- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Stop trying to deflect and avoid answering the challenge made to you to prove your charge that Reagan was senile when he made the statement. Please do present your medical evidence of this claim of fact.
Beautiful, talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face!!
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.
Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
I'm, not sure that's true. They were practical men. The revised their first effort to strengthen federal power, not limit it more. They too, had they lived two hundred years, have likely revised many of their thoughts as they learned more. It's unlikely they would have stayed static.
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.
Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?
In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).
Not doubting your word, but do you know of a source for this info?
I learned it from Global Security, John Pike's website. It used to be free, but no more.
we can always speculate and I suspect if someone told the founders that a future president would use the commerce clause to do the stuff FDR did, they would be calling for a rope and a high tree
Um.....so what? Are you in favor of Obamacare? How about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Do you think bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings? What other oppressive leftist policies do you support?
I'm, not sure that's true. They were practical men. The revised their first effort to strengthen federal power, not limit it more. They too, had they lived two hundred years, have likely revised many of their thoughts as they learned more. It's unlikely they would have stayed static.
They well understood the character of men, which haven't changed over the course of history. They knew corruption because it's the second oldest profession.
we can always speculate and I suspect if someone told the founders that a future president would use the commerce clause to do the stuff FDR did, they would be calling for a rope and a high tree
That's just one aspect. Again, I believe they were realists.
No, No, and yes because their business license is a contract with the state that says they have to.
Any more assumptions? Looking pretty credible so far...not.
Just so we're clear. You don't agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling, and you are in favor of forcing private individuals to participate in gay marriages against their religious beliefs, and contrary to the 1st Amendment.
I explained my position on the gay bakery example. Do not manufacture something else so you can look right.
And yes to HL. Need anything else to judge me incorrectly and attempt to shore up your grossly wrong generalizations?
Gee, regular champion of liberty you are.
I'll take that as an admission you were wrong.
No, that's what some of us refer to as sarcasm. Look it up.
Realism in today's political world means compromise toward less liberty.
Did you ever get around to reading that article I linked you to? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to defense against a tyrannical government. It is unconditional. A directed energy weapon would be covered.
Why should anyone not believe that one was one of the purposes for the Second Amendment? Quite a lot of evidence makes clear that it was, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court cited it.
But I'm not making that argument, that would be those folk, the 65% in the Rasmussen Poll. It would be nice to ring up James Madison for his clarification. But of course, Thomas Jefferson may have yet again a different take. As I've already stated though, I don't see why people reject the minimum take away from those two lines of protected rights of both individual and collective security.
Sure but the original statement you disagreed with was having US Air Marshals armed. US Air Marshals will be using fragmenting bullets.And I think your just bored. Terrorists won't be using fragmenting bullets!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?