GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2012, 09:12   #176
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,126


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?


Hahahaha Ron is a RINO. He supports candidates that are not republican. He wears a republican nametag only to get attention and a snowballs chance in hell if getting back to his .gov paycheck when it was beneficial to him.

I believe he meant every word he wrote in his resignation from the Republican Party, being that he is so principled and consistent, it's illustrative that he flip flopped on that.


Quote:
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
He returned to avoid unemployment and irrelevance.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:17   #177
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,126


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
You can't win a game if you don't even make the team. In football, he'd be the water boy, without the storybook ending.

Political Issues
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:30   #178
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."
And since admittedly this is where I start going off the legal reservation with my opinion, I beg your indulgence.

To me the 2A actually seems to bind the states as well as the federal government, even without incorporation. The 2A has the simple imperative "Shall Not Be Infringed." It doesn't have the same phrasing as the 1A, which is that "Congress shall make no law...", which tells me that the Framers intended for the 1A to be a check against federal power only (meaning censorship would be a state matter, as would a religious test before holding office), but the 2A was intended to be more global.

On the other hand, the meat of my argument is mooted by McDonald v Chicago. But even with that, I don't find arguments against federally-enforced CCW reciprocity all that persuasive except on political grounds.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:35   #179
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites.
True "comprehension" only exists in RP's mind, the wellspring of every Supreme Truth...much as "perfection" is said only to exist in the mind of God.

(...and Ron Paul's, too, of course.)
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:36   #180
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
Good point.

One thing people may not realize is that Romney represented all the millions of small biz people who are offended by the "You didn't built it." comment. He represented us, with experience in business. RP is not, simply put.
ModGlock17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:47   #181
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
But even with that, I don't find arguments against federally-enforced CCW reciprocity all that persuasive except on political grounds.
How about on practical grounds? Is the federal government really gonna tell DC and the state of Maryland, where most of them live, they must allow people who have, say, a Washington state CCW, where no training whatsoever is required, to carry concealed in their territory?

It'll never happen. The "CCW reciprocity law" is going to be several hundred pages. It's going to require "lowest common denominator" rules for states issuing CCWs. Public safety funds will be cut off for states who don't comply. It won't take long before the feds are in control of all CCW issuance rules. Again, if you don't believe that, you've been living on a different planet.

If you wanted to undo a quarter century of phenomenal state progress in the realm of CCW within a couple of years, getting the feds involved is the way to do it.
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:56   #182
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
I often think the convulsive hatred that the RP fanboys have for Romney is rooted, at least in part, in their organizational hatred for Jews and Israel. The Mormons have a number of philosophical and historical parallels to Judaism, according to a number of scholars, so one supposes that probably accounts for the Paulinista antagonism toward the guy.

Last I knew, there haven't been any Mormons yelling "God is great" as they fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers...and it wouldn't take much to figure out, between Obama and Romney, which one is the Marxist.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:02   #183
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
I often think the convulsive hatred that the RP fanboys have for Romney is rooted, at least in part, in their organizational hatred for Jews and Israel. The Mormons have a number of philosophical and historical parallels to Judaism, according to a number of scholars, so one supposes that probably accounts for the Paulinista antagonism toward the guy.

Last I knew, there haven't been any Mormons yelling "God is great" as they fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers...and it wouldn't take much to figure out, between Obama and Romney, which one is the Marxist.
You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right?
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:03   #184
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
How about on practical grounds?
I don't think there's a distinction in that difference, FWIW.

Quote:
Is the federal government really gonna tell DC and the state of Maryland, where most of them live, they must allow people who have, say, a Washington state CCW, where no training whatsoever is required, to carry concealed in their territory?
Well, on that specific point I don't happen to believe that there should be a training requirement built into the law before one may legally carry. Such things tend to be abused into de facto gun bans. For example, there's a training requirement in DC which must be satisfied before one may own a handgun, but there are no actual trainers in DC...in other words, to exercise a constitutional right in DC one must first drive to another state.

