How are you voting from this upcoming election and forward?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
From the CIA word factbook.
Republic is such a broad term that it often has to be qualified. The People's Republic of China is a Republic. Most would simply say that the United States is a Domocratic Republic, meaning that through voting we elect or representitives, trusting that they will vote the way their constituents want them to.
However, we have the ability through a national vote to amend the Constitution. I would not recommend it because the last time that happened the country went "dry".
As much as you don't want to belive it, the ownership of firearms has become a privilege, again ask a felon.
contender6030
New member
YEP, that's what the Brady Bunch wants everyone to believe anyway!
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It has been, get over it.
You must also be gullible enough to belive that freedom of speach means you can say anything you want, anywhere you want. Test that one out for us by walking into a crowded place and yelling "fire". See how far freedom of speach gets you then.
The Brady's want everyone to belive that guns kill people all by themselves. They don't even belive that gun ownership is a privilege.
contender6030
New member
rhgunguy said:
You have the freedom to walk into a crowd and yell fire if you want to, no one is stopping you from doing that. That doesn't mean they can't stomp your A$$ for doing it when the crowd finds out your acting a fool.
Webster's definitions:
Felons and other prohibited are not justly entiled to own a gun. It has passed from a true right to a privilege. See below.
A privilege is a right with conditions placed upon it. In the "fire" example you could be criminaly charged. Same as yelling, "I have a bomb" in an airport. You can do it, but you will have to face the consequences. You can own a gun, but if you commit a felony you loose your rights to gun ownership.
Felons and other prohibited are not justly entiled to own a gun. It has passed from a true right to a privilege. See below.
A privilege is a right with conditions placed upon it. In the "fire" example you could be criminaly charged. Same as yelling, "I have a bomb" in an airport. You can do it, but you will have to face the consequences. You can own a gun, but if you commit a felony you loose your rights to gun ownership.
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
Voting
Since I'm not a one issue voter, I'll be voting Democrat all the way! Over all our country was in much better shape under President Clinton than it is now (in my opinion & that's what determines how I vote).
Since I'm not a one issue voter, I'll be voting Democrat all the way! Over all our country was in much better shape under President Clinton than it is now (in my opinion & that's what determines how I vote).
My high-cap mags would say differently, but it is your opinion. But have you ever considered that Clinton was in the right place at the right time? Face it, the recession that killed Bush 1 was a temporary downturn while Clinton rode the tide of Reaganomics to two terms. Clinton signing NAFTA was a boon for large companies, but the mass-exodus of jobs to Mexico that has caused the recent economic problems has done nothing for the American worker.
Could it be that the economy has more to do with a President's predecesor than that President? After all, the consequences of change in our economy can take years to appear.
Could it be that the economy has more to do with a President's predecesor than that President? After all, the consequences of change in our economy can take years to appear.
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
Reagan & Brady
Speaking of Reagan, here's what Keepandbeararms.com had to say about him.
President Reagan played an instrumental role in passing this landmark legislation. In late March of 1991, ten years after the shooting, Reagan joined his former press secretary at George Washington University Hospital. There, at the very hospital at which both men were treated for their near-fatal wounds, Reagan said " You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law in 1993.
Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan’s direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."
Reagan also won over the second vote that made the Assault Weapons Ban law. According to Wisconsin's Capital Times, former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the assault weapons ban only after a "last-minute plea" from Reagan.
Said the Times: "For Klug...the defining moment came when he received a personal message from former President Ronald Reagan. A handwritten note from Reagan was faxed to Klug, asking the Wisconsin congressman to support the ban. The note said, in part: 'Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'"
Speaking of Reagan, here's what Keepandbeararms.com had to say about him.
President Reagan played an instrumental role in passing this landmark legislation. In late March of 1991, ten years after the shooting, Reagan joined his former press secretary at George Washington University Hospital. There, at the very hospital at which both men were treated for their near-fatal wounds, Reagan said " You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law in 1993.
Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan’s direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."
Reagan also won over the second vote that made the Assault Weapons Ban law. According to Wisconsin's Capital Times, former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the assault weapons ban only after a "last-minute plea" from Reagan.
