Page 4 of 4

Re:

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:57 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
TIGERassault, every time I see you post it screams inexperience and a lack of understanding, not just a differing opinion. There's nothing wrong with inexperience, because we were all there at some point, but it usually seems to be coupled with absolute certainty. You're among people who have more experience than you do, and along with it usually a more complete knowledge of the issues (of the facts, anyway). It would benefit you not to behave like a cocky teen-ager in expressing your opinions.
TIGERassault wrote:And how exactly do you expect a president that tells people they're scumbags to be elected? It's just not going to happen. Like I said, the best agenda they could push is better school education, but I haven't seen any of your party candidates trying to push that.
I think there are a lot of people who would love to vote for a president that calls a scumbag a scumbag. There are plenty of candidates that will flatter.

From what I can see, all government has managed to do is degrade schooling. It's been dumbed down. That's why home-schoolers are typically so much smarter. Schooling belongs in local hands (as local as possible), as far as I'm concerned. But responsibility should be forced on children (;)) first and foremost in the home.
TIGERassault wrote:Well, the true solution is to completely abandon democracy and take on a 'Big Brother' approach of giving up all privacy and some rights so we can all be monitored to make sure we're not screwing up.
That's why I don't talk about a true solution.
I find that to be a very interesting statement.

Maybe that would more effectively coral the people who refuse or were never taught to take responsibility for themselves, but a fascist government is not what's best for civilized people. The founding fathers new this. That's why America was created. Self government is the best government, but it can only work as it should if people are responsible (there may be more resolution to the full answer, but that about sums it up).
TIGERassault wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:(This is where a militia could step in. See? It's not outdated! ;))
So... getting people to use violence in an attempt to reduce those same people from using violence?
No, not the same people. Sometimes violence is the only way to answer the violent. Not many people are reasonable enough to consider others' interests equally with their own. That's why our country has a military. That's why our cities have police departments.
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Hey: if the IRA and our regular police can do it, I can't see why you lot can't.
See Will's 2nd to last post concerning the effects of gun control measures. I also agree that the second amendment protects the individual's freedoms from government.
TIGERassault wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:there needs to be greater responsibility on everyone's part, and responsibility being demanded by all.
You do realise that's never going to happen? Especially considering you don't even have a specific level of responsibility that's required in the first place.
And don't say "as responsible as you can", because I don't see you making a Mother Theresa out of yourself.
Do you realize that if it doesn't we have no choice but to be ruled, not self-ruled? I think it's safe to say that a people that will not rule themselves must be ruled by another. Otherwise you've got anarchy.

"Mother Theresa," heh. No, I have a specific degree of responsibility in mind. Absolute responsibility. As responsible as you need to be to not encroach on the freedom of another.
TIGERassault wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:If we're to believe our recent presidential candidates, then the "greatness" of the American people should certainly be up to the task.
Weren't you just specifically stating how your recent presidential candidates don't tell it like it is?
A little sarcasm there.

Re:

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:18 pm
by CDN_Merlin
Cuda68 wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:
Cuda68 wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote: This is the problem, to many people don't care. This is why some are trying the easier way of putting gun laws in place. Politicians (most but not all)aren't military people who are willing to die for their country.
Aww come on, did you not read about Hilary ducking bullets over sea's
Yes I did and I also read the review about the video showing her greeting a child, so in essence she lied.
no man - here is the proof she was under fire



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:09 pm
by Spidey
Update:

They finally handed down the decision…

5 to 4 decision, the right to bear arms is an individual right.

And overturned D.C. ban. (with some exceptions)

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:42 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
Well thank God our country isn't as hopelessly lost as it can sometimes seem. But 5 to 4 is pretty close...

Re:

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:42 pm
by Cuda68
Spidey wrote:Update:

They finally handed down the decision…

5 to 4 decision, the right to bear arms is an individual right.

And overturned D.C. ban. (with some exceptions)
Yea Baby 8)

This should have some interesting ramifications over the next few years.

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:01 pm
by woodchip
If you can handle the length of the opinions, both assenting and dissenting, the read is well worth it:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... 07-290.pdf

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:20 pm
by Will Robinson
Good grief I just read some of Stevens dissent...what a load that guy is! Nothing but semantics and pure opinion without any background! In layman's terms his argument could be summerized as this: Well yea they do talk about the individual but in Latin sometimes those words could also mean...

He should take an early retirement. And take that wicked witch of the west Ginsburg with him!
On the other hand, you gotta love Scalia, he's the man!

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:03 pm
by woodchip
Whats scary is with another liberal on the Supreme Court, they will be changing the constitution to what ever whim strikes their fancy. Justice Scalia is the man.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:27 pm
by MD-1118
What they need to realise in the House and Senate, is that if they were to ever revoke, remand or generally \"do away with\" the Second Amendment, it would be the Eighteenth Amendment/Volstead Act all over again. I think at least a few people here know what I mean.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm

Quite lengthy, but very interesting.

Re:

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:52 pm
by Cuda68
MD-1118 wrote:What they need to realise in the House and Senate, is that if they were to ever revoke, remand or generally "do away with" the Second Amendment, it would be the Eighteenth Amendment/Volstead Act all over again. I think at least a few people here know what I mean.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm

Quite lengthy, but very interesting.

ewwwww, that would be UGLY

Re:

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:16 pm
by Dakatsu
Cuda68 wrote:
MD-1118 wrote:What they need to realise in the House and Senate, is that if they were to ever revoke, remand or generally "do away with" the Second Amendment, it would be the Eighteenth Amendment/Volstead Act all over again. I think at least a few people here know what I mean.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm

Quite lengthy, but very interesting.

ewwwww, that would be UGLY
This is why banning stuff is bad in general; causes very bad violence for the item (I skimmed, but I know what the prohibition era was).

Re:

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:57 pm
by Herculosis
Will Robinson wrote:... that wicked witch of the west Ginsburg ...
I KNEW she reminded me of someone, but could never place it. Thanks,
Will!

Re:

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:36 pm
by Will Robinson
Herculosis wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:... that wicked witch of the west Ginsburg ...
I KNEW she reminded me of someone, but could never place it. Thanks,
Will!
Image

Image

She's not fooling anyone....