time to come clean

[Rebar]

I'd rather just vote for individuals who agree with me as opposed to parties.

Unfortunately, the power of the majority party doesn't make that an easy choice. When the democrats were in the majority, the leadership choose who ran what committee, and how the agenda was set. That agenda was clearly anti-RKBA. There might have been individual democrats who were pro-gun, but their votes didn't count, only that that they counted towards the majority, which gave tremendous power to the anti-RKBA leadership.

I am not in support of the AWB and the irrational laws of writ that surrounds it.

Yet it was the law of the land, a law made by democrats.

I admit I am somewhat isolated. Could you give me an example?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/wm413.cfm
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10515
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18374
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25943

I say "choice" because I have no vested interest in abortion, but I do have a vested interest in rights.

The democrats, except for abortion, are all about denal of rights (ie RKBA) and "extra" rights for minorites, gays, etc. for their favored groups. For example, it's just fine for there to be all black or all women colleges, but not ok for all male or all white ones.

Based on your statements, I find it hard to understand why you would want to be a democrat, since they pretty much stand in opposition to your concerns.

 

[Redworm]

Um, just wanted to point out that abortion is not the only "choice" issue around. Yes, it's a big one and so is the right to defend yourself. But saying that Democrats only care about the choice to abort is wrong. Democrats also want people to have the choice to marry who they please, the choice to conduct stem cell research to save lives. They may be hard headed in the choice to defend onesself but abortion is not the "only" choice they want people to have.

Yet another reason I'd like government to stay out of things like abortion or public schools or firearms or scientific research. If we allow the government to say "You have permission to do this" then it sets a precedent that can one day allow them to say "You have to do this"


edit:

For example, it's just fine for there to be all black or all women colleges, but not ok for all male or all white ones.

I know about HBCUs (even thought about attending FAMU) but I can't think of any school in the nation that only allows blacks.

You're right though, things like affirmative action do not promote equality and hurt minorities just as much as straight white christian males. I thought equality had only one true meaning.

 

[Rebar]

Democrats also want people to have the choice to marry who they please, the choice to conduct stem cell research to save lives.

Is marrage a consitutional right? If you think so, please point to the approprate article:
http://www.usconstitution.net/

And stem cells are another favorite propaganda tool of the left wing. The truth is there is no ban on any stem cell research. There is only a ban on federal funding for some lines of stem cells. Funny, the liberal/left is always complaining about "corporate welfare", yet when it come to these unfavorable lines of stem cells, all of a sudden the world will end unless taxpayer money if forked over to the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[Trip20]

Mike P. I'm at work and did a quick Google while eating lunch. The article is realistic in that their report of Islam and Koran teachings are OK - yet Christianity is not.

Search for yourself, you'll find a "believable" source eventually. This was on the news constantly not too long ago.

Is the Washington times OK with you Mike P?

Here's a quote from that article:

In December, she [U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton] declared as constitutional the role-playing of Islam forced on a class of seventh-graders at a California middle school. The students were required to take a Muslim name, give up candy for a day to demonstrate the daytime fast of Ramadan and even recite a Muslim prayer. In ruling on the subsequent lawsuit, Judge Hamilton breezily asserted that the students "cannot be considered to have performed any actual religious activities." Any teacher caught trying to do the same with Christianity would be crucified.

 

[fisherman66]

Link #1:"Indeed, President Clinton signed four laws stipulating that faith-based organizations preserve their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive federal funds"

- I'm left of that. Federal funding = fair hiring practices.

Link #2: A right opinion of a left position. That is far from fair, balanced, and objective. Also a vitrolic attack on non-Christians. What rights are violated. Halloween is only a holy day for the people who have an agenda. For kids it is candy day.

Link #3: More vitrol this time about Dean? Who voted for Dean? I'm concerned about platform and people who will do what they say (I can't say either party is good at that).

Link #4: Several bad analogies. I am by nature skeptical of anything put out by Falwell.

I'm not concerned with EXTRA rights for any group. I am a proponent of EQUAL rights for all law abiding citizens. Gays, disabled, and religious and racial minorities included.

 

[Redworm]

Is marrage a consitutional right? If you think so, please point to the approprate article:
http://www.usconstitution.net/

And stem cells are another favorite propaganda tool of the left wing. The truth is there is no ban on any stem cell research. There is only a ban on federal funding for some lines of stem cells. Funny, the liberal/left is always complaining about "corporate welfare", yet when it come to these unfavorable lines of stem cells, all of a sudden the world will end unless taxpayer money if forked over to the pharmaceutical industry.

Doesn't matter if it's a constitutional right, the government has no authority to ever get between the union of two people who love each other. I don't give a damn who wants to get married or not, no government should ever ever be allowed to have control over what two consenting adults do in their relationship.

