade school."

- False. The Constitutional Amendments limit the power of Government, and preserves the rights of the people. It does not grant rights, or privileges, but preserves them. Meaning, they existed before the Constitution.


Paragon, you still haven't told me what kind of gun control you want. I really want to hear it. I would meet in person to discuss this further if you are up for it.

Gonzo, I mean no disrespect in anything I say... But, my rights are my rights, and I'm tired of being told, by the government that "we" have given their power to, what I can and can't do.

You are more than welcome to hold any opinion you want, and I thank you for your military service.

Stephen

NoloContendere
09-14-2007, 05:55
Originally posted by MidnightJMC

Stephen, it's obvious you have really put some thought into what you are doing and I commend you for that. You're attempting what many would consider the impossible. I wish I had the courage, myself, to do something like this. I agree with probably 99% of your message.

Let me know if I can help.

Thanks. I will be in touch!!!!!

Stephen

TheGreatGonzo
09-14-2007, 06:40
Originally posted by NoloContendere

Gonzo, I mean no disrespect in anything I say

Stephen,
None taken. Like I said, although I disagree with some of your opinions, it is probably safe to say we are aligned in about 99% of our opinions on major issues. On some issues, we simply have to agree to disagree. The wonderful thing about this country is...we can. :supergrin: And even if I would not vote for you, it does not change the fact that I respect your attempt to make changes by getting involved. I wish more people would. Again, just don't forget that "temp job" part... ;)
Gonzo

PARAGON
09-14-2007, 07:38
Originally posted by NoloContendere
This is great exchange!

Gonzo, I don't believe all ATF agents are anti-gunnners coming to take away my guns... But, I do believe that the ATF's mission is to get rid of gun dealers, which has the same effect of denying me my 2nd Amendment right.

As far as your religion comment goes, it's not really the same. I understand your analogy about people not believing "your" way or "my" way, but the 1st Amendment covers religion. And you have the freedom to worship however you want.

What if we had an agency similar to the ATF for Churches? And they got to decide and put arbitrary and capricious rules in effect to "rule" over churches?

"Your Constitutional argument is laughable at best"

- Why?

"Your contentions can be applied to nearly every, if not every, Amendment because every one of the "Rights" are infringed upon using your guidelines."

- Yessir. You are correct.

"The very thought that laws are put in place to regulate and further define the "Rights" is something learned in grade school."

- False. The Constitutional Amendments limit the power of Government, and preserves the rights of the people. It does not grant rights, or privileges, but preserves them. Meaning, they existed before the Constitution.


Paragon, you still haven't told me what kind of gun control you want. I really want to hear it. I would meet in person to discuss this further if you are up for it.

Gonzo, I mean no disrespect in anything I say... But, my rights are my rights, and I'm tired of being told, by the government that "we" have given their power to, what I can and can't do.

You are more than welcome to hold any opinion you want, and I thank you for your military service.

Stephen

Stephen,

As far as I am concerned, WE are able to hold any opinion we want. YOU are not. If you want to be a Senator of the United States, YOUR opinion must reflect OURS, the voters, not your personal issues.

You don't become an elected official for personal issues, you do it to serve your electorate.

Your "rights" don't supercede other's rights and in a just and civilized society, it's common sense that laws must exist to police those that continue to push the envelope on the "rights" of others. You don't have a message. You don't have an answer. You don't have any idea of what it means to have laws that reflect the wishes of the Constitution.

You've read and/or listened to a bunch of rhetoric about Constitional Law and are taking it to the extreme. Extremist are bad no matter which way they swing.

If you want to sit back and have your opinions and try to exact change from your extremist viewpoint, than so-be-it. But I'll be damned if you will be elected under the Republican Party banner with the caustic ideals you hold.


And please tell me what your plans are for the FCC. Since it infringes wholly on the freedom of speech and is solely there (to use your analogy) to put businesses out of business.

NoloContendere
09-14-2007, 09:03
Originally posted by TheGreatGonzo
Stephen,
None taken. Like I said, although I disagree with some of your opinions, it is probably safe to say we are aligned in about 99% of our opinions on major issues. On some issues, we simply have to agree to disagree. The wonderful thing about this country is...we can. :supergrin: And even if I would not vote for you, it does not change the fact that I respect your attempt to make changes by getting involved. I wish more people would. Again, just don't forget that "temp job" part... ;)
Gonzo

Good! And for the "temp" job comment. I am RIGHT there with you. When I'm elected, I'm serving one term. You can write that in stone.

NoloContendere
09-14-2007, 09:12
Originally posted by PARAGON
Stephen,

As far as I am concerned, WE are able to hold any opinion we want. YOU are not. If you want to be a Senator of the United States, YOUR opinion must reflect OURS, the voters, not your personal issues.

You don't become an elected official for personal issues, you do it to serve your electorate.

