RE: supreme court rules again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania



Message

dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 1:12:17 PM)

Bug,

You have some good points.  But all of what you speak of is already covered by the 20,000 + laws on the books.  They are good laws that should be kept in place.

The push from the anti-gun left is to restrict legal ownership of certain kinds of firearms.  Many of these are not just used for self protection but for legitimate sporting and target purposes.  That is why we as sportsmen and women need to be very careful about positions we take or what we support without knowing how these decisions impact us all.

You are right, gun ownership is a huge responsibilty that is not to be taken lightly.  But, for those that choose to do so, we need to respect that right.



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 1:15:20 PM)

"Lets clarify,  I am a sportsman and a gun owner that believes in our second ammendment.  I am also willing to sacrifice some of my time to make sure that criminals and those that are mentally unstable are not allowed to own firearms.  I believe that the thousands of gun laws on the books already do just that. "


These are exactly the laws I was referring to.  In my original statement, I was responding to an interview of a NRA lawyer who stated that the supreme court ruling gives them opportunity to challenge these laws (maybe I should have clarified the impetus behind my post).  If you agree that these laws, that already exist, are necessary for the safety and protection of American citizens, then you also have to agree that what this lawyer said is irresponsible, unconstitutional and unAmerican.  


"The high court decision had nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people that should not own them.  That law kept guns out of law abiding citizens hands that want to protect themselves, which is thier right. "

I am very well aware of this, and is why I said I agreed with their ruling. I also am a strong advocate of the constitution and its ammendments.

I dont claim to be an expert on gun laws, but you totally mis interpreted what I was saying in my original post.  I said nothing of removing guns from the household.  I am in support of doing what is necessary to keep guns out of the possesion of criminals.

"As a sportsman who has many peers that enjoy hunting and shooting you should be more supportive of our rights and educate yourself before you imply that further restrictions are necessary. "

I support the rights of sportsmen 100%,  and never stated differently.  Like I said before, that was your interpretation of what I posted. 
Anyway it seems like we are on the same side of the argument, just struggling with the semantics of our posts.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 1:16:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bughawk


Laws about transporting firearms are also not unreasonable if safety and making the commission of a crime more difficult.  For examples, carrying a loaded weapon while spotting deer.  As a hunter, I have no problem with that law.  There is no reason to have loaded weapon in your vehicle when spotting deer.




You know that law was overturned and it is now legal to carry a loaded pistol for protection, with a valid CCW, while engaged in spotting or hunting?

And I disagree with your assertion.  We have the right to carry a concealed weapon for personal pretection with a valid CCW.  Why should I not be allowed to protect myself because I am spotting deer?



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 1:19:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

Anyway it seems like we are on the same side of the argument, just struggling with the semantics of our posts.



Fair enough.[;)]



Bughawk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 4:21:04 PM)

dpms,

I was not aware of the change in the law.  As a hunter, I don't see any reason to carry a gun when spotting deer, but if you feel a need to do so, then go ahead.  It is your choice.

As for the 20,000 + laws on the books, I agree that we must enforce them.  No problem there.

When it comes to gun ownership, I believe we do have a right to own a gun, but I also believe that with that right comes a big responsibility to use the gun appropriately and safely.  I guess since I view guns as extremely dangerous weapons, it takes only one slip up and someone could be severely injured or killed, more often than not, a friend or family member.  So I feel a need to minimize my time with the weapons in order to prevent any chance of an accident and to keep my guns locked up so that if someone breaks into my house they will not be easily stolen.   

The bottom line for me is a gun is a wonderful tool.  It can provide hours of fun on a sporting range, hunting or just plinking cans out back behind the house.   It may also in extreme circumstances prove useful to protect yourself when there is no other way so to do.  I also believe that old saying that guns don't kill people, people do.  I am not afraid of the guns, so much as what people will do with them.  In reality gun control laws are really people control laws.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 4:44:08 PM)

Bug,

Thanks for the civil discussion and your last post is appreciated.



