Our new VP?

[Prophet]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I am not voting for Obama for his stand on guns, but for other reasons, including the fact that he is likely to appoint more Plaintiff friendly judges. Now that the SCOTUS has recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, you want Plaintiff friendly judges if you own and use guns.

Your argument is so ass-backwards (get it...donkey) that it boggles the mind. If Obama had his choice of justices currently serving on the bench in lieu of Rehnquists replacement the Second Amendment would most undoubtedly would've been construed outlawing firearms from anyone other than state military personnel and then only while on active duty. Not only would the DC ban remained but the activist judges that Obama would nominate would probably take it farther and outlaw all 50 states ability to allow to determine their own gun policy. With an Obama court we have federally mandated, court backed tyranny shoved down our throats.

Now, you may be all la-di-da about Plaintiff's rights and thats all well and good...democrats have always been a big supporter of the Lawyer lobby's and frivalous lawsuits but it is YOUR liberal minded democratic appointed justices in the circuit courts that stand in the way of many of the righteous lawsuits involving gun ownership in America and you can't blame the Supreme court for not hearing some of these cases because the freedom minded lone gun owner can't afford to keep appealing to the highest court in the land when you they face a stacked deck against activist liberal judges, an rich anti-gun lobby and a left leaning media that is deaf and mute when it comes to anything positive concerning guns or gun owners.

Now, you go ahead and vote for Obama...but don't feed me chicken shit and tell me its chicken soup.

 

[Dustin]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I am not voting for Obama for his stand on guns, but for other reasons,

Prophet wrote:

Now, you go ahead and vote for Obama...but don't feed me chicken @#$% and tell me its chicken soup.

? :?

 

[Prophet]

imported post

Dustin wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

I am not voting for Obama for his stand on guns, but for other reasons,

Prophet wrote:

Now, you go ahead and vote for Obama...but don't feed me chicken @#$% and tell me its chicken soup.

? :?

Whats confusing...he IS voting for Obama...just not for his stance on guns. Yet he uses the support of judges Obama will pick as his reasons for supporting him then tells us that those judges will support gun rights.

So, what donkey is trying to say is that Obama will appoint gun-grabbing, activist, lawsuits against gun manufacturer supporting revisionist judges (thats the chicken @#$% part) and that is actually GOOD for gun rights (thats the chick soup part)

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

"You would vote for this guy now because his down-ticket companion shoots moose, looks cute,and is supported by the NRA?"

You would rather have Obama? Seriously... you could vote for Mickey Mouse... but that won't count asa vote that accomplishes anything. You have two choices... fuggetabout your conscience. If you DO NOT vote McCain... Obama is what you get. Want that?

Yup, I want that . . . for reasons that would be decidedly off topic here . . .except that Obama is more likely to appoint judges whowould permitcivil enforcement of liberties like 2A rights.

That's the big con job pulled by those who support so-called "conservative" jurists. The "conservatives"interpret their own powers in a way that lets the executive get away with far too much, rendering constitutional rights effectively unenforceable.

Figure Obama and McCain are about equally likely to wield their veto pen on anti-gun legislation.They will have to consider such legislation about as often as G.W. has.

Biden will have alot more to say on gun issues on the Senate Judiciary Committee than he will as Veep.

Tarzan Says.....

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Dustin wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

I am not voting for Obama for his stand on guns, but for other reasons,

Prophet wrote:

Now, you go ahead and vote for Obama...but don't feed me chicken @#$% and tell me its chicken soup.

? :?

Whats confusing...he IS voting for Obama...just not for his stance on guns. Yet he uses the support of judges Obama will pick as his reasons for supporting him then tells us that those judges will support gun rights.

So, what donkey is trying to say is that Obama will appoint gun-grabbing, activist, lawsuits against gun manufacturer supporting revisionist judges (thats the chicken @#$% part) and that is actually GOOD for gun rights (thats the chick soup part)

Donkey says nay.