Your "rights" don't supercede other's rights and in a just and civilized society, it's common sense that laws must exist to police those that continue to push the envelope on the "rights" of others. You don't have a message. You don't have an answer. You don't have any idea of what it means to have laws that reflect the wishes of the Constitution.

You've read and/or listened to a bunch of rhetoric about Constitional Law and are taking it to the extreme. Extremist are bad no matter which way they swing.

If you want to sit back and have your opinions and try to exact change from your extremist viewpoint, than so-be-it. But I'll be damned if you will be elected under the Republican Party banner with the caustic ideals you hold.


And please tell me what your plans are for the FCC. Since it infringes wholly on the freedom of speech and is solely there (to use your analogy) to put businesses out of business.

Ahhh.... wow. Where to begin.

People elect other people, that share their same ideals, to office. If you don't share my ideals, then don't vote for me. It's pretty simple. At least you know where I stand, correct?

I hold an opinion of what I believe is right. I tell everyone this opinion. If they also believe this opinion, then I get elected. That is how it should work.

The Republican party has become one with the Democrats. I am a true Republican, and will be on the Republican ticket. If you think freedom is a caustic ideal, then I have nothing for you, and suggest you vote for someone else. But, at least you know what you are going to get with me.

Did you think our Founders were extremists? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but their views of a very limited government would seem very extreme by today's standards.

Now, if you would like to discuss anything about gun control, again... I'm all ears.

Stephen

sweetatergal
09-14-2007, 09:18
Originally posted by ScottWomack
They have another hunt at the Rez this weekend and then we have two more people drawn for the Pascagoula River the last weekend of this month. So we are planning on trying to catch a couple of really large gators since it is the first time to hunt Pascagoula.



Hey!!! My Hubby was drawn for the Pascagoula hunt. He will be there. He was at Ross Barnett last year too. :thumbsup:

Ok, back to our regular scheduled program!

PARAGON
09-14-2007, 09:37
Originally posted by NoloContendere
Ahhh.... wow. Where to begin.

People elect other people, that share their same ideals, to office. If you don't share my ideals, then don't vote for me. It's pretty simple. At least you know where I stand, correct?

I hold an opinion of what I believe is right. I tell everyone this opinion. If they also believe this opinion, then I get elected. That is how it should work.

The Republican party has become one with the Democrats. I am a true Republican, and will be on the Republican ticket. If you think freedom is a caustic ideal, then I have nothing for you, and suggest you vote for someone else. But, at least you know what you are going to get with me.

Did you think our Founders were extremists? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but their views of a very limited government would seem very extreme by today's standards.

Now, if you would like to discuss anything about gun control, again... I'm all ears.

Stephen

Stephen,

You have a lot to learn about the political process. You don't share ideals with the average person.

The political process isn't just about voting for someone. It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public.

Quite frankly, this nonsense of attempting utilize the "Founding Fathers" as some weak basis of argument for modern day politics explains why you are so narrow-minded in your views. How or why you think that these individuals somehow wrote a few words that would overwhelming police our society as it has evolved is so lacking in common sense, that I'm now worried that there are others here that seem to think like you.

I suggest you learn the basis for your arguments.

First: the Constitution does not hold that you have a right to bear arms. An amendment from 1791 does, the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. Your "Founding Fathers" contention is just baseless if you take the novelty out of your argument, for argument's sake, and simply look at the truth.

Amendments were made due to changes needed to the Constituion.

Did the "Founding Fathers" get it wrong? Yes. If they didn't you wouldn't have things like the 19th Amendment from the 1920s giving women the right to vote. Or do you propose to do away with that?

Basis for argument is foundation. Without foundation you look like just another extremist and your attempt to align yourself with the "Founding Fathers" is an insult, at best.

NoloContendere
09-14-2007, 09:59
First, you are not answering my gun control questions. Why not? What do YOU have to hide?

Who do you think the average person is?

"It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public."

How are my views not beneficial? That I merely suggest interpreting the Constitution as it were written? Wow. A novel idea for sure.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I never said that I don't have a lot to learn. I am *constantly* learning. I am also putting myself out there. What are you doing?

Stephen

PARAGON
09-14-2007, 10:41
Originally posted by NoloContendere
First, you are not answering my gun control questions. Why not? What do YOU have to hide?

Who do you think the average person is?

"It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public."

How are my views not beneficial? That I merely suggest interpreting the Constitution as it were written? Wow. A novel idea for sure.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I never said that I don't have a lot to learn. I am *constantly* learning. I am also putting myself out there. What are you doing?

Stephen

I don't need to answer any questions from you. I'm not seeking an elected office.

Your "views" are detrimental to the stability of society because you don't understand anything that you talk about. You don't have a grasp on the Constitution, much less what law is about.

What am in doing?