That said....

Quote:
It'll never happen. The "CCW reciprocity law" is going to be several hundred pages. It's going to require "lowest common denominator" rules for states issuing CCWs. Public safety funds will be cut off for states who don't comply. It won't take long before the feds are in control of all CCW issuance rules. Again, if you don't believe that, you've been living on a different planet.

If you wanted to undo a quarter century of phenomenal state progress in the realm of CCW within a couple of years, getting the feds involved is the way to do it.
I don't think extortion of public safety funds would be required. To me, in this area federal supremacy is clear. It's only when the Feds want a state to do something they can't specifically require that the extortion bit comes in (drinking age minimums come to mind...). In certain cases the Feds can certainly tell a state what it must allow in its own "territory" (the Full Faith and Credit clause springs to mind as an example).

But again, something can be entirely Constitutional but still a bad idea. I can agree that having the Federal Government dictate reciprocity standards is a big minefield, but that doesn't mean that it would be unconstitutional for it to do so.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-05-2012 at 10:04..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:08   #185
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right?
Aw, c'mon now...stop being mean. I'm trying to promote understanding here. You know...celebrate diversity, etc?
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:17   #186
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
He returned to avoid unemployment and irrelevance.
Or maybe, he returned in order to foment such animosity and hatred within the party that it would destroy itself from within...

Last edited by Gundude; 10-05-2012 at 10:17..
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:35   #187
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,126


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right?
Did you mean to imply he's the only one that doesn't smoke pot??
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:35   #188
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,126


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Or maybe, he returned in order to foment such animosity and hatred within the party that it would destroy itself from within...
With friends like that.....

I'd prefer a reformer instead of a destroyer, but if you're sure that's what he's been up to, I'll take your word for it.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 10-05-2012 at 10:37..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:47   #189
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
With friends like that.....

I'd prefer a reformer instead of a destroyer, but if you're sure that's what he's been up to, I'll take your word for it.
Sometimes the rot is so deep you just gotta tear it down and build a new one.
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:48   #190
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Did you mean to imply he's the only one that doesn't smoke pot??
Nope, just that the scattered nature of that post suggested he might have been on pot when he wrote it.
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:21   #191
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,126


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Nope, just that the scattered nature of that post suggested he might have been on pot when he wrote it.
Well that is a little far fetched, dontcha think?
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 12:46   #192
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
That's a reasonable prediction considering you're only expanding on my earlier prediction that this election will be the lowest (relative) turnout since the 70's.
You have been taking statistical analysis courses from another one of your liberal bretheren on this forum.

I am not expanding on you theory of a lower turnout at all.

You do understand that I was referring to the percentage of third party representation.

In other words for all their talk and bluster they are going to prove to be full of hot air when it comes to results.

There is going to be so little actual turnout that even wasting time on the Forum mentioning them is less productive than analyzing belly-button lint.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 14:41   #193
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Hilarious, I'm trying desperately to get forthright, on subject answers from you ... and you post long obfuscated ad hom blanket attacks on me (without knowing me or engaging me in discussion previously) and "liberals" ... instead of engaging me on the topic. With that said ... I'll try to avoid being guilty of the same by not continuing on with the ancillary diversionary game. So ...

Your 50,000 foot, entirely vague response is in fact "Obomacare". OK. That is per my request for an example of your statement: "liberals keep forcing their will on people ". Pretty hard to respond to that unless you want an equally vague and 50,000 foot answer. Since you won't say what specifically beyond that though ... I'll have to infer it is the most common argument against it:

The mandate. How can the government force me to get insurance or pay a tax penalty (or tax ... whatever you want to call it).

