President appoints, Senate confirms
- Thread starter BigFatKen
- Start date
- Status
liberalgunnut
Member
nice try.
Armed Bear... you seem to imply that somehow liberals have a monopoly on lunatics. I don't believe that I ever said anything that implied that I support any of those positions... but what i do see as the greatest threat, yes even bigger than terrorists, is the abandoning of Habeas Corpus. While you can look and find on a regular basis ridiculous examples of extreme leftwing nuts trying to pass insane politically correct laws... you will have a very hard time finding ANY bill that has posed a bigger threat to your constitutional rights as one that allows 1 man to claim that YOU are a threat to your country and absolve you of ALL of your rights, including the 2nd. I'm curious... would you support this bill if Hillary Clinton was your president? this reactionary short terrm thinking will be the death of our constitution.
gotta run... I'm off to burn flags...
Armed Bear... you seem to imply that somehow liberals have a monopoly on lunatics. I don't believe that I ever said anything that implied that I support any of those positions... but what i do see as the greatest threat, yes even bigger than terrorists, is the abandoning of Habeas Corpus. While you can look and find on a regular basis ridiculous examples of extreme leftwing nuts trying to pass insane politically correct laws... you will have a very hard time finding ANY bill that has posed a bigger threat to your constitutional rights as one that allows 1 man to claim that YOU are a threat to your country and absolve you of ALL of your rights, including the 2nd. I'm curious... would you support this bill if Hillary Clinton was your president? this reactionary short terrm thinking will be the death of our constitution.
gotta run... I'm off to burn flags...
The last thing in the world we need is a balanced court, which ends up being a court that rules based on opinion or personal ideology. We need a Constitutionalist court. The idea is to uphold the Constitution, not engage in some sort of institutionalized PCness.
River Wraith
Member
The Constitution should be protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Liberals are enemies, just of the domestic variety.
GoRon
Member
I fail to see how putting Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Shumer, Durbin, Biden, Feingold, Rangel, Reid and Pelosi into greater positions of authority and influence is going to protect my rights.
The Democrats have less respect for the three rights I value most.
Life, Property and Self Defense.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I'll take the picks of President Bush over any of the living constitution clowns that a Democrat would send up.
You guys are going to cut your noses off to spite your face.
The Democrats have less respect for the three rights I value most.
Life, Property and Self Defense.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I'll take the picks of President Bush over any of the living constitution clowns that a Democrat would send up.
You guys are going to cut your noses off to spite your face.
liberalgunnut
Member
wow
wow...leave to go burn flags and I turn into an enemy of the state...
First: constitutionalist court...
The problem with that position is even strict constitutionlists cannot agree on what they interpret the constitution to mean. The closest person I see to a constitutionalist is Scalia... and it seems whenever he votes to uphold what he sees as strict constitutional issues the right has a cow.
trying to be a strict constitutionalist is like trying to be a strict christian... everyone seems to have their own veiw of strict...and christian
next: Liberals as enemies of the state...
huh? For some reason you seem to believe that your position makes you the uber patriot. I don't know you but I have to assume that you consider yourself a patriot... yet somehow you seem to assume that because one might disagree with your postion that they somehow hate America? Please... take a few minutes and read the other 26 amendments.
Life, property and self defense...
Your government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens...your life... Maybe you ought to be asking yourself, if that is the case why do we have 7 times the number of troops in Iraq as Afghanistan? Why is the Senate Majority leader calling for including the Taliban in the Afghan government? Remeber they were those pesky Al Qaida types... you remember them right? Why is the president calling on us to "stay the course" in a war that is now not ours? our own generals have stated that the violence is 95% sectarian. Why is the president claiming that he shouldn't have to be bothered with FISA warrants when, of the over 19,000 requests that have been made of the courts less than 30 have been rejected? Where is your right to self defense when 1 man can call you an enemy and virtually take away ALL of your rights, including that of self defense? Is your right to property not infringed when the government can walk into your home, search it and not tell you? Where is your right to privacy when the government can listen to any call you make, or view any email you write.
if your argument is that you don't like Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, or whoever is the least patriotic of the day according to the swiftboat vets... get off your butts and vote for change. That is what I'm doing.
I'm just going to guess you're not going to like my idea of change.
By the way... I'm a proud liberal, a ACLU member (which means I strongly support all the amendments including the 2nd), proud of that too, an NRA member, proud of that, and an avid shooter, very proud of that (I'm a good shot).
wow...leave to go burn flags and I turn into an enemy of the state...