1. Making sure the someone like you never reaches a public office because your views are detrimental.

2. Not talking about running for a public office.

3. Not grandstanding on ideas that don't have merit because I read them somewhere.

4. Thinking for myself and not putting down everyone else - ie. the Republican Party, ATF, current and past elected Congressmen.



You don't have a snowball's chance in hell with the views you hold. Not because of you, I don't know you. But because you don't understand your views and you certainly don't understand what the United States is about. There are so many inaccurate statements you have made in this one thread that makes me wonder exactly what your point is.

Personally, I think this is a self-serving announcement that has no meat to it what-so-ever. It's my opinion, just from what I've read here, that you are ill-prepared for your agenda and your agenda is awash with rhetoric instead of fact-based arguments.

Your "views" are detrimental because they are based in ignorance and narrow-mindedness. You stated I was wrong earlier about the Supremacy Clause.

I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.

BuLC86
09-14-2007, 10:57
Originally posted by PARAGON


I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.

and congress has done such a wonderful job keeping society STABLE. NOT
maybe its time for a change in the way things have been done in the past and start looking to improve the future. Stephen would be a good person to start a change in the right direction instead of going backwards wich is what we have been doing for centuries and will continue to do unless something or someone changes the way our gov. is run

Dauntless452003
09-14-2007, 14:59
Originally posted by PARAGON
I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.

Article IV in its entirety. The aforementioned article is broken up in paragraphs. I assume the gentlemen was referring to the second paragraph in the article in his post. I see nothing in the second paragraph, or the entire article for that matter which contains anything regarding the stability of American society. Perhaps someone more enlightened than I can point out what I am overlooking.......

"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

TheGreatGonzo
09-14-2007, 17:05
Dauntless,
I love your avatar! :thumbsup:
Gonzo

PARAGON
09-14-2007, 18:38
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
Article IV in its entirety. The aforementioned article is broken up in paragraphs. I assume the gentlemen was referring to the second paragraph in the article in his post. I see nothing in the second paragraph, or the entire article for that matter which contains anything regarding the stability of American society. Perhaps someone more enlightened than I can point out what I am overlooking.......

"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on why it is necessary for laws to be written. Once you explain that, maybe then you can understand the context of the Article.

Or maybe you are, once again, choosing to be "picky" and not allowing me the latitude to summarize what is common sense.

Dauntless452003
09-14-2007, 21:16
Originally posted by PARAGON
Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on why it is necessary for laws to be written. Once you explain that, maybe then you can understand the context of the Article.

Or maybe you are, once again, choosing to be "picky" and not allowing me the latitude to summarize what is common sense.

I'm currently enrolled in Constitutional Law in Law School. In the cases I've read, the supremacy clause has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to have been included in our Constitution in order to cement the preeminence of federal law when it comes into conflict with state law. I'm unaware of any holding by the Supreme Court that the clause enumerates any grant of power in the Congress to legislate. If you could provide me with a case cite to the contrary, I'd be happy admit to being incorrect.

In case you're interested in the Constitutional source of Congress' power, take a look at Article I. In particular the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has allowed the expansion of the scope of Congress' power to legislate on a great many subjects based on this part of the Constitution.

You made an assertion, based on insufficient knowledge, assuming said assertion wouldn't be challenged, you were wrong. It's ok. No need for hostility.

Dauntless452003
09-14-2007, 21:17
Originally posted by TheGreatGonzo
Dauntless,
I love your avatar! :thumbsup:
Gonzo

Thanks Gonzo!

About 3 months after I joined GT, I did a google search for "avatar," and found the jolly roger on one of the sites that came up.

:)

Norman
09-14-2007, 21:38
Nolo - you know I stand behind you on this all the way. Let me share something with you that I realized for myself some time ago.

I once came to a conclusion a few years back, probably during my first year of college... my conclusion was that many people talk about working on your weaknesses to make you a better overall rounded individual. I think that's a load of left-thinking liberal arts crap. I think it's more beneficial to take your strengths and make them even stronger. To hell with your weaknesses, they won't make you anything. Your strengths will.

So what's my point with that tidbit of insight? These naysayers are weakness. Don't waste your time trying to bring them up to a certain level, or try to convince them to see something. Forget them. Look at your strengths - the people who believe in you - and fortify them, and they will take you to the next level.

Just my opinion.

PARAGON
09-19-2007, 12:15
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
I'm currently enrolled in Constitutional Law in Law School. In the cases I've read, the supremacy clause has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to have been included in our Constitution in order to cement the preeminence of federal law when it comes into conflict with state law. I'm unaware of any holding by the Supreme Court that the clause enumerates any grant of power in the Congress to legislate. If you could provide me with a case cite to the contrary, I'd be happy admit to being incorrect.