The Donkey has had 14 years' experience of trying to get good Constitutional cases against the governmentthrough federal courts on behalf of non-corporate Plaintiffs, like those in Heller,and before that worked for afederal court on these cases.

He knows that most of these cases are thrown out for procedural reasons by jurists who are thought of as conservative -- just like Plaintiff Palmer was in the Heller case.:banghead:

He theorizes that the precedent of Heller is safe, but knows from experience that people in this community will be disappointed in trying to use it because key parts of their cases will be tossed on arcane procedural grounds.

If he is right, post Heller, Judges and Justices like Breyer are better for 2A Plaintiffs thanthose like Scalia.

:what:
That is not to say that Breyer wants to be the friend of 2A Plaintiffs: he does not.Rather, thatBreyer's ideas on procedural issues like standing, mootness, qualified immunity, and the Eleventh Amendment are better for firearms owners and bearers than those like Scalia, now that Heller is law. McCain now claims Scalia as hismodel judge, while Obama would pick more Breyers.

Donkey thinks that this community needs to start thinking of 2A rights more as part and parcel of the Bill of Rights, and realize that what is good for the Bill of Rights asa wholeis good for 2A specifically.
:celebrate
That kind of chicken soupis different and may be hard to swallow in this community, especially those who thinkonly of these folks ideas about guns.But McCain has had his share of screwyideas about gun control too.So Obama isat least good enough in this area for thisgun owning ass.It does not take a lawyerto take a sip.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Donkey, You need to read my post on page 6 of this thread. These are not fictitious or made up things. These are things that Obama has either voted for, introduced as legislation,or has made statements he wants todo. If you still think Obama is for gun rights, you are one sick individual or you are an anti andjust stirring the pot (as in toilet kind of pot). In either case, you can just go away as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Donkey continues to bray in the 3rd person. A reg'lar soup sandwich thinker... or a an anti-gun troll.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Donkey, You need to read my post on page 6 of this thread. These are not fictitious or made up things. These are things that Obama has either voted for, introduced as legislation,or has made statements he wants todo. If you still think Obama is for gun rights, you are one sick individual or you are an anti andjust stirring the pot (as in toilet kind of pot). In either case, you can just go away as far as I'm concerned.

Wayne LaPierre'sthing came to my attention when the NRA-ILA sent it to me. It is a good piece of propaganda.

Rodbender, I challenge you to show me where I argue that Obama is pro gun. My first point in thisstring (on page 5) is that McCain does not have a spotless record either, and if you vote on firearms principles alone, neither candidate should get your vote. But I don't vote on gun principles alone, which sometimes makes me feel a bit lonely on this site.

I am reminded of 06' when I was supporting a pro gun Democratic senate candidate here. Commentators suggested that if the dems took over, the guvmint would confiscate our guns, the reds would take over, and blood would run in the streets.

The gun control legislation didn't happen --for the simple reason that there are too many pro gun democrats in the senate for a signifcant piece of gun control legislation to pass -- at least without the NRA's blessing.

That is not going to change if Obama wins. Even ifObama werelying about his newfound fondness for the PRTK&BA, there would be no confiscatory legislation because the senate would stop it cold. If you don't believe me, count the NRA's "A"s there.

I think he will win: and hopefully he does what he is promising on trade, taxes, energy, healthcare and conservation. But I'll bray about that elsewhere.

 

[Prophet]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Rodbender, I challenge you to show me where I argue that Obama is pro gun. I don't vote on gun principles alone, which sometimes makes me feel a bit lonely on this site.


The gun control legislation didn't happen -- for the simple reason that there are too many pro gun democrats in the senate for a signifcant piece of gun control legislation to pass -- at least without the NRA's blessing.

Its not that he's pro gun...i don't really see you saying that either...but its the fact that he's ANTI gun. Being anti gun is one of the few stances on which he can be pinned down on and has a record on. To argue that his judges won't share that sentiment is saying that if Pat Robertson became president he would be willing to nominate a pro choice justice.