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 5:02:45 PM)

dpms,

Where we need to go from here ( in my opinion ) is to get rid ( yes rid ), of the majority ( this large number ) of these laws. And replace them with a handful of more clearly written, more easily enforceable laws. Laws that put the least burden on citizens, and the most burden on criminals. This ( again in my opinion ) can best be achieved through co-operation on both sides.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 5:17:56 PM)

Spoon,

I would agree for the need of some kind of streamlining to take place.  Now would be a good time to do so.  I could only imagine the nightmare that would occur as both sides try to gain the upper hand.

It could be done IMO with cooperation from moderates from both sides.



Bughawk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 5:18:30 PM)

dpms,

Thank you.  The issue of guns is an emotional one and often difficult to approach.  I will agree with you we definitely need civil discussion.  We all come to this issue and pretty all issues with our own perspectives and experiences.  As we enter the discussion, it is critical to try as best we can to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible and ultimately come to some common understanding.  That does not necessarily mean we will all agree, but we will find a way to live together with our differences, with an understanding of the differences and tolerance for them.

Spoon,

Right on.  We need to remember KISS, keep it simple stupid.... 



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 5:22:44 PM)

"It could be done IMO with cooperation from moderates from both sides."

No doubt. I think that is what Scalia was driving at when writing his opinion. IE: There is no place for extremists of either side in the debate.



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 7:59:19 PM)

isnt it scarry that our constitutional rights have to be voted on,,, no matter who appointed these judges it came down to a lib /consev vote ,, one more lib it would have been lost, thats a fact,, straight party voting,, what the supreme court is doing now is voting on public opinion and not the meaning of our constitution,,,, they are no longer a unbiased part of our govt, 



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 10:40:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ROCKHARD

isnt it scarry that our constitutional rights have to be voted on,,, no matter who appointed these judges it came down to a lib /consev vote ,, one more lib it would have been lost, thats a fact,, straight party voting,, what the supreme court is doing now is voting on public opinion and not the meaning of our constitution,,,, they are no longer a unbiased part of our govt, 



Rock, I think from the beginning, our government officials have always been biased.  I am in the process of finishing the book, "John Adams", and one thing is evident from my reading, that is the BS that makes up our politics today has been going on since Washington took office, only back then it was the Federalists VS the Democrat- Republicans.  The true Democrat VS Republican "rivalry" really did not start until 1820, but it was the same story then as it is now.



Bughawk -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/1/2008 12:37:34 PM)

People is people.... Everyone has bias and bias is nothing new.  For some reason we tend to give more credit to ideas of the past and fail to see the value of the ones we have before us today.  We must look to the past to give direction to the future, but we cannot cling to it so strongly it that it impeds our movement forward.  The one major thing that makes America great is that we can adapt to the circumstances we find ourselves in and keep moving forward.  The constitution, like the Bible, ishere to help us test the new waters we are entering against a universal standard, but they cannot give us all the answers to solve the problems we encounter.  They are a guides and not rule books.



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/1/2008 1:19:09 PM)

kudos, mr. bughawk.

rock, you continue to move back to attacking the libs.  you have to move beyond that.  truthfully, i wouldn't want to consider myself a conservative today.  look at issues and attack them.  attack the creator of these issues.  learned a long time ago that shotgun management doesn't work.  by getting rid of the libs, do you think all the problems will go away.  you need a mix, a compromise and a dilution of strength where only one group benefits.



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/1/2008 5:00:32 PM)

i agree rap,, no one party should be in control,,,but you cant control that unless you split the votes,, equal shares,, which also is not constitutional,,, again i didnt attack the libs,i stated,for a vote on our 2nd amendment right, it came down to party lines,, if there was one more lib judge we would have lost it,,,if you look at stevens opinion on the child rape /death penalty ruling ,, he went by public opinion ,more than what our constitution would have stated,,about conservatives,they arent the problem, the old school republicans are running that show,they policy different than conservs,,,just as i dont think a true dem will follow much liberal policy,, conservs and straight dems would rule alot better for the people than these far right or left political politicians,



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/1/2008 11:49:15 PM)

in the end, there are no true conservs or libs.  each issue should be faced with intelligence and how it will impact.  at times we will not agree with the outcome, but as long as there is compromise, as long as the pendulum does not quit swinging, our republic will survive.  when one party controls all for a long period of time (as we have seen for the past seven years) damage will be done.  if it continues, then we are no better off than totalitarian governments.



