The Socialistic Nine - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: The Socialistic Nine

  1. #21
    Please excuse my spelling mistakes above. That is what I get for not using a spell checker but I have tried and not been able to install it yet. Guess I will have to get someone smarter than I to show me what I am doing wrong.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #22
    SnowCajun, I know you've got your thoughts on personal responsibility, but the constitution still says, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." What keeps the nutjobs in check? Normal guys and gals such as you encounter on this board. But, that's just my humble opinion. I'm still a sheep when it comes to "legally" obtaining an inherently illegal license. I can't afford a high-priced lawyer to take these crappy laws to the Supreme Court.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowCajun View Post
    Good deal, you just go right on ahead and run with that theory, I hope you can afford a good lawyer to keep getting you out of jail for carrying a weapon without a permit! Well I guess we only have to worry about that happening three times, that three strike law may bite ya in the backside eventually. Surely you don't expect us to believe that you carry with no license because of Ted Nugent and his view of the 2nd Amendment? I think we all know better! Why spout off this way, that's what I don't get? That's like shaking metal rod up towards the sky in the middle of a lightning storm and daring God to nail ya.
    Nope...I don't. You're right. But I have considered it, as a way of presenting the issues before the court and challenging the system. And I damn sure would have the best lawyer I could afford. But like most people, I'm affraid of tackling this issue and hanging my ass out there all alone. It's a cinch I wouldn't get any support from folks who feel the way you do.

    True there are a lot of people doing a lot of things they shouldn't be doing, idiots who continue to drive without licenses after getting numerous DUI's .. or people who have just gotten too old to safely control their vehicles any longer, but [b]that's why there has to be licenses and laws, it's the only way the government has of controlling people who abuse these issues and endanger innocent peoples lives.
    And here is what I view as the crux of the problem...that you view laws applied to law-abiding citizens as being an acceptable measure to control those who would break the law. Sort of "blanket" protection, whether it applies to you or not. I think the concensus of opinion here at odds with that mindset, which is why we're here in the first place.
    When they break those laws then they get put away where they won't keep endangering the rest of society over and over again.
    Would you want the 95 year old man down the street who is nearly blind driving his Cadillac down the road past your house several times a day while your kids play on the sidewalk just because he has a right to, or do you think there should be some kind of control over him to keep him from endangering your kids and the rest of society?
    No...And I don't believe you'll find in the Constitution or BOR where he has that Right. Driving is a Privilege, not a Right, and I believe you missed my point regarding this. You can be made to show eligibility to qualify for a Privilege. A Right is yours without any conditions.

    Are you suggesting that Ted Nugent feels it's okay for everyone to be carrying concealed no matter who they are, gang members or not, or does he really feel that there should be some bit of regulation to prevent those who continually are breaking the law from carrying?
    I can't really say...but here's what he has to say about it.
    These are the very people making it so hard on the truly honest folks now. There's too many gang shootouts, the drive-by shootings, or school shootings. Proper licensing is helping to remove illegal guns from those who shouldn't have them. True they'll probably never be able to get them all because there's so many, and criminals will always either steal one or buy one somehow, yet the licenses assure us that when found with one and you don't have the proper licensing to be carrying it then that gun is likely going to be history and gone from the population! I believe that any time a gun is removed from the hands of a gang member, or anyone else carrying it illegally, it's a good thing, that it's better for each and every one of us who do honor and obey the rights we have in accordance to our licenses.
    I have nothing to add to this...you said it best.
    As for cars since you mentioned them, there has to be some sort of assurance that drivers can pass the set requirements and guidelines which show they have the ability to continue to operate their 3000 lb vehicle and speeds up to 75 mph in a safe manner for another couple of more years, that makes it safer for all of us. It's just this simple, it's a checks and balances system, if they go to renew their license and find there's been violations of the laws then they lose their privilege to drive, and that is supposed to help in protecting the rest of us out there on the roads. Does it always work? Of course not, but that's why the laws are there, so when it doesn't work they lock the people away to prevent them from further dangering society again in the future. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world!
    Driving is a Privilege...Not...A...Right.

