The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7, 2009, 02:01 PM   #26
pendennis
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
Let's see...

Quote:
I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.
One of the original questions were..
Quote:
Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?
Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.

The most important of these is the Second Amendment. As an individual right, it's the one which provides a secure foundation for the others. It's very difficult to deny one's freedom of speech, or "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...", when authorities may face armed resistance.
pendennis is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:20 PM   #27
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.
I fail to see how. I'd agree that it's certainly outside of the powers of the federal government as given in the Constitution, but I fail to see which individual right is infringed there. Obviously the rights enumerated in the Constitution aren't exhaustive (it explicitly says so) but I'm not really seeing any right to "lower taxes" nor a right to a "choice" of health care/insurance on the free market.

While I'm more than willing to entertain arguments as to the benefits of nationalized health care (I'm not particularly in favor of it, to be honest) I don't see where civil rights come into play. I'm seeing no fundamental difference between the government taking control of health care and funding it through taxes rather than leaving it to private providers and, I don't know, the government doing the same for police services or schools.

Of course, the latter are (largely) run at levels below the federal. But again, that's a separation of powers issue not an individual rights issue.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:29 PM   #28
Enoy21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2009
Posts: 240
My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.
Enoy21 is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:37 PM   #29
Jekyll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2009
Location: Easten PA
Posts: 277
When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-analysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Sovereign States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emigrate to Massachusetts to obtain state-managed health care if you desire such or to emigrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal government mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Government health care is not free; the federal government does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal healthcare only comes by forcibly taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!

Last edited by Jekyll; April 7, 2009 at 03:20 PM. Reason: Speeling
Jekyll is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:47 PM   #30
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.
Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

Quote:
When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-anlysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Soveriegn States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emmigrate to Massechusets to obtain state-managed helath care if you desire such or to emmegrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal governemnt mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Governemtn health care is not free, the federal governement does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal helthcare only comes by forceably taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!
Again, everything you say would apply to public education as well...though I suppose it depends if any private health care alternatives remained (as some private schools do). Or most services the government provides (police, fire, etc.). I can't think of any state I can emigrate to where I won't be taxed for these things. And neither the Constitution nor the founding fathers seem to have any solution if, by some chance, all fifty states were to institute such a policy. Where would you easily emigrate to then?

So yeah, still not seeing an individual rights issue here. If your state can do it to you, and if all fifty states can do the same should they choose, it seems more like a separation of powers issue...which is to say that the problem is that the federal government is doing it, not that the government is doing it.

EDIT: Also the "tell those that have had their money taken" argument is a complete red herring.

EDIT: Lastly, having endured the Army healthcare system (no offense to any here who may have been a part of it...the issue was mostly systemic, not the individuals within it) I have very little desire to see what kind of nationalized healthcare system the federal government would foist upon us. But that's not the issue here.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:56 PM   #31
Jekyll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2009
Location: Easten PA
Posts: 277
I'm always amazed at the number of ignorant people that look to government as if it were some magical entity possessing a bottomless well from which to ladle money.

I want more, please. Let's give this away, etc. They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people. Money is nothing more that the accepted liquid expression of our labors, our property and our liberty. Taking money through unfair, exorbitant taxes is nothing more than taking our labor, our property and our liberty. Government healthcare boils down to the ugly math of reducing the liberty of some with the misguided goal of increasing liberty for others. In the end, you can never increase liberty by redistribution because any government that takes liberty from some of its citizens can't pass on an equal level of liberty others. Some might think it to be a zero sum game but the very act of taking liberty is far more injurious to the governed than is the benefit gained by a few through new liberty. A government that capriciously takes liberty is dangerous to all. Tomorrow it may come for your liberty.

This brings this thread back to guns and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is or only true protection from tyranny and ignorance.
Jekyll is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:58 PM   #32
Jekyll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2009
Location: Easten PA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.

Last edited by Jekyll; April 7, 2009 at 03:06 PM.
Jekyll is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 03:14 PM   #33
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Quote:
Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.
Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.
Of course. Well, except for those states that economically can't.