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 6:30:25 PM)

see rap,you blame one party,,you said last seven yrs,,how about the 40 yrs prior to 94,when the dems controled everything,we had a few republican pres., but they were unable to do anything,cause of dem controled congress and senate,,, reagan was damn good for this country,anything you dislike about the man,remember dems controled it all,, not even close between majority and minority,, he showed great strength in military wise and economics,,, obama doesnt stand a chance if these to gave a speech , reagan was a great moderater and one hell of a speaker... any tax increase during his term came from the left,all left policies,, now that is one man i know and studied to great length,,, books,videos and cds,,, 



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 7:12:57 PM)

"now that is one man i know and studied to great length,,, books,videos and cds,,, "

Then you would know that your statement "anything you dislike about the man,remember dems controled it all,, not even close between majority and minority",  is false.

REPUBLICANS controlled the senate ( forget about THAT important branch? ) from 81'-87' SIX of the eight years Reagan was in office.

I'm sure you blame the evil Democrats for his huge budget deficits. But take a look at the deficits when Reagan, and the Republicans contolled 2/3 of the budget process VS when Democrats regained the senate

      Federal Deficit (Nominal dollars, in Billions) 

1981    -78,976 < Republicans win Senate
1982   -127,989
1983   -207,818
1984   -185,388
1985   -212,334
1986   -221,245
1987   -149,769 < Democrats retake Senate

Take another issue, near, and dear to conservatives, immigration reform ( amnesty ). Reagan signed the biggest (true) amnesty bill in history. One ( note ONE ) of the causes our current situation.




ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 11:20:39 PM)

he ,reagan, had a lot of damage repair to do after carter administration,, clinton ,largest tax increase ever,,obama will even be higher,,,, spoon ,you know who dick morris is, he was very high in the clinton yrs as his adviser,, clinton poll numbers tanked so bad the first 4 yrs ,he couldnt have never got re-elected,so morris  pushed clinton to the middle and got him re-elected,, read dick morrises book, it will lighten up alot of this clinton hype as a good pres.,, like i said he was clintons #1, so he knows what he is talking about,,, he was on the same path bush took us down,,, there is another book out ,,i think its called MAKERS AND BREAKERS,,what we have today in our society actually started in the kennedy yrs,, it basically said all this mess was pre programed since early 60's,, alot of big elites , no party affiliation control all this chaos, our govt is for sale to all bidders



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 11:49:44 PM)

see rap,you blame one party,,you said last seven yrs..........rock, when one party, don't care which, rules all three sectors of government, we all pay. the truth is in the pudding.  i am sure that had the dems controlled the house, the judiciary and the white house for that long, there would have been deep problems also.

blast carter, eh....look what he got from the two guys before him.  they all have alibis in place ( i liked carter for the moral man that he was) but the current prez created his own reputation.



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 11:55:14 PM)

rock, during the reagan years, there was a period of bi-partisanship politics where both sides worked together.  this is how it should be.  but don't put uncle ronnie on a pedestal too quickly.  he may have been very patriotic and loved this country....but he was the initial author of nafta and free trade agreements.  he made us strong during his tenure, but after he left, we paid the price.  however, don't want you to think i am attacking repubies, because bill clinton fertilized these trade agreements and watched them grow.



jonnyfishon -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/2/2008 11:57:38 PM)

The current administration planed to pass on thier mess and tippy toe away, but it backfired . Come to think of it, where is Tippy-toe?



