President Reagan - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: President Reagan

  1. #11
    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.)

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    YOUR Sig line:

    Just...WOW...


    Actually, I think the Founding Fathers pretty much expected every American citizen to be armed -- that would be the 'militia' the 2nd Amendment refers to:

    FYI:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

    All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the Reserve Militia, also known as the unorganized militia. Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the unorganized militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311)

    NOTE: I do not in any way mean to indicate this to limit the 2nd Amendment to Militias only, it applies to every American.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms.... Forbid... We have laws that regulate the carry of arms not forbid them. I'm not for limits and bans on types of firearms, I'm for making sure that the folks that are getting them are responsible enough. I don't want to know that just anyone can get them. Our founding fathers were a bit more responsible... We still need to do background checks. If the guy or gal was just released from prison for robbery and assault or maybe attempted homicide and attempts to purchase a gun. That needs to be kept in check. Do you agree?
    Regulate not restrict or forbid... Common sense measures, not the radical thoughtless laws that prevent people who have no criminal records from exercising their rights. Agree or disagree?
    And the Key Word is American Citizen... In this day and age we have to check and make sure the document that they are holding is in fact authentic... Could be terrorists plotting their next attack? The very question of Citizenship was asked of our now president…
    Not trying to incite a riot, just have a different view.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms.... Forbid... We have laws that regulate the carry of arms not forbid them. I'm not for limits and bans on types of firearms, I'm for making sure that the folks that are getting them are responsible enough. I don't want to know that just anyone can get them. Our founding fathers were a bit more responsible... We still need to do background checks. If the guy or gal was just released from prison for robbery and assault or maybe attempted homicide and attempts to purchase a gun. That needs to be kept in check. Do you agree?
    Regulate not restrict or forbid... Common sense measures, not the radical thoughtless laws that prevent people who have no criminal records from exercising their rights. Agree or disagree?
    And the Key Word is American Citizen... In this day and age we have to check and make sure the document that they are holding is in fact authentic... Could be terrorists plotting their next attack? The very question of Citizenship was asked of our now president…
    Not trying to incite a riot, just have a different view.
    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

    Regulate & Restrict are Synonymous...

    Jefferson said it is every Americans duty to at all times be armed and trained as at early an age as possible to use said armament...

    We are currently, Unconstitutionally forbidden from carrying weapons (firearms or otherwise) any where, any place, any time, whether we are criminals or law-abiding individuals...

    IF a person is not to be trusted to defend their lives and that of their family's then they need to be incarcerated...
    Because as the man said "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

    IF you are in Prison for a crime or in a mental hospital, the Government is responsible for your personal safety and well being...

    If you are a freeman or free woman, the only one responsible for your personal safety is you...

    Here are two of many rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that clearly states you are on your own...
    1. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
    "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

    2. On June 27, 2005 in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales (Whom Was Murdered By Her Husband With A Track Record Of Abuse & Violence) did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order...

    How can it be remotely conceivable, that anybody allowed to walk the streets, can not be allowed to defend their lives anywhere, anytime, by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against them?

    You continue to cite the same b.s. every gun banning politician in world history has, with nothing credible to support it...

    Unfortunately, it appears you have been brain washed like too many of the of the sheeple in this country and the world for that matter into actually believing that crap... that has been continuously been proved to have no effect whatsoever on deterring crime...

    THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT...

    IN the history of the world, Firearm Regulation & Registration has always led to confiscation...

    Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, period. Enumerating what activities arms can be used for creates an implied restriction. While the terms "Lawful Purposes" or "Common Sense" or "Public Good" as are commonly used are so vague that they could be interpreted to mean almost anything, it is the government that attempts to do the interpreting — giving it the opening to violate the Second Amendment when desired.

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    Yes, and the Usurper has yet to prove his citizenship, that the Constitution mandates...
    An argument for another thread already in this forum...

    The Second Amendment is a Right not a Privilege...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?
    I agree. You have the right to defend yourself from whoever poses a threat to you or your family. If a person is free they also have that right.

    With all of this being said I think the courts could do a better job of keeping criminals and scum off the street.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

  7. #16
    OK, Bohemian, you're losing me a bit here. You believe that there should be absolutely no restriction placed on this right even by persons intent on abusing that right? I'm envisioning a known self-proclaimed gang-banger, no felony convictions to date. Is he entitled? Knowing, or at least having a good idea that he's going to use it for felonious purpose?

    I do believe it is an absolute right, for lawful, free men who are the bulwark of their community. I gotta believe that the founding fathers meant that right for the participating, engaged citizenry of the republic, not those who stand to dispense mayhem and havoc on the community. Frankly, I tend to view this right in this way. It's meant for those citizens of serious bent of mind who are committed to the defense of family and hearth and to the well-being of their immediate community, their country and the constitution.

    Furthermore, I believe any "right" (even those granted by God) can be lost. You may abuse that right or even refuse that right and it is yours no more.