I guess I just have a different definition of individual rights, at least in the context it was being used. Again, if my state can do it, and if all fifty states can do it, I don't see it as an infringement on my individual rights. For instance, no state can violate the Constitutional rights that have been incorporated. And I'd like to see a couple more (like the second amendment) fall under that umbrella.

The fact that your issue is with the federal government doing it, and not that it's being done to begin with, is why I say it's a separation of powers issue and not really much of a civil rights issue. Because every state, every last state, takes money from those that have more and gives it in some way or another to those that have less. But it's okay, because the state is doing it.

Quote:
They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people.
I pay taxes. In a couple short months I'll be paying even more (welcome to the top quintile!). Are there people who pay more than me? Sure. But I'll still be paying more in taxes than most.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 03:31 PM   #34
Jekyll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2009
Location: Easten PA
Posts: 277
My state has a constitution which is a contract between it and my fellow citizens. I don't expect the state to violate its constitution either. There are things that belong to the federal government, things that belong to the state governments and things that belong to the individual. The federal government doesn't need to worry too much about individuals taking from it. It has the power of the military, courts, police forces and the IRS. The people need to be alert to the government taking from us. We don't have the same power to enforce our individual rights.

Again, I say that federally mandated healthcare or education is a violation because it takes those issues that are rights reserved to the states and the people: the very definition of taking away liberty.
Jekyll is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 05:16 PM   #35
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
Another thing that I stated in the welcome thread is that while opinionated, I consider myself always learning and open to resculpting my opinions based on debate and education.

I can see what you're saying about nationalized health care. My biggest gripe is that every other industrialized nation has it, and even though the number the news is toting says 50 million Americans, there is a large chunk of those covered that get denied services, and in the end the pay-for model is just as corrupt and inept as how we can imagine a government run system would be.

I am open to "affordable health care" in a capitalist marketplace if it works. I would take that over nationalized, to be honest. If I get cancer and it doesn't put me $400,000 into debt, then we're onto something.

True, lets bring this back around to subject though.

The purpose of this drunken rant from last night was to ask why it seems that it's almost looked down upon to pick what you believe is right, and find yourself skittled out 50/50 between both parties,or even a few sideliners that aren't covered by either.

I feel that McCain is a very honorable man, and I believe that he deserved the presidency at one point in his life, and it's a shame that that time passed him by in the past. I don't think that he was the right man to cover all our bases at this time, but I voted with my breath held because I knew that there was a chance that this would severely affect my life and our country in one of our most important rights. I decided that there was a lot at stake across all the issues, and I hoped that we could change his mind on this one aspect, one of the only that I disagreed with him on.

I am new to guns, true, and I am new to caring about the 2nd amendment as much as I now do. I am continuing to learn and find it more and more important every single day. I admit a level of naivite as I go forward. I can be considered a "recent convert". I am 27 years old, not 47, I don't have the years of experience and knowledge that many of you have.

I may end up regretting my vote. I don't currently yet. I am feeling pains from it, and if there is an organized movement to protest against losing our 2nd amendment rights, I will join those voices.

I appreciate all comments from each side of thought, I am learning a lot from all of you.

Thank you.

- Joshua
Jofaba is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 05:26 PM   #36
pendennis
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
JuanCarlos -

The U.S. Constitution was written in order to limit the power of the Federal government. It was well-studied by Mason, Adams, and others. They also closely studied existing governments, and their role in the lives of their citizens.

The bastardization of the Constitution has come about by over-reliance on a judiciary, which has played an increasing role in what should be the realm of the Legislative branch.

The Congress has also usurped powers from the Executive. The War Powers Act comes to mind. They have also hidden behind the commerce clause to interfere in education, health care, and business.

With the adoption of the XIII Amendment, Congress gained increasing powers which further limited states' and individual rights. Using language like "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.",

The Federal courts and Congress have federalized elections. Nowhere in the Constitution does the language call for national elections, per se. States had the original say so over elections. The XV Amendment only guarantees the right to vote.

Yes, individual rights have been usurped by a Federal government which has increasingly used the Federal tax codes for social engineering. That, in and of itself, is a violation of individual rights. It amounts to wealth redistribution of wealth, which is socialist/collectivist on its face.
pendennis is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 07:34 PM   #37
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
I'd suggest getting this one onto firearms, one way or another.....

or at least something besides gay marriage.
How many times must we inform folks that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of topics in this sub-forum?