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/3/2008 12:18:46 PM)

yes,in our political system ,, when things go wrong we blame the pres.,,, when they are good,, we dont give that praise to the pres.,,, we look at the bad and never the good,,, hell,since 9/11,we havent been attacked,, going to iraq might not been a good idea,,but no matter how you look at it,,, we kept the fighting off our shores,, my sons one friend just came back from 2 tours, and what he talks about over there, is very uplifting,, first what we hear on our news here,,he says in no way its that bad there,,, he said one patrol he was on,an elderly iraqi fell to his knees and kissed his boots,thanking him for getting rid of saddam,,, violence now is no comparison as under saddam rule,,,,  these people are very thankful,,, news reports of roadside bombings, much exagerated by our media,, one incident he was there,,a few iraqi citizens were wounded and none dead,, but our media had it at 30 or 40 wounded and 7 dead,,he said a long way to go but not close to what is reported here.. i am off track here,,, get back to topic,, the pres is actually the puppet,,he cant go to sleep without the congress and senate voting on it,, nothing goes thru without the full houses votes,, and whoever controls these houses determines the outcome on the vote



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/3/2008 1:03:18 PM)

rock, what does iraq have to do with 9/11?

if you are saying that we haven't been attacked because of bush, well, we were attacked 9 months after he took office, on 9/11.

however, this horse has been beaten to death here.

this prez is not a puppet (well maybe to big business) but some of the things he has done have been downright criminal....another beaten horse.



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/3/2008 2:54:37 PM)

rap,, watergate you are talking about,, there is a book out now,,when i find the name i will refer it to you,,written by an assistant to beglosi(att gen) prosecuting the watergate trial,, was actually a big coverup to get ed kennedy into the whitehouse,, dont know much yet cause havent read it , but stated nixon wasnt involved,what happened was ,beglosi sat on info so long instead of prosecuting ones involved ,got the white house for coverup and contempt,, nixon took the fall,a puppet, for the party,,, kennedy's insiders seen to it this way,, sounds like a must read,, i said not attacked since 9/11,,, a lot of misinformation was put out before we attacked iraq,,, yea blame bush, but both houses read the same reports,, during clinton yrs,,listen to what both party representatives were saying about a possible strike on iraq, and it would be wise to do so,, again ,just happened under bush,,



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/3/2008 11:55:00 PM)

i believe nixon admitted wrongdoing, so watergate is a moot point.  kennedy could not beat carter, so i don't think the dnc was behind this.

we haven't been attacked since 9/11 because that idiot bin laden is just waiting and planning.  he has hit london and madrid though.  had we pressed him in afghanistan with 160000 troops instead of the 20000 that were sent there (it's in the 30s now), we may not have had to worry about him.  however, our commander in chief thought we should have a war in iraq too.

why would bush involve us in a war in iraq when bin laden was in afghanistan?  i have never heard a plausible reason for us being there.  our involvement there had nothing to do with 9/11.



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/4/2008 8:50:55 AM)

yes rap,,nixon took the fall for the party,, wasnt involved till after the fact,,, dont know about dnc involved but kennedy had alot to do with it,,, i think bin laden hid out in pakistan as soon as we got to afghan.,,, 



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/4/2008 9:27:16 AM)

tora bora mt. range and numerous small villages along the border, crossing back and forth because he could.  we did not have many combat troops there initially and the u.n. support troops were just that.

nixon was a jerk.... i lived the period.  he tried to move the viet nam war into cambodia.  too many died for that idiot incursion.  even backed the shooting of the students at kent state and jackson state.  all did nothing wrong.  the invoked their freedom of speech rights.  they were not the ones who torched the rotc building the night before.  i had friends there.  two of them ended up in nam.  nixon was a jerk. 



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/4/2008 9:45:15 AM)

might have been a jerk,but didnt order watergate,,just a fall guy,,i to lived that period,,,,yep,vietnam,,another political war with our hands tied,,, wonder why we lost so many lives,,



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (7/4/2008 9:47:27 AM)

why were we there?  hands tied, lbj and nixon ran wild through most of it.  didn't matter what the voting public thought.  they forgot that they worked for us. 



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



   

0.078