|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 15, 2009, 09:42 AM | #101 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
|
off topic
Last edited by Poseidon28; August 17, 2009 at 07:58 PM. Reason: OT |
August 15, 2009, 10:24 AM | #102 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
August 15, 2009, 10:29 AM | #103 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
||
August 15, 2009, 10:31 AM | #104 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Here is a study that I believe is a bit more objective that shows there are a lot of guns in the US but they are highly concentrated among a small percentage of owners. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...t/full/13/1/15 Kind of like the members of this forum. Their conclusion is about one third of all households have at least one gun in them. So two thirds do not. Therefore I submit most Americans do not own guns. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; August 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM. |
||||
August 15, 2009, 10:39 AM | #105 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
August 15, 2009, 11:36 AM | #106 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
|
possibly off topic.
Last edited by Poseidon28; August 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM. |
August 15, 2009, 03:54 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2008
Posts: 839
|
Chris Mathews went after him again and again and again - I have to say - that guy held his ground and he was pretty informed. NOW - consider the sound bite I saw of him from a newscast - he looked a little goofy - but I think Mathews was set back by his knowledge of US history and government. Intriguing....
I don't agree though that 1000 people should be bringing firearms to a place where the POTUS is.....as I have said before - there are people that shouldn't have firearms. They are the same ones that shouldn't probably drive autos or operate electrical appliances either... |
August 15, 2009, 05:20 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Matthews is indicative of a trend...
... in both the media and in politics... of LOUD = RIGHT.
I don't like it with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Paul Begala. I also don't like it with Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter (who isn't loud in volume, but in outrageousness). If you have to shout over the top of me to make your point, then your point obviously can't speak on its own merits. While I'm not violent by nature, I do have to admit to wondering if these loudmouths would behave in the manner they do if we had never banned honor duels. Kind of like I often wonder if some of the worst of the internet loudmouths would pipe up the way they do if they realized the relative ease with which somebody with computer savvy and governmental authority wanted to track them down. (Note: really good hackers don't need governmental authority...) I can only penalize the boorish behavior of the current set of media talking heads by ignoring them to the best of my ability, and not adding to their ratings. It's too bad in a way, because many of them make good points from time to time (with the exception of Begala, whom I think exists primarily to remind us all that once upon a time, in elementary school, there were tattletales and hall monitors); but if they take up a cause, I have to fight not to oppose it from simple knee-jerking distaste for the messenger. Politics is much the same way. I find it amazing how many people are upset about alleged threats against President Obama, when those same people had no problem with the ugliest of things said about President Bush. Note 1: I'm a registered Republican, but I do vote across party lines depending on issues. I did NOT vote for President Obama, but I have found myself agreeing with many of the stances he has taken since assuming office. I think some of those stances were inevitable, but they do prove he's more pragmatist than ideologue. I don't think he's a scourge, or the downfall of the nation, and I do think he's a citizen - despite all the Birthers. If invited to have a beer with the man, I'd be happy to do so. This doesn't mean I like his health care plan, his tax plans, or any number of other things. It does mean I am not into demonizing people unless their intentions really merit such. Note 2: I think an awful lot of our problems when it comes to politics stem from the school systems weakening history curricula, and in many cases dropping any requirements for Civics or government classes. This went hand in hand with the removal of phys ed requirements. Hence, we are fast becoming a nation of fat desk-jockeys with little understanding of Constitutional law or how it was shaped. |
August 15, 2009, 06:06 PM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
I would implore you all to keep to the discussion about the OP and, the legal and civil rights aspect of it. This is an interesting discussion, let's not turn it political and get it locked....mmmmkaaaayyy.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
August 15, 2009, 10:43 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Frankly, I don't think this is thread veer, OutCast
Because a lot of people are concerned about the possible ramifications of a case of open carry in NH.
