President Reagan

[6shootercarry]

Originally Posted by JJFlash

Well, 6Shooter, looks like you're on the hot seat, now. Whew...nice to have someone else there instead of me all the time. Have fun. Don't worry, I'll be taking it back from ya' before too long. Peace, brother. (Actually, you'll notice Bohemian handed my head to me on this thread, also, after I waxed nostalgic for Reagan.)

I knew I was going to, at some point in time. Thanks JJ..Peace back at ya..

Ok.... After the initial post I read it back and thought to myself "I'm gonna get some hell for this one" I don't think that I managed to get my thoughts out fully on this one.

I like peaceful discussion. I'm not the get even and "Oh YEA WELL FU" type.
I do understand what our founding fathers intended. This nation was founded and forged by those who had only the desire for true freedom and the willingness to lay down their lives so that others could live free as well. I just don't like the idea of anyone who has been found guilty and convicted of a crime against his fellow man and fellow Americans to be allowed to exercise that right. I’ll give you the chance to exercise that right until you prove that your desire or inclination is to commit crimes. I do believe that once a crime has been committed by an individual that person has proven to others that they are neither a good citizen, nor a person in good standing and they should no longer be afforded that right as a result of their own actions. But to enforce that we would need an impartial body of elected officials who’s charter is not to interpret the 2nd amendment as far as types of weapons that should be allowed or other such nonsense, but to make sure those who have lost their rights do not get firearms. They had that God given right and by their intolerable actions against other free people they lost it. That is true freedom, Having choices and the repercussions that come with them. Thoughts as I do welcome them? That’s the intent of sharing all this is it not?

[JJFlash]

Originally Posted by 6shootercarry

I knew I was going to, at some point in time. Thanks JJ..Peace back at ya..

Ok.... After the initial post I read it back and thought to myself "I'm gonna get some hell for this one" I don't think that I managed to get my thoughts out fully on this one.

I like peaceful discussion. I'm not the get even and "Oh YEA WELL FU" type.
I do understand what our founding fathers intended. This nation was founded and forged by those who had only the desire for true freedom and the willingness to lay down their lives so that others could live free as well. I just don't like the idea of anyone who has been found guilty and convicted of a crime against his fellow man and fellow Americans to be allowed to exercise that right. I’ll give you the chance to exercise that right until you prove that your desire or inclination is to commit crimes. I do believe that once a crime has been committed by an individual that person has proven to others that they are neither a good citizen, nor a person in good standing and they should no longer be afforded that right as a result of their own actions. But to enforce that we would need an impartial body of elected officials who’s charter is not to interpret the 2nd amendment as far as types of weapons that should be allowed or other such nonsense, but to make sure those who have lost their rights do not get firearms. They had that God given right and by their intolerable actions against other free people they lost it. That is true freedom, Having choices and the repercussions that come with them. Thoughts as I do welcome them? That’s the intent of sharing all this is it not?

Your statement about true freedom is spot on, IMHO. Freedom means you're free to FU and then you get to pay the piper when you do. Works for me. The issue then becomes: who do you answer to? As I stated before, and Bohemian somewhat agreed (I think), I don't want the "government" to make this decision but I got no problem with a jury of "peers" (maybe the local militia, whom I know well) who all believe in the 2A and who all carry, yanking my right, if I abuse it. Maybe that's the bottom line: society has to have a "self-adjusting" mechanism of some sort (I guess you call this a legal system); to me that's different from edicts coming down from "on high" from aristocrats who have a vested interest in keeping you down.

[JJFlash]

Originally Posted by Wolfling68

IMO, which is outside the mainstream, believe every adult should carry. The psychopaths and gangbangers would very quickly realize their lives depend on them being polite. Teh ones that couldn't adjust, well, that would be a self correcting situation. Yes, if it were implemented tomorrow, there would be a lot of blood, (Much less than most think, however)but ultimately, things would settle down and society would be safer and cleaner. If it were introduced gradually, I think it would work out. But it must be combined with education.
We have forgotten how to treat each other with respect (the realization that something is valuable, combined with the fear of loss) and courtesy. These 2 things are of critical importance for a society to function, and liberalism and multiculturalism have destroyed our unified understanding of respect and courrtesy.