First: constitutionalist court...
The problem with that position is even strict constitutionlists cannot agree on what they interpret the constitution to mean. The closest person I see to a constitutionalist is Scalia... and it seems whenever he votes to uphold what he sees as strict constitutional issues the right has a cow.
trying to be a strict constitutionalist is like trying to be a strict christian... everyone seems to have their own veiw of strict...and christian
next: Liberals as enemies of the state...
huh? For some reason you seem to believe that your position makes you the uber patriot. I don't know you but I have to assume that you consider yourself a patriot... yet somehow you seem to assume that because one might disagree with your postion that they somehow hate America? Please... take a few minutes and read the other 26 amendments.
Life, property and self defense...
Your government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens...your life... Maybe you ought to be asking yourself, if that is the case why do we have 7 times the number of troops in Iraq as Afghanistan? Why is the Senate Majority leader calling for including the Taliban in the Afghan government? Remeber they were those pesky Al Qaida types... you remember them right? Why is the president calling on us to "stay the course" in a war that is now not ours? our own generals have stated that the violence is 95% sectarian. Why is the president claiming that he shouldn't have to be bothered with FISA warrants when, of the over 19,000 requests that have been made of the courts less than 30 have been rejected? Where is your right to self defense when 1 man can call you an enemy and virtually take away ALL of your rights, including that of self defense? Is your right to property not infringed when the government can walk into your home, search it and not tell you? Where is your right to privacy when the government can listen to any call you make, or view any email you write.
if your argument is that you don't like Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, or whoever is the least patriotic of the day according to the swiftboat vets... get off your butts and vote for change. That is what I'm doing.
I'm just going to guess you're not going to like my idea of change.
By the way... I'm a proud liberal, a ACLU member (which means I strongly support all the amendments including the 2nd), proud of that too, an NRA member, proud of that, and an avid shooter, very proud of that (I'm a good shot).
Last edited:
epijunkie67
Member
The way I see it, it doesn't matter who wins. I'm screwed either way.
The Dems are going to ban my guns, give all my money to welfare cheats, and make me want to move back to the United States of America.
The Republicans are going to destroy what remains of my constitutional rights and continue to promote the idea of supreme presidential power which will backfire in the long run when a dem finally (and it wil eventually happen) gets reelected to the presidency. They make me want to move back to the United States of America.
Funny, because I've lived in either KY, TX, OH, or TN my entire life and yet it seems the USA I grew up in doesn't even exist any more.
So I'm screwed no matter who wins.
The Dems are going to ban my guns, give all my money to welfare cheats, and make me want to move back to the United States of America.
The Republicans are going to destroy what remains of my constitutional rights and continue to promote the idea of supreme presidential power which will backfire in the long run when a dem finally (and it wil eventually happen) gets reelected to the presidency. They make me want to move back to the United States of America.
Funny, because I've lived in either KY, TX, OH, or TN my entire life and yet it seems the USA I grew up in doesn't even exist any more.
So I'm screwed no matter who wins.
River Wraith
Member
You might support the ACLU, but the ACLU doesn't support you. The ACLU does not support the 2nd ammendment. You are fooling yourself. The only way a good shot who loves guns can be a liberal is if he lives in lala land, as you obviously do. All it would take for us to lose our right to keep and bear arms, what's left of it, would be a liberal house, liberal senate, and liberal president.
liberalgunnut
Member
ACLU
Are you getting all your info from Bill O'Rielly?
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
from their site:
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
I would challenge you to show me any case where the ACLU did anything that would infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.
The irony of this is that you claim that I am not served by the ACLU... when the reality is that you are.
Are you getting all your info from Bill O'Rielly?
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
from their site:
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
I would challenge you to show me any case where the ACLU did anything that would infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.
The irony of this is that you claim that I am not served by the ACLU... when the reality is that you are.
GoRon
Member
All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about lost rights and yet nobody here has any stories of being deprived of their rights. The big bad Republicans are being accused of crimes that haven't been commited.
There is a looong history of the Democrats grabbing guns, recommending confiscatory tax rates and endangering the public through their soft approach to criminals domestic and foreign.
River Wraith
Member
You agree with this? You are out of your damn mind. You just made my case for me. You are supporting an organization that supports the licensing and registration of firearms. You are supporting a group that says that individual firearm ownership is not constitutionally protected. May your chains rest lightly on you, that you may lick your master's hand.
liberalgunnut
Member
wrath...