Why on earth do I have to get a marriage license? Why do I have to ask the government permission to commit myself to someone I love? Correct me if I'm wrong but marriage licenses were created because of racism; people didn't want blacks and whites to marry so they decided to make them ask permission to do so.

I know there's no ban on stem cell research, the point is that there should never be a ban on it. I don't want federal funding for stem cell research anymore than I want federal funding for space exploration. Both of those should be done by private industry but neither one should ever be restricted by the government. If the federal government can make a law banning stem cell research then it also has the power to make a law requiring it.

EIther way, it doesn't deserve control over such matters as interpersonal relationships and scientific research.

 

[Mike P.]

Sounds like a possible problem with a Judge Trip20. Instead of some grand liberal conspiracy to convert everyone to Islam. BTW you linked to an opinion piece.

 

[progunner1957]

Gun banners: The enemy of freedom and We The People

Rebar, I agree with you.

From the words and actions of those at the top of the heap in the Democrat party -the people who run the party- it is blatantly obvious that they are 100% dyed-in-the-wool Socialists.

Socialism is a political worldwiew that is diametrically opposed to everything The Founders of this nation saw as mandatory for a nation of free people. Socialism is diametrically opposed to the concepts and freedoms The Founders laid out in the Bill of Rights.

The Socialist leadership of the Democratic party care about "a woman's right to choose" only because it gets them votes, plain and simple.

The same woman who the Socialist Democrat leadership preaches has "the right to choose" to have an abortion has no right to choose to own a gun to defend herself from robbery, rape and murder, according to their Socialist dogma.

Why is that?? Because citizens with guns are a threat to what the Socialist politicians want, which is Absolute Power with NO Accountability to We The People. As long as citizens own firearms, they have the hardware to resist autocratic rule. Citizens who own guns - especially self-loading rifles - are not in a position where their only option is to submit, conform, obey. As long as We The Pepole own arms, resistance to autocratic rule is not futile. They know this.

As long as the leaders of the Democratic party continue to pursue their obsession with implementing socialist rule in America, they will remain the enenies of We The People and our freedoms as guauranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Alot of gun owners apparently think there are "other issues" that are more important than our Right to Arms, and it is their right to think as such. IMHO, there is no other issue that directly reveals a politician or a political party as either a friend or foe of the citizen's right to self determination.

It is immoral for a government to refuse to protect its citizens and at the same time deny them the right and implements needed to protect themselves. The government of England has done so, and the citizens of that country are paying the price with their own blood. The Socialist leadership of the Democratic party here in America dreams of the day when they have the power to disarm We The People, just like in England.

Any political party, any politician - Democrat, Republican or otherwise - who seeks to disarm the citizens of this nation is the enemy of the citizens and is unfit to hold the office they seek, plain and simple.

How any gun owner can vote for such predators is beyond me.

 

[wingman]

From the words and actions of those at the top of the heap in the Democrat party, the people who run the party, they are 100% dyed-in-the-wool Socialists.

Voted Democrat when I was young, seen the error of my ways at 40 and
now at 60+ appears to me both parties are moving more too the left. I
no longer feel we have much of a choice, we can post, argue, debate
but in the end most of the selecting of our leaders comes from wealthy
corporations trying to change the face of a great country and from where
I stand it is working so the point of who is a republican or democrat is
in fact pointless.

 

[tyme]

Violent felons obviously have no business owning guns.

I have news for you. Released violent felons who want to continue with their antisocial lifestyle have no trouble obtaining firearms. Criminology surveys of ex-cons overwhelmingly support this. Once someone's done time for a major crime, either he reforms or he continues his wayward life with little regard for the law. The group primarily affected by the law prohibiting felons from owning guns are those who have reformed and want to defend themselves.

I read yesterday that a ccw licence holder has made immature choices and has frequently and purposefully flashed his carry in an attempt to impress others. OK, that guy passed his test, but has not taken the responsibility seriously. I don't think he has any business carrying.

To me, this is just more nanny-state nonsense. That ccw holder proved himself to be somewhat immature, but unless he's frightening women or endangering people, the law has no business meting out punishment. I don't care if he puts himself at a tactical disadvantage. I don't care if what he's doing is unwise and has the potential to scare someone, some day. His friends and acquaintances should try to point out to him the error of his ways, but if he doesn't listen (and it sounds as if he's not), the law shouldn't step in until he does something a bit more serious.

But then, I don't agree with ccw laws at all, so it seems a bit silly to me to say that someone who hasn't committed a crime shouldn't be carrying a gun.

And I don't care one bit about your party identification. There are rabidly pro- and anti-gun individuals in almost every party.

