gonefishin Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 I don't understand how people come up with the argument that only the militia has a right to firearms. If anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba reads quotes, journal entries or personal letters of the founding fathers of this nation it is really easy to see what the second amendment meant. I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
bigredbirdfan Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Hoglaw: Could it also be argued that the court interpreted the Second Amendment correctly and that the legislatures trying to control "right to keep and bear arm" have done so outside of the constitution? Doesn't sound like activism to me. I suspect the next big set back for gun control will be all of these businesses that think by posting a sign they can keep out conceal and carry. They have no right to that control either. We ought to celebrete this occasion. Now that we have to live with repeat Child Rapists on our tab for the rest of their lives.
Fishhand Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 As far as the political ramifications between Obama and McCain, ....I browse alot of extremist sights and read alot of blogs conserning politics. This little fishing message board is mild to what I have read. There is alot of talk about shooting Obama before he can win the election. I advocate that if that was to be done it will fuel a democratic win and will hurt the McCain Agenda. Nothing worse than Hillary saying she will win it for Barrak. The sympathy vote will kill us conservitives. Using a word like advocacy when speaking of assassinating a presidential candidate and then saying if it were to be done it would hurt the McCain Agenda is, in my opinion, just a flat out wrong thing to say. In addition, no sympathy vote is going to kill the conservatives. It's the statements and practices of some conservative Republicans that's going to kill the chances for election and / or reelection of some conservative Republicans. The majority of Americans are sick and tired of Bush's policies and cronyism. Bush's approval rating is the lowest EVER for a president. While McCain is a great American, his agenda is viewed as a carryover of the same Bush policies...Bush's third term. He has no chance at winning the election. It's the Al Gore syndromn. I personally see Obama as an agent of change. Who cares if Obama has or has not fired a gun. He obviously has never bowled a game in his life. He's a constitutional lawyer and I think he will govern by the rule of law based on the Constitution. That's enough for me.
Trav Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 How ever the views are taken, it is wrong to hire a guy for his ideals instead of his experiance. Nobama cant change anything! It is all hype to get his "we have a dream" mockery into office. He cant change the fact that we are at war with terror, that gas is 4 bucks a gallon, or even the fact that poor america is losing its jobs to India. What is he going to change? Ask anyone that specific question and they wont be able to give you an answer. For its all talk. As far as McCain being a third term Bush, that cant be farther from the truth. Although, I for one like George W. You try to be president during a time of war. Especially when your enemy is nothing but a world wide sentiment! You cant just judge a guy that narrow. If Nobama does win, that will just prove that the presidential office is nothing but a popularity contest. If that is the case then next time I am going to vote for myself! Cause obviously you dont need any experiance to run a country! And Jim, I only spoke of assasination as a statement of heresay and the word advocate means to plead and if you read it correctly you would have understood that I was pleading the case that it would be a bad idea. But hearing your bleeding heart beating makes me wonder. Lets not forget, that the same people talking trash about Goerge W, gave Bush one of the highest presidential approval ratings after 9-11. It wasnt until the Dems took power of the senate that his hands got tied and he lost his ability to maintain it! "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
taxidermist Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Its a darn sad fact when 4 of the judges vote against he Constitution. You guys bust me in the chops over my spelling, when its those 4 judges you should be writing about and to explaining how and why the comma is used. One of the 4 said the commas were in the wrong places. Now how and they hell does a judge come up with that? Telling the people who wrote the Constitution they did not know english!!! We must make our leader appoint judges that can read the Constitution and not make laws from the bench. We the PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER!
Fishhand Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 And Jim, I only spoke of assasination as a statement of heresay and the word advocate means to plead and if you read it correctly you would have understood that I was pleading the case that it would be a bad idea. But hearing your bleeding heart beating makes me wonder. Lets not forget, that the same people talking trash about Goerge W, gave Bush one of the highest presidential approval ratings after 9-11. It wasnt until the Dems took power of the senate that his hands got tied and he lost his ability to maintain it! I read your statement and understood it correctly. It was my take....You are pleading / advocating that assassinating Obama would be a bad idea because in your opinion, it would mean Hillary would get the Democratic Party's nomination and would get a sympathy vote in the November election, therefore, jeopardizing McCain's chance at being elected President. In my bleeding heart's opinion, the statement was very callous. I know you don't care and I'ld like to go on, but Wedding Crashers is on TV and I can't concentrate right now.
Trav Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Callous-Thick skinned, showing no emotion. Yaeh, you got me there. "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
bigredbirdfan Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 If I am correct it looks as though South Chicago could use some more legal gun carriers. Illegal gun crime in Obama's district is out of control. How has he taken care of that ?
Trav Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 If Obama fights terror like he fights crime, we might as well blow ourselves up to save the terrorists the trouble! "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
Al Agnew Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Lots of stuff to comment on here... Funny how, if some politician you don't like, or from a party you don't like, says something you agree with, they're pandering, following whichever way the wind blows, just saying what that particular audience wants to hear, but if somebody you like says the same thing, they are great guys. Obama agreed with the decision. He's on record as saying so. Whether he's sincere about it or not only time will tell. Experience...yep, it's nice for a President to have experience. But I'd say that no amount of experience outside of being President can duplicate what one would face as President. I think that more important than experience is leadership qualities. I'm not sure of Obama's (or McCain's) leadership qualities. But another important thing, maybe THE most important thing if you want to make a difference, is the ability to inspire. Nope, no President can effect change by himself, but the President is in a unique position to lead and inspire, and thereby get results. The one thing Obama apparently has is the ability to inspire. As for experience, the best thing any President can do is to surround himself with competent people who are experts in their fields, including some who tend to hold dissenting viewpoints, listen to them, and weigh his decisions in light of their advice. Not sure Obama can or would do that. Not sure McCain would, either. Back to guns...I agree there is some precedent, in this country and certainly in others, for there being such a thing as a slippery slope. Anti-gun folks will take all they can get. But it seems to me that the Supreme Court just put some limits upon what they can accomplish. Gun registration, by itself, should be pretty benign, and could accomplish a few good things even though we all know only the law-abiding will register their guns. As long as the SC decision stands (and it should stand a long time--SC decisions pretty much are the final word) it shouldn't put us in danger of the government taking away our guns. Don't get me wrong...I don't think registration is something we NEED. And I don't think it will do much good. I just don't think it's the crack of doom if it happens.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now