GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2012, 22:08   #151
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
It's the Feds job to override state laws on the one issue of CCW? Sounds like you're saying "It's my Constitutional Right, Big Brother, butt in and see to it I get my way".


You didn't actually address the scenario I put forth did you? I'm not saying Liberals don't play that game. I'm saying everybody does, including conservatives, including Republicans, and definitely including you.

Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 22:19   #152
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 22:22   #153
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.
So the rights specifically mentioned in the BOR are "special" rights, according to the Founders? They should be enforced by the feds while other, non-listed rights shouldn't? Do you believe that was the Founders' intention?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 22:23   #154
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?

Completely off topic and irrelevant question. Open yet another thread on that issue.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 22:26   #155
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Completely off topic and irrelevant question. Open yet another thread on that issue.
No, it's completely relevant. If we're talking about liberals wanting to ban everything they don't like while conservatives simply don't buy it, you need to explain why conservatives want MJ banned. You need to realize it's not a liberal thing, it's a human thing. What's also human is seeing the faults in another group of people while ignoring your own faults, even when those faults are identical.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 22:35   #156
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Completely off topic and irrelevant question.
Not in the least. I'm not weighing on the topic, but simply pointing out your inconsistent arguments.

Here you say it is a state's right basically (e.g. California chooses to legalize medical MJ) and the Fed Gov should stay out of it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Well ... it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.
Here Gundude points out that California legalized medical MJ, but the Federal government has and continues to execute DEA interdiction on dispensaries in the state ... superseding the rights of the state:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?
... and you (countrygun) now say it is irrelevant and off topic? Logic fail (your own logic at that)!!

I'm going to bed ... my online *****slap session this evening is making me sleepy

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 22:39..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 05:05   #157
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.
Im definitely confused because I can't figure out who exactly you're talking about with your posts in the last couple pages.

Constitutional conservatives (should and largely do) understand that the 10th Amendment places issues like drug use squarely on each state's citizens to decide for themselves. If a state votes to ban a substance, that's how it was intended under the 10th and people then have the right to move to another state where that substance is lawful. This is what referendums are for, as we see in Colorado right now. Only in the instance of EVERY state banning a substance independently does it then mimic a federal ban. As it stands now the feds have usurped this 10th Amendment responsibility from the states and even ignore the will of state voters in the case of medical cannabis.

No one is going to complain to the feds if the feds end their War on Some Drugs and their state subsequently legislates a substance illegal. That's how the Founders intended it to work. Using an example like cannabis there will be some states that continue to ban it and other states that repeal existing bans. Let's remember that anything not expressly legislated as illegal is deemed lawful. If state statutes are silent then something is allowed.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 05:07..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:08   #158
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
It is time for a countrygun prediction


I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."
That's a reasonable prediction considering you're only expanding on my earlier prediction that this election will be the lowest (relative) turnout since the 70's.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:20   #159
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night...
STOP IT...!!! NO...NO MORE...YOU'RE KILLIN' ME! BWAHAHAHAHA!
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:33   #160
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?
You are correct. I believe the feds began overstepping their bounds on criminal law when the supreme court decided that everything in commerce anywhere could be controlled under "commerce clause" jurisdiction (see the danger of more democratic appointees on the S.Ct.).

To me, a criminal law on possession, growing, selling, etc., is up to the state and the feds only have the power to criminalize transport across state lines...but that theory started going to crap almost 100 years ago.

I don't think conservatives want the feds regulating drugs. I think the elderly do, but we aren't talking about anybody who has given much thought to political/legal philosophy - just a knee-jerk reaction from the average Walmart shopper.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 10-05-2012 at 07:35..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:35   #161
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
STOP IT...!!! NO...NO MORE...YOU'RE KILLIN' ME! BWAHAHAHAHA!
At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments. See here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.
Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it? Im happy that Romney won the debate, as he should have, but the notion that he has some amazing grasp of economic issues, especially compared to Ron Paul, is downright funny.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 07:48..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:37   #162
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
So the rights specifically mentioned in the BOR are "special" rights, according to the Founders? They should be enforced by the feds while other, non-listed rights shouldn't? Do you believe that was the Founders' intention?
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 10-05-2012 at 07:49..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:41   #163
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh View Post
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.
You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 10-05-2012 at 07:48..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:45   #164
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
No, it's completely relevant. If we're talking about liberals wanting to ban everything they don't like while conservatives simply don't buy it, you need to explain why conservatives want MJ banned. You need to realize it's not a liberal thing, it's a human thing.
In the end, it's always about the dope.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:46   #165
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
It is time for a countrygun prediction



I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."
40 years? I think I'd bet on a bottom 20% turnout. The rabid Paul guys are only about 2%, and many of them will be voting for Barry if you can believe what they post in the Paul forums.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:48   #166
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments.
I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:49   #167
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too.
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.
Which sig line was that? Keep nominating liberals and then wondering why we keep losing? Or the one that said failing to nominate Paul, the most conservative candidate, guarantees another election loss? I know you're averse to objective truth but yeah I was hoping for the sitting President to do better. He is still in control of the country in case you forgot. I won't root for him to fail because we are all affected by his failures. Are you saying you want Obama to fail the country even more while he's President? That's not very patriotic of you, Mr. Stars and Stripes. Sounds like sour grapes....

You are right about the sour grapes sentiment being strong though. There's still a hell of a lot of Paul supporters that won't vote for Romney based solely on the shenanigans during the primaries and at the RNC. Reap what you sow and all that. The RNC was what cemented my decision that I wouldn't vote for the Mass liberal.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 08:19..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:53   #168
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?
Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.

The decision on which Republican to support has been made by most.


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:01   #169
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?
Didn't like to be reminded about his KKK affiliation, eh?

If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".

Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-05-2012 at 08:03..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:06   #170
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".
Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal . Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?

He'd kill all your drug warrior fun!

Quote:
Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?
Because Romney is a fraud just like Obama and has done precisely zero to earn my vote. No one is entitled to my vote. I thought we were trying to get away from entitlements in this country...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.
Just a little taste of nonsense I hear on this forum all the time. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 08:09..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:35   #171
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal . Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-05-2012 at 08:35..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:02   #172
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.
Right, it was to prohibit the government from infringing, not to allow the government to regulate. The federal government has no business regulating CCW. Do you think CCW reciprocity will consist of the federal government simply telling states they can't ban CCW? Do you think it'll consist of the federal government simply telling states they must honor CCWs from other states, in all circumstances? Not on your life. It will create a federal bureaucracy to regulate CCW. If you don't believe that, you've been living on another planet. That's not what the 2nd amendment is about.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:03   #173
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it?
You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you?
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:08   #174
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
In the end, it's always about the dope.
The original single issue voters.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:11   #175
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you?

In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites... That he actually needs, say, 30 minutes to get his profound notions across.

I don't think that would work well in a typical debate setting.


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:21.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 937
265 Members
672 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42