paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I saw that the 1st time you posted and I responded. Whose freedom? The mother or the baby?
-
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.
-
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.
Ron Johnson is NOT Dave Westlake
- Thread starter hardballer
- Start date
I saw that the 1st time you posted and I responded. Whose freedom? The mother or the baby?
johnny amish
Regular Member
+1000000000000
sassie lassie
New member
Dave Westlake knows, understands and lives by the Constitution. He will uphold it because he swore to uphold it and to defend the United States. Dave is Pro-life and that is in line with the Constitution and with other writings of the Founding Fathers.
It states in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So according to this, the Founding Fathers referred to God as the Creator, not the Birther. At the time of creation, not at the time of birth, all people are endowed with unalienable rights. That means the right to life cannot be taken away from a person at the time they were created.
The US Constitution says " ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..." this means to all descendents of a person, not some - all.
Dave's Pro-life stance is inline with the Constitution just as his Pro-2nd Amendment stance is inline with the Constitution. Dave is solid on the 2nd Amendment. Dave does stand for Freedom, because he does believe in the Constitution and he will govern by it.
But here is Ron Johnson's take on the Constitution. I talked to him on June 15, 2010.
Ron Johnson was asked by a friend of mine how he felt about the 2nd Amendment. He said he didn’t own a gun, he was a fisherman, but that he supported the 2nd Amendment and he has a friend that performs training for conceal carry. Just like we license cars - with licensing, permitting and training in the use of guns - conceal carry should be allowed because it works. I asked him where in the constitution did it support the idea that Americans needed to obtain a license and permit to own a firearm. He said I understand what you are saying and we disagree. He continued and said that a 95% friend is still a friend. I said I disagree with that. He said “I need to talk to these other people” and turned his back to my friend and me. Where is the freedom in Ron's answer?
I have talked several times with both men. Dave Westlake is the solid candidate on ALL freedoms provided to us by the Constitution. Dave Westlake has defended us and will govern for the people. I, too, volunteer for Dave Westlake, because Dave Westlake is the right man to take out Russ Feingold. www.davewestlake.com
It states in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So according to this, the Founding Fathers referred to God as the Creator, not the Birther. At the time of creation, not at the time of birth, all people are endowed with unalienable rights. That means the right to life cannot be taken away from a person at the time they were created.
The US Constitution says " ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..." this means to all descendents of a person, not some - all.
Dave's Pro-life stance is inline with the Constitution just as his Pro-2nd Amendment stance is inline with the Constitution. Dave is solid on the 2nd Amendment. Dave does stand for Freedom, because he does believe in the Constitution and he will govern by it.
But here is Ron Johnson's take on the Constitution. I talked to him on June 15, 2010.
Ron Johnson was asked by a friend of mine how he felt about the 2nd Amendment. He said he didn’t own a gun, he was a fisherman, but that he supported the 2nd Amendment and he has a friend that performs training for conceal carry. Just like we license cars - with licensing, permitting and training in the use of guns - conceal carry should be allowed because it works. I asked him where in the constitution did it support the idea that Americans needed to obtain a license and permit to own a firearm. He said I understand what you are saying and we disagree. He continued and said that a 95% friend is still a friend. I said I disagree with that. He said “I need to talk to these other people” and turned his back to my friend and me. Where is the freedom in Ron's answer?
I have talked several times with both men. Dave Westlake is the solid candidate on ALL freedoms provided to us by the Constitution. Dave Westlake has defended us and will govern for the people. I, too, volunteer for Dave Westlake, because Dave Westlake is the right man to take out Russ Feingold. www.davewestlake.com
hardballer
Regular Member
Dave Westlake is an honorable man. Ron Johnson turns his back on you. Believes we need a license to carry. Believe me when I say it is utter foolishness to vote for the man with more money and a slippery attitude with tough questions.
A vote for a guy who clearly wants to be elected to an office instead of serving the people is a wasted vote.
BerettaFS92Custom
Regular Member
+1000000
no matter what i am voting for Dave Westlake. Even if i have to write him in. then i can blame the sheep of Wisconsin for not hiring the right man for the job.
i did email johnson and if (I doubt it) I get a response i will post it
no matter what i am voting for Dave Westlake. Even if i have to write him in. then i can blame the sheep of Wisconsin for not hiring the right man for the job.
i did email johnson and if (I doubt it) I get a response i will post it
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
The constitution does not take a pro-life or pro-choice stance. The constitution offers NO guidance when it comes to abortion. NONE. Thats not coming from me, thats coming from one of THE most conservative judges on the US Supreme Court Antonin Scalia.
Please don't misrepresent the constitution.
Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing. Scalia is a STRICT constitutionalist. If he says the constitution offers nothing with respect to abortion, I think that conclusion is pretty sound.