One more thought...If you support the current administration then you would certainly not be a conservative. I would challenge you to list the conservative accomplishments of this government.
Liberals left you a $250B surplus, oh yeah...and your guns. Self professed "Conservatives" left you a trillon dolar debt, our army fighting to calm a sectarian civil war, and the fear that liberals are going to take your guns, and make you marry another guy...
Given the choices I take my guns, the surplus, an army that fights terrorism and my wife any day.
One more thought...If you support the current administration then you would certainly not be a conservative. I would challenge you to list the conservative accomplishments of this government.
Liberals left you a $250B surplus, oh yeah...and your guns. Self professed "Conservatives" left you a trillon dolar debt, our army fighting to calm a sectarian civil war, and the fear that liberals are going to take your guns, and make you marry another guy...
Given the choices I take my guns, the surplus, an army that fights terrorism and my wife any day.
liberalgunnut
Member
ACLU
Are your guns not registered? you've yet to show me any case where the ACLU has done anything that limits your constitutional rights?
Of course I agree with them (most of the time)... I give them my money. And I certainly agree with their neutral position on the 2nd.
The only hand I lick is my wife's...
Are your guns not registered? you've yet to show me any case where the ACLU has done anything that limits your constitutional rights?
Of course I agree with them (most of the time)... I give them my money. And I certainly agree with their neutral position on the 2nd.
The only hand I lick is my wife's...
River Wraith
Member
Wow, way to change the subject. The present administration has done nothing to further restrict my gun rights. In fact, the sunset of the 1994 gun ban, (which was pushed through by liberals) is one of the things this administration has done (albeit passively) to actually expand my gun rights. Read the ACLU crap you posted again and tell me how you can agree with gun registration and with the statement that the individual ownership of firearms is not constitutionally protected.
River Wraith
Member
We don't have gun registration in this country, so no, my guns aren't registered. If you're referring to that little pink slip of paper, that's not registration. The ACLU's position is not neutral. It is in direct opposition to the true purpose of the 2nd ammendment.
GoRon
Member
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
And score of other judges that will hopefully help restore sanity to the judicial system.
No, the massive cuts to the military and a Republican Congress (led by Newt Gingrinch) left us a surplus.
liberalgunnut
Member
6 years?
wow, six years and 2 judges? it would have been Roberts and Meyers... but Rove was on vacation and forgot to tell Bush not to try to appoint an idiot.
Gee as far as the surplus goes you seem to want to take credit for it but none of the responsibility for the military. And as everyone knows, the problems we are currently experiencing in Iraq are because of Clinton right? Speaking of taking credit but not responsibility...I saw a funny ad on TV today it was the right trying to claim that my demcratic congress woman "voted" for the bridge to nowhere... Of course she was voting for the defense funding of which a "conservative" had attached a $250M appropriation for a bridge for 50 people.
btw: sanity to the judicial system... does that mean having a government that promotes one religion over another? that thinks that consenting adults cannot marry?
wow, six years and 2 judges? it would have been Roberts and Meyers... but Rove was on vacation and forgot to tell Bush not to try to appoint an idiot.
Gee as far as the surplus goes you seem to want to take credit for it but none of the responsibility for the military. And as everyone knows, the problems we are currently experiencing in Iraq are because of Clinton right? Speaking of taking credit but not responsibility...I saw a funny ad on TV today it was the right trying to claim that my demcratic congress woman "voted" for the bridge to nowhere... Of course she was voting for the defense funding of which a "conservative" had attached a $250M appropriation for a bridge for 50 people.
btw: sanity to the judicial system... does that mean having a government that promotes one religion over another? that thinks that consenting adults cannot marry?
liberalgunnut
Member
ACLU
Mine are registered... interestingly they seem to shoot just as good, if not better than most unregistered guns.
Mine are registered... interestingly they seem to shoot just as good, if not better than most unregistered guns.
Desertdog
Member
If one has to fall, let it be the House. The house is in charge of the appropriations. The Senate approves the judges.
Which would you prefer; the President not getting any funding, or not appointing any judges?
Maybe sombody can answer this; How many Democrats have switched to the Republican Party since Clinton took office? I have a vague memory of reading of something like 440.
River Wraith
Member
Dude, you already hung yourself. Now we all know what you stand for. Let it go.
