[quote]Therizza wrote:
TED IS INFALLIBLE! Take it back Irish, take it back! [/quote]
Believe me, it hurt me to.
Nugent’s TV show was the coolest thing ever on TV, all three episodes before that homo got hit by the car.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can never understand why liberals are against gun control.
We don’t want the government listening to our phones, pushing a religion, making abortion illegal, half of us want to end the drug war, telling who to marry whom… but we want them to take our guns.
Never quite made sense to me.
… at the risk of going off topic …
No, but liberals are generally for speech control (think PC-ism and “you CANT SAY THAT”-ism), income control (taxation and more taxation), healthcare control (forced taxes to medicare and pushing state healthcare which everyone is forced to pay for), retirement control (forced payment of SS), banking control, safety control, money control, business control, regulation and market control, and land-use/environmental control, so really, it does fit a pattern.
Although I don’t think that “political correctness” qualifies as “speech control,” I know what you’re getting at.
But normally with social issues it’s the GOP that wants to tell people how to fuck and when to do it, and liberal saying “hands off.” Hence why it doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
I actually agree with you on something. It’s one of the more hypocritical things the GOP does.
“NO GOVERNMENT INVASION OF PRIVATE LIFE! Uh, except for you gross homos, you guys can’t marry.”
But the dems do it on the other side too. They want government interference in pretty much everything, unless you are trying to abort babies or get married.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and apparently to a certain guitar player as well.[/quote]
Yeah-- ME!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
matt74 wrote:
Check this out, gotta love Uncle Ted
http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html
Nugent is the man, and absolutely the pride of Michiganders. He always lays it out in a straightforward, no bullshit manner.
Ted calls it perfectly in my book. It is very hard to argue his point, nor would I want to.
Carefully notice what Ted said about not needing the document to give him his self defense right. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It recognizes them. The rights preexisted the Bill.
Also, “the Second Amendment IS my CCW permit.” I believe that wholeheartedly and a simple examination the text of the Second overwhelmingly confirms that.[/quote]
CCW is one that should go on state by state basis. While guns are ingrained into the cultures in places like Montana or Texas or Oklahoma (and rightfully so), I would not want it to be easy to get on in, say, NYC or NJ. It’s not in our culture, and it’s not something that should be allowed to me.
On the other hand, I think CCW and the right to carry a gun in your car should be different permits, because many of my gun loving friends say that they get a CCW (in PA) because it’s easier to transport the gun to the range when it’s not locked up in four steel boxes in your trunk with the clip taped to the roof and the ammo in the glove box, or whatever they make you do.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can never understand why liberals are against gun control.
We don’t want the government listening to our phones, pushing a religion, making abortion illegal, half of us want to end the drug war, telling who to marry whom… but we want them to take our guns.
Never quite made sense to me.
… at the risk of going off topic …
No, but liberals are generally for speech control (think PC-ism and “you CANT SAY THAT”-ism), income control (taxation and more taxation), healthcare control (forced taxes to medicare and pushing state healthcare which everyone is forced to pay for), retirement control (forced payment of SS), banking control, safety control, money control, business control, regulation and market control, and land-use/environmental control, so really, it does fit a pattern.
Although I don’t think that “political correctness” qualifies as “speech control,” I know what you’re getting at.
But normally with social issues it’s the GOP that wants to tell people how to fuck and when to do it, and liberal saying “hands off.” Hence why it doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
All depends on what you mean as social issues. Both have tried to restrict freedom in my book. To me I can live with the GOP type restrictions a little easier. Abortion for instance. Of course as I said, I believe it’s a live, so to me you’re not infringing on a woman’s right, you’re supporting the fetus’ right.
Music, I was happy for the labels in 1984 or so which if you remember, Tipper Gore lead the way. Having kids now, I like a little extra info so I can make an informed decision.
I had a little discussion with a Game Stop dork a few months ago. A guy in his late twenties told me he didn’t like the warning labels since it was a restriction on freedom. I like them as a 45 year old dad who doesn’t have time to play a video game or listen to every bit of music my kids want to buy.
The MA labels etc. just tell me to look a little closer so I can make an informed decision. Otherwise, he and she aren’t getting a lot of music and games. I told the guy I do not want to ban anything, just want info. The other way is my kid get no games here. What do you think is the best way?