    You speak of the Law as if it were written for today, yet this law you so boldly quote was actually written 220 years ago, a time when the 1790 Census showed there to be 3.9 million people in the entire USA, there's that many in the Houston, Texas area alone today, and that's a good bit short of the nearly 400 million people in the USA today! To be honest I can hardly imagine that our founding fathers would have expected there to be this many people here now.
    Following your logic, we should immediately suspend the Ten Commandments! Good Lord, they're 6,000 years old!!
    I'm not saying the law is not good and not just, but it shouldn't be used as a blanket set of rights to allow just any law violaters to carry concealed. Do you honestly want just every Tom, ****, and Harry carrying without any verification to see if they're dangerous, if they've had mental issues, or if they're prior criminals? All things have to change and there have to be ways of keeping people who absolutely shouldn't be walking around with firearms from having them. For the life of me I can't see how you could possibly not agree with that!
    I believe the term is "Innocent until Proven Guilty". There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about being accused of attempted rape just because you have the equipment to make it happen. That what you're talking about?
    I'm all for the Concealed Carry laws and was just voicing my feelings about my own state and what I felt they were not being totally safe in doing, what's wrong with being safe? I think above and beyond all things said above, just the fact that we're allowed to have this license and carry concealed
    OY!
    should be a sign to all the other people who really don't like this law that we know what we're doing and know how to safely carry and use our weapons we have. Simple safety checks instead of just handing out licenses haphazardly and not knowing one way or the other if the person they just gave the license to even has a clue how to load the very weapon they just gave them the license to carry concealed would be a step in the right direction.

    SnowCajun
    That's all I got.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    SnowCajun, I know you've got your thoughts on personal responsibility, but the constitution still says, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
    I'm glad you recognize them as "thoughts", that's a great description of them and I do appreciate you saying it that way. I'm not trying to cram my views down anyones throats, I'm only exploring the issues as I've always felt forums were designed to do, to discuss or debate in effort to better see things so we'll all learn from them.

    One thing I always see left out of the Second Amendment quotes is, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state", just for the sake of discussion, I'm hardly any part, nor have I ever been part of, "A well-regulated Militia." Secondly, I know this part of the Amendment has been argued for decades, well probably centuries even by now, yet we all seem to focus on our right to have our guns because of the last half of this quote stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Isn't there more to the entirity of that statement than just the last half of it everyone seems to wave like a flag?

    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    What keeps the nutjobs in check? Normal guys and gals such as you encounter on this board. But, that's just my humble opinion. I'm still a sheep when it comes to "legally" obtaining an inherently illegal license. I can't afford a high-priced lawyer to take these crappy laws to the Supreme Court.
    I don't have that answer! I wish I did but I don't and maybe that's part of what I'm searching for here also! I love my country but I'm like you said, "I can't afford a high-priced lawyer to take these crappy laws to the Supreme Court." I have even more frustrated feelings than that, I became disabled through a work related injury, yet I can't get decent medical care through my Social Security Insurance and Medicaid. I paid into the system all my life and then get denied help, then turn on the news and see the US Navy is sending a hospital ship around the world giving 3rd world countries free surgical and medical help that's unavailable to me and I've paid into the system, so go figure. Something is definately wrong about that in my eyes!

    Unfortunately the laws are confusing, even the Second Amendment doesn't make it crystal clear. It'd been cut and dry had they left out the part about the "well-regulated Militia" but they didn't and they must have had a reason for that being there! Maybe it's just because that Amendment still sits there like it was written 220 years ago and has never been clearified in any manner. I guess that's why the CCW licenses don't bother me, but I still can't see it being given out as a blanket right to any and everyone wanting to carry when we all recognize that there are people that just in no way at all should ever be allowed that responsibility. I know, I know, how do we cure it? That I also don't know either, but I guess I'm hoping that discussion will enlighten us with some ideas that may help.

    Thanks for your response,

    SnowCajun

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I can't really say...but here's what he has to say about it.
    Actually I agree 100% with Ted Nugent as well, yet listening to his words I noticed he says something that seems to either contradict your view of his meaning, or he tripped up a bit saying differently than he intended! Verbatim he said, "I am a free man, don't tread on me, a good law abiding citizen not convicted of a felony, the 2nd admentment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period." I've got to ask, if he is a "a good law abiding citizen not convicted of a felony", as per the requirements of all CCW permits in all states which issue them, then that automatically gives him the right carry concealed just because of what the Second Amendment states, no permit required? But if that's what he means then why would it matter if he was a good law abiding citizen not convicted of a felony or not? So if he's convicted of a felony then he can't carry? Are you not right back to the same situation again where someone else is telling you if you don't meet this standard in regards to the felony thing then you won't be allowed to carry? But, then if you're not allowed to carry then you're back to someone being in control of it again and it not going just by the Second Amendment alone?

    Secondly, and I know this is the controversial part of the Second Amendment, but since we're debating the issue and learning each others views, let me ask you this. The Second Amendment states very plainly, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What's the deal about the first half of that sentence, everyone always runs around waving their flags shouting, "their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but seriously, are you in a well-regulated Militia? I know I'm not nor have I ever been! Why key in just on the last half of the sentence?

