State of the Union: Self-Defense Comment

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gordon Fink

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Messages
2,322
Location
California
In his state-of-the-union address, while describing what we have done and still need to do to prosecute the “war on terror,†President G. W. Bush said the following: “… America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.â€

Let’s discuss how this idea relates to individual self-defense in general and the Bush administration’s stance/actions on the right to keep and bear arms in specific.

~G. Fink
 
The President also mentioned 'activist judges' having no regard for the will of the people( homo marriage ), and the peoples' right to use 'Constitutional Law' against such renegades.

Sounds as if he is still pro 2A. I really hope so, as I voted for him.

Its still up in the air for me....AWB, Immigration reform, etc....

regards from e.TX

mc
 
I caught that too and liked it... It was basically a big FU to those who would assert that the UN is the highest world authority.

With respect to RKBA....

I wonder how long I'd last standing on the capitol steps, openly carrying, and quoting that line.

My guess is 30 seconds till I'm tackled, and 90 seconds till I'm charged with a felony.
 
I don't need a permission slip to defend my family. However, the authorities in most states take an extremely dim view of that viewpoint if you seek to do so away from home. Hence, many people have gotten a permission slip to carry (CCH, CHL, whatever you want to call it). That we do so has turned a right into a privilege, which I find disgusting. However, practical considerations (primarily staying out of jail) oftentimes dictate what people do. Perhaps if we get some Supreme Court Justices who can actually read and understand the plain language of the Constitution we'll cease having our right infringed upon. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to occur.

If I had a choice between my safety (or that of my family) and being legal, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. This is obviously what that guy near Chicago decided, and I think that the absurdity of him being able to defend himself - but not with a gun - is having a nationwide impact.
 
Sam Adams, Boston patriot and beer maker... :D

Perhaps if we get some Supreme Court Justices who can actually read and understand the plain language of the Constitution ...
Click to expand...
I think getting some legislators along these lines also. I always like the way President "Silent Cal" Coolidge used to put it, "I find no constitutional basis for this bill," and then refuse to sign it. :cool:
 
“… America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.â€
Click to expand...

Coming from GW, I think it means the American government will never consult with the people as to what and to what degree they trash the Constitution.

From what I hear out of the idjit box, its more along the lines of "don't worry, subjects-the government will protect you" so there is no need to arm yourselves.

Don't get too concerned about privacy issues either. GW may not violate them to the nth degree, but he certainly has set up the frame work for a future president to do exactly that.

Don't worry about the border issues, because their won't be any borders worth mentioning before long.

What I do see so far as the 2A is the mainstream Republicans are taking our rights away more slowly than the liberals, and I am very concerned about what is going to be left in another 5-10 years. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an electable person currently running who will set the tone to roll back the idiocy, at least at this time.

The Democrats seem to backing away just a bit from "gun control", while the Republicans seem to be so happy about getting control of the congress and the executive branch that they will happily compromise with the other side.
As if our Constitutional rights and the restrictions on the government are somehow negotiable.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no statement anywhere in the Constitution which states "Your actual mileage may vary.":fire:
 
I wonder how long I’d last standing on the [C]apitol steps, openly carrying, and quoting that line.
Click to expand...

Not long, as you suggest. However, I wonder how well it would work as an affirmative defense in court. “Even the President says I don’t need permission to defend myself.…â€

~G. Fink
 
as Mousecat points out, Bush hypocritically admonishes activist judges and then discards the 10th amendment and the equal protection clause to fit his religious views and try to win votes on the marriage issue.

Critizing judges for re-interpretaing the Constitution and then, in the same speech, asserting his own anti-Constitutional re-interpretation on gay marriage as a vote getting ploy does not bode well for RKBA if it comes more politically expedient to be anti.

Don't think for a minute that this country could not be a couple gun massacres away from the gains of the pro RKBA being wiped clean and Bush and any leaders following the votes like Clinton did.
 
I wonder how long I'd last standing on the capitol steps, openly carrying, and quoting that line.
Click to expand...

Well, there's only one way to know for sure... :D But to do so alone would be the embodiment of retardation. We'd stand much better chances having thousands of gun-owners nationwide standing on the capitol steps, all openly packin'.

And then we'd be labelled as terrorists.

Wes
 
You are *too* right, The Fumegator.

I wouldn't be surprised if the assembled, armed citizens were summarily mowed down by the SS with mounted machine gun fire, like Allied POWs were massacred by the *other* SS during WWII. That -- a modern-day "Boston Massacre" -- *might* be the neeeded wakeup call that would finally tip things over into open resistance to the anti-constitutional usurpers, but, sadly, I doubt it. The media would spin it in such a way as to make all the massacred Americans appear to be "right-wing militia/white-supremacist-racist wackos" and (as you said) "terrorists." These days a "terrorist" is just anybody the government (and its seven hundred thousand or so armed hirelings) chooses to *call* a terrorist.