Said the Times: "For Klug...the defining moment came when he received a personal message from former President Ronald Reagan. A handwritten note from Reagan was faxed to Klug, asking the Wisconsin congressman to support the ban. The note said, in part: 'Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'"
A curious sentence, but the economy is doing very well by the usual measures. If dismantling of the middle class is what you are after, that may be as much a social problem as economic. When unions stand fast, wanting $20-30 an hour plus benies, don't be too put off by manufacturing jobs going out of the country. Meanwhile, we buy two pairs of shoes instead of one, because they are so cheap, and "buy American" seems to fall on deaf ears.
I would like to see a Democratic congress and a Republican President or a Democratic President and a Republican congress. It forces the two parties to compromise and allot seems to get done. Look at Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. They all had the opposite party controlling Congress and they all got allot accomplished. Then look at Carter and our current regime.
rhgunguy wrote:
"The right to keep and bear arms may have started as a right, but now we have to deal with the fact that society is comfortable with gun ownership being limited to those who are not know to be felons, mentally defective, addicted to controlled substances and the like. This is a democracy and the majority does rule. Amendments are not set in stone, they can be created and destroyed by vote."
A Right is a Right is a Right - the government, the majority of the people, nor any other entity of this world can take away an inalienable right - such rights are god given - we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights - governments exist and derive the moral basis for their existence in so much as they serve to protect the free exercise of those rights. Governments or other entities may attempt and in some cases succeed in preventing individuals from exercising their god given and inalienable rights - but that does not mean the right does not exist. The Bill or Rights does not pretend to grant any rights - it merely recognized the existence of individual inalienable rights and was a simple attempt to ensure that the government would not infringe or trample on the free exercise of those rights.
rhgunguy wrote:
"Try and keep up. Rights are guaranteed to all."
Rights do not need a guarantee - they simply exist - nothing on this earth can change that. The constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are attempts to "guarantee" the free exercise of human individual rights.
rhgunguy wrote:
"A privilege is a right with conditions placed upon it."
A privilege is not a right and a right can never be a privilege. An example of a privilege is when someone freely chooses to forgo the free exercise of their rights and allows another individual to act beyond the bounds of their natural or inalienable rights. I.e. I grant someone the privilege of using my property or I grant someone the privilege of entering my home or I grant someone the privilege of sharing my time and/or life with them. Every individual has a right to life - a government may pass a law or an amendment saying that all individuals of a certain ethnicity, religion, or eye color must all be killed on sight. Such laws or amendments may even be supported by 99.9 percent of the people. That does not mean that the identified individuals no longer have a right to life. It just means that a government and a majority of the people are bent on attempting to violate the rights of some individuals by preventing them from exercising their right to life.
I find the mindset that believes that government or that a majority of the people are somehow the arbiters of what is or isn't a right to be highly dangerous and ultimately foolish. Their are universal values and a morality of right and wrong that are beyond the kingship of men. And it is faith in such things that allow men to go beyond their mere animal nature and that define the qualities of freedom and humanity. Should one give into the false belief that all things are relative and subject to the will of the majority or the will of those in positions of authority for the moment, then ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong. To say that a right can become a privilige or that it can be taken away is to say that there really is no such thing as a right.
There will always be those who seek to eliminate the exercise of freedom on the left and the right. Liberty can never be secured forever, it is a struggle that every individual of every generation must face. One's allegiance should be first to what is right not to a goverment, political entity, or party.
"The right to keep and bear arms may have started as a right, but now we have to deal with the fact that society is comfortable with gun ownership being limited to those who are not know to be felons, mentally defective, addicted to controlled substances and the like. This is a democracy and the majority does rule. Amendments are not set in stone, they can be created and destroyed by vote."