    My brother in law once got into an argument with my ex wife about religion, he called her a "Cafeteria Christian" .. he told her she went through the Bible and took all the parts she liked and left the rest behind, yet that seems to be what people do with that one sentence there, they always talk about the last half but how do you explain away the first half?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    And here is what I view as the crux of the problem...that you view laws applied to law-abiding citizens as being an acceptable measure to control those who would break the law. Sort of "blanket" protection, whether it applies to you or not. I think the concensus of opinion here at odds with that mindset, which is why we're here in the first place.
    I don't have the answers Ektarr, I wish I did, I'm here searching for them about like everyone else is. That's why I like forums so much, and just because I may think one way now it doesn't mean if your views are convincing enough for me I won't look more deeply into your view and even change my mind about my views if I feel yours are right one the money! Even at 55 years of age I'm still learning, and I know I won't learn if I don't converse and talk to others and hear their views. There's absolutely no anger in my posts, it's all debating to learn more, and to have my mind changed also if I find I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Driving is a Privilege, not a Right, and I believe you missed my point regarding this.
    I'm sure it won't be the last thing I ever miss either. My mother talked about "Golden Years" when I was young, it's the only lie I think she ever told me. :) I agree that it's a privilege, if I called it a right then I was incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Following your logic, we should immediately suspend the Ten Commandments! Good Lord, they're 6,000 years old!!
    No .. no.. no .. you're not gonna make me criticize God here.. lol. Man, on the other hand, can make mistakes, but I think I'll pass in telling God he did something wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I believe the term is "Innocent until Proven Guilty". There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about being accused of attempted rape just because you have the equipment to make it happen. That what you're talking about?
    We all have different views, I just feel that you can't just honestly expect the Second Amendment to be an open license for everyone to carry concealed. I agree it's a right, yet I agree also that right can be lost, or jeopardised by criminal actions, felony convictions. How do you determine which person is allowed to carry? If there is a condition on the our right, the felony restriction condition, then that means before someone can carry they have to somehow be approved to carry, right? Or, do you feel that they should carry anyway until checked out for whatever reason and then if found to have a felony conviction they'd be arrested? I think this is where you and Ted are losing me on this idea.

    Oh yeah, don't forget the "well-regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment, I'd really like to hear what you believe about that. Seriously, not making fun or anything, I'd really like to know.

    Thanks for your response,
    SnowCajun
    Last edited by SnowCajun; 10-30-2007 at 09:53 PM.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    147
    I live in Western WA, and the place is not over run with CCW holders running amok.
    Better to perish in the struggle for freedom than live to see defeat. There ARE things to be feared more than death. The fyrd is a Constitutional imperative.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowCajun View Post
    I'm glad you recognize them as "thoughts", that's a great description of them and I do appreciate you saying it that way. I'm not trying to cram my views down anyones throats, I'm only exploring the issues as I've always felt forums were designed to do, to discuss or debate in effort to better see things so we'll all learn from them.

    One thing I always see left out of the Second Amendment quotes is, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state", just for the sake of discussion, I'm hardly any part, nor have I ever been part of, "A well-regulated Militia." Secondly, I know this part of the Amendment has been argued for decades, well probably centuries even by now, yet we all seem to focus on our right to have our guns because of the last half of this quote stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Isn't there more to the entirity of that statement than just the last half of it everyone seems to wave like a flag?

    I don't have that answer! I wish I did but I don't and maybe that's part of what I'm searching for here also! I love my country but I'm like you said, "I can't afford a high-priced lawyer to take these crappy laws to the Supreme Court." I have even more frustrated feelings than that, I became disabled through a work related injury, yet I can't get decent medical care through my Social Security Insurance and Medicaid. I paid into the system all my life and then get denied help, then turn on the news and see the US Navy is sending a hospital ship around the world giving 3rd world countries free surgical and medical help that's unavailable to me and I've paid into the system, so go figure. Something is definately wrong about that in my eyes!

    Unfortunately the laws are confusing, even the Second Amendment doesn't make it crystal clear. It'd been cut and dry had they left out the part about the "well-regulated Militia" but they didn't and they must have had a reason for that being there! Maybe it's just because that Amendment still sits there like it was written 220 years ago and has never been clearified in any manner. I guess that's why the CCW licenses don't bother me, but I still can't see it being given out as a blanket right to any and everyone wanting to carry when we all recognize that there are people that just in no way at all should ever be allowed that responsibility. I know, I know, how do we cure it? That I also don't know either, but I guess I'm hoping that discussion will enlighten us with some ideas that may help.

    Thanks for your response,

    SnowCajun

    RTKBA is used for the sake of brevity. First amendment doesn't even address the issue, but it's implied whenever you hear "separation of church and state." Same goes for "freedom of the press". Just easier to say.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  9. #28
    Your question about a well-regulated militia indicates to me that your view of a militia is that of a "national guard." The guard, as it stands today, is no longer a minuteman style militia of yesteryear. During this century (I'm no historian, so I can't give you a year), the state national guard was made an entity of the federal government, with limited control given to the state to which each individual unit is attached. Maybe someone can help me out here, but in the early 90's, a gentleman published a paper of his discussion with a linguistics expert. From this expert's analysis, he breaks down the 2nd from a language point of view, breaking it down and analyzing the intent of the language, as written 225 years ago.