Maimaktes
 
It looked like Teddy Kennedy didn't like the speach. Either that or he has developed some sort of neuropathy that cause him to shake his head.
 
The scary thing is that President Bush says we wont ask permission for defending America... but that is exactly what all the Democrats keep talking about... Working with the UN on everything. The two Democrat minority leaders giving the Democrats rebuttal both alluded to working lock step with the UN.
That's the scariest thing mentioned all night... that and the Patriot Act but that's another thread.
The UN is a huge threat to the American way of life, and the Democrats are just ITCHING to get into bed with them... the likes of Koffi's Crew are probably very appealing to the Leftists... After all they both work in the very say way.
Just ask yourself "what is the slimiest most dastardly thing possible right now?" And THAT is what they do... Every time.
 
The "Shrub" might even be slicker than 'ol "Willie"..............

Beauty's only skin deep..........


regards from eTX.

mc


p.o'd

maybe slicker than a new-born weasel..........who knows.........
 
Dammit! We need a party devoted to putting power back into state and local governments, and taking most of it out of the feds' hands.

But what to call it? Curses, anything associated with the word confederacy is screwed, otherwise I would suggest the Confedercratic Party. Grrrrr...

We really need state rights again. I'm getting that "Taxation without Representation" feeling, and I don't like it.
 
How's your STATE treating you?? Confederacy would not be a problem but for constituants remaining spread out....

My biggest fear is Jonesy9's last paragraph...It'd be a long row to hoe......

regards from e.TX

mc
 
Let’s discuss how this idea relates to individual self-defense in general and the Bush administration’s stance/actions on the right to keep and bear arms in specific.
Click to expand...

Bush has been very vocal in his belief that CCW saves lives. Why do so many people find that surprising?
 
protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits. (Applause.)
Click to expand...

From bipartisan ontheissues.org:

"If the NRA could pick a candidate, it would undoubtedly be George W. Bush. He has been a strong ally of the organization in Texas. Recent attempts to distance himself are assumed to be merely tactical. Bush follows the standard gun-owner’s line: he wants tougher penalties against gun-toting criminals, but no more regulations for worthy citizens with a pistol by the bed. He places the blame for America’s frequent gun massacres on negligent parents, a “wave of evil†and the culture of violence. As president, he would:

-would bring in no new gun controls, except possibly tougher penalties for criminals using guns
-opposes mandatory safety locks (but supports voluntary ones)
-supports concealed-weapon laws
-favors instant background checks (rather than three-day waiting periods) in shops and at gun shows
-would restrict lawsuits against gun makers, which he has deterred in Texas"

Please read all that carefully. Especially note that, inside the beltway, Bush's AWB stance is considered "tactical." The NRA has held this all along.
 
BUMP

Sam's kids wouldn't let that happen.......ha!!!!!!!!!!!
Slicker than a newborn weasle..................

Let us see what transpires..............


Oh, my bad... It's too late!!!!!


HA!!!!

Freegards from e.TX,

mc
 
Bush follows the standard gun-owner’s line: he wants tougher penalties against gun-toting criminals
Click to expand...

Because after all, a person killed by a firearm is "more deader" that somebody killed by a knife or an automobile. :rolleyes:

What a :cuss: joke.

I still don't know where I belong party-wise, but I do agree that there needs to be a MAJOR scaling back of the government. I guess I'm still associated nearer to the Libertarians.

Wes
 
This has got to be the only place in the universe where anyone thinks Bush's quote about permission to defend ourselves has anything to do with a permit to carry. What a riot. Sounds like a bunch of abused wives forgiving the ol' man one more time.

That line was red-meat electioneering for the black helicopter crowd. Meanwhile the US is over at the UN begging Kofi Annan to pull our irons out of the fire in Iraq before the election.

And for the record, no, the US shouldn't ask anyone permission to defend ourselves. But the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with defending ourselves.
 
Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. (Applause.) Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.) Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. (Applause.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
CA: Bill Simon Flattens Gray Davis in Post Speech News Conference
Replies
3
Views
1K
Pendragon
P
T
  • Locked
Part of anti-terror law overturned
Replies
0
Views
398
TheeBadOne
T
Derek Zeanah
  • Locked
Remember: Bush is defending our freedoms against terrorists
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
geegee
G
J
  • Locked
Article on the Rumsfeld memo
Replies
0
Views
505
Jeff White
J
2
  • Locked
Protesters plan to stop war shipments
Replies
8
Views
515
2dogs
2
Back
Top