Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Has there ever been an Presidential election where ALL the lead candidates were anti-gun?

Casey, if there are any bookstores near your enclave, it would do you good to go buy Reagan's diary and read it. Of course, he was a true neo-con, a reformed liberal, former democrat and union president. So I can see why you Paulistas wouldn't much like him.

And yeah, he did have huge budget fights with the democrats to reduce domestic spending and increase.......don't all guess at once....DEFENSE. Something RP would never ever do.

Yes, the neo-con movement came of age during the Reagan era--and after Bill Clinton so thoroughly trounced the Republican Revolution in the 95 Budget Showdown, this convinced the neo-cons that big government was the wave of the future........

I have mixed emotions about RR. His leadership was just what the country needed at the time, and I give him lots of credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain, (but he damn near bankrupted the country with defense spending in the process) but after that he didn't accomplish most of what he promised/attempted.

Nor was he without Republican majorities in the Senate during his terms.





RP doesn't need to, used judiciously, our military is big/capable enough.

Heck, while we're on the subject of resurrecting somebody, please Lord let it be George Mason........The Father Of The Bill Of Rights..........

Casey

No, what you were doing was trying to talk around some of the more bizarre and absurd consequences of the absolutist position Bristoe is lobbying for, when you said:

" That leaves, however, every other real weapon, in possession of the United States Armed Forces, fully within the scope of the meaning of "arm" as found in the Second Amendment, e.g., tanks, mortars, field artillery, machine guns, microwave beam weapons, etc. Nukes and anthrax are no more "arms" than ten barrels of mercury strung together constitutes an "arm."

Nukes and anthrax certainly are arms (ever heard the term "Strategic Arms"...as in SALT treaty), and the US army has low yield nuclear warheads on artllery shells that have been deployed in Europe for years. An anthrax artillery shell should certainly be civilian legal if the 155mm howitzer that fires it is. There are plenty of US military targets for such a weapon, if the Constitutional Partisan Rangers want to pick that fight. And if field artillery is legal, why not Apaches, if you've got the 30 or 40 million for a fully equipped one.

Go ahead and make that case. And watch that 3% go to 1% in a heartbeat.

But simply by defining some arms as not arms, you admit yourself that the Second Amendment is not a unlimited guarantee of a US citizen's right to own any fighting tool or machine or weapon on the planet. The operative word, as I said about ten hours ago, is....reasonableness. A very old and not too complicated legal principle.

Seems to me the modern day equivalent to some of this logic could be compared with outfits like Blackhawk. Weren't we all just ooooing over some really neat machine guns in suburbans a few weeks ago? Aren't they private. Weren't you all behind them SteveNO? Can I own one of those? (not that I'd wan't one). Don't they own plenty of Apache's too? Seems like I saw them on a video clip somewhere practicing with RPGs. Maybe there are more reasons to own some sophisticated weaponery than just being a lunitic. How about security at places like dams, nuclear power plants, ports, my house etc.? Where exactly is this line? I mean if I own Wells Fargo should my limit on weapons any more compensated than if I have a family 40 miles from law enforcement? I'm not saying--I'm asking.

I think you mean Blackwater, out of Moyock, NC.

Oh yeah that's it.

Steve-

Where on the spectrum of arms, from pea shooters to nukes, does infringement become acceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

See Miller case

Thanks for the link. I meant the question to to be where Steve (or anyone else) thinks that infringement is OK with them, rather than a legal determination.

Mike...

If a perceived infringement is challenged , it's always going to be resolved by legal determination. I can see that some bright folks here are having a blocking problem with the concept of "reasonableness"


Let's try it by way of anology. You wish to be able to walk around town with an explosive vest loaded with dynamite and C4. Bristoe was able to score just enough nuclear material from one of the crack whores who lives nearby and it's just small enough to carry around in his "RP For President" lunch-box with just enough extra room for his Cool-Aid. And, Casey scored big and purchased his "Yellow Trident Submarine" so that he could patrol the coastal waters outside of his bungalow in San Francisco.His new housemate loves the idea of riding with him so he can see all the fishies and coral and maybe fire off a torpedo at drunken freighter captains who hit bridges and spill oil.

Now, when these mavericks and Constitutional shakers get out of their court ordered psychiatric evaluations to see if they're fit to stand trial and then, when at trial, put on the defense that the laws prohibiting their behavior manifests an unconstitutional infringement against their 2nd and "free Speech" rights,please tell me where you think it's headed? Granted they'll probably get to stay in a special hospital rather than a penitentiary, but do you think the "Reasonableness" of their positions factor into the court's determination at all?

Do you think your next door neighbor should be permitted to keep a fully armed and loaded Sherman tank in his driveway? Should your other neighbor be permitted to make any bomb his heart desires in his basement? What if those neighbors are Muslim, KKK,or a Charles Manson splinter group? Still all American citizens, nonetheless! Is it "reasonable" to assume you and your loved ones have to just deal with and accept it as it's a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

Yes the courts and your elected representatives determine 'reasonableness". It's been that way and has been accepted for a near 200 years now. Do you feel that the folks who feel they should be allowed such armament are better qualified and suited to determine "reasonableness"?