GoRon
Member
liberalgunnut
You seem to be responding to a caricature of a Republican instead of me.
You wanted accomplishments? I gave you the only accomplishments worth mentioning.
I thought it was self evident that if the Republicans were in charge of the House that they were complicit in the cutting of the military budget. Next time I will spell things out a little clearer for you.
As a conservative I am very unhappy with the current crop of Republicans and their insane spending.
That doesn't mean I am going to help put the Democrats in office. They will make our evolution into a euro socialist hell hole occur even faster than the "forgot my core principles" Republicans.
You seem to be responding to a caricature of a Republican instead of me.
You wanted accomplishments? I gave you the only accomplishments worth mentioning.
I thought it was self evident that if the Republicans were in charge of the House that they were complicit in the cutting of the military budget. Next time I will spell things out a little clearer for you.
As a conservative I am very unhappy with the current crop of Republicans and their insane spending.
That doesn't mean I am going to help put the Democrats in office. They will make our evolution into a euro socialist hell hole occur even faster than the "forgot my core principles" Republicans.
liberalgunnut
Member
desertdog
While I'm sure this is not written in stone... it is interesting. I think your number may be inflated unless it includes city council people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States
While I'm sure this is not written in stone... it is interesting. I think your number may be inflated unless it includes city council people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States
liberalgunnut
Member
GoRon
hmmm... apparently we may have more in common than we disagree on. Sorry if I put you in the faux conservative slot... but there does seem to be alot of them around here. FYI - I'm a big goldwater fan, still a liberal, but I really appreciated his approach to politics.
Although I do disagree with you on Alito...he seems like a sheep to me. I don't think Roberts is too bad. At least he's very qualified.
hmmm... apparently we may have more in common than we disagree on. Sorry if I put you in the faux conservative slot... but there does seem to be alot of them around here. FYI - I'm a big goldwater fan, still a liberal, but I really appreciated his approach to politics.
Although I do disagree with you on Alito...he seems like a sheep to me. I don't think Roberts is too bad. At least he's very qualified.
ETXhiker
Member
Registration is the precursor to confiscation. They have to know who has the guns before they can come after them.
This is basic stuff. Not rocket science.
First, they get the list, then they come after them. The way Hitler did it and every country since that has disarmed its people. I can't believe someone on this board has to be told.
liberalgunnut
Member
And yet somehow you trust this government to protect your rights and the constitution? the same people that passed the warrantless searches, torture, and enemy combatant crap? gee almost forgot habeous corpus...
You should be worrying about the party that has no respect for the constitution... the one in power now. I currently feel that we have much bigger threats than gun registration to our civil rights at the moment. does one ignore everything else to protect that issue? seems like it from here in the cheap seats...
hmmm... the diference is that we have a constitutional and a supreme court that for the most part respects it. Hitler did not disarm his people by taking their guns, he disarmed them with fear, and hate. they gave up much of their rights... gee it reminds me of... us... now...
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
this was an interesting take on the nazi issue...
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html
The Nazis relaxed gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen." That is, those who were not "enemies of the National Socialist state" (read: Jews, Communists and others the Nazis were intent on eliminating)
I think your argument might be better served without the NRA propaganda. I'm assuming that since you are likely not an "enemy of the state" (given that you support this nonsense) you'd be ok... and I'm guessing that since I'm obviously a enemy of the state (liberal) they will be knocking on my door first. that's ok, I'm armed.
You should be worrying about the party that has no respect for the constitution... the one in power now. I currently feel that we have much bigger threats than gun registration to our civil rights at the moment. does one ignore everything else to protect that issue? seems like it from here in the cheap seats...
hmmm... the diference is that we have a constitutional and a supreme court that for the most part respects it. Hitler did not disarm his people by taking their guns, he disarmed them with fear, and hate. they gave up much of their rights... gee it reminds me of... us... now...
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
this was an interesting take on the nazi issue...
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html
The Nazis relaxed gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen." That is, those who were not "enemies of the National Socialist state" (read: Jews, Communists and others the Nazis were intent on eliminating)
I think your argument might be better served without the NRA propaganda. I'm assuming that since you are likely not an "enemy of the state" (given that you support this nonsense) you'd be ok... and I'm guessing that since I'm obviously a enemy of the state (liberal) they will be knocking on my door first. that's ok, I'm armed.
Last edited:
- Status