Supreme Court overturns DC handgun ban!

[Brad VanHorn]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/handguns.irpt/

[Michael Thompson]

I don't need anyone in black robes telling me what my rights are. That has already been established long ago.

[D.R. Middlebrooks]

Yeah, it was a bittersweet victory for me... :(

The Supreme Courrt overturned the D.C. gun ban, and then turned around and over ruled the DEATH PENALTY for those convicted of raping children. :eek:

Apparently, some guy who raped a 5 & 8 year old appealed his conviction. The Supreme Court said the punishment of death was too severe for the crime like that. :confused: :mad:

[John Badertscher]

I wish I could be more optimistic about the Heller ruling, but I'm afraid it opened more avenues to gun control than it closed, especially with only a 5-4 vote.

The child rape decision was galling. Liberals think of the death penalty as either "revenge" or "justice," there is no justice for the victim, it's as simple as putting down a rabid dog who preys on the weakest in our society.

The Boumedienne decision however was dangerous to our security, our Republic and our way of life. In fact I'd say it's the most dangerous ruling the SCOTUS has ever handed down and a clear violation of the separation of powers.

Imagine giving terrorists more rights, than an illegal alien or POW in uniform. :eek:

Government exists primarily to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The Court undoes this in two decisions but then says "you have the right to defend yourself, but only with weapons the gov says you can safely own." Gee thanks.

In no way does giving child rapists and terrorists our civil rights achieve this end and in fact makes it significantly harder and why? So we don't walk a slippery slope to a loss of liberty? Please we're not talking about law-abiding citizens.

We're speaking of a minority of enemy combattants captured on the field, and child rapists who have been duly judged by their peers.

For those of you who needed any reason to vote McCain. THIS IS IT!!!

[Michael Thompson]

As I told you before John the government is becoming more tyrannical everyday in it's actions. Voting for McCain is not the answer it just may slow the process.

As we have talked about before, I for one am through voting for the lesser of two evils. I will either write in a vote for Ron Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin, they are the only two candidates that would govern as I believe.

I am getting a real taste of tyranny right now as a private gas pipeline company is attempting to take some of my land which includes my Mom's home, well and septic, through eminent domain.
If you remember long ago I asked in a thread where the point was that people would fight back even using force. It appears I am soon reaching this point.

[John Badertscher]

As I told you before John the government is becoming more tyrannical everyday in it's actions. Voting for McCain is not the answer it just may slow the process.

You're not going to convince me that voting for someone like Paul is going to do anything other than guarantee that Obama gets elected and turn or 5-4 majority into a 7-2 minority. Slow the process towards tyranny? Like that's a small thing? Sorry but while tyranny may result in revolution, history proves that such revolution is as likely to result in an even worse tyranny.

If you think we need more Obama-type liberals on the SCOTUS to "hasten the day of liberation" by all means vote for Paul. Historically that reasoning is flawed.

[Michael Thompson]

John wrote

You're not going to convince me that voting for someone like Paul is going to do anything other than guarantee that Obama gets elected and turn or 5-4 majority into a 7-2 minority. Slow the process towards tyranny? Like that's a small thing? Sorry but while tyranny may result in revolution, history proves that such revolution is as likely to result in an even worse tyranny.

If you think we need more Obama-type liberals on the SCOTUS to "hasten the day of liberation" by all means vote for Paul. Historically that reasoning is flawed.



The politicians in both parties love people like you. easily manipulated into playing their game.

Be proud, you have been assimilated

[Brad VanHorn]

Unfortunately, no third party candidate is going to win, and while you might feel better voting for your candidate, it will not help you (or any of us) for the next four (or more) years. You might as well vote for Obama, 'cuz this is what your third party vote will get you. Ross Perot is the great past example; he took many much needed votes from Bush Sr. and that was enough to put Clinton in office. We all remember the next eight years...
As we have talked about before, I for one am through voting for the lesser of two evils. I will either write in a vote for Ron Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin, they are the only two candidates that would govern as I believe.

[John Badertscher]

John wrote




The politicians in both parties love people like you. easily manipulated into playing their game.

Be proud, you have been assimilated

A typically infantile response. :rolleyes: I'm sure you believe you're the only person who REALLY cares about gun rights, unfortunately it's not only untrue, but your stated actions actually contradict your words.

We unfortunately live in the real world, where the Supreme Court's decisions impact your daily life, per your original thread.

Just don't complain when you find yourself at their mercy. I wonder how this grand revolution is going to occur when an Obama court restricts the 2a to revolvers and bolt action rifles.

If you're content to cut off your nose to spite your face, who am I to stop you?

