| Author | Post |
|---|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 05:40 pm |
|
Pasadena , Ca.
A self defense advocate muses over the Second Amendment and Abortion Rights .
http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=7512
|
Il_Duce
Banned
| Joined: | Sun May 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 05:44 pm |
|
I'm pro-2A, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-freedom in general.
|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 07:51 pm |
|
Il_Duce wrote: I'm pro-freedom in general.
This forum's purpose is to exercise our freedom of Open Carry as to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to help educate others of their forgotten almost lost rights .
Freedom's reponsibilty and accountability are also part of our discussions .
Center Left is where I place this author across the political spectrum . Ellen Snortland self defense books for women have helped many not to become a rape victim .
|
grumpycoconut
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
| Embrace one freedom and embrace them all. Anything less is hypocracy.
|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26th, 2009 10:45 pm |
|
grumpycoconut wrote: Embrace one freedom and embrace them all. Anything less is hypocracy.
" Second star on the right & straight on till morning . "
Being a Centrist with a right slat unaffiliated voter , the corrupt and criminal actions of the extreme Left & Right wings are scary .
Abortions should only be done because of rape , incest , and health of the mother . A late term 9th month during birth abortion is not OK by me .
Does Gun Violence Prevention mean the government is going to supply us a gun ?
What kind ? Can I choice another of equal value ?
Don't the facts prove that Guns Prevent Violence ?
|
FreeCitizen
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:14 am |
|
Razor...I find it hard to follow the point of this post. You link an article about a Republican Senator expressing opinion of this Supreme Court Justice nominee, written by a confused woman who believes that pro-choice is "the label for people who believe in a woman’s fundamental right to decide when and with whom she will bear children", and then pin it to gun violence protection.
I'm going to attempt to put my 2 cents in on the whole idea as I see it.
First, The Senator's about as far left as a Republican can get. If I am inaccurate on that assessment, then the other alternative is that he is more than happy to suck on the teet of this neo-New Deal Administration - the American people be damned. To say that this progressive nominee is more of a judge than an activist is nonsense. Her past actions speak louder than the coached words se said during the hearings.
Then there is the author. Pro-choice - by the definition I know it to be - is the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. A woman’s "fundamental right to decide when and with whom she will bear children" is simply a matter of responsibility to exercise safe sex until she is ready to have children. I do not know how or when that crap she rambled out became the definition of pro-choice. I do understand her point though.
As far as gun violence protection goes, it is not the job of our elected Representatives to decide who can or cannot own a gun. The restrictive laws they pass will never have the effect they are wanting them to. It is like my ex Unit Commander implementing a rule banning alcohol from the barracks because a few guys were arrested for underage drinking. It only punishes the innocent when they have to go elsewhere to consume alcohol and run the risk of DUI. (I know....it is their responsibility to avoid that circumstance, but you get my point). They are using every means they can to strip our rights from us they can get their hands on. These progressive men and women are nibbling away at the foundation of this Country to claim it as their own. They have the mainstream media throwing the free corn out to keep the pigs in the pen content with their captivity long enough to implement their totalitarian regime.
It's not going to end until the American People wake up and realize that the rights they take for granted are being dissolved - and at a faster rate than ever before. This government is trying to implement international treaties in place to restrict the RTKABA. They know that if they can accomplish that, there will be no stopping their Socialist ideals from becoming reality. We are heading down a dark path that will only end in total annihilation of this great Country... Unless the American People stop it once and for all. I, personally, want my Niece and Nephews growing up in a society where hard work and steadfast dedication to principles will merit a comfortable lifestyle...not contributing to the general welfare of a country too lazy to accomplish the American dream. I want them to wake up every morning secure in the rights that God gave them.
|
N00blet45
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
Do I support restrictions on gun ownership? Of course I do! Really. I do not want any Tom, Dick or Harry, or Tanya, Denise or Harriet, to walk into any store and buy a gun. Indeed, to be even more honest, I often muse that we should consider licensing people to bear children. Just because people CAN reproduce doesn’t necessarily mean that they SHOULD reproduce. I am being facetious, of course.
She lost me there.
No restrictions at all. If you're not in a prison or mental ward you should be allowed access to a firearm without asking for government permission. If you're walking free you've obviously not been convicted of a crime or declare mentally insane via due process. Or you were once a felon/crazy person but are now fit to be on the outside and thus you should have your rights back.
If you're free you're free, period. If you have to ask anyone's permission you're not free.
Last edited on Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:22 am by N00blet45
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:25 am |
|
grumpycoconut wrote: Embrace one freedom and embrace them all. Anything less is hypocracy.
(Grump, I'm actually a little sorry it was you who said this, seeing as how we don't get along. But its too good to pass up. Don't take it personally. Well, maybe just a little.)
Rule by hypocrites? Rule by someone beneath us? This is not a form of government I have heard of before.
Or, wait a minute. Maybe he is right. Any government that does not embrace all freedoms might fit that definition, after all.