And while homosexuality, in general, is a forbidden topic, the topic of gay marriage and government law (in the sense of Federal law), is on topic, generally, with the comments made by the OP.

Besides, they aren't even the main thrust of this thread. They are merely an incidental topic. Which brings me to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanCarlos
I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.
How So?

Not all topics must be civil rights related. Many can and should be related to Law.

Pendennis, in post #26, quoted from the OP. I differ from his opinion about any civil rights relationship, as I see it as a relationship between what the Feds do and are doing and what the Constitution is supposed to restrict them from doing.

Oh Pendennis? What we call the Second Amendment, was originally the fourth Article of amendment proposed to the States as a Bill of Rights (the 1st Article has yet to be ratified and the 2nd Article was finally ratified and became our 27th amendment).

This has loosely been what a few members have posted about since the thread opened. Liberal or Conservative, you ignore at your peril that the Constitution was designed to limit Federal authority.

That to me, has been the actual and main topic of this thread. Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 07:56 PM   #38
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
Quote:
Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.
I am sorry to hear that and hope that it doesn't happen. It's been a very engaging and enlightening conversation, and seeing others with similar feelings about even opposing viewpoints has been a beneficial experience, at least for me.

Even if the thread does get locked, I would like to thank you all again for your involvement, and it's definitely given me a lot to think about,and I look forward to picking your brains on these forums in the future.
Jofaba is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 08:02 PM   #39
bessemerbob
Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 34
I think the major reason for this is the lack of a third party. The fact that these days your either extreme right or extreme left is your answer… I know many gun loving Democrats, but the representatives of there party only follow the leader like lemmings. Over the next 4yrs its very important for all Pro Gun Democrats to let there elected officials know how they feel on the subject, after all they are elected to represent you!
So as I sate time and time again in every gun forum I belong to its vital to our rights that we in a loud yet professional voice let our elected officials know how we feel. If our discussions, and rights are kept to message boards then the out spoken radicals will have there way.
bessemerbob is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 08:39 PM   #40
Hammerhead_6814
Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2008
Posts: 15
Jofaba, your going to find PLENTY of people like you in the world. You won't hear anything about them on FOX, CNN, or on Conservative or Liberal blogs. The reasonable, common-sense human being isn't seen as a middle-ground man in America, he's either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. That's the one problem I truly have with my countrymen these days, they divide each other into two camps and REFUSE to find common ground, or even acknowledge the existence of someone who supports a little of both, but associates with none.

I've voted Democrat before. I said it. I've voted Democrat before. I haven't in the Presidential elections mind you (I've only voted in one of those, and I wrote in Ron Paul ). But in local elections, and soon to be national elections, I care more about the person than the party.

Sometimes they refuse to acknowledge a person of a differing background as a like-minded person because they often support ONE little thing that they disagree with. My neighbors refused to vote McCain simply because he was for the war originally, Obama wasn't. Screw everything else, McCain was for the war. To hell with the border situation, to hell with the economy, and damned be the healthcare system, McCain supported the war.

People like tat ruin America, and unfortunately they're to extreme (usually) to snap them out of it.
Hammerhead_6814 is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 08:41 PM   #41
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
I won't argue that a vote for a libertarian candidate in the US presidential election is not a waste of your vote. I could and face to face I could convince some, but not in this forum.

Whar about local politics in off years? Many of my city elections have 50 to 100 votes in off years. When president isn't up no one shows. No one knows the local candidates. All you have to do is show up to the election with a good number of friends and you can win a local position.

Our country has historically been dominated by two partis, but it has not always been THESE two parties. Every once in a while one of the parties gets way off their supposed platform and is replaced. WHich party is that right now?
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 10:42 PM   #42
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,512
One size does not fit all

and seldom fits anyone perfectly.

First, let us all remember that the numbers on the amendments are irrelevant to their legal importance. ALL are equally valid, and equally legally important and binding.

