• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I too have lost confidence in Rick Perry as a presidential candidate

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin


Rick Perry has decided (based on HIS personal convictions) that people do not deserve Constitutional Carry.

Governor Rick Perry has outed himself on Constitutional Carry and also proved his lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment by promoting regulations and restrictions on citizens who want to own firearms.
His position is clear from the recent comments he made in the Texas Tribune..

[Perry] said he “prefers concealed handguns for “a more practical reason.”

“I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.”
Fine.. thats HIS personal preference. In a free country, he is entitled to his opinion and his personal preference for carrying a firearm.. however… his feelings do not and should not trump our Constitutional rights.

Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept,” adding that those who carry guns ought to be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

So… according to Perry, we need to add some amendments to the 2nd Amendment: you have a right to carry IF YOU HAVE BEEN DEEMED APPROPRIATELY TRAINED, AND YOU HAVE A FLAWLESS BACKGROUND..
We have all seen what happens with that slippery slope in places like New York and California where people now have to PROVE they have a need for a firearm and even proof of death threats is not justification to be armed in New York.. (Just ask John Stossel who, was turned down repeatedly for a concealed weapon permit because the state said he did not justify a need even though he produced proof of death threats).

Perry went on to say this: “We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”

Governor Perry clearly does not comprehend the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is not a privilege given by the government. Our founding fathers made it clear that the right to defend life is a basic human need that people of this country are born with. The 2nd Amendment is not the a permission slip from the government giving citizens the right to bear arms..It is a statement TO THE GOVERNMENT that the citizens already have this right and YOU, GOVERNMENT, shall not infringe.

Governor Perry just lost my support for any office he ever attempts to hold.
I also believe he just lost support amongst the People of the Gun world for his presidential aspirations.

The good news for Texans is that permitted open carry stands an excellent chance of making it to Governor Abbott’s desk, who’s declared his intention to sign it.

From:http://janmorganmedia.com/2015/02/rick-perry-proves-not-understand-2nd-amendment/
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Politicians say what they think will get them elected. Sometimes what they think will get them elected is how they actually feel, so it is honest. IMO most politicians are against the constitution as it was written.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
The title to this thread implies that anyone had confidence in the first place of Rick Perry as a presidential candidate. I hope this is not the case.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The title to this thread implies that anyone had confidence in the first place of Rick Perry as a presidential candidate. I hope this is not the case.

I have more confidence in Rick than I do Billary...:uhoh:

Billary does not even want you to carry, think about carrying, having pictures of carrying. Except for her personal guards...
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
This is true, but mostly because they have been lied to by windbag politicians.

No. Windbag politicians tell the lies they do because those lies work well with focus groups. Windbag politicians no longer dare go near a Lincoln-Douglas debate because the electorate has an attention span measured in seconds.

I'd start looking for the cause of voter problems in either the government/union run school systems or the welfare state that pretty effectively encourages out-of-wedlock baby making and perpetual living on the dole.

But even popular media has embraced and/or encouraged shorter attention spans . Notice how often film critics complain if a movie is even slightly longer than 90 minutes. How did we ever manage to make it through "Gone With the Wind," "The Right Stuff," or even mini-series like "Roots"? Compare the lingering camera angles typical in older films that had thoughtful dialogue and real story telling (Casablanca) with the hyperactive special effects and utter lack of decent plotline so typical today.

The electorate wants sound bites, bumper stickers, and "Our Team" rah rah and the politicians oblige.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
No. Windbag politicians tell the lies they do because those lies work well with focus groups. Windbag politicians no longer dare go near a Lincoln-Douglas debate because the electorate has an attention span measured in seconds.

I'd start looking for the cause of voter problems in either the government/union run school systems or the welfare state that pretty effectively encourages out-of-wedlock baby making and perpetual living on the dole.

But even popular media has embraced and/or encouraged shorter attention spans . Notice how often film critics complain if a movie is even slightly longer than 90 minutes. How did we ever manage to make it through "Gone With the Wind," "The Right Stuff," or even mini-series like "Roots"? Compare the lingering camera angles typical in older films that had thoughtful dialogue and real story telling (Casablanca) with the hyperactive special effects and utter lack of decent plotline so typical today.

The electorate wants sound bites, bumper stickers, and "Our Team" rah rah and the politicians oblige.