A little more practicality and a little less idealism.

[Michael Thompson]

Brad

You may be right about third party candidates for this election but you too have fallen for the same plea the two big parties use to get people to vote for them.
If you want to play their game, and keep getting screwed because you voted for the lesser of two evils then that is fine.
Personally Bush senior was a bigger globalist than his son so I was glad to see him defeated.. not too mention a bald faced liar "read my lips no new taxes"
While Clinton was no better, I felt very secure and comfortable with my vote for the candidate I believed in which was Perot.

I refuse to be manipulated into voting for a candidate that I have serious disagreements with ala McCain and Obama, just because I am worried who he'll put on the supreme court because as I have stated before on here,
I know what my God given rights are and am not going to give them up because a bunch of men in black robes.

Need I remind you that Ford got John Paul Stevens on the court and Bush senior is responsible for David Souter. If you vote for the lesser of two evils thinking they will put someone on the court that will judge and not legislate from the bench then you are taking quite the leap of faith.

Just remember it is widely reported that McCain himself has said to lawyers that he believed Alito was too conservative to be a Supreme Court judge.
Even though publicly he says he'd pick judges like Alito or Roberts.

Eventually people that keep voting for the lesser of two evils and playing the Dem/Rep game will see things hit some sort of critical mass in my opinion. If gas and food prices increase at the present rate where the economy takes a nose dive then maybe folks will look back at candidates like Ron Paul or at those still in the race like Chuck Baldwin and realize they weren't as crazy as the media make them out to be.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right, you or I.

[John Badertscher]

No one is manipulating you. :rolleyes:

No one gets to vote for the person who they don't have serious disagreements with. No such candidate can ever exist.

Whie I may enjoy Ron Paul's politics, I have SERIOUS disagreements with his perspectives but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him against Obama if he was the nominee.

My problem is with people who would undermine theirs and my rights for the sake of ideologic purity and then claim that I don't really care about those rights.

[Michael Thompson]

John wrote
A typically infantile response. :rolleyes: I'm sure you believe you're the only person who REALLY cares about gun rights, unfortunately it's not only untrue, but your stated actions actually contradict your words.


All I said was you were assimilated, evidently it hit a nerve because you immediately resorted to name calling. I might add that is a little infantile in itself no?

I don't just care about gun rights I care about all my inalienable rights.

John wrote

Just don't complain when you find yourself at their mercy. I wonder how this grand revolution is going to occur when an Obama court restricts the 2a to revolvers and bolt action rifles.


Even if all I had was a sword I would still rather fight and risk death than be a comfortable slave.
I seem to recollect that in Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen were no slouches with their Enfields against the Soviets. Their tenacity gave them time to eventually get the stingers they needed to neutralize their main problem, air power.

I'm sure Custer thought he had superior weaponry too and we all know what that got him.

This country itself was created by a force that was fighting a militarily superior army...

And besides all that I would never underestimate a bolt action rifle in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot and hide.

John wrote

A little more practicality and a little less idealism.


This country began with idealism, and as evidenced by people like Jefferson it is possible to be both an idealist and practical.

I believe rather than a lot more practical and little less ideal what you really believe in is a lot more submissive and less independent.

[John Badertscher]

Seriously dude, grow up.

You meant it to be insulting and NO ONE, not even me, called you a name. So your above statement is overtly disingenuous.

You questioned my patriotism and my committment to the 2a. If you don't think that's going to strike a nerve, well then I wonder what type of person you deal with on a daily basis. However I'm pretty sure you knew it would.

Given that I was pretty restrained. I'd advise against doing it again.

As for the rest of your nonsense about Custer...if you'd rather cut off your nose to spite your face...I won't stand in your way.

Just don't expect my thanks for helping to elect Obama.

Jefferson was anything but practical and he betrayed his "ideals" constantly.

[Brad VanHorn]

I'm with John on this one. There is no manipulation or game being played. This is the political system which has been functioning - whether we agree or not - for what? 200+ years? It is what it is...

Again to Ross Perot... he received nearly 20% of the popular vote, but received ZERO electoral votes. News flash for anyone not paying attention: the electoral college wins the presidency, not your or my vote. Further, the electoral delegates are entrenched in the two party system. Third party candidates have no chance.

I'm fine with change; call your senators and representative and push your argument for change if that's what you want. I am more than willing to vote out the electoral college; it's a dated, unecessary concept in this day and age. I'm also willing to support breaking the two party monopoly and giving other parties a chance in the election. However, and until then, it is foolish to sacrifice a vote or abstain from voting while hoping for a third party candidate win or to pretend you have somehow "shown them" by "not playing their game".

