Obama hasn't messed witrh my guns

[Shoobee]

I'm a liberal.

I don't care if you marry another guy.
I don't care if your sister terminates her pregnancy in the first trimester.
I don't think that racial discrimination in hiring and housing should be legal.

"Classical liberal" is sophistry on the right, just as "progressive" is sophistry on the left.

What the Obama types are is not liberal. Statist, authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist, thuggish or simply cravenly corrupt, but in NO way "liberal", by ANY rational measure.

Obama is just the lesser of two weevils. Romney has all the true signs of a carpet bagging B/S-er. Reminds me so much of Nixon that I cannot get over it. History has repeated itself. The zombie of Nixon has returned in the face of Romney.

In a few more days, Romney's daily 15 minutes of fame will be over. Then he and Ryan will be totally forgotten by history.

Then Romney will just go back to being a rich man that made all his money laying off people and outsourcing their jobs to China.

The irony is that not even China likes Romney anymore. They used to, but during this campaign he has bad mouthed China so much that now they want Obama instead to win. China has flip flopped on Romney.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I would say that the majority of Libertarians with whom I've talked, both in FidoNet and Usernet were against anti-discrimination laws, both in hiring and in public accomodations, such as restaurants. They tend to have as purely theoretical of a view of human behavior as socialists. They think that somebody won't pass up money to hurt somebody they hate, as if the ONLY thing people EVER cared about was money. They remind me of the guy who wrote that book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He just couldn't get it into his head that somebody who was 100% anti-abortion would give up some hypothetical additional amount of economic benefit rather than vote for somebody allegedly providing that benefit, who was pro-abortion. People aren't adding machines or robots. They'll do things, good or bad for reasons wholely unrelated to money. Somehow I doubt that the 9/11 hijackers thought they'd picked a big money score. The same thing with the Marines who took Iwo Jima.

You are spot on that people absolutely do things for other reasons than money.

Most libertarians I know realize this. I'd rather vote for a party that believes in equality, limited government.

And you are also right people are not machines or robots, but history has shown that in the long run human behavior (or action as Ludwig Von Mises puts it) is very predictable. And that often the use of force and coercion leads to prolonged suffering for those the government are supposed to help and for society as a whole.

9/11 terrorists had motivation because of U.S. presence (forceful presence) in their countries

My intuition tells me it is just wrong when people can't find work, food, or a place to sleep. Yet I have also seen the abuse because of government intervention in these areas and this also conflicts with my belief in non intervention in private property rights. Men should be able to have all men's clubs, women too.

 

[LkWd_Don]

You are spot on that people absolutely do things for other reasons than money.

~ snipped ~
9/11 terrorists had motivation because of U.S. presence (forceful presence) in their countries
~ snipped ~
Yet I have also seen the abuse because of government intervention in these areas and this also conflicts with my belief in non intervention in private property rights. Men should be able to have all men's clubs, women too.

Normally I would agree with you, but you are closer to being correct about 9/11 with the property rights statement then you were with the first about 9/11 itself.

Our country stuck their noses where it didn't belong and trained the Taliban and al-queda to get Russia out of Afghanistan. Then when G.H Bush failed to march into Baghdad during the liberation of Kuwait, those we had been allies with, turned against us for leaving so many people stranded, alone, and hurting when Stormin Norman was halted and told to withdraw om Iraq. So all in all, I blame our Government and the major political parties for that whole mess.

 

[OC for ME]

QUOTE REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: OP engaged in personal attack

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Normally I would agree with you, but you are closer to being correct about 9/11 with the property rights statement then you were with the first about 9/11 itself.

Our country stuck their noses where it didn't belong and trained the Taliban and al-queda to get Russia out of Afghanistan. Then when G.H Bush failed to march into Baghdad during the liberation of Kuwait, those we had been allies with, turned against us for leaving so many people stranded, alone, and hurting when Stormin Norman was halted and told to withdraw om Iraq. So all in all, I blame our Government and the major political parties for that whole mess.

Oh definitely, I was just trying to be succinct something I often fail at.......

We continued to stick our nose where it shouldn't be and we continue to do it now.

Although personally I believe the leaders use religion and other reasons for attack and that for the actual attackers on the ground money is not the reason, that ultimately somewhere down the line it's still all about money.