Charles

Or money grubbing lobbyists...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Or money grubbing lobbyists...

I have to agree with my libertarian friends who point out that so long as politicians have power and favors for sale, one can't much be surprised nor upset that there are those who are willing to buy the power and favors.

On the one hand I abhor those who deliberately game the system in their favor. I hold in equal disdain those who do so from the big business side as well as those who make careers and big business from supposedly "helping the poor."

If a Republican wants campaign signs or printing done for a convention or candidate, he ought to find a printer who is completely willing to do that to work rather than using the government to force an unwilling man to provide services to him. Ditto for homosexual couple who wants invites printed or a cake baked for their "wedding".

On the other hand, we have a right to petition our legislators for redress of grievances. We have a right to hire an agent to work on our behalf. And much of lobbying is defensive in nature: You've got to protect your interests from infringement by the other guy.

I've never been paid a penny for my pro-RKBA advocacy before the Utah legislature. But that has placed me at a certain disadvantage compared to those who are getting paid to be up there full time attacking my rights. So I've greatly appreciated those times and seasons when other pro-RKBA groups in Utah have been able to hire a decent lobbyist who is up there full time.

That all said, I don't think lobbyists should have any special privileges over common citizens or unpaid activists. And one key to that would be to prohibit all former elected officials from acting as lobbyists for a long period of time after leaving office...along with cutting off all benefits that might currently be extended to former officials. Leave office, become regular citizen but with some extra restrictions.

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Perry went on to say this: “We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege...

Huh!?!?!

If the highways belong to everybody in Texas ("our highways"), and everybody needs a license to enjoy this "privilege", then who the devil has standing to "give" the privilege? If it is a privilege for me to drive, how the devil do I have standing to extend that privilege to you? If it is a privilege for me to drive, how can I possibly have authority to vote/delegate to someone else (government) power to extend the privilege to you?

Daggone collectivists.

Of course, if Perry thinks so little of you that he's willing to try to fly that drivel past you, he cannot possibly be all that worried about your fundamental human right of self-defense.
 

jordanmills

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pearland, TX
those who carry guns ought to be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

Well yeah I kind of agree that they ought to. But I don't see where the nation or state has the authority to do that. The chances of that right to be artificially restricted based on some bureaucrat's power-grubbing and favor-grabbing are way too high (see most counties in California for a good example, harris county with regard to full auto, etc). The government doesn't have the authority to require that and pretty much never can as long as we want to keep those rights.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
pfft I'll vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as long as it says Republican next to his name

Kinda like The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), or The People's Republic of China? (Red China), or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Abraham Lincoln once asked, take your average dog--four legs and a tail--and call the tail a leg. Now, how many legs does the dog have? Surprisingly, a lot of people will say five. Lincoln said four, "...calling a tail a leg does not change its essential nature." When I first read that several years ago, I did not realize its sweeping applicability. Almost daily I run into someone who demonstrates an example of trying to change the essential nature of something in their own mind simply by saying it is something else.

Even the venerated Federalists pulled the trick. In order to make themselves look better to the American people, they called themselves Federalists, to give the impression they supported a federation of individual states--they called their tails a leg. In truth, they were abolishing a federation and erecting a national government that would morph into a leviathan. They abolished the federation formed under the Articles of Confederation (in those days, federation and confederation were synonymous.)

I care less what label a person hangs after his name; I'm interested in the essential nature.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Kinda like The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), or The People's Republic of China? (Red China), or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Abraham Lincoln once asked, take your average dog--four legs and a tail--and call the tail a leg. Now, how many legs does the dog have? Surprisingly, a lot of people will say five. Lincoln said four, "...calling a tail a leg does not change its essential nature." When I first read that several years ago, I did not realize its sweeping applicability. Almost daily I run into someone who demonstrates an example of trying to change the essential nature of something in their own mind simply by saying it is something else.

Even the venerated Federalists pulled the trick. In order to make themselves look better to the American people, they called themselves Federalists, to give the impression they supported a federation of individual states--they called their tails a leg. In truth, they were abolishing a federation and erecting a national government that would morph into a leviathan. They abolished the federation formed under the Articles of Confederation (in those days, federation and confederation were synonymous.)

I care less what label a person hangs after his name; I'm interested in the essential nature.
Their essential nature is likely whatever it needs to be to get elected.
 
Top