In the real world, the rights enumerated in the First Amendment have a primacy of importance, and daily impact. In the court of last resort, the 2nd Amendment rights have a physical primacy, without which our options are severely limited. Continued respect for our First amendment rights, by the govt is what keeps us from having to resort to the final argument.

Second, lets also remember that no matter how much we might wish otherwise, we have come a long way from the system set up by our Founders. We have to live, and deal with what exists today, and by so doing, create what will exist tomorrow.

American voters can be divided into several groups. One group votes straight party lines. Most do this because of tradition. "Grandad was a Democrat, Dad was a democrat, and so am I," etc.

Another group votes with their wallets, as they see it. "My union says vote democrat, and so I do, because they will keep me working." Or "I own a business, and Republicans are for business, so I vote for them", etc.

Another group are those who vote for the important social/civil rights issues they believe most strongly in. Many gun owners (but by no means all) are there. So are the Abortion folks , both pro and con, the gay rights people, the environmentalists etc. etc.

And there is yet another group that is living comfortably enough that they have nothing important enough to them to bother to vote.

All these groups have myriad degrees, and one can be in one, or several, depending on the precise views you hold, and how strongly you feel about them.

No one seems to be completely satisfied with either of the main parties choices on everything, so those that do vote, mostly wind up voting for whichever party/candidate that seems to agree strongest with their particular sacred cow, accepting the "bad" to get at least a little "good".

Lots of us don't fit perfectly and completely in either camp. Perhaps one reason why so many of us are dissatisfied with politics, parties, and politicians. And all of us "know" things would all be just fine if the politicians actually did what we want them to do. Trouble is, that with so many widely differing points of view, what is right to some is completely wrong to others. And it changes with each different issue, and individual.

Take national health care, for one. To me, it is one of those things, like communism, a fine sounding idea, in theory, but something that invariably doesn't work well in the real world. Forget, for a moment, all the arguments about who pays, and whether it is socialism, and everything else, and just ask your self one question. Do you really want the Federal Government running our health care system? And, before you answer that, look at the fine health care system already run by our federal govt. The VA.

Because, the best of intentions not withstanding, once enough people and bureaucracies get involved with it, that is what it will come down to. Is this what you want for yourself, and your children? And is it right to give our govt agencies the legal authority to force us all into that kind of system?

Now, go on and consider all the other arguments, pro and con, and make up your mind.

Gay Marriage. Something that affects me personally not in the least. However, being a bit of a traditionalist, at least when it comes to language, I oppose gay marriage. I favor "civil unions" having ALL the legal rights of marriage. I just oppose the term marriage being used for anything other than its traditional definition.

Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.

Guns and shooting are my main hobby, a passion I have enjoyed for nearly 40 years. To me, they are the main factor in who I vote for. I'll put up with an awful lot (but not everything) as long as you leave my things alone. Trouble is, they won't. So, generally, I hold my nose, and vote for the ones I hope will leave me alone the longest.

On this issue, neither party is our good friend. One just wants to do it to us faster than the other. This is, of course a broad generalization, and so, not completely accurate. There are good people who feel the same way we do on this issue in both parties. Trouble is, that they aren't, and haven't been the ones running things for some time now.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 09:00 AM   #43
pendennis
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
Quote:
Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.
Well said!

My view parallels that of your wife's.

I also look at what's termed "choice" a little differently than others. I also believe in choices, but that we must abide with the results of those choices.

A man and woman who engage in what's euphemistically referred to as procreation, have already made a choice. After creating life, neither the man nor the woman has the option of terminating that life intentionally.
pendennis is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 09:47 AM   #44
Dingoboyx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Location: South East Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,513
Wow

Heavy thread, but very enlightening.
I congratulate all who have partaken on your calm discussion of a normally volatile subject. It was a great read, like I said, very interesting to me as I live in Australia on the other side of the world.
I also congratulate the staff of TFL for allowing the thread to go on, because it got well away from guns and shooting, but I believe was a worthy thread to be kept alive.
I have heard many anti's rave on about how "gun people" are all 2 headed morons with no more than one brain cell between them, but you gentlemen (and ladies) have proven to me (and hopefully any anti spies, spying) that you are just normal educated people, who love your guns and shooting, can allow others to have their own opinions, and get on with our favorite passtime..... shooting