 

[fisherman66]

I have news for you. Released violent felons who want to continue with their antisocial lifestyle have no trouble obtaining firearms. Criminology surveys of ex-cons overwhelmingly support this. Once someone's done time for a major crime, either he reforms or he continues his wayward life with little regard for the law. The group primarily affected by the law prohibiting felons from owning guns are those who have reformed and want to defend themselves.

(tongue in cheek) You're kidding me?

To me, this is just more nanny-state nonsense. That ccw holder proved himself to be somewhat immature, but unless he's frightening women or endangering people, the law has no business meting out punishment. I don't care if he puts himself at a tactical disadvantage. I don't care if what he's doing is unwise and has the potential to scare someone, some day. His friends and acquaintances should try to point out to him the error of his ways, but if he doesn't listen (and it sounds as if he's not), the law shouldn't step in until he does something a bit more serious.

I don't like all laws, but I obey them. I contend that someone who doen't take the responsibility seriously underestimates training and overestimates his abilities (thus putting other's in danger).

 

[progunner1957]

Unfortunately, you are right, Wingman. We The People get to "choose" our so-called leaders, but once they get into office, we are quickly forgotten and they do whatever they (or their masters) want.

How do we change this? I'm open to suggestions. Identifying the problem is the easy part; fixing it is not so easy.

 

[Trip20]

I realize it’s an OP-ED, however the opinion piece sights a finding of a US District Court Judge - easily verifiable.

It's just a problem with a Judge?

What about the teacher who allowed the activities to take place in her class?

Just a problem with a teacher?

What about the school system who backed the decisions of a teacher all the way to the US District court?

Just a problem with a school system?

.......etc.

 

[tyme]

fisherman, no, I was not joking. What part of what I wrote seems surprising to you?

I contend that someone who doen't take the responsibility seriously underestimates training and overestimates his abilities (thus putting other's in danger).

So everyone who is irresponsible is guilty of reckless endangerment? And you think the war on drugs has a lot of collateral damage?!

Irresponsibility alone does not put other people in danger.

 

[Mike P.]

Trip20, I still don't see it as some grand Democratic cabal against Christianity or for the conversion to Islam. IF it is actually true in the sense that it is protrayed.

 

[fisherman66]

fisherman, no, I was not joking. What part of what I wrote seems surprising to you?

The fact that criminals have guns despite laws that supposedly limit their access does not suprise me in the least. Do you think those laws should be repealed? I'm happy to have another charge that can be levied against them.

So everyone who is irresponsible is guilty of reckless endangerment? And you think the war on drugs has a lot of collateral damage?!

Guilty; no, not until an "accident" has happened. Committing a crime; yes, but the charge would not be reckless endangerment. I would be fine with an open carry law in Texas. That would solve the issue in this case. The dim wit could not impress others as it would be common to see handguns.

 

[gc70]

Correct me if I'm wrong but marriage licenses were created because of racism; people didn't want blacks and whites to marry so they decided to make them ask permission to do so.

Okay, here's the correction:

A marriage license is permission from a legal authority for the marriage of two people to be performed. The requirements differ depending on the time and place: licenses to marry have been granted since the Middle Ages.

The issue was not so much getting church and government permission, but a way of ensuring church and government knowledge of marriages. The pronouncements of the Council of Trent in 1563 are probably a fair place to start looking for more formal church and government requirements related to marriage.

 

[Redworm]

I was under the impression that marriage licenses didn't exist in the US until after slavery and it was because of slavery. I figured they'd existed in the world previously but I thought that they weren't a part of American society until then. I still believe no government has any business knowing whether or not I'm married unless I decide to tell it.


One thing that does bother me is when either side decides to use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" as insults.

 

[gc70]

There have been a variety of reasons for marriage licenses, and those reasons have changed over time.

Marriage Licenses. Traditionally, applying for and securing a license to marry provided an opportunity to determine whether or not the couple met certain conditions. One condition was that the agreement to marry was made without coercion. Another was age requirements. A third was consanguinity. In most states, marriages cannot be made between kin closer than first cousins.

 

[tyme]

The fact that criminals have guns despite laws that supposedly limit their access does not suprise me in the least. Do you think those laws should be repealed? I'm happy to have another charge that can be levied against them.

Those laws have gutted the legal system; they are not another charge... they often become the only charge. A lot of violent crimes end up as a plea bargain where the perp admits to possession of a weapon and some other lesser charges, and in return the DA drops the main felony charge. That is a terrible way to manage violent crime, but it's necessary because there are so many "criminals" that the legal system can't prosecute most of them.

Maybe if police stopped arresting suspicious characters (even those with records) simply because they have marijuana or cocaine or a gun or a switchblade, the legal system would have the resources it needs to prosecute suspected violent criminals (at least the ones who plead innocent).