 

[eye95]

You allege that a current member of OCDO, a former citizen of Alabama, and now a resident of Ohio, subscribes to ...

I am dealing with this scurrilous charge, and the poster who made it. Please edit your post to remove any reference to it. Thank you.

 

[Gil223]

REMOVED BY ADMIN BECAUSE OP ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ATTACK

There's that very broad brush again. You seem to think all southerners are racists - which is unsurprising considering where you live. You talk about the "koolaid" [sic] everybody else drinks, well here's your pitcher full of sugary sweetness from sdgln.com:

California, America’s most populous state, is also home to more hate groups than another other state.

The Golden State has 68 active hate groups, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks organizations whose member activities include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.

Alabama is #9 on their list, with less than half as many "hate groups" as Kalifornia. Following your prejudiced line of thinking, then everybody in Kalifornia would be a gay, left-wing, illegal alien, gang-banger on welfare. Also, anybody that puts any confidence in the "Huffington Post" has certainly OD'd on Kool-Aid. Pull your head out, and stop trolling. Pax...

 

[OC for ME]

I am dealing with this scurrilous charge, and the poster who made it. Please edit your post to remove any reference to it. Thank you.

Please accept my apologies. I could not permit that indecorous post stand unchallenged.

 

[OC for ME]

Please accept my apologies. I could not permit that indecorous post stand unchallenged.

Odd. My post was removed in its entirety yet the original offending comment is displayed in Post #129. It leaves me with the impression that I too am held culpable.

 

[Shoobee]

Pres Obama has not messed with any of my guns either.

If he was anti-handgun before, then Scalia in Heller must have set him straight about the sacrosanctity of handguns in the home. That issue has been now settled by the USSC.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Shotguns were mentioned over and over again by Scalia in Heller, and that as long as they are not sawed-off, then they are protected by 2A.

If Obama is anti assault weapons, then he is no different than Mitt or Bill or Hillary. The USSC has been silent on that issue.

Nobody has complained about scoped bolt action hunting rifles of the 1903 Springfield design lately, at least not since the AK-47 in 1947 or the AR-15 in 1959 were first designed and sold. I guess it all depends what the psycho's are choosing to shoot up school yards and movie theatres with.

For now, handguns (guns that you hold in your hand, like F. Lee Ermy USMC-ret has explained) and bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns are pretty safely protected by 2A. As Scalia has said, they are popular with the law abiding public and they are not used by any particular criminal groups like gangs or dope runners.

However I do not see any relevant firearms issues in the current election. Obama and Romney both believe the same on it, and no USSC appointment is ever going to be predictable, just look at John Roberts.

 

[eye95]

Odd. My post was removed in its entirety yet the original offending comment is displayed in Post #129. It leaves me with the impression that I too am held culpable.

Let me stand witness the the fact that you did nothing wrong. The admin did state that the OP whom you were quoting was the offender. His post has been edited. I remain hopeful that the admin has dealt with the poster himself. I also hope he reviews this entire thread and removes the all the posts that comprise the distraction that was started with an unjustifiable accusation.

 

[OC for ME]

Let me stand witness the the fact that you did nothing wrong. The admin did state that the OP whom you were quoting was the offender. His post has been edited. I remain hopeful that the admin has dealt with the poster himself. I also hope he reviews this entire thread and removes the all the posts that comprise the distraction that was started with an unjustifiable accusation.

Your clarification is humbly and graciously appreciated.

 

[John Pierce]

Odd. My post was removed in its entirety yet the original offending comment is displayed in Post #129. It leaves me with the impression that I too am held culpable.

Not at all. I just was trying to clean up the places where his comments had been quoted. My apologizes for the overly broad editing.


John

 

[Hef]

For now, handguns (guns that you hold in your hand, like F. Lee Ermy USMC-ret has explained) and bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns are pretty safely protected by 2A. As Scalia has said, they are popular with the law abiding public and they are not used by any particular criminal groups like gangs or dope runners.

Apparently neither you nor Scalia has bothered to read the Uniform Crime Report, Guns Used In Crime, or the National Crime Victimization Survey. The overwhelming majority of guns used in violent crime in the United States are handguns. The handguns used most often are .38 and .357 revolvers, usually Smith & Wesson. They are typically stolen, have changed hands several times after their initial theft, and circulate amongst criminals for an average of 7 years before being recovered by law enforcement.