    As far as a well-regulated militia, I believe that Switzerland is the epitome of that. But the crux of my argument is that the 2nd implies "the people" have the right. I can only assume that "the people" referred to in the 2nd is the same group of "the people" as referred to in the 1st, 5th, 9th, & 10th Amendments as well.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  10. The Whole Sentence

    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    Your question about a well-regulated militia indicates to me that your view of a militia is that of a "national guard."
    You may be right, or close to right, but even I'm not sure myself. I actually got started on this topic concerning something else but it's turned this way, yet I'm not unhappy that it has because at least we're working on trying to figure it out.

    What is a "well-regulated militia?" In breaking it down let's look at the word "regulated" first and see how Websters dictionary defines that:
    1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
    2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
    3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

    And looking up "militia" Websters says:
    1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
    2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

    Hmmm.. I fit the first part of that, the "regulated" part, but I've never had anything what-so-ever to do with a "militia". To me it's made to sound that a "well-regulated militia" would be referring to a trained group of folks either having served in the armed forces or serving as reservists. But, then it could also be a private group of folks just as easily who are well trained as well! What do you think? Funny thing though, when a private group starts well training and arming themselves you usually get the government looking at them all evil eyed and before you know it the Treasury Agents are doing background checks and getting search warrants ready. :) Never the less "militia" fits that also.

    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    Maybe someone can help me out here, but in the early 90's, a gentleman published a paper of his discussion with a linguistics expert. From this expert's analysis, he breaks down the 2nd from a language point of view, breaking it down and analyzing the intent of the language, as written 225 years ago.
    I'm really not saying this way or that is right, nor am I anti-gun, I've hunted and fished all my life, I've guided on goose hunting clubs in Louisiana where I was raised, and I've enjoyed shooting all my life. I think the most fun I ever had shooting was at a moving target combat range for a group of 1911 enthusiasts around Houston, so the purpose of my discussion here is not anti-gun, it's only trying to figure out how the wording was truly meant since it's used by everyone, especially Ted Nugent, as somewhat of a blanket statement to say it's all he needs as a concealed carry permit! But then I pretty much feel Nugent contradicts himself with his own words, as I pointed out in one of the above posts.

    This all started by my telling the other guy that you can't just use the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet all the while ignoring the first half of that sentence that says, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Everyone is so fast to throw out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and fail to mention the first half of the sentence at all. Doing that is like claiming to be a preacher yet never having read the New Testiment!

    I'd love to see that paper you mentioned if you ever run across it.

    SnowCajun

  11. #30

    2nd Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SnowCajun View Post
    You may be right, or close to right, but even I'm not sure myself. I actually got started on this topic concerning something else but it's turned this way, yet I'm not unhappy that it has because at least we're working on trying to figure it out.

    What is a "well-regulated militia?" In breaking it down let's look at the word "regulated" first and see how Websters dictionary defines that:
    1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
    2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
    3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

    And looking up "militia" Websters says:
    1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
    2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

    Hmmm.. I fit the first part of that, the "regulated" part, but I've never had anything what-so-ever to do with a "militia". To me it's made to sound that a "well-regulated militia" would be referring to a trained group of folks either having served in the armed forces or serving as reservists. But, then it could also be a private group of folks just as easily who are well trained as well! What do you think? Funny thing though, when a private group starts well training and arming themselves you usually get the government looking at them all evil eyed and before you know it the Treasury Agents are doing background checks and getting search warrants ready. :) Never the less "militia" fits that also.



    I'm really not saying this way or that is right, nor am I anti-gun, I've hunted and fished all my life, I've guided on goose hunting clubs in Louisiana where I was raised, and I've enjoyed shooting all my life. I think the most fun I ever had shooting was at a moving target combat range for a group of 1911 enthusiasts around Houston, so the purpose of my discussion here is not anti-gun, it's only trying to figure out how the wording was truly meant since it's used by everyone, especially Ted Nugent, as somewhat of a blanket statement to say it's all he needs as a concealed carry permit! But then I pretty much feel Nugent contradicts himself with his own words, as I pointed out in one of the above posts.

    This all started by my telling the other guy that you can't just use the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet all the while ignoring the first half of that sentence that says, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Everyone is so fast to throw out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and fail to mention the first half of the sentence at all. Doing that is like claiming to be a preacher yet never having read the New Testiment!

    I'd love to see that paper you mentioned if you ever run across it.

    SnowCajun

    See if this is what we are talking about.



    http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast