AND, The NRA wants to Support REID.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Jul 15, 2010.

  1. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    Bobitis; If you don't work within the existing framework of gov., you won't get anything. The odds are slim to none that the GOP will regain control of both houses & the executive branch anytime soon. The present situation is an anomoly, same as when W. had both houses. Americans like divided government.
    I don't know about "God-given" rights, but if God gave them it would be impossible to take them away as God would not allow this to happen. Well, the inalieable rights laid out in the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness) can & have been taken away from citizens by judicial fiat. "Inalienable" means unable to be taken away, or even given away. Obviuosly, they are not inalienable which would be the case if they were "God-given" or the Declaration were a legal document, which it is not. (The Declaration was a propaganda document written to secure the recognition of our new nation by foriegn countries, most notably France. Which it did. Read it. It mostly rails on against King George, like he was the bad guy. It's not like Parliament passed thiose laws. Oops, yes it was. The King even in 1776 was mostly a figurehead.)
    In actual practice, our rights come from the gov., which is beholden to us. We (collectively) determine what those rights are. That is reality. Try basing an argument on the Declaration in a Court case as sole precedent, it don't work.
    There is another thing you can do with a boat, borrow it. That's what I do. Of course I'll work on it, but it doesn't hurt my wallet. It's 32' and on the Mississippi right now.
    It doesn't make any sense to abandon the NRA. It's the best thing we've got going. If we demand it all it is likely we will only get our victories in SCOTUS. This means Justice Kennedy right now. And what if one of the right-wing justices drops dead tomorrow? The GOP had better have control of the Senate & the White House to appoint another right wing justice. That'll be 2014 at the earliest, and that's not likely even then, politically speaking.
    Again, I'm ready to take the 1/2 loaf and consolidate the gains. The court of public approval is where we need to focus on now, SCOTUS tends to follow public sentiment. We have the public's tacit approval now, let's keep it that way and get our gains incrementally. We can get there, but we're not gonna do it in a fell swoop. (If that were the case SCOTUS would have already done it. Again, Justice Kennedy is the "decider" and he's not ready yet to go very far beyond public opinion. I understand that its not "supposed" to work this way, but in reality, it does. Study the Court if you want to see where I'm coming from.)
    Hardballer; If one is a socialist one cannot also be a fascist. By definition, that's impossible. And Fascists aren't liberals, they are primarily right wing. Ever hear of Mussolini? Real left-winger, huh? I don't know where you went to college, but I can guarantee that your political science 101 teacher really failed you.
    The Constitution means for all practical purposes, (not what you or I want or believe, it means) what 5 people in long black dresses say it means. Again, reality. Sucks, I know, but that is reality. Rail against reality all you want, but it remains reality.
    And while I have no doubt that it is beyond your comprehension, unless Harry Reid gets filmed stomping kittens on the Capitol steps, he's gonna get reelected. The tea-partiers handed Harry a gift that is his to lose. He has a war-chest and Angle is an unknown. All Angle can do is go down once her views come out. Reid's not the most popular, but he is a known entity, Angle is not. Nevada voters don't look for extremists. Watch & see, its early and I could be wrong. But even if Reid loses, who do you think the next Senate Majority leader is gonna be? Try Dick Durbin.
  2. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    If you think there is any existing government framework to work within, you will be in for a big shocker, any government that is in existence now has no relation to the one set in place 230 some years ago.

    Don't get me wrong, I'll vote. I'll support those I think are worthy. I am still guarding a hope. I also will be taking care of my own business. If you think the elections will make a difference, you have not been reading the right blogs or news sources.

    Wishin' and hopin' will not get it done.

    What has been done, can not be undone. Good luck if you are in that fantasy-land. As a matter of fact, the worst is yet to come so hang onto your hats.

  3. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    Hardballer; Well, there is a government, or so they seem to think when they collect my taxes. I'd say that it is real, government does exist. But, you are correct, however, this is 2010, not 1787. We need to deal with the political reality of today. Either we deal with reality as such, or we lose. Not my choice, but that's what's for lunch.
    We can hope & wish all we want, but that changes nothing.
    And yes, elections do make a difference.
  4. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    We'll see. . .
  5. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    O.K., fair enough. Overall, I'm on your side.
    We may disagree on politic thoughts, but I believe that we agree that agree on gun control. A steady hand and good eye are requisites. And practice don't hurt none.
    Even though I live in Illinois, I have a CCW permit valid in 26 states. And I use it.
    We both see the same end vision, but just disagree on how best to get there. Fair enough. Really, with 60+ guns, I'm not the enemy. Perhaps 2 sides of the same coin.
  6. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Originally Posted by belercous
    "Bobitis; If you don't work within the existing framework of gov., you won't get anything".

    The 'existing framework' as you call it, is a death sentence for our nation.
    Why would anyone choose to support it?

    Evil only compromises for it's own benefit. Good compromises for it's inevitible destruction. Why should good compromise anything?

    It always ends up in implosion. Evil wins and good loses.

    With your logic, it's simply a matter of time before we reach anarchy.
    And you think this is our best path? Keep choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
    Half a loaf is better than none?:eek:

    Half a loaf of bread leaves you in the bread line next week. Is that what you suggest? How long does that last your family?