Voting on gun rights is my first test and its that way because the 2nd Amendment is the only one that guarentees all the others. We erode the 2nd and we might as well forget about the 1st and all the others. Maybe not overnight...but over time.

There are many pro gun democrats, many of which I have supported, Gov. Richardson from New Mexico for one in the primaries, and Senator Webb springs to mind. But guess what...Obama didn't pick a pro gun running mate...he picked the damn AUTHOR of the Assault Weapons Ban who mocks gun owners as being mentally deficient.

And lets be serious...with the Brady Campaign and other anti gun groups being such strong lobby for democrats there are only a few that would strike out on their own to oppose a bill that slowly chisels away the 2nd Amendment...ESPECIALLY when said bill is filled with pork, side legislation and earmarks that would look bad if they were opposed. Some Republicans aren't so cock sure when it comes to the making such a stand.

If you ever wonder why you feel lonely here donkey I'll enlighten you...many here take our right to bear arms seriously and actually believe in the phrase "shall not be infringed". From your posts it seems like you are fine with infringement as long as you have universal healthcare and are free to burn an american flag.

The second amendment ISN'T part and parcel of the Bill of Rights...it is the enforcing clause that demands the other Amendments be upheld.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Rodbender, I challenge you to show me where I argue that Obama is pro gun. I don't vote on gun principles alone, which sometimes makes me feel a bit lonely on this site.


The gun control legislation didn't happen --for the simple reason that there are too many pro gun democrats in the senate for a signifcant piece of gun control legislation to pass -- at least without the NRA's blessing.

Its not that he's pro gun...i don't really see you saying that either...but its the fact that he's ANTI gun. Being anti gun is one of the few stances on which he can be pinned down on and has a record on. To argue that his judges won't share that sentiment is saying that if Pat Robertson became president he would be willing to nominate a pro choice justice.

Voting on gun rights is my first test and its that way because the 2nd Amendment is the only one that guarentees all the others. We erode the 2nd and we might as well forget about the 1st and all the others. Maybe not overnight...but over time.

There are many pro gun democrats, many of which I have supported, Gov. Richardson from New Mexico for one in the primaries, and Senator Webb springs to mind. But guess what...Obama didn't pick a pro gun running mate...he picked the damn AUTHOR of the Assault Weapons Ban who mocks gun owners as being mentally deficient.

And lets be serious...with the Brady Campaign and other anti gun groups being such strong lobby for democrats there are only a few that would strike out on their own to oppose a bill that slowly chisels away the 2nd Amendment...ESPECIALLY when said bill is filled with pork, side legislation and earmarks that would look bad if they were opposed. Some Republicans aren't so cock sure when it comes to the making such a stand.

If you ever wonder why you feel lonely here donkey I'll enlighten you...many here take our right to bear arms seriously and actually believe in the phrase "shall not be infringed". From your posts it seems like you are fine with infringement as long as you have universal healthcare and are free to burn an american flag.

The second amendment ISN'T part and parcel of the Bill of Rights...it is the enforcing clause that demands the other Amendments be upheld.

Amen!





Tarzan

 

[.40 Cal]

imported post

I don't know id it has been mentioned already, but Obama himself made a point to state that he wants to control the availablity of guns in his acceptance speech. He was in front of the entire country and said that he wanted to control AK-47's (even though he stated that it would be to keep them out of the hands of criminals, which in his opinion is anyone who owns a Kalashnikov). That's why I'm glad I lost all my guns in an accident at sea!*

*emphasis added for the benefit of the ATF

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

.40 Cal wrote:

...That's why I'm glad I lost all my guns in an accident at sea!*

*emphasis added for the benefit of the ATF

Exact coordinates of this alleged "loss"?

Hmm. It seems your coordinates are not in order...

...Orygunner...