I found your post quite interesting. Here's a personal tidbit about me: for a number of years, I rode with a 1% motorcycle club (doesn't matter who, they all operate the same way). Familiar with them? RESPECT was the overriding principle. You showed respect, you got respect. You acted like an a@@hole, you got treated like one. Physical "correction" was the norm. You asked for it, you got it, no hesitation. And I liked it. As you pointed out, Wolfling, in general things ran very smoothly, everyone was polite and courteous, because there were immediate consequences if you didn't. IMHO, it's the way things ought to be, as you pointed out.

So basically, I agree with your total premise. However, like the outlaw clubs, society has to have a mechanism to "correct' those who abuse rights. So, to sum up: The gov't has no constitutional basis to infringe on our RKBA; we should, in fact, be responsible for our own safety, but, to be sure, "society" (just like the outlaw mc) needs a mechanism to handle those who abuse their right. If I'm on track here, we can then push the discussion forward to how we do that. And while I'm willing to put down a serious threat, we can't simply make people "disappear" when they abuse their right in a less than deadly manner; I've got no interest in a Russian Gulag. Any of this making sense?

[Doc and his Glock]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

No president is perfect. Reagan at least won the Cold War. No Dem and not too many other Republicans (pro 2A or not) would have had the temerity to stand up to the Soviets the way Reagan did.

Reagan ??? What about all the people who served in the armed forces --they did nothing?? Reagan did not win the cold war America did -- all of us..

JFK stood up to the Soviets...

Reagan wanted our guns....

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by Doc and his Glock

Reagan ??? What about all the people who served in the armed forces --they did nothing?? Reagan did not win the cold war America did -- all of us..

JFK stood up to the Soviets...

Reagan wanted our guns....

Yes Reagan was no friend of the Constitution or the Second Amendment...

And Actually...

Reagan said to Gorbachev with 10,000 missiles pointed at the Kremlin...

Mr. Gorbachev won't you tear down this wall?

in Gorbachev's own book he states Reagan bankrupted the soviet union in their effort to keep up with us... That is what ended the Cold War, that Obama & Putin are firing up again...

So as the old saying goes... Peace Through Superior Fire Power...

Too bad Ronnie did not believe that applied to American Citizens...

Like Sean Connery said in the Untouchables... You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?
(Note the Correlation Between The Chicago Way in the Movies and Obama's Politics)

So in my view, Reagan was primarily responsible for ending the cold war, because he went to Congress and got what he asked for, on his own initiative... and to be fair the American taxpayers and those such as myself whom served under him as their commander in chief backed him up, except for Senator John McCain whom was one of Reagan's biggest opponents at that time; of course now he's a Reagan Republican...

JFK half ass stood up to the Soviets... more Russian ships brought munitions in than out; which is why we have been so leery about the Castro brothers for over 40 years; we are pretty sure that there remains buried some Russian Nukes and other misses similar to what they were firing at the U2's and the SR-71's after JFK So-Called Stood Up To The Soviets that remain under control of the Castro brothers, some 80 miles from U.S. Soil...
Cuba has always had the upper hand in being able to deliver a first strike...
Of course that would be all they would get, but that first strike could be a lot of Americans & Real-Estate made to disappear or render useless for say the next 1/4 million years...
IF JFK actually successfully invaded Cuba and did a regime change and or annexed Cuba when we had the chance; we would not have the concern of a first strike from that southern shore...

As it sits our skirt has been up across the entire Southern Continental U.S. since JFK took office...

The last time the Country was solvent was the day JFK took his oath of office...
In less than one term he put us over a trillion dollars in the hole, and nobody said a fricking thing...