I seriously think the average liberal is more dangerous to freedom than your average conservative. Take someone’s money away via taxation is the number ione threat to freedom. The good ole redistribution of wealth. They’re always next in line to tell me what I can’t do with my property. Wetlands, EPA, DEP, etc. Those epople can casue you nightmares with little recourse.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
matt74 wrote:
Check this out, gotta love Uncle Ted
http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html
Nugent is the man, and absolutely the pride of Michiganders. He always lays it out in a straightforward, no bullshit manner.
Ted calls it perfectly in my book. It is very hard to argue his point, nor would I want to.
Carefully notice what Ted said about not needing the document to give him his self defense right. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It recognizes them. The rights preexisted the Bill.
Also, “the Second Amendment IS my CCW permit.” I believe that wholeheartedly and a simple examination the text of the Second overwhelmingly confirms that.[/quote]
Exactly Push. Right now I play the game, but I think this is accurate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
matt74 wrote:
Check this out, gotta love Uncle Ted
http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html
Nugent is the man, and absolutely the pride of Michiganders. He always lays it out in a straightforward, no bullshit manner.
Ted calls it perfectly in my book. It is very hard to argue his point, nor would I want to.
Carefully notice what Ted said about not needing the document to give him his self defense right. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It recognizes them. The rights preexisted the Bill.
Also, “the Second Amendment IS my CCW permit.” I believe that wholeheartedly and a simple examination the text of the Second overwhelmingly confirms that.
CCW is one that should go on state by state basis. While guns are ingrained into the cultures in places like Montana or Texas or Oklahoma (and rightfully so), I would not want it to be easy to get on in, say, NYC or NJ. It’s not in our culture, and it’s not something that should be allowed to me.
On the other hand, I think CCW and the right to carry a gun in your car should be different permits, because many of my gun loving friends say that they get a CCW (in PA) because it’s easier to transport the gun to the range when it’s not locked up in four steel boxes in your trunk with the clip taped to the roof and the ammo in the glove box, or whatever they make you do.
You’re missing the fundamental point. The right to self defense is universal and not based on the local culture. Even if one wishes to concede for the sake of discussion that this fundamental right is applicable to U.S. citizens only (a stupid concession), residents of NYC and NJ have just as much right to defend themselves as a Montanan does. And if a Montanan travels to NYC he maintains that right and vice versa.
We are a mobile society and my right guaranteed by the United States Second Amendment insures that I, a United States citizen, possess my CCW permit anywhere in those United States.
If this is disputable then so is a Montanan’s right to a jury trial in NJ. Or a Texan’s right to worship in NYC. Or a Oklahoman’s right not to incriminate himself in Hoboken.
You see, when a guy starts to make things complicated and invokes a bunch of “Yeah buts” the fundamental “right” gets steadily and systematically dismantled. It becomes a shell of its self and effectively ends up meaning nothing.
[Edit] To say that the Second can be “infringed” depending on the culture of the area of the infringement automatically relegates the Second from a “right” to a “privilege.” If the Second Amendment right is effectively transformed to a “privilege” then Amendments 1, 3 - 10, also become mere privileges.[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
All depends on what you mean as social issues. Both have tried to restrict freedom in my book. To me I can live with the GOP type restrictions a little easier. Abortion for instance. Of course as I said, I believe it’s a live, so to me you’re not infringing on a woman’s right, you’re supporting the fetus’ right.
[/quote]
Fine.
I agree with you. Although I was initially against it, I have thought that the argument against the warning labels on music were overblown.
[quote]
I seriously think the average liberal is more dangerous to freedom than your average conservative. Take someone’s money away via taxation is the number ione threat to freedom. The good ole redistribution of wealth. They’re always next in line to tell me what I can’t do with my property. Wetlands, EPA, DEP, etc. Those epople can casue you nightmares with little recourse.[/quote]
This country has never been laissez-faire capitalism, and for many, many years, has had socialist elements in it that have served the country well.
And the EPA, DEP, and the like, while I don’t defend everything they do, have a purpose, and have done much to conserve. If you buy property in the wetlands, then you’re not going to be able to do what you want with it. That’s a fact of life. Don’t like it- buy property somewhere else.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
All depends on what you mean as social issues. Both have tried to restrict freedom in my book. To me I can live with the GOP type restrictions a little easier. Abortion for instance. Of course as I said, I believe it’s a live, so to me you’re not infringing on a woman’s right, you’re supporting the fetus’ right.