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

.40 Cal wrote:

I don't know id it has been mentioned already, but Obama himself made a point to state that he wants to control the availablity of guns in his acceptance speech. He was in front of the entire country and said that he wanted to control AK-47's (even though he stated that it would be to keep them out of the hands of criminals, which in his opinion is anyone who owns a Kalashnikov). That's why I'm glad I lost all my guns in an accident at sea!*

*emphasis added for the benefit of the ATF

You too....that happened to me just yesterday....



Tarzan

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

AK... what? Never heard of it. :lol:

 

[rodbender]

imported post

I'm glad he only wants to control the AK 47's. I've got an AR 15. Whew!!

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

I'm glad he only wants to control the AK 47's. I've got an AR 15. Whew!!

Now THEY KNOW where you live. :shock:

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

rodbender wrote:

I'm glad he only wants to control the AK 47's. I've got an AR 15. Whew!!

Now THEY KNOW where you live. :shock:

But he said AK 47's, not AR 15's. And I know a politician would not lie.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Actually...I havea Type 56S-1... I don't own an AK either.





And a J-15

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

they may have actually suckered me into voting republican with this one...

I am hearing that kind of comment a lot!

McCain's choice was brilliant!

BTW, not only is one of her sons serving...her husband, Daniel Norman, an Army sniper who was awarded a Purple Heart for shrapnel he took from a roadside bomb in Iraq Don't know who thishero is but it sure isn't her husband and if she had more than one i'm sure the media would be all over it. Todd Palin is her husband.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin

By the way if you don't know McCain has two sons serving or preparing to serve one a marine the other either graduating or graduated from the naval academy, and another older one who was a naval pilot himself but is no longer in service.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"

I am very excited about the race now!

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Its not that he's pro gun...i don't really see you saying that either...but its the fact that he's ANTI gun. Being anti gun is one of the few stances on which he can be pinned down on and has a record on. To argue that his judges won't share that sentiment is saying that if Pat Robertson became president he would be willing to nominate a pro choice justice.

Voting on gun rights is my first test and its that way because the 2nd Amendment is the only one that guarentees all the others. We erode the 2nd and we might as well forget about the 1st and all the others. Maybe not overnight...but over time.

There are many pro gun democrats, many of which I have supported, Gov. Richardson from New Mexico for one in the primaries, and Senator Webb springs to mind. . . .

The second amendment ISN'T part and parcel of the Bill of Rights...it is the enforcing clause that demands the other Amendments be upheld.

Good post, Prophet!



Initially, both candidates deny that they are “anti”s.



McCain has claimed that his votes regarding the background checks, the “gun show loophole,” “armor piercing” ammo, trigger locks, and extendable stocks, and his stand on “Saturday night specials" should not be taken as indications that he is broadly hostile to gun rights, as the NRA once suggested.



Obama has attributed to campaign staff mistakes anti-2D statements in his past-year questionnaire responses. No doubt he would say that his acceptance speech comments were directed at taking guns out of the hands of criminals rather than allowing every town to turn itself into a “Tombstone” where guns would need to be checked with the sheriff upon entry.



But lets suppose for the sake of argument -- as other Mule headed commentators have suggested -- that both McCain and Obama are “anti”s.



My radical proposition is that does not matter much because neither is likely be presented with confiscatory legislation, and the Judges they appoint are extremely unlikely to try to undo the Heller decision. Judges do not undo established precedent so quickly or lightly.



Instead, what matters more is whether folks are able to enforce their rights through due process of law.



Prophet, I would argue that the 5[suP]th[/suP] and 14[suP]th[/suP] Amendment Due Process clauses are “the enforcing clauses that demand that the other Amendments be upheld.” While 2D provides some insurance that due process remains meaningful, taking up arms against the government is surely a last resort.



Consider the Judges that might be appointed by Obama and McCain in that light: which are more likely to take action to insure the recently disparaged property rights of New Orleans residents in their firearms?






[/quote]