A Right is a Right is a Right - the government, the majority of the people, nor any other entity of this world can take away an inalienable right - such rights are god given - we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights - governments exist and derive the moral basis for their existence in so much as they serve to protect the free exercise of those rights. Governments or other entities may attempt and in some cases succeed in preventing individuals from exercising their god given and inalienable rights - but that does not mean the right does not exist. The Bill or Rights does not pretend to grant any rights - it merely recognized the existence of individual inalienable rights and was a simple attempt to ensure that the government would not infringe or trample on the free exercise of those rights.
rhgunguy wrote:
"Try and keep up. Rights are guaranteed to all."
Rights do not need a guarantee - they simply exist - nothing on this earth can change that. The constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are attempts to "guarantee" the free exercise of human individual rights.
rhgunguy wrote:
"A privilege is a right with conditions placed upon it."
A privilege is not a right and a right can never be a privilege. An example of a privilege is when someone freely chooses to forgo the free exercise of their rights and allows another individual to act beyond the bounds of their natural or inalienable rights. I.e. I grant someone the privilege of using my property or I grant someone the privilege of entering my home or I grant someone the privilege of sharing my time and/or life with them. Every individual has a right to life - a government may pass a law or an amendment saying that all individuals of a certain ethnicity, religion, or eye color must all be killed on sight. Such laws or amendments may even be supported by 99.9 percent of the people. That does not mean that the identified individuals no longer have a right to life. It just means that a government and a majority of the people are bent on attempting to violate the rights of some individuals by preventing them from exercising their right to life.
I find the mindset that believes that government or that a majority of the people are somehow the arbiters of what is or isn't a right to be highly dangerous and ultimately foolish. Their are universal values and a morality of right and wrong that are beyond the kingship of men. And it is faith in such things that allow men to go beyond their mere animal nature and that define the qualities of freedom and humanity. Should one give into the false belief that all things are relative and subject to the will of the majority or the will of those in positions of authority for the moment, then ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong. To say that a right can become a privilige or that it can be taken away is to say that there really is no such thing as a right.
There will always be those who seek to eliminate the exercise of freedom on the left and the right. Liberty can never be secured forever, it is a struggle that every individual of every generation must face. One's allegiance should be first to what is right not to a goverment, political entity, or party.
Wrong. It has happened again and again.
See, you say so yourself. Preventing someone from exercising a right is the same thing as taking it away.
As for your definition of privilege, I think I will stick with the professionals like Webster. Webster makes money defining things and according to his nifty little book, a privilege is a right that is granted. Your definition may be your concept of the word, but is not neccesarily correct.
Well put. Except for the fact that I am no fool. I see the cultural relativity that we are experiencing now and it does make me sick. However, mearly becasue it is not right does not make it untrue. There are a lot of things in this country that should be happening that don't. The converse is also true. I think that we can both agree that the country is messed up.
Heck, I even agree with badbob that voting for a democrat of a republicn won't fix it, it will only slow the decline. But I cannot belive that any third party will gain any ground in this election or the next. I doubt it will even happen anytime soon after that, but in the distant future it could happen.
Nonsense. It’s that very kind of thinking that has empowered our two-party system and stolen countless freedoms from the people.
- - -
I’ll research the Libertarian candidates and if they adhere to the basic principles of the party I will vote for them when available. If for some reason I don’t like my options there I will probably vote for the least threatening of the candidates and hope that there is enough diversity to deadlock the government. Let them fight each other and get nothing done. We won’t be moving forward, but at least we won’t be moving backwards.
When one allows the enemies of freedom to define the terms one is well on the way to losing. A right remains a right whether one may freely exercise it or not. One always has the right to worship or reject god, one always has the right to defend oneself or one's family.
The American revolution as defined by the founding fathers was a fight for the freedom to exercise their god given inalienable rights not a fight for privileges. The King and Parliament did not recognize the rights of the colonists and did not allow them to freely exercise them.
They, the enemies of freedom, did not recognize the colonists rights and they would/did define them as mere privileges to be granted or taken at the whim of the crown or parliament. The founding fathers rejected that totally and stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence that even though the British government did not recognize their rights that none the less those rights still existed and that they were inalienable.