There is good reason why such a mind-set represents a paltry and insignificant faction of our population!!! It is somewhat dumb-founding to me that this concept of "reasonableness" escapes some rather good minds here. It's good to know however!!

If the above didn't help at all Mike, try this:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

I frankly don't care what SCOTUS... or the courts... or the government sez, I can READ the words of our Constitution and those of the 2nd Amendment without having to have a lawyer to decode it for me.

As a former officer in the U.S. Army by an act of the U.S. Congress in 1958 when I took my oath, I promised to "protect the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC". (emphasis mine)

I never retracted that oath.

If the government, the President, the Congress or any other governmental agency IGNORES our 2nd Amendment and attempts to forcefully take my personal firearms from me, a 70+ year old Grandfather of 13 who has done it the "hard" way in life (kept it all legal and paid my taxes as expected... and was NEVER on the government dole in ANY form), let them bring a large quanity of BODY BAGS when they come to collect my guns... 'cause they are gonna need 'em!

When our Constitution is ignored by those who have sworn to PROTECT it, verse & phrase... then I guess it's time to see who has the courage to say it LOUD and CLEAR to the government, "No damned way!!!".

As I've always signed my posts (and MEANT it)...

STRENGTH & HONOR... !~!~!

Ron T.

Couple things are hapening here:
One is the establishment/political partisians are adept at putting words and/or intent into the mouths of others.

Like my mom used to say when she was mad: "I'm going to crown you!", as in bop me on top of the head or something.

In todays legal/politically correct world, a lawyer can/will immediately twist and describe this as 1) Premeditated intent of a violent act (murder, etc) and 2) That my mom was going to cave in my head with a weapon........

Same thing is happening with this RP debate (notice how the political partisian/establishment types are obsessed with RP and not their own candidate?). For example, when RP says let's get out of the Middle East, this is mis-described as pacifist. That is spin of the biggest sort.

When RP says let's do away with a federal department, the partisians/status quo folks ignore the fact this was likely the domain of states to begin with--and the feds have pre-empted the states role.

I get a kick out to the social conservatives who decry one segment of welfare folks on the government gravy train, yet ignore other segments (a more wealthy segment) who are every bit as dependent on government largess.

It appears to me there is a much greater than normal dissatisfaction with government currently, or maybe a realization that government doesn't have the ability to address certain issues important to the citiizens.

Meanwhile, the partisians/status quoists continue spinning business as usual--trying to tear down the other guy in the vain hope it makes their own guy and their own positions look better.

By painting a gloom and doom picture of consequences if the "other guy" wins, the More-Of-The-Same folks scare the other side into voting for them.......and then they wonder why there is so much dissatisfaction out there...........

Casey

Yep...I guess Oliver Wendell Holmes is one of those "neoconic politically correct, lawyer speak, twist it all around guys"


Just exactly how many times did your mom crown you? HMMMMMM.... there is an explanation for your thinking processes!!!....grin

Everybody has their own view....its politics, not theology, and there is no answer delivered on a stone tablet. I don't see why we should have to get a special class 3 license for full auto.

But I think artillery, nukes, tactical helicopters, Tridents, mortars, and biochem weapons are pretty clearly on the other side of the line.

If there were ever just cause for a real revolution, heavy equipment would come over to the rebel side through national guard units anyway.

Anybody who has ever read Bristoe on a Friday night and wants him to have his own nuke needs their head examined.

We wont' go there

More on the dissatisfaction for you and SteveNo.....

The political pundits keep telling us rubes that Colorado has become a "political bellweather state" by virtue of the mass immigration from all corners of America over the past 15 years.

The Republicans had controlled the state House since WWII. The Republicans had controlled the state Senate most of the time since sometime in the early 1900's. Up until Democrat Roy Romer's remarkable 5-6 terms in the governor's office in the 80's and 90's, Republicans had controlled the governor's office in previous decades.

In 2004--in a shocker nobody predicted--Demos won BOTH houses of the state legislature. And this was with a Republican governor in office. In 2006 a Democrat won the governor's office. This is the first time Democrats have controlled all of Colorado's government in almost a century.

As usual, the winning party thinks they have a mandate, but in Colorado's case this was more a solid rejection of the neo-con Suburban Republican refugees that had come to dominate Colorado's legislature.

I also see Rebulbicans in the same boat as the Democrats have been in recent decades--they are having trouble finding candidates that motivate the voters. In large part because it appears a lot of potential Republican candidates ain't too happy with the current brand of neo-conservatism.

Much in the same way the liberal left wing of the Democrats came to dominate their party (and it cost them), it wasn't until national Demos rejected or just avoided certain issues that they won Congress, now the neo-cons are shooting the Republican party in the foot.

So when the whole GW Bush and his jolly crew's brand of conservatism falls flat on it's face next November--don't blame the Democrats, Ron Paul, Osama bin Laden, welfare recepients.....or Bristoe...........just look at your own foot.

Casey

Neo-cons in the Colorado legislature? I call BS....who has Colorado invaded lately?

LMAO


They tried to invade Missouri!!

Me......


Casey

My culture.........