    If I'm reading you correctly, you're stating that those who cannot handle this right should be incarcerated. That's an interesting criteria for throwing people behind bars; even if we could, we don't have the prisons to house them (hell, we'd fill 'em up immediately with liberal Democrats).

    Personally, I have no problem with roving psychopaths not being able to carry a weapon.

    Am I missing something here? I'm always willing to be educated.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    OK, Bohemian, you're losing me a bit here. You believe that there should be absolutely no restriction placed on this right even by persons intent on abusing that right? I'm envisioning a known self-proclaimed gang-banger, no felony convictions to date. Is he entitled? Knowing, or at least having a good idea that he's going to use it for felonious purpose?

    I do believe it is an absolute right, for lawful, free men who are the bulwark of their community. I gotta believe that the founding fathers meant that right for the participating, engaged citizenry of the republic, not those who stand to dispense mayhem and havoc on the community. Frankly, I tend to view this right in this way. It's meant for those citizens of serious bent of mind who are committed to the defense of family and hearth and to the well-being of their immediate community, their country and the constitution.

    Furthermore, I believe any "right" (even those granted by God) can be lost. You may abuse that right or even refuse that right and it is yours no more.

    If I'm reading you correctly, you're stating that those who cannot handle this right should be incarcerated. That's an interesting criteria for throwing people behind bars; even if we could, we don't have the prisons to house them (hell, we'd fill 'em up immediately with liberal Democrats).

    Personally, I have no problem with roving psychopaths not being able to carry a weapon.

    Am I missing something here? I'm always willing to be educated.

    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.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    OK, Bohemian, you're losing me a bit here. You believe that there should be absolutely no restriction placed on this right even by persons intent on abusing that right? I'm envisioning a known self-proclaimed gang-banger, no felony convictions to date. Is he entitled? Knowing, or at least having a good idea that he's going to use it for felonious purpose?

    I do believe it is an absolute right, for lawful, free men who are the bulwark of their community. I gotta believe that the founding fathers meant that right for the participating, engaged citizenry of the republic, not those who stand to dispense mayhem and havoc on the community. Frankly, I tend to view this right in this way. It's meant for those citizens of serious bent of mind who are committed to the defense of family and hearth and to the well-being of their immediate community, their country and the constitution.

    Furthermore, I believe any "right" (even those granted by God) can be lost. You may abuse that right or even refuse that right and it is yours no more.

    If I'm reading you correctly, you're stating that those who cannot handle this right should be incarcerated. That's an interesting criteria for throwing people behind bars; even if we could, we don't have the prisons to house them (hell, we'd fill 'em up immediately with liberal Democrats).

    Personally, I have no problem with roving psychopaths not being able to carry a weapon.

    Am I missing something here? I'm always willing to be educated.
    Therein lies the problem, the founding fathers view of Rights such as the Second Amendment, was that they were preexisting, fundamental, and unalienable, and were simply reaffirmed and protected by the Bill of Rights...

    THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    There are currently over 20,000 and counting federal, state, and other municipality firearm laws to interpret what the founding fathers so unambiguously and elegantly stated...

    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.

    The heinous number of laws is what happens, when people start saying... No what they really meant to say was "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...

    IT is my responsibility to protect myself and family from somebody whom abuses their rights, or is crazy or what have you, not the Government's...

    You can not take something away from somebody because you think they might do something illegal...

    They were intentional in leaving nothing for further interpretation...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 1)

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 2)

    YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

    YouTube - 2nd Amendment Explained

    YouTube - BULLSHI#! On Gun Laws Part 2

    YouTube - BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 3

    "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

    The Second Amendment does not state “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Except… if your zip code is X, your standing at Y, or the type or class of weapon/arm you have or desire to have is Z…

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #19
    Just a quick note , here, gotta get back to work. Try this on, for size: Ok, we're agreed the "government", local, state or federal, as consisting of elected reps, cannot pass a law to disarm anybody. But, suppose, a group of us "militia" (i.e., able-bodied men who are armed), approach the local psychopath and relieve him of his weapon because we feel he endangers our loved ones. Does that work?

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Just a quick note , here, gotta get back to work. Try this on, for size: Ok, we're agreed the "government", local, state or federal, as consisting of elected reps, cannot pass a law to disarm anybody. But, suppose, a group of us "militia" (i.e., able-bodied men who are armed), approach the local psychopath and relieve him of his weapon because we feel he endangers our loved ones. Does that work?
    My view is dead men tell no tales...

    In light of that, if two or more armed individuals disarm another armed individual, they would probably be on stable ground if they stated the alleged psychopath was brandishing the firearm menacingly...
    And that the disarming were the one's to call the police first, not the disarmed...

    When Richard Ramirez AKA: The Night Stalker was caught in Los Angeles, by unarmed citizens, they nearly beat him to death... after they chased him for several blocks on foot...

    He was the only one charged with anything...

    And that was in the Republic of Kalifornia...

    Luke 22:36
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    So even the Bible tells us we should always be armed...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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