From what you write you are saying that there is no such thing as an inalienable right and that the foundational document of our country that inspired our constitution and bill of rights is merely so much hot air or toilet paper. A position that was also supported by the King of England and Parliament. I reject that as have generations of Americans who have risked and sacrificed their lives in service to freedom and to the belief that all men are born endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Our founding fathers also rejected that line of thought and stated quite clearly that when any government or earthly institution becomes corrupted and destructive to the ends of the free exercise of individuals' inalienable rights then it is the right and the duty of the people to end that government and to seek to replace it with an institution that does recognize their rights.
We are well on the way to losing our freedom when we allow the delusion that a right is dependent for it's existence on the acquiescence of the government or those in power. If that had been the mindset of our founding fathers they would not be our founding fathers and we would instead be living in British colonies.
A free man cannot be made a slave unless he accepts his shackles; for unless he accepts his servitude he will fight for his freedom and will merely be a freedom fighter in shackles. A man who does not believe he has inalienable rights, (rights that are inherent and indivisible from his existence), is already a slave whether in physical shackles or not.
We fight for freedom because we believe that we have rights beyond what those who would be our rulers are willing to recognize or acknowledge.
Yes, neither the democratic nor the republican parties are true friends of freedom. They are first and foremost about power - getting it and maintaining it. The serious problems our country faces, that we all face, did not spring up overnight, they have been growing for generations. The fight for freedom will not be won or lost in a day nor will it made or broken by a single election. However, if we who believe in freedom cannot articulate and defend our position, then we have lost. If we were to accept that the scope of our rights may be defined by the government or others, then we have lost before we have even begun to fight.
Perhaps I am a fool then, for I define rights as did our founding fathers. I would not die to preserve a privilege. I would however risk death to restore the freedom to exercise my and my children’s' god given inalienable rights.
I do not post this for the sake of argument or to attempt to win a point. Some things are just too important not to say.
The American revolution as defined by the founding fathers was a fight for the freedom to exercise their god given inalienable rights not a fight for privileges. The King and Parliament did not recognize the rights of the colonists and did not allow them to freely exercise them.
They, the enemies of freedom, did not recognize the colonists rights and they would/did define them as mere privileges to be granted or taken at the whim of the crown or parliament. The founding fathers rejected that totally and stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence that even though the British government did not recognize their rights that none the less those rights still existed and that they were inalienable.
From what you write you are saying that there is no such thing as an inalienable right and that the foundational document of our country that inspired our constitution and bill of rights is merely so much hot air or toilet paper. A position that was also supported by the King of England and Parliament. I reject that as have generations of Americans who have risked and sacrificed their lives in service to freedom and to the belief that all men are born endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Our founding fathers also rejected that line of thought and stated quite clearly that when any government or earthly institution becomes corrupted and destructive to the ends of the free exercise of individuals' inalienable rights then it is the right and the duty of the people to end that government and to seek to replace it with an institution that does recognize their rights.
We are well on the way to losing our freedom when we allow the delusion that a right is dependent for it's existence on the acquiescence of the government or those in power. If that had been the mindset of our founding fathers they would not be our founding fathers and we would instead be living in British colonies.
A free man cannot be made a slave unless he accepts his shackles; for unless he accepts his servitude he will fight for his freedom and will merely be a freedom fighter in shackles. A man who does not believe he has inalienable rights, (rights that are inherent and indivisible from his existence), is already a slave whether in physical shackles or not.
We fight for freedom because we believe that we have rights beyond what those who would be our rulers are willing to recognize or acknowledge.
Yes, neither the democratic nor the republican parties are true friends of freedom. They are first and foremost about power - getting it and maintaining it. The serious problems our country faces, that we all face, did not spring up overnight, they have been growing for generations. The fight for freedom will not be won or lost in a day nor will it made or broken by a single election. However, if we who believe in freedom cannot articulate and defend our position, then we have lost. If we were to accept that the scope of our rights may be defined by the government or others, then we have lost before we have even begun to fight.
Perhaps I am a fool then, for I define rights as did our founding fathers. I would not die to preserve a privilege. I would however risk death to restore the freedom to exercise my and my children’s' god given inalienable rights.
I do not post this for the sake of argument or to attempt to win a point. Some things are just too important not to say.