Posted on 01/11/2013 4:42:09 AM PST by IbJensen
“Let me know how that works out for you, as far as saving America.”
Well, America seems to be goin’ the way it’s goin’, regardless of what anyone (at least on this forum) talks about doing to “save” it.
I imagine there were similar discussions held not long after the Titanic hit the iceberg...
Re #38:
I wuz gonna say it, you saved me the effort, quite well too.
However, the Grand Old Stupid Party won’t learn a damn’d thing from it, the will take the exact opposite message from it, “Our candidate was just not “centrist” enough last time, let’s get an even more liberal ass hole next time”.
That’s gonna be one heck of a challenge though, to find someone with an “R” behind his/her name, more liberal than Romney.
I make an exception for blind people, other than that I pretty much agree.
Welcome to F.R.
okay.. not an argument for socialism, but an argument against the coming dictatorship. I have no idea where Romney was proposing a tyranny, but the government is becoming tyrannical and having a person propose a smaller federal government with less power is always preferred.
You can USE UPPERCASE TEXT all you want and use whatever logical pretzels you desire but the fact still remains that if we were to have elected Romney instead of allowing Obama to remain in office, we would not be discussing gun confiscation, but tax policy and economic growth which was my original statement.
I happen to agree about the rules garbage at the RNC but it was what it was and we had two logical choices and some decided that Obama was better. I disagree that Romney was a socialist, he wasn’t, but Obama ran as one (as well as a gun banner) and we had a choice. Now we no longer have that choice.
Thank you, Graybeard58; it's always good to know when a job's been done "quite well." :)
Good to see you around.
I'm a Constitutionalist and, out of respect for my father's wishes, abstained from testing the "law" -- you see, in NM the State Constitution specifically prohibits any law abridging the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense; even barring the counties and municipalities from regulating "in any way" and incident of the right to keep and bear arms -- by taking a firearm with me into the city's courthouse.
Some people would say it is a stupid thing to do; most people do not realize that the police (and security) have "no affirmative obligation to provide for a particular private citizen's safety." (According to several US Supreme Court rulings. -- and did you know that you may be compelled, even if not accused of a crime, to be present in a courthouse: this is called jury duty. -- If then, there is no guarantee for the juror's safety, it is obvious that disarming the juror is immoral.
And there are many "laws", rules, regulations like this.
Do you oppose, and I mean more than just complaining or grumbling, them?
It’s getting to the point where I wish Iran or Norks would nuke DC - to save America.
easy - Chris Christie R NJ; recently said he is looking forward to running for POTUS in 2016.
I have no idea where you are taking this discussion but thank you for your service.
Like I said in the first post -- those in power have little respect for the law. Indeed, the 'law' cannot be respectable if (a) it is so morally corrupt so as to deny real, God-given rights, (b) conflict with the authority which gave the power to authorize it, or [and I did not raise this issue yet] (c) be selectively enforced.
A & B are both in my first post, B the primary in my last post.
In order to get the law back to being respectable; you and I and hundreds of other people need to push back against its abuse... and those that are abusing it need to pay (whether that will be monetary/financial, security, or with blood is a question that I am not addressing) -- it must be disadvantageous for an official to act in unjust manner.
The US Code provides an interesting duo:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Until the Law is just and valid -- meaning also the Constitution is Supreme -- the parties matter little; for it is they who, along with the judiciary, show such despite to the Constitution.
>>That’s gonna be one heck of a challenge though, to find someone with an “R” behind his/her name, more liberal than Romney.
>
>easy - Chris Christie R NJ; recently said he is looking forward to running for POTUS in 2016.
Ah... no.
Heck, *I* would make a better president.
I voted for Romney but to be fair, Romney has banned more guns than Obama ever has. Without a doubt, he would've supported an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook and congressional Republicans would've had a more difficult time opposing him on this than they currently do Obama.
Despite his NRA endorsement, Romney was no friend to gun owners and most certainly, no fan of so-called "assault weapons".
Most people are missing the bigger issue. If Caliph Hussein can get away with (illegally) overriding the Second Amendment by executive fiat (IOW, rule by decree), then he will be emboldened and he can try to get away with overriding the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and the rest, as well as the 22nd Amendment, simply by his own fiat.
Then he will have achieved his goal to be the absolute ruler of America. We cannot and must not allow this to happen.
Thanks for that summary!
In Texas and presumably other states, the blind can hunt with a firearm if they have a guide along.
For self defense in public, sure, probably not a good idea unless the person has a guide. “Okay, the punk with the knife is three feet to your left. Aim 4 feet high and fire....NOW” Ha.
At home though, just the presence of a gun works to stop an invader in most cases. I think a blind person with some common sense and training could effectively use a firearm for home defense.
However if they chose not to, I wouldn’t consider that un-American :)
Imagine if every rant at FR was backed up with an email to a Congressman and Senator. Recall how Rush motivated conservatives to defeat the shamnesty bill for illegals and the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court.
Sorry, had to stop reading right there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.