We get mad when liberals twist the constitution to say things it doesn't say, lets not make the same mistake ourselves.
B
bhancock
Guest
I disagree
In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.
In State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2nd (Mo. en banc) (1992), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of "person" in this law is applicable to other statutes, including at least the state's involuntary manslaughter statute.
Even the strictest of disciplines can get some things wrong. However having said that, there are still laws that allow only the mother of the child to kill (terminate) the child up to the point of birth, or to pay a licensed provider to kill the child for her. However if that mother negligently kills the child before it's birth, or if she lets it die immediately after birth, she can be charged will homicide.
Citizens of this country were not endowed inalienable rights by Reagan, Scalia, or any other politician or Judge. The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". ...
In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.
In State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2nd (Mo. en banc) (1992), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of "person" in this law is applicable to other statutes, including at least the state's involuntary manslaughter statute.
Even the strictest of disciplines can get some things wrong. However having said that, there are still laws that allow only the mother of the child to kill (terminate) the child up to the point of birth, or to pay a licensed provider to kill the child for her. However if that mother negligently kills the child before it's birth, or if she lets it die immediately after birth, she can be charged will homicide.
Citizens of this country were not endowed inalienable rights by Reagan, Scalia, or any other politician or Judge. The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". ...
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
This is exactly why we need to drop this. This is an Open Carry forum. Abortion should of never been brought up in the 1st place. There are strong beliefs on both sides of this and I don't believe we need to waste our time arguing about this and sewing discord among our ranks.
We have a tough row to how to get what we want with Constitutional Carry, let's not waste good will, time and energy arguing about issues not central to this cause.
We have a tough row to how to get what we want with Constitutional Carry, let's not waste good will, time and energy arguing about issues not central to this cause.
B
bhancock
Guest
agreed
Excellent point Paul. Even though the thread went off topic the Chairman of WC weighed in on it which definitely needed a balanced response. I think it is often unwise to compare or argue our position on the 2nd Amendment to causes like abortion, gay lifestyle, and even civil rights of minority groups. Our position is clear enough to stand on it's own merits with Constitutional protection. IMHO any other argument only weakens the debate.
Excellent point Paul. Even though the thread went off topic the Chairman of WC weighed in on it which definitely needed a balanced response. I think it is often unwise to compare or argue our position on the 2nd Amendment to causes like abortion, gay lifestyle, and even civil rights of minority groups. Our position is clear enough to stand on it's own merits with Constitutional protection. IMHO any other argument only weakens the debate.
hardballer
Regular Member
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
I feel the same way about discussing any issue outside of "carry rights" on here, but when it comes to candidates, its hard not to.
The gun-rights issue is one that many candidates could use as bait to attract otherwise conservative voters.
Ex. What if there was a candidate who was TOTALLY pro-constitution carry no permit no nothing, but was also a huge tax-and-spend liberal who would further drive our country into debt and socialism?
This is something we (pro gun-rights people) will struggle with for a long time. I've cautioned before that ALL rights are important. When it comes time to vote, my vote is NOT just based on a persons carry rights stance because there are WAY more issues that our country is facing especially at a federal level.
Thats why I personally have come to be a libertarian instead of a republican. (though I often end up voting republican)
I encourage people to deeply examine their principles. Live your life by your principles, but take a hard look at whether the government should be used to make other people live by your principles or whether government should be protecting your individual freedom to live by your principles and values while also protecting others right to live by their values and making sure that neither is allowed to infringe on the lives of the other. I've never expressed my personal view of abortion in this thread, rather I've suggested what the governments role in it should be. My personal view of abortion is unaffected by what the law is or isn't.
For years and years and years I tried so hard to find a way to justify having the government legislate what my personal view on abortion was. I couldn't do it. It would have been much easier. So many of my fellow republicans (I was a republican at the time) wanted government to legislate and enforce my personal view. It would have been convenient and comforting if I could have found a way to justify believing government should enforce and legislate my personal view. I just couldn't come to that conclusion based upon my principles of freedom.
I was not attempting to engage in a debate of whether abortion was right or wrong in this thread. I "know" better. I was merely pointing out that there are other issues of freedom besides gun rights and people need to recognize that "right and wrong" don't have to match "legal and illegal". When it comes to discussing potential candidates, I encourage people to not be myopic and only consider a candidates stated position on carry-rights. I also would again state that if we ever want to move the country away from the brink of totalitarian government control, we need to strongly examine our view on the role of government (not our personal values, those shouldn't change by what is legal or illegal) but our view of the role of government can be different than our personal view.
ex. I think smoking is the dumbest thing in the world, but I would never ever advocate for banning it. Thats freedom.
Support the rights others hold dear and they will support the rights that we hold dear.
Last edited:
B
bhancock
Guest
Thank You Nik for clarifying your thoughts.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Carry On 