As to the latest round of less than cordial conduct - either cease fire or this thread will be closed.

[Michael Thompson]

John wrote

No one is manipulating you. :rolleyes:


that's right no one is manipulating me, you are the one apparently being manipulated.
Or maybe you just believe in what John McCain stands for and in that case you are not being manipulated.

As for Ron Paul, I agree with his observations and his views. And the Constitution Party Platform is closer to my beliefs than either major party by a longshot.

I really don't care which of the two gets elected because I don't think it will matter either way which direction we are headed, it will be the same..

maybe just maybe you really are the idealist and not at all practical, thinking there is actually a difference between those two.

The point is really moot because I am not changing my views on this election and I don't expect you to either.

I am somewhat pleased that Ron Paul has started something this election that I believe is going to grow. More people these days are leaving both parties and that is the beginning. And me being the idealistic person I am, that makes me happy because it is a start. Being practical I know it is a long term fight and will hit some bumps and have setbacks for sure.
But I am not turning back just because I am scared about who will get elected.

It just doesn't matter because both candidates will do everything they can to not only make their own party powerful but to make sure the other one retains its form of power too...McCain or Obama..both will do what they have to protect "the system" because it's the only game they know how to play..

When you finally get tired of being of played like a violin come join the rest of us.

[Michael Thompson]

John wrote

Given that I was pretty restrained. I'd advise against doing it again.

or what?

[John Badertscher]

The rest of us?

Nice try but you're playing solo.

The "rest of us" are a bit more concerned with the practical implications of a liberal court.

If you're not, then oh well.

[John Badertscher]

John wrote



or what?

:rolleyes:

Really dude, you need to grow up.

[Brad VanHorn]

O.k. gentlemen, enoughs enough. D.R.s out on the line, but as soon as he gets inside this thread is done. Go back to your corners and give it a rest.

[Michael Thompson]

So Brad
But if you use your theory about the Electorial vote then John's vote is wasted anyway because unless some major change happens PA will be an Obama/Dem state just like it has been the last 3 or 4 presidential elections.
Even the many of the elected Republicans from that state are considered RINOs by conservatives.
The best he can hope for is his votes for his congressman and his local legislature to counteract a governor along with several big city mayors that are firmly entrenched on the side of "gun control"


All this crap about wasted votes is just that..crap. In my opinion a wasted vote is for someone having to hold their nose and vote for someone who they have many serious issues with just because they have even more serious issues with the only other perceived choice.

I feel really good about either guy I am voting for. I will have voted for the candidate that believes what i believe and win or lose I can live with that comfortably and watch the chaos continue.

When McCain loses I am sure all those Rockefeller Republicans will blame the conservatives who either didn't vote or jumped ship to libertarian, or other third party candidates as either a form of protest or finally giving up on that party.

The practical truth is until the two main parties see their power slipping away they will continue. And that will continue as long as people say and believe and so ultimately convince themselves that a change such as multiple parties in government is impossible.

[Michael Thompson]

Brad

Having seen DR argue in some threads I'd be surprised if this one caused him concern. Since I have been on this site I noticed he keeps a tighter rein on the other threads but he has given more latitude on threads like this.
This is fairly calm compared to some other disagreements John and I have had.
Lighten up a little, discussions about rights and freedom etc. always are impassioned by all sides.

[Brad VanHorn]

So Brad
But if you use your theory about the Electorial vote then John's vote is wasted anyway...
It's not theory my friend, and I believe you already know this. Johns vote is not wasted, it counts toward the respective state vote. His candidate may win the majority, and thus gain the electoral vote, or not. I am not a fatalist; my vote may not win my state (I vote in Michigan by the way - Obama is more than likely to win the state), but I will cast my vote and have my say in the matter.

On the other hand, your third party guy cannot win, because the established system won't allow him even the opportunity to win. Your well stated unwillingness to accept the system as it is makes for great rhetoric, but cannot change the political reality - this is a two party system. Fight to change the system if you like, but until the system is changed you are wasting your vote on a third party. I'm sorry if you don't like this, but as I said before, it is what it is.

Having seen DR argue in some threads I'd be surprised if this one caused him concern.
I doubt he will be concerned either; this was my thread and I asked him to close it on my behalf, and I suspect he will.

Lighten up a little, discussions about rights and freedom etc. always are impassioned by all sides.
Frankly you need to lighten up - your aggressive responses were unecessary - no one slapped your mother. Polite passion is fine; present an argument and back it up with winning facts. Rude or otherwise insulting conduct directed at another member because you don't share the same side of the argument is not welcome.