In case you're interested in the Constitutional source of Congress' power, take a look at Article I. In particular the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has allowed the expansion of the scope of Congress' power to legislate on a great many subjects based on this part of the Constitution.

You made an assertion, based on insufficient knowledge, assuming said assertion wouldn't be challenged, you were wrong. It's ok. No need for hostility.

Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.

walangkatapat
09-19-2007, 12:23
Originally posted by PARAGON
Background checks don't "catch" criminals. They stop guns from getting into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.



Thats worked well.

Dauntless452003
09-22-2007, 02:08
Originally posted by PARAGON
Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.

The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.

PARAGON
09-22-2007, 09:31
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.

Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.

Dauntless452003
09-22-2007, 15:38
Originally posted by PARAGON
Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.


Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.

PARAGON
09-22-2007, 17:09
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.



Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.

Dauntless452003
09-23-2007, 02:00
Originally posted by PARAGON
Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.

He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.

PARAGON
09-23-2007, 07:31
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.

See, you can not admit it. You are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and being "picky" because you have nothing else.

He did and it isn't, period. You simply do not understand because you obviously don't have the capacity to. You can't state something to be absolutely without including it's entirety, especially when it's entirety is hugely part of the subject. ie - Federal Statutes. Federal Statutes are not subordinate to the Constitution until tested and decided so. That was set forth in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a framework for a government, not just a system of law. The system of law is a continued entity.

Therefore, to state it's the Supreme Law of the Land without including the rest of the text is either stupid, or it's what people absolutely hate attorneys for. They choose to ignore what is specifially written in one case, all the while, they hold the very word-for-word written text in another.

The ultimate in hypocrisy. Enjoy it.

Dauntless452003
09-23-2007, 14:11
Originally posted by PARAGON
See, you can not admit it. You are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and being "picky" because you have nothing else.

He did and it isn't, period. You simply do not understand because you obviously don't have the capacity to. You can't state something to be absolutely without including it's entirety, especially when it's entirety is hugely part of the subject. ie - Federal Statutes. Federal Statutes are not subordinate to the Constitution until tested and decided so. That was set forth in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a framework for a government, not just a system of law. The system of law is a continued entity.

Therefore, to state it's the Supreme Law of the Land without including the rest of the text is either stupid, or it's what people absolutely hate attorneys for. They choose to ignore what is specifially written in one case, all the while, they hold the very word-for-word written text in another.

The ultimate in hypocrisy. Enjoy it.

I've said I'd admit error if you could provide case law contrary to what I've asserted. You have responded not with case cites, but blather....you did however provide a portion of Marshall's opinion in Gibbons that supported my position, which I thank you for.

I think I've adequately explained the supremacy clause of the Constitution, including Supreme Court decisions to back it up. I'm done w/ you PARAGON, I'll not respond to anymore of your posts in this thread ***UNLESS*** you can cite a decision by an Article 3 court.......ANY decision to back up that which you assert. Otherwise, I'll let the readers of this thread decide whose argument has merit.

Before I go, however I do want to post one more time for the sake of posterity, my favorite PARAGON quote from this thread................"I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." I'm thinking of adding it as my signature line...................

You may have the last word, sir.

PARAGON
09-23-2007, 14:39
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
I've said I'd admit error if you could provide case law contrary to what I've asserted. You have responded not with case cites, but blather....you did however provide a portion of Marshall's opinion in Gibbons that supported my position, which I thank you for.

I think I've adequately explained the supremacy clause of the Constitution, including Supreme Court decisions to back it up. I'm done w/ you PARAGON, I'll not respond to anymore of your posts in this thread ***UNLESS*** you can cite a decision by an Article 3 court.......ANY decision to back up that which you assert. Otherwise, I'll let the readers of this thread decide whose argument has merit.

Before I go, however I do want to post one more time for the sake of posterity, my favorite PARAGON quote from this thread................"I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." I'm thinking of adding it as my signature line...................

You may have the last word, sir.

You fail miserably at simple reading comprehension. If the Supremacy Clause, which makes the Federal Statutes a part of the Supreme Law of the Land.... NOT JUST FOR THE SINGLE SAKE OF OVER-RIDING STATE LAWS, in no way provides Congress the power in direct contrast to Nolo's contention that the ATF is the most un-Constitutional entity, then you have absolutely no business being in law school.

no wait.... You want to only pick out part out of the context of the entire thread so that you can justify your entry into the thread with your posts that have not merit to what was even being discussed.

You have provided a non-argument.

Admit to the error. I don't have you in court, don't need to cite cases and really don't have to prove anything to show that you simply are arguing something that has nothing to do with what was discussed.

Either you are just dumb, bull-headed or have your head so far up Nolo's ass that you won't admit that you were wrong in jumping into the conversation and attacking a simple comment and taking it out of context.

BTW, if you want to play internet games. Please do, I'm quite fun to play with and love juvenile games.