|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts 
|
Being a life long hunter/fisherman and TRUE conservative I fully know the definition of the word "conserve". My family and I have been DIRECTLY involved in efforts to keep land as "wild" as possible. My father was involved in the clean up of Lake Erie. Other projects on smaller local levels and such as well were done by my family.
Knowing the outdoors and how to preserve it is something that hunters/fishermen are fantastic at. I was 7 when my father bought me a bow and arrow. Warned that they have been after the second amendment and it was possible in my lifetime that the restrictions on it would become extreme and if I wanted to keep hunting it would probably be with a bow.... till they came for that as well. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but just that was what was said. Please do not attack the message as it is pointless. The president and MANY in the party would just want to take away all guns at any cost. Well any cost with the exception of political. Many in this very forum have maintained a complete gun ban would be the way to go. My personal problem is when I see how politicians work. Obamacare itself is nothing but a way to get to single payer. It is their goal. Creeping incremental-ism is the rule of the day. The camel nose under the tent is the strategy. Well with that being the rule of the day, I for one would not want them to get that nose under. That is in no way fear mongering, it is happening right now. We have speeches from the president and many politicians about this EXACT idea. Just apply it to guns. Not too hard to figure.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Where, exactly, is the evidence that the President wants to "take away all guns at any cost?" Apart from the fact that the Constitution would prevent him from doing so, where did he ever say that he wanted to in the first place?
He never did. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/......ur-guns/ |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: READ THIS: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/obama-......-checks/ He says self protectionis not a reason. What would you call banning guns then?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: I guess that is pretty much how Chicago has gone isn't it? Ok lets just say this president, and much of the left (not all.) are not really big defenders of the second amendment. Plus the constitution has not exactly been stopping him from doing whatever he wants. He pushes the edges and just ignores court decisions when he wants to. So to say the constitution prevents him from doing so does not mean as much as it once did.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: You can't say it and get elected. You can only appoint the sorts of people who would vote with the dissent in Heller and never have to worry about getting re-elected. The president's disdain for those who "cling to their guns and religion" has slipped out, though.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
I didn't have a "problem" with your post, aces. I literally didn't understand what you yourself were trying to communicate when you posted, because you didn't explicitly express your opinion.
But any time someone mentions me and Bob in the same breath I consider it a compliment. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2889 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 23, 2014, Slim King wrote: I used to work the sporting goods counter at the Wal-Mart here. When Obama came in, there was a rush for ammo because "Obama is going to take all our guns away." We ended up having a restriction on how much ammo you could buy, not because of any regulation, but just so there could be enough ammo for everyone.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Well there is good and bad hunting. Roughly speaking it seems to me, the killing of animals should never be cruel or unnecessary and that which we call hunting is sometimes so.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Salguod Nairb Room 101 0 Posts
|
It comes down to the hunter. I don't bow hunt because I'm not accurate enough and wouldn't want the animal to run off with an arrow in its neck. I'm fine with the rifle or shotgun and spent time at the firing range prior to hunt. Though, I haven't hunted animals in over 10 years.
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness...
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
That was my concern with bow as well.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote: Isn't that the point? Say whatever you need to in order to be elected and then put people lime Holder and Jones and Jarrett in place so you never have to tell them anything. Put in fellow travelers in positions like Lois Lerner was in and you never have to give an order. I am sure Reagan did the same thing. But lets not deny how the president feels about guns and the constitution in general. No he would never be elected if he said it. I wonder how many politicians actually would be elected if they gave true feelings?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Again, Lobo. He never said it and statements to the contrary by the NRA, et al, have been rated as "pants on fire" lies in the link I provided.
During the Obama administration, in fact, many gun regulations has been loosened by the President himself. Did he not sign the bill permitting the carrying of firearms in national parks? And since the last election, much to the dismay of those who WOULD like further firearms restrictions, he hasn't said much at all on the subject, nor has he sought to have more restrictive regulations put in place. So I'm guessing you have no source to support your statement except what you THINK the President's intentions are. That kind of argument wouldn't hold up very well in court. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Every liberal Supreme Court justice in Heller voted to uphold the D.C. law that you characterized as an unreasonable restriction on gun rights. Do you thinks he'd appoint a conservative, given the chance?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Of course he would. You don't think his last appointee was conservative?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote: What does that have to do with the fact that he has basically done nothing regarding gun regulations since his re-election except expand rights in certain areas? What you seem to think his intentions are isn't supported by his actions or public statements. Are you prepared to accuse Justice Scalia of seeking to take away guns simply because he stated quite clearly in Heller that reasonable restrictions on firearms are not prohibited by the Second Amendment? Has Scalia shown himself to be a closet-liberal simply because of that bit of dicta? I secretly suspect that may be what he is "really thinking," so that should be proof enough. At least it is equivalent to the "proof" you have provided that the President secretly seeks to ban all guns. In short, it's not proof at all, just unsupported speculation. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: What it has to do with is your apparent misapprehension at Obama has to affirmatively "do" something in order for gun rights advocates' fears to be justified. What you continually fail to acknowledge is that those fears require nothing more to come to fruition than the appointment of a single judge. I never said or suggested that the president whats to "ban all guns," so that straw man can be put to bed. OTOH, we know that 13% of Americans DO want to ban all guns (per the CNN poll that you stamped with approval (with the exception of police and military professionals), and I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that he's NOT one of those 13%. Clearly, if he were, he couldn't say so and hope to get elected. But that's simply a response to your distraction. The point I was responding to is that fears about the Obama presidency's potential impact on gun rights are NOT, as you suggest, groundless. We're one liberal SCOTUS justice away from inreasonable (as you have acknowledged) restrictions on gun ownership. Moreover, we have a president who believes that "we owe it to ourselves" to try measures that could save "just one life."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
What straw man? I was responding DIRECTLY to this statement made by Danny on the previous page of this thread:
Quote:
The president and MANY in the party would just want to take away all guns at any cost. Well any cost with the exception of political. Many in this very forum have maintained a complete gun ban would be the way to go. And you have proceeded, it seems, to support that statement. If there is a straw man here, it sure isn't mine. And you haven't responded to my comments about Scalia. He may well be the "one judge" you seem to be worried about. That would be ironic, wouldn't it. I haven't researched this, but perhaps you know- which "liberal justices," if any, on the court have supported banning all guns? |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
You wrote, in a post directed to *me,* not Danny Doyle, "At least it is equivalent to the "proof" you have provided that that the President secretly seeks to ban all guns."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: You know how Heller went, and you know it was a 5-4 vote. You opined here that the law in question was an unreasonable restriction. Scalia voted with the majority.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
I'm referring specifically to the following statement, written by Scalia, in the syllabus of the the Court's decision in Heller:
Quote: [emphasis added to section specifically applicable to many of the situations we have been discussing on these threads.]
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/ Do you agree or disagree with his assessment? (I agreed with the Heller decision only insofar as it applied specifically to the application of the D.C. law that was the subject of the case. The facts of the case dealt exclusively with handguns kept IN THE HOME for the purposes of self-defense.I have never agreed, however, with the idea that the Second Amendment specifically confers an individual right to publicly carry handguns, openly or concealed, and I believe that holding will be eventually reversed.) |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Wildlife Restoration act of 1937Tax you never hear about (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 25, 2014 03:38 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|