I take my hat off to you all, you are all great blokes (even the sheila's) & I am proud to be accepted as a member of TFL

Keep up the good work
__________________
Muzza
If you cant blind them with brilliance, Baffle them with BS
Be alert...... there is a shortage of LERTs
Dingoboyx is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 11:19 AM   #45
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
My biggest gripe is that every other industrialized nation has it, and even though the number the news is toting says 50 million Americans, there is a large chunk of those covered that get denied services
And there are a great deal of people who are denied services through government run health care around the world. Because it is either too expensive or there is not enough capcity in the system to give everyoen the requested service. Almost every other industrial nation has much more restrictive gun laws than we do, should we adopt that as well. Just because they do it across the pond doesn't mean we should do it here. If it is good for us we should do it if not we shouldn't. Too me government run health care is not good for us.

Quote:
Quote:
Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.

Well said!

My view parallels that of your wife's.

I also look at what's termed "choice" a little differently than others. I also believe in choices, but that we must abide with the results of those choices.

A man and woman who engage in what's euphemistically referred to as procreation, have already made a choice. After creating life, neither the man nor the woman has the option of terminating that life intentionally.
I would agree that abortion is wrong but it is not the government's place to say you can't.

I agree that a choice is made the minute two people decide to have sex and take no precautions to prevent pregnancy.

It galls me when pro-choice people make the claim that they some how have a right to choose to end a life for no reason or when pro-life people, or any other group for that matter, try and tell others how to live.

I do support efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies (before conception) and reduce the amount of abortions through adoption. But I can't support an outright ban on abortion.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 11:41 AM   #46
publius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2005
Location: Mississippi/Texas
Posts: 2,453
You sound like a Libetarian except for the nationalized health care. i am a Libetarian, and it's just that the republican party is usually closer to the Libetarian party's views. Liberals do share some views with the libetarians and anyone who supports the Second Amendment is welcome no matter how he chooses to label himself.
__________________
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
publius is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 12:48 PM   #47
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
You sound like a Libetarian except for the nationalized health care. i am a Libetarian, and it's just that the republican party is usually closer to the Libetarian party's views.
I think it is simpler than that. General the republicans have moved to keep money in working peoples pockets, well at least people working in the private sector. If you have the money you can do almost anything you want.

Lets face it, if Donald Trump wanted to purchase a helicopter with a GE minigun on board for his personal entertainment he could do it. He could buy a small island and call it an independent country, start a shell security firm, or any number of other things to accomplish this task.

There was a guy who couldn't get a radio license or something in the US b/c of his politics and he just went to Mexico, built a huge radio emitter that could reach most of the US and told the government to stick it.

If you are gay and want to be married and you have money you can easily get a lawyer to write up a special contract and afford the extra litigation if it is broken. Probably a good bit more costly then going before the justice of the peace and going through the relatively streamlined divorce proceedings if that contract is breached.

Abortion illegal? Not if you have money. Go to Europe for a month and problem solved. Maybe you run with that country club crowd with a few doctors. "Hey Johnny, my daughter has a problem, do you think you can help me out."

With money, almost any restriction on the amendments or civil rights in general can be circumvented.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; April 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 01:34 PM   #48
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
Quote:
Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation
Its a LOT more than that. The family has been the basic unit of social structure just about forever. The legal structure of marriage is mostly about regularizing that structure and putting it into context with the rest of society.

Much harm has come from government meddling in what should be strictly family matters.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 01:48 PM   #49
sailor99
Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2009
Posts: 15
hey 44Amp, run for office, I will vote for you.
sailor99 is offline  
Old April 12, 2009, 03:47 AM   #50
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,327
For some reason, I get the feeling that the libertarian mindset is a lot stronger than many would have us believe.

I would call myself generally libertarian. (I am also very willing to listen to pragmatic ideas, especially in the "public goods" field.)

During the past election, I found myself voting for a 3rd party candidate. While I greatly admired one candidate and generally respected the other, their policy stances were just too far from my own views. Call me stupid, but I would rather make my opinion known and lose than vote for someone who will not adequately represent my views.
raimius is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16754 seconds with 7 queries