Last edited on Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:27 am by Citizen
|
AWDstylez
Banned
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 2715 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:33 am |
|
grumpycoconut wrote: Embrace one freedom and embrace them all. Anything less is "conservative".
Fixed that for you.
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 492 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 02:48 am |
|
N00blet45 wrote: No restrictions at all. If you're not in a prison or mental ward you should be allowed access to a firearm without asking for government permission. If you're walking free you've obviously not been convicted of a crime or declare mentally insane via due process. Or you were once a felon/crazy person but are now fit to be on the outside and thus you should have your rights back.
If you're free you're free, period. If you have to ask anyone's permission you're not free.
I agree with this completely.
|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 02:53 am |
|
NightOwl wrote: N00blet45 wrote: No restrictions at all. If you're not in a prison or mental ward you should be allowed access to a firearm without asking for government permission. If you're walking free you've obviously not been convicted of a crime or declare mentally insane via due process. Or you were once a felon/crazy person but are now fit to be on the outside and thus you should have your rights back.
If you're free you're free, period. If you have to ask anyone's permission you're not free.
I agree with this completely.
What about those on probation for a violent crime ?
|
Il_Duce
Banned
| Joined: | Sun May 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 03:00 am |
|
If you're a danger to society, you shouldn't be out and about in it.
|
yale
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 12:11 pm |
|
N00blet45 wrote: No restrictions at all. If you're not in a prison or mental ward you should be allowed access to a firearm without asking for government permission. If you're walking free you've obviously not been convicted of a crime or declare mentally insane via due process. Or you were once a felon/crazy person but are now fit to be on the outside and thus you should have your rights back.
If you're free you're free, period. If you have to ask anyone's permission you're not free.
I have to disagree with you there. I have to deal with mental patients and criminals on a regular basis at work. They get released from prison or mental wards regularly and walk the same streets you and I do. They go shopping at Wal-mart and go to Burger King just like we do. They are free to walk the streets but have serious issues which make me glad many of them are restricted from owning guns legally.
Don't try to argue that if you aren't in a mental ward then you should be allowed to have agun when I spent my last shift pulling security at a downtown hospital having to tie a mental patient to a gurney in the ER as he tried to bite, scratch and spit on everyone in the room. The guy didn't even know what planet we were on.
Not 10 minutes after dealing with him I was responding to a radio call for All Available Units back in the ER. Again, we had another mental patient who we had to wrestle ont a bed and tie down as he tried to spit on, kick and bite the 4 officers and half a dozen nurses we had in the room.
Later I had to standby as the ER was put on lockdown because a shooting victim had arrived and outside the parking lot was filling up with a couple dozen thugs who all wanted to get in to rally around their homie and then go get some payback. I swear everyone of them had their pants hanging below their ass.
I've got homeless people who are walking around wearing 5 pairs of pants at a time soaked in their piss and trying to break into cars in the parking garage. They see me get out of my unit and pull my maglight and they start screaming that I'm going to beat them.  Seems they are used to being beat and can trun violent in a heartbeat.
I have looneys who see me on patrol who are so cracked out of their minds that they accuse me of working for the CIA. They wander into the middle of a 4 lane road and stagger away talking to voices in their heads.
I see ex-cons who remember me from when they were in prison and I was assigned to stand there with a rifle and a pistol and ensure that they didn't run off. Now they are on the streets and I'm in uniform in their 'hood driving around trying to keep them from breaking into buildings which should have been bulldozed to the ground months ago.
Losers with 3 brain cells, no home and no reason to live telling me to "Shoot me. If I had a gun I'd kill you. Owww. You broke my *****ng arm. "
Violent sociopaths, mental patients who refuse to stay on their medications, bunch of bipolar retards, on and on. There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
|
buster81
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
yale wrote: There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
What would you propose as acceptable restrictions?
|
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:11 pm |
|
buster81 wrote: yale wrote: There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
What would you propose as acceptable restrictions?
@yale,
I agree that some people aren't responsible enough for RKBA, but prior restraint on any of our rights is not freedom. Restriction implies prior restraint. Of course; every right comes with responsibility. If you can't be responsible when exercising that right you shouldn't be able to; but, it needs to be proven that you aren't responsible enough.
I believe that common law allows for this. There are numerous examples of rights being "disabled". For instance; there are many things you can't do until you reach the age of majority. Did you not have the rights before you turned 18? Of course you did, you were born with them, but some were disabled until you could handle the responsibility of those rights.
People that are under 18 who were able to take on the responsibility of having the rights have succesfully sued for those rights to be enabled. People that have had their rights disabled should be able to do the same if they can prove they can now handle the responsibility.
