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 09-12-2007, 18:03   #26
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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?
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 18:19   #27
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
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
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 06:01   #28
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
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/...dustry-at.html



And, what our Congress'people' are doing:

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

(to paraphrase.... Nothing)
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 07:41   #29
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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/...dustry-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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 09:48   #30
lumberjack
One of Many
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,063
Send a message via AIM to 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.
lumberjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 10:06   #31
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 10:20   #32
ScottWomack
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16
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...........
ScottWomack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 13:53   #33
TheGreatGonzo
Clown Hunter
 
TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lost in thought...
Posts: 1,490
Quote:
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

Last edited by TheGreatGonzo; 09-13-2007 at 14:36..
TheGreatGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 17:33   #34
MidnightJMC
Senior Member
 
MidnightJMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Posts: 120
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.
MidnightJMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 04:49   #35
NRA_guy
Unreconstructed
 
NRA_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mississippi, CSA
Posts: 3,441
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.
__________________
NRA_guy

Conservatives have faith in individuals; liberals put their faith in the government.
NRA_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 05:54   #36
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
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
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 05:55   #37
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
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
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 06:40   #38
TheGreatGonzo
Clown Hunter
 
TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lost in thought...
Posts: 1,490
Quote:
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. 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
TheGreatGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 07:38   #39
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:03   #40
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:12   #41
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
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
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:18   #42
sweetatergal
Senior Member
 
sweetatergal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the South
Posts: 9,259
Quote:
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.

Ok, back to our regular scheduled program!
__________________
Never underestimate the power of a Southern Belle Temper Tantrum
sweetatergal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:37   #43
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:59   #44
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
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
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:41   #45
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:57   #46
BuLC86
Registered User
 
BuLC86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 7734
Posts: 24
Quote:
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
BuLC86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 14:59   #47
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
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."
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 17:05   #48
TheGreatGonzo
Clown Hunter
 
TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lost in thought...
Posts: 1,490
Dauntless,
I love your avatar!
Gonzo
TheGreatGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 18:38   #49
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
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.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 21:16   #50
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
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.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   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 22:13.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,241
354 Members
887 Guests

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