Why are they concerned? Because of the potential for shrill overreaction by the media (really, the likelihood of it, as we've already seen), not to mention the antis, and because of the stupefying number of Americans who really don't understand how the Amendments to the Constitution came to be. If people were still required to study Civics and American History pre-Reconstruction, they'd have a much better grasp of the importance of 2A. And if discussion of conflicts between the watchdogs of the 1st Amendment (IE the media) and the guardians of the 2nd Amendment (IE us) can't be introduced in Law and Civil Rights without being considered thread veer, then where can they be introduced? |
August 15, 2009, 11:36 PM | #111 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I just pointed out to azredhawk in another thread, there really isn't a place to discuss politics on TFL anymore.
For many of you that are here now, you might not know the history of the older Legal & Political forum. Suffice it to say that it was shut down (last year about this time) and closed for the reason that the members here could not discuss politics in a polite manner with each other. The last election cycle brought out the worst in our members, many of whom are no longer with us. With that being said, we have, on occasion, allowed political threads since this forum opened in January. I'm leaning on allowing the continuation of this thread in the direction it seems to be going, but at the first sign of any impolite posts, it will be closed and the member posting such will be banned. Should the other mods of L&CR object to continuing in this direction, it will be closed. With that understanding, carry on. |
August 16, 2009, 05:52 AM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,204
|
Obviously he was within his legal right to open carry, however, I don't think he accomplished much of anything by doing it. I think he played to the fears of the general public and came off looking like a nut job even though he "handled himself well".
|
August 16, 2009, 06:34 AM | #113 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Posts: 4
|
Five pages
112 (113 counting this) replies I'm baffled by some (most?) of the comments being made by so many for what is a non-issue 1. NH is an open carry state PERIOD 2. William Kostric isn't an "armed protestor" He is a "protestor" PERIOD 3. He was on private property PERIOD 4. He was 75 yds(?) from where the town hall was being held PERIOD 5. The MSM "tried" to make an issue of this, and FAILED PERIOD 6. Nothing more, nothing less PERIOD 7. Listen to Ron Paul's response to this (seeing how this "protestor" is a Ron Paul supporter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpM60Kvwmk 8. Why are so many here trying (continuing) to make an issue out of a NON-ISSUE???? |
August 16, 2009, 08:14 AM | #114 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|||
August 16, 2009, 08:39 AM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
I really don't understand the great big debate over this. What is sad, to me at least, is that America has been reduced to making this a debate. 50 years ago no one would have thought anything of it. Back then you could still order a rifle out of a sears catalog and have it shipped to your door. My oh my I wish I would've lived back then.
I agree with everyone that expresses the view that intentionally refusing to excercise your rights because media goons have made it appear "kookish" with their banter, will only lead to further erosion of those rights. I wish 200 people would've been there, armed, with a fully peaceful turnout. And then the next rally I wish 2000 would show up armed, with a wholly peaceful turnout. Guns are tools. There are tools that carry guns, so I understand why those unfamiliar with firearms seem to be concerned. I maintain that the more of us that choose to peacefully excercise our rights, the more protection we will have from the tools AND the uninformed. |
August 16, 2009, 09:00 AM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
2 for 2 in interviews
Kostric didn't let Matthews fence in his responses, or make him look like a nut.
Ron Paul didn't let Ed steer the discussion, or make Kostrick look like a nut. Isn't it nice to have pro-2A people who can frustrate the media by speaking on point, politely, without heat, while making cogent arguments? |
August 16, 2009, 10:05 AM | #117 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, if the USSS were acting without any legal authority as you seem to think they are, then I suspect the courts would have stopped it a long time ago from lawsuits. You do know BTW that it is against Federal law to threaten the POTUS (1st Amendment?) verbally or in writing and that law has withstood court challenge? See none of the BoRs are absolute but we have debated that one before I think.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
August 16, 2009, 10:13 AM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
As I have stated many times before, the battle to keep and/or restore our gun rights (and we may disagree on what those are) will be waged in the public meeting place of ideas and policy. Since most Americans don't own guns then we must articulate our gun rights arguments with them well or not obtain the results we desire.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
August 16, 2009, 10:18 AM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I think his point isn't that the USSS doesn't have laws and regulations binding them
but that some of the Federal laws that guide agencies such as USSS, DEA, and BATFE might not have passed a close Constitutional review by SCOTUS, if people had really gone after them via the courts.