On another note; a right should never be disabled without specific due process. For example, if a person commits a crime that would (under our current law) keep them from their right to bear arms; but the crime had nothing to do with this right, his right should not be disabled. Let's say that a man is arrested for a felony that had nothing to do with firearms. His conviction shouldn't automatically disable his right to bear arms. If the same man is on trial for threatening someone with his firearm he is to be tried on two counts. The first is to prove that he threatened someone, and the second is to disable is RKBA.
|
AWDstylez
Banned
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 2715 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 01:50 pm |
|
yale wrote: N00blet45 wrote: No restrictions at all. If you're not in a prison or mental ward you should be allowed access to a firearm without asking for government permission. If you're walking free you've obviously not been convicted of a crime or declare mentally insane via due process. Or you were once a felon/crazy person but are now fit to be on the outside and thus you should have your rights back.
If you're free you're free, period. If you have to ask anyone's permission you're not free.
I have to disagree with you there. I have to deal with mental patients and criminals on a regular basis at work. They get released from prison or mental wards regularly and walk the same streets you and I do. They go shopping at Wal-mart and go to Burger King just like we do. They are free to walk the streets but have serious issues which make me glad many of them are restricted from owning guns legally.
Don't try to argue that if you aren't in a mental ward then you should be allowed to have agun when I spent my last shift pulling security at a downtown hospital having to tie a mental patient to a gurney in the ER as he tried to bite, scratch and spit on everyone in the room. The guy didn't even know what planet we were on.
Not 10 minutes after dealing with him I was responding to a radio call for All Available Units back in the ER. Again, we had another mental patient who we had to wrestle ont a bed and tie down as he tried to spit on, kick and bite the 4 officers and half a dozen nurses we had in the room.
Later I had to standby as the ER was put on lockdown because a shooting victim had arrived and outside the parking lot was filling up with a couple dozen thugs who all wanted to get in to rally around their homie and then go get some payback. I swear everyone of them had their pants hanging below their ass.
I've got homeless people who are walking around wearing 5 pairs of pants at a time soaked in their piss and trying to break into cars in the parking garage. They see me get out of my unit and pull my maglight and they start screaming that I'm going to beat them. Seems they are used to being beat and can trun violent in a heartbeat.
I have looneys who see me on patrol who are so cracked out of their minds that they accuse me of working for the CIA. They wander into the middle of a 4 lane road and stagger away talking to voices in their heads.
I see ex-cons who remember me from when they were in prison and I was assigned to stand there with a rifle and a pistol and ensure that they didn't run off. Now they are on the streets and I'm in uniform in their 'hood driving around trying to keep them from breaking into buildings which should have been bulldozed to the ground months ago.
Losers with 3 brain cells, no home and no reason to live telling me to "Shoot me. If I had a gun I'd kill you. Owww. You broke my *****ng arm. "
Violent sociopaths, mental patients who refuse to stay on their medications, bunch of bipolar retards, on and on. There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
Get that reality and first hand experience out of here you elitist snob! Neo-con-libertarian.com told me EVERYONE needs a gun!!!
Thumbs up to you, sir, for giving people a dose of reality.
|
yale
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
buster81 wrote: yale wrote: There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
What would you propose as acceptable restrictions?
Truthfully, I don't know. What I do know is that I am going to have a gun with me, legally or not, because I know for a fact that there are dangerous human beings sharing the streets with me and my family. I don't trust anyone else to protect me and I don't trust anyone to leave me alone.
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 1035 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 04:33 pm |
|
If you are out on parole, you are not a free citizen. You have restrictions,
you agree to waive your rights for the ability to leave the walls.
If you are a mental case you don't even know that you are being denied any rights.
And a nut case waiving a gun around will not be breathing for very long anyways.
So these straw man arguments don't fly.
I really feel sorry for those in Kommifornia, no guns allowed and they are throwing
the prison doors wide open.
That many criminals roaming the streets, and you can't have a gun with more than
10 rounds and they can't be in the gun either.
Bet they still find a cell for anyone with a loaded gun though, so if you shoot
a thug, you had a loaded gun, and you go away. Or g*d forbid you get caught
with a two tone model.
|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote:
I really feel sorry for those in Kommifornia, no guns allowed and they are throwing
the prison doors wide open.
That many criminals roaming the streets, and you can't have a gun
OOO BAAA MAAAAAAA
Attached Image (viewed 69 times):
|
buster81
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 09:59 pm |
|
yale wrote: buster81 wrote: yale wrote: There are lots of people out walking the streets who have no business anywhere near a firearm. You can talk about freedom and responsibility but I've seen too much to believe anything like that could actually work. There have to be restrictions.
What would you propose as acceptable restrictions?
Truthfully, I don't know. What I do know is that I am going to have a gun with me, legally or not, because I know for a fact that there are dangerous human beings sharing the streets with me and my family. I don't trust anyone else to protect me and I don't trust anyone to leave me alone.
So, if the government were to impose a level of restrictions and you fell on the wrong side of them, you would carry a gun anyway. Wouldn't that make the restrictions ineffective?
|
Current time is 11:35 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