    Let's just compromise all our rights away. Everyone can be on the dole, and no one will be responsible. How does that work? We just went from half a loaf to a slice.:eek:


    Yeah, that's the ticket.:mad:
  7. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    This post reminds me why I have you on ignore, but here goes.

    1) Apparently you know nothing about God and how he works. You see, there's this thing called "Free Will" and we can allow a government to take our God given rights, which is pretty much what has happened these last 60 years. Please do a little reading on Natural Laws. This idea means that Government does not give man freedom, but God. Man and government has been taking man's God given rights since the first town council or King as it were.

    2) Right and left have different meanings between the US and Europe. Apparently this is where your political science teacher failed you. In Europe the Right Wing (totalitarian government) is the Left Wing in America. I'll break it down for the impaired among us. With Totalitarian Government on the Left side of the spectrum in America, Fascists are in fact on the Left, along with Marxists, Communists and currently, the DNC. And no they are not Liberals in the strictest sense of the word, but since they believe in Government controlling business and our everyday lives, they facilitate the same end result, namely loss of freedom for The People.

    I guess you will be licking boots and enjoying your chains, while the rest of us are living and maybe dying in the fight to preserve freedom.

    3) I don't know what country you think you live in, but the U. S. Constitution means just what it says, no matter what some liberal wacko THINKS it means. Words have meaning and the words of the Constitution are plain and simple. Get rid of the a-holes that think it's a living document and the problem is solved. Your reality must be very very sad and lonely.

    4) Harry Reid will loose. Remember that and weep when your boy goes down in flames. You really shouldn't take such a nasty attitude with folks who disagree with you and are right.

    No matter where liberal bloviation comes from, it is distasteful.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  8. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    It is starting to get a bit personal, folks. Let's remember the rule of "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS."

  9. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Thanks Pops.

    I read this this morning and thought for sure we'd have another thread closure.
  10. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    45 Nut; I have no idea about "God" or any other imaginary being, too include unicorns. I'm agnostic.
    But going off of logic, let's see. God knows all. As such, God knows what his creations will do before he creates them. Free wiil? Then God doesn't know all. Myth #1 destroyed about God knowing all.
    Or if, God does know all, he knows what his creations will do (No free will, or God knows what each of us will do with our free will. As such, there cannot be free will as we can't go against God. If we could go against God, then free will exists, and God does not know the future. As such, God is not all knowing.). Pick one. Can't have both as they are mutually exlusive.
    God is all powerful. Well, if he's all powerful, he can't be all knowing. If God knows the future, he can't change the future, otherwise he wouldn't know it. If God can't change the future, he's not all powerful. Again, mutually exclusive, pick one, can't have both.
    "Natural law," as in what one can get in a state of nature, means might is right. One has no "right" to anything they cannot defend from someone else.
    I guess my political science teacher failed me, as yeah, Germany, The U.K., France, etc., are all totalitarian dictarorships. Europeans are more left than Americans (and Australia, Iran, Afgahnistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, et. al.,), buit overall, we are quite right wing. Not that this is always bad, which it is not. Personally, I am a fiscal conservative. This is only sound money managment. But then again, the people of France & Germany weren't hurt by our Great Recession.
    Please Google "Fascist" and see what you get. They are mostly right-wing, with some social provisions thrown in to win over the populace. Lemme break it down for the slow; Corporatism & Government. Kinda like the economic system of "merchantilism." Google that too.
    And hey, while we're at it, in the "strictest" sense of the word, American Conservatives are "liberals." Google "classical liberalism" and tell me different.
    Again, the Constitution means (for all intents & purpose) what 5 people in long black dresses say it means. I wasn't there, and neither was no one else alive today. And even if they were, not everyone back then had the same understanding. That is why the Constitution was written in broad terms, the specifics to be hashed-out later.
    Good luck with the Harry Reid loss thing. (I'm assuming you meant "lose," not "loose" as written.) I'm just going off of the polling and historic voter tendencies. Obviously you know something others don't. November will tell.
    I dunno, but my polisci grades did get me a scholarship to law school. If that's failure, I'm all about failure. It works for me.
    And Bobitis: Compromise is the way our government works. If we each side didn't compromise, nothing would get done. This is by design.

    Pops; I don't take anything said as a personal attack, unless it was me. Then sorry, I don't mean to personally attack a fellow American. We may disagree, but it's certainly not personal on my behalf. I believe we all have the same goals, just different ways of reaching them. I would never do a treasonous act ala Jane Fonda. We can disagree among ourselves, but not to the world.

    Time for a new thread?
  11. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Mar 12, 2010
    One thing is of a certainty,there will be no athiest in hell
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election Feb 22, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Lawmaker in SC wants to create registry for .......journalist Jan 21, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Getting Social Security? Looks Like bHo Wants Your Guns. Jul 19, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Serious Argument At Home? Well The Senate Wants Cops To Seize Your Guns While They're There Jul 30, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Missouri lawmaker wants gun owners to run from intruders Mar 11, 2014