Typically, such agencies, or new functions of existing agencies, and the laws controlling their efforts are created when the public is whipped into a furor over a recent Presidential assassination (USSS as bodyguards), or increased drug violence, or the uncovering of a violent, radical militia plot. At such times, Congress can pass potentially questionable laws, without much organized opposition, due to the political climate created by those events. It also depends on how SCOTUS is comprised at the time of any such challenge and review. It could be argued that in creating several Federal agencies, and the laws and rules that govern their operations, the government has repeatedly overstepped Constitutional bounds (after all, originally the Federal government's two primary functions were the common defense, and the regulation of interstate commerce; all authorities not explicitly given to the government were assumed to fall under state and local jurisdictions). The fact that the politics of the times allowed it to do so doesn't mean that it was Constitutionally correct. This is one reason why we are beginning to see more and more states pass laws that challenge Federal authority, such as medicinal marijuana in CA or intrastate gun regulation in Tennessee. It will be interesting to see what happens next. With regard to my earlier post about States' Rights, one of the major problems with past States' Rights movements being associated with protecting segregationist policies (aside from the moral aspect; my dad's best friend was black, and I was NOT brought up to condone racism, so I find the abuse of the States' Rights platform to be truly abhorrent) is that it has conditioned a lot of knight-errant lawyers to NOT take interest in advancing current States' Rights arguments. |
August 16, 2009, 10:24 AM | #120 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; August 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM. |
|
August 16, 2009, 10:27 AM | #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
You are ignoring my main argument, Tennessee...
... which is that while they may be bound by the same laws as other Federal LEO agencies, there are many who feel that some of those laws and regulations were a major overstepping of Constitutional Federal authorities.
And it's not unheard of for SCOTUS to change their minds with regard to what is or is not Constitutional. Look at internment of Japanese in WWII, for instance. By the way, I'd prefer M. "Leake" is not something I've been called since officer candidate days. Cheers, M |
August 16, 2009, 10:36 AM | #122 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Anyway, Mr. Kostric did not violate any USSS doctrine so he was legal. However, had he tried to enter the meeting thru the mags he would have been detained and questioned and it would withstand a court challenge I believe. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; August 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason: spelling |
||
August 16, 2009, 10:57 AM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Isn't it nice...
... when we can debate stuff in the forums without name-calling and rancor? Wonder how long this one will go that way? Hopefully, for a while.
Cheers, M |
August 16, 2009, 12:32 PM | #124 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
|
...
Last edited by Poseidon28; August 17, 2009 at 08:00 PM. Reason: I'm leaning on allowing the continuation of this thread in the direction it seems to be going, but at the first sign of any i |
August 16, 2009, 12:53 PM | #125 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I see nothing out of line, yet.
The issue of appearance is raised as a pragmatic concern in convincing folks to support the RKBA. It is easy to state that the right is God given or the law clearly states such and such (infringed, infringed, ad infinitum). However, we all know or should know that laws and rights are social constructs and a power structure implements them. You can have a statement of XY and Z but without social consensus or power to implement that statement - operationally it is worth spit. Also, the social consensus changes. So did this gentleman aid the cause or not? To the different choirs, all prone to information selection biases, the case is clear. He is a nut or his is a shining example within his rights. Arguments to the contrary will not be processed. However, the game is to play to the middle of folks undecided or mildly swaying one way or another. Influencing critical decision making is under lots of study - esp. since we have seen such glaring examples of supposedly intelligent people being idiots in face of evidence - think Challenger or WMDs in Iraq. It seems that logical arguments (based on evidence - in the trade called System II) are not as effective as more emotional vivid arguments (called System I) for most people (even smart ones). Thus, the empirical question and operational one is that if you wanted to convince the undecided about the validility of the RKBA, did this approach and subsequent appearances add up to a pro or con with the population that needs evaluation. The choirs are irrelevant in some respect. The righteous rant can be at odds with the pragmatic. Do you prefer a righteous but counterproductive presentation? I think this one will blow over and have little long term effect on the debate. However, the media will just play to choirs.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|