Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: OpenCarry.org's Proposed Presidential Debate Question

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    OpenCarry.org's Proposed Presidential Debate Question

    The Second Amendment Question we need the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates to Answer!

    Governor Romney/President Obama or Representative Ryan/Vice-President Biden:

    A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

    However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.”

    If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?
    Last edited by Mike; 10-11-2012 at 08:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Does it really matter what ********* they pull out of their face orifice when they have both clearly demonstrated a blatant apathy and even contempt towards the second amendment and the constitution as a whole?

    Personally, I don't think it does. Which is why I haven't bothered listening to their speeches or debates.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Some of us would like to hear the answer. That a handful of people who are not participating in the choice between these two viable candidates do not care about the answer is a lousy reason not to ask the question.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Some of us would like to hear the answer. That a handful of people who are not participating in the choice between these two viable candidates do not care about the answer is a lousy reason not to ask the question.
    You've intentional reversed what I said. I don't care one way or the other what is said, because I know it's going to be a lie. Obama will say whatever he thinks liberals want to hear, but try not to offend 2A supporters. And it will be a lie.

    Romney will say whatever he thinks the conservatives want to hear. And it will be a lie. Just like he lied about having a gun. Just like he lied about hunting.

    I don't need to hear either of them lie to know what they are going to do. Obama and Romney will both support gun control, just as they have in the past.

    I wasn't saying you shouldn't ask the question, I was saying there is no point in doing so.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    puh-tay-to, puh-tah-to

    Moving on to worthwhile discourse.

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Personally, I don't think it does. Which is why I haven't bothered listening to their speeches or debates.
    I haven't either. I pick up tid bits from conversations or while watching the local news... but it's accidental. I don't purposely participate in the "pick your favorite tyrant" circus. I know I couldn't vote for either one. last minute lies are not going to change anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Moving on....

    yeah right your favorite condescending phrase. It would be sweet if it were true. Watching your love affair with the corrupt disguising GOP is a little sickening.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I think it's important to ask said questions to the candidates.

    I second those.

    Neither candidate is perfect on 2A issues, but I frankly don't think there is the political will to move much at the federal level on gun rights. best to focus the most energy possible into state/local elections. If there are any governorships coming up with TV debates I think similar questions should be posed there
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I believe these are good questions. But don't think either candidate would answer honestly.

    Since the 2A isn't about self defense, but about protecting us from the government I don't see either candidate supporting that version of the 2A. And you never hear them mention this aspect of it. They like to focus on the self defense aspect because they then rationalize "reasonable restrictions" .
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Best question.

    When are you going admit the truth about the whole Social Security program being voluntary?

    Where was the Constitutional authority to create it in the first place?




    If he/she is willing to spill the beans about the voluntary nature of the socialist security program our guns will be safe with that candidate too.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 10-15-2012 at 09:29 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    The Second Amendment Question we need the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates to Answer!

    Governor Romney/President Obama or Representative Ryan/Vice-President Biden:

    A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

    However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.”

    If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?


    Well John, now that you are a member of the Bar(let me extend my congratulations, I am very happy for you) may I ask you a question? Do you believe the Second Amendment deals only with self-defense, or are there other equally important issues it deals with, and given a choice would you prefer to see a nominee who would support all or only part of the Second Amendment?
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  11. #11
    Regular Member crazydude6030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fairfax, va
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    The Second Amendment Question we need the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates to Answer!

    Governor Romney/President Obama or Representative Ryan/Vice-President Biden:

    A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

    However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.”

    If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?
    I found a few links to submit this question so i passed it along.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    sudden valley gunner: 10-12-2012, 08:02 PM #8

    Since the 2A isn't about self defense, but about protecting us from the government.....
    The 2A is exclusively self-defense. Whether it be a collective, national, effort to repel foreign invaders, or a individual effort to repel a domestic invader or to repel "several" domestic invaders.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 2A is exclusively self-defense. Whether it be a collective, national, effort to repel foreign invaders, or a individual effort to repel a domestic invader or to repel "several" domestic invaders.
    I understand what you are saying, but the second amendment was specifically put there to keep our governments in check.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    OpenCarry.org's Proposed Presidential Debate Question

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 2A is exclusively self-defense. Whether it be a collective, national, effort to repel foreign invaders, or a individual effort to repel a domestic invader or to repel "several" domestic invaders.
    Exactly. The 2A is not a natural or God-given right. That right is the right to defend oneself from thugs, whether those thugs be privateers or rogue agents of the government or agents of a rogue government or...

    The 2A is a protection of a method of exercising the natural or God-given right. It's kinda hard to defend yourself agains thugs if they are better armed than you. The arms that would be kept and borne by the militia are the precise weapons that can be kept and borne by the People. Those arms can be used by folks acting in their role as a member of the militia or acting on their own.

    Therefore, the 2A is an implementary right of the natural or God-given right of self-defense against threats, regardless of the source of the threat.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Exactly. The 2A is not a natural or God-given right. That right is the right to defend oneself from thugs, whether those thugs be privateers or rogue agents of the government or agents of a rogue government or...

    The 2A is a protection of a method of exercising the natural or God-given right. It's kinda hard to defend yourself agains thugs if they are better armed than you. The arms that would be kept and borne by the militia are the precise weapons that can be kept and borne by the People. Those arms can be used by folks acting in their role as a member of the militia or acting on their own.

    Therefore, the 2A is an implementary right of the natural or God-given right of self-defense against threats, regardless of the source of the threat.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Note the critical difference in the below.

    US Constitution: Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.

    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.

    Missouri Constitution: Article I, Section 23 - Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

    That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
    Ambiguity or clarity?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 2A is exclusively self-defense. Whether it be a collective, national, effort to repel foreign invaders, or a individual effort to repel a domestic invader or to repel "several" domestic invaders.
    I must admit to some confusion here, since I know of at least two separate occasions where you have made it clear you believe the Second Amendment is an individual right and not one of the collective. Could you please clarify your position on this?
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Note the critical difference in the below.

    Ambiguity or clarity?
    Post deleted.

    I was getting ready for work and in a hurry when I misread OC's post. I therefore came to a misconception of what he was saying and made a post based on that misconception. I apologize to OC for ME and to any other member if my misinformed post caused any confusion.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 10-17-2012 at 07:46 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  18. #18
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    JP....I guess they didn't like your question last night.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Exactly. The 2A is not a natural or God-given right. That right is the right to defend oneself from thugs, whether those thugs be privateers or rogue agents of the government or agents of a rogue government or...

    The 2A is a protection of a method of exercising the natural or God-given right. It's kinda hard to defend yourself agains thugs if they are better armed than you. The arms that would be kept and borne by the militia are the precise weapons that can be kept and borne by the People. Those arms can be used by folks acting in their role as a member of the militia or acting on their own.

    Therefore, the 2A is an implementary right of the natural or God-given right of self-defense against threats, regardless of the source of the threat.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Yet the constitution is a law restricting federal government and applying to the federal government, the founders put the 2A in place to make sure states stay free from the federal government. They already recognized your common law right as I stated earlier in a quote of Blackstone of personal self defense. They felt no need to include personal self defense in the constitution just like they felt no need to include your right to eat food.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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