Handguns are popular amongst the citizenry because they are more practical for self defense than carrying a long gun on a regular basis. They can easily be concealed, and their relatively small size and light recoil allow for a wide range of shooters - from novices to experts, children, the elderly, women and men - to be able to use them effectively.

Given the immense practical value of handguns, and the unique way in which they facilitate self defense, there is no doubt that they serve an important role under the Second Amendment, and it is for that reason that handguns are safe from the gun prohibitionists.

As for our homeland defense rifles, what some call "assault weapons", I will not deny that they look like scary military rifles. They have ergonomic features that certainly do make them work better in combat than traditional rifles. If not for the fact that they aren't capable of automatic fire, they would be "military weapons".

Understanding that the Second Amendment wasn't ratified to preserve the freedom of every American to hunt deer or blast clay pigeons, but to fight tyranny or foreign invaders, it makes sense that any weapon's protection under the Second Amendment should be dependent upon it's suitability for militia service. The more "militaristic" the firearm, the safer it should be under law.

 

[eye95]

Well formulated argument.

I would only add that the RKBA does not exist to facilitate nor to thwart bad guys. They don't enter into the equation at all. The Right exists to allow ordinary folk to arm themselves for their own protection. Period.

 

[KYKevin]

Well formulated argument.

I would only add that the RKBA does not exist to facilitate nor to thwart bad guys. They don't enter into the equation at all. The Right exists to allow ordinary folk to arm themselves for their own protection. Period.

+1 well put the both of you.

 

[Shoobee]

Apparently neither you nor Scalia has bothered to read the Uniform Crime Report, Guns Used In Crime, or the National Crime Victimization Survey. The overwhelming majority of guns used in violent crime in the United States are handguns. The handguns used most often are .38 and .357 revolvers, usually Smith & Wesson. They are typically stolen, have changed hands several times after their initial theft, and circulate amongst criminals for an average of 7 years before being recovered by law enforcement.

Handguns are popular amongst the citizenry because they are more practical for self defense than carrying a long gun on a regular basis. They can easily be concealed, and their relatively small size and light recoil allow for a wide range of shooters - from novices to experts, children, the elderly, women and men - to be able to use them effectively.

Given the immense practical value of handguns, and the unique way in which they facilitate self defense, there is no doubt that they serve an important role under the Second Amendment, and it is for that reason that handguns are safe from the gun prohibitionists.

As for our homeland defense rifles, what some call "assault weapons", I will not deny that they look like scary military rifles. They have ergonomic features that certainly do make them work better in combat than traditional rifles. If not for the fact that they aren't capable of automatic fire, they would be "military weapons".

Understanding that the Second Amendment wasn't ratified to preserve the freedom of every American to hunt deer or blast clay pigeons, but to fight tyranny or foreign invaders, it makes sense that any weapon's protection under the Second Amendment should be dependent upon it's suitability for militia service. The more "militaristic" the firearm, the safer it should be under law.

It's too bad you don't have Scalia's job or you could have written the court's opinion.

As such, when Scalia writes it becomes law.

Everybody else's is just more BS.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[NugentForPresident17]

Guns are safe in America, unless...

...either Obama or Romney appoints a few liberal judges to the Supreme Court. If that happens, they may view the 2nd Amendment from a more traditional perspective--as a guarantee for a well-armed militia, not a clarion call to horde ammo and assault rifles.

 

[Gil223]

It's too bad you don't have Scalia's job or you could have written the court's opinion.

As such, when Scalia writes it becomes law.

Everybody else's is just more BS.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's right, with the exceptions of Scalia and yourself, the opinion of anybody else is BS. While you're reviewing and posting links to SCOTUS, perhaps you should read Amendment I to our Constitution. I see your head is still "up and locked", but with any luck, you may suffocate soon.

 

[KYGlockster]

...either Obama or Romney appoints a few liberal judges to the Supreme Court. If that happens, they may view the 2nd Amendment from a more traditional perspective--as a guarantee for a well-armed militia, not a clarion call to horde ammo and assault rifles.

HAHA. Do you know what the "right of the PEOPLE" means when stated in the Constitution? What about "shall not be infringed," do you know what it means? Perhaps we should study some very basic terminology before we try suggesting a right of the people is a right of a "well-armed militia." I would also suggest you research the use of a "prologue" in period writing.