Fine.
Music, I was happy for the labels in 1984 or so which if you remember, Tipper Gore lead the way. Having kids now, I like a little extra info so I can make an informed decision.
I had a little discussion with a Game Stop dork a few months ago. A guy in his late twenties told me he didn’t like the warning labels since it was a restriction on freedom. I like them as a 45 year old dad who doesn’t have time to play a video game or listen to every bit of music my kids want to buy.
The MA labels etc. just tell me to look a little closer so I can make an informed decision. Otherwise, he and she aren’t getting a lot of music and games. I told the guy I do not want to ban anything, just want info. The other way is my kid get no games here. What do you think is the best way?
I agree with you. Although I was initially against it, I have thought that the argument against the warning labels on music were overblown.
I seriously think the average liberal is more dangerous to freedom than your average conservative. Take someone’s money away via taxation is the number ione threat to freedom. The good ole redistribution of wealth. They’re always next in line to tell me what I can’t do with my property. Wetlands, EPA, DEP, etc. Those epople can casue you nightmares with little recourse.
This country has never been laissez-faire capitalism, and for many, many years, has had socialist elements in it that have served the country well.
And the EPA, DEP, and the like, while I don’t defend everything they do, have a purpose, and have done much to conserve. If you buy property in the wetlands, then you’re not going to be able to do what you want with it. That’s a fact of life. Don’t like it- buy property somewhere else.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about buying property in the wetlands. I’m talking about some flooding due to some heavy rain and a the government swooping in and now declaring the land wetlands. You get the cool property taxes, can’t sell or use your land, but some damn mosquitos are safe.
Now I don’t mean the bayou, I mean some diversion or accumulation of water taking land out of the you can do what you want to now you’re held hostage by yout own property and a government ruling.
Irish I’m sure you realize that these agencies show their worth by doing what they think is necessary, which in many ways is very self serving. Look how much land we’ve saved. They derive power and money, which is power, from showing their worth, often at the detriment of a property owner and taxpayer.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
So if they ban guns, will they move onto ban bows, arrows, throwing axes, spears and ninja stars? [/quote]
We’ll have to develop a stystem of empty hand defense like they did on Okinawa when under Japanese control.
Well fuck y’all, good 'ole Virginia’s still got open carry laws! I don’t need me no CCW!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re missing the fundamental point. The right to self defense is universal and not based on the local culture. Even if one wishes to concede for the sake of discussion that this fundamental right is applicable to U.S. citizens only (a stupid concession), residents of NYC and NJ have just as much right to defend themselves as a Montanan does. And if a Montanan travels to NYC he maintains that right and vice versa.
We are a mobile society and my right guaranteed by the United States Second Amendment insures that I, a United States citizen, possess my CCW permit anywhere in those United States.
If this is disputable then so is a Montanan’s right to a jury trial in NJ. Or a Texan’s right to worship in NYC. Or a Oklahoman’s right not to incriminate himself in Hoboken.
You see, when a guy starts to make things complicated and invokes a bunch of “Yeah buts” the fundamental “right” gets steadily and systematically dismantled. It becomes a shell of its self and effectively ends up meaning nothing.
[Edit] To say that the Second can be “infringed” depending on the culture of the area of the infringement automatically relegates the Second from a “right” to a “privilege.” If the Second Amendment right is effectively transformed to a “privilege” then Amendments 1, 3 - 10, also become mere privileges.[/quote]
I can’t argue with you there.
I still don’t like the idea of people everywhere carrying concealed weapons though. I am more one of those, “Leave it in your house” people. I have a difficult time understanding why someone would want to carry a gun all of the time (at least in this area).
Out where you are or in other redneck lands, I can understand it- police response time is slower because things are farther away, and you certainly can’t depend on the cops to be there instantly when covering such a large range. Around here, though… I don’t know.
Irish,
surely you know city folk don’t know how to use firearms!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
CCW is one that should go on state by state basis. [/quote]
Agreed. Open carry on the other hand should be allowed without any license.
mike
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Irish,
surely you know city folk don’t know how to use firearms!
[/quote]
hahaha. Tell them motherfuckers in Jersey City that.