Well ... interestingly enough ... the answer lies mostly within your own original argument ( "how can the liberals (in this case liberal policy) keep forcing their will on people"). I think it can best be illustrated by asking what happens when YOU (I'm speaking figuratively ... I don't know your specific situation) choose to not be insured? Do you think you can control when and where you have a major accident or illness? Do you think you can cover, out of pocket, the million dollars of medical bills (if you even live)? Who exactly has to pay for it when you don't? So ... YOUR choice (gamble) to not be insured, forces me to pay for YOU (in the form of higher direct costs and premiums). YOU are IMPACTING ME. People like you are "forcing their will on" ME. Do you see the irony with that ... when your complaint is ""liberals keep forcing their will on people "? The mandate is necessary to protect my rights and liberty. Without it, I will continue to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

The concept of liberty and life, as far as I'm concerned is: Do what you want, until/if you impact me (or prohibitively "society" in general). Then we have to have some rules.

I call that libertarian, you seem to want to call it "liberal" somehow.

So ... that addresses the mandate angle. It ain't perfect and I think better alternatives, but that is different subject. I hardly feel it is some infringement on my rights though, quite the opposite. It is stopping deadbeats from infringing on MY rights by CHOOSING not to insure themselves.



I'm not going to address this in this post ... just simply to limit the scope of the discussion. I'll gladly address it separately later if you so desire (I'll try to make a note of it and be proactively respond later if we get to that point).
I'll try to keep this simple for you. You asked for an “example” and I gave you one. Obomacare! If you wanted an explanation also you should have asked for and example and an explanation.

First mistake… health care is not a right it’s a privilege.

Who should pay you ask. The person using the service. If you don’t pay the bill you get sued. It should work just like any other product or service works. However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed? NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.

Now before you reply read this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html it’s quite lengthy but you REALLY need to read it. The Federal Government has no business giving out or mandating charity. But the liberals just love their free stuff that others have to pay for.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-06-2012 at 16:24..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 14:48   #194
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed. NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.
The only surprise is that it took this long. When EMTALA was passed, the door was opened for freeloaders to get free medical care. It was only a matter of time before everybody had to pay for this.
Quote:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Who was the bleeding heart liberal in office in 1986 who signed this abomination? Probably the type of guy who would ban machine guns too.

Last edited by Gundude; 10-05-2012 at 14:49..
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 15:22   #195
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
What do conservatives do if they don't want marijuana?
They don't smoke it. I'm a conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. But I'm not getting into a debate about it.

You know who started the war on drugs. Teddy Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...cotic_Drug_Act Conservative? NO! Founder of the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Progressive... better know as Liberals who now want to be call Progressives again. So it looks like that liberals put that ca-bash on drugs too.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-05-2012 at 15:48..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 15:45   #196
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
The only surprise is that it took this long. When EMTALA was passed, the door was opened for freeloaders to get free medical care. It was only a matter of time before everybody had to pay for this.
I absolutely agree.


Quote:
Who was the bleeding heart liberal in office in 1986 who signed this abomination? Probably the type of guy who would ban machine guns too.
Democrats control the House of Representatives passed it, Reagan signed it. Reagan was from Koymfornia so no big surprise there.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-05-2012 at 19:18..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 16:35   #197
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Democrats control the House of Representatives and passed it Reagan signed it. Reagan was from Koymfornia so no big surprise there.
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.
Gundude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 16:43   #198
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.
Not me. Foreign policy maybe. Domestic? He was too fricken "compassionate"
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 17:05   #199
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.
Some things yes some things no. After 50 + years I'm still looking for the "PERFECT" congress and president. So far I'm 0 for 0. What I am sure of is... I've lost all tolerance for liberals and stupidly. Not necessarily in that order. ActualI I've come to believe they are one in the same.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-05-2012 at 17:24..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 17:16   #200
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
To me the 2A actually seems to bind the states as well as the federal government, even without incorporation. The 2A has the simple imperative "Shall Not Be Infringed." It doesn't have the same phrasing as the 1A, which is that "Congress shall make no law...", which tells me that the Framers intended for the 1A to be a check against federal power only (meaning censorship would be a state matter, as would a religious test before holding office), but the 2A was intended to be more global..
It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,216
380 Members
836 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42