- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 15,113
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Video (political)
- Thread starter R.A.T.
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,392
I too am saddened by the current affairs in this nation. I also agree that neither candidate is the best choice for the job. It's kind of sad that the powers that be allow us only 2 choices. As for Obama taking your guns...calm down your second amendment rights are safe. If you already have guns nobody can take them from you. Permit issues are a state regulated mandate so if your state doesn't require a permit now Obama as the president won't change that. As far as automatic weapons...if you don't have any or you want more, you'd better buy them soon. If you do have them-don't worry about it. I live in NY. Gun control laws are very strict here and believe me I still have a pretty nice arsenal. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But nobody is stopping me from enacting my 2nd amendment right.
Archieblue, you raise some good points about the influence of big money in politics. Now I believe that McCain-Fiengold is a flawed law, but it had a provision that a presidential campaign would be publicly financed in what I believe is an attempt to limit the influence of big money. McCain took public financing and Obama didn't. Obama has massively outspent McCain, but McCain has kept the race close. If McCain loses, who is going to take public financing again? It is doubtful Congress will do anything to fix this.
With Congress's approval ratings in the tank, it amazes me that people keep sending the same folks to Washington (or the state house). I contact my elected officials often, but my Representative's responses make it seems like he hadn't read what I wrote. He just votes the party line. Hopefully he is gone this year.
With Congress's approval ratings in the tank, it amazes me that people keep sending the same folks to Washington (or the state house). I contact my elected officials often, but my Representative's responses make it seems like he hadn't read what I wrote. He just votes the party line. Hopefully he is gone this year.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,330
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,392
Well obviously my "arsenal" won't come close to comparing to yours. But frankly I don't care. Let it suffice to say that I own 7 handguns 3 9's a 10mm 2 .45's and a .357mag. 3 rifles. .22 .223 and .30. and a 12 guage.
No concealed permit. STATE LAW in NY makes it very difficult to get a concealed carry permit. I don't really need one though so it doesn't really bother me.
Do you really think that Obama is going to be able to take your 2nd amendment rights away. Or is that just rhetoric on your part?
R.A.T.
Randall's Adventure & Training
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Messages
- 10,400
Supreme Disappointments
Neither McCain nor Obama will nominate judges who understand the Constitution’s basic principle of individual rights.
By Thomas A. Bowden
No matter who wins the presidency--and with it, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices--America’s judiciary will remain locked into a crucial error that corrupts their interpretation of America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights. That error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society, with judges as diviners of the so-called social will.
The most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights. But no justice asks this question anymore because none believes it objectively answerable.
Instead, and broadly speaking, judicial conservatives ask what privileges did American society at the time of ratification grant the individual. So when modern legislators make criminal offenses out of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and other acts said to be frowned upon centuries ago, conservative judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing. To conservatives, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes the right to use contraception (a question 18th-century Americans may have answered incorrectly). The only question is whether society at that time meant to permit this action.
John McCain has pledged to appoint judges in this conservative mold.
Judicial liberals reject this worship of bygone days. Instead, liberals see constitutional values evolving like a motion picture, constantly updating to reflect current social mores. So when Congress declares federal dominion over every nut, bolt, and button of American industry, liberal judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing--not because earlier Americans intended to allow such controls, but because modern Americans want them. To liberals, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes freedom of trade and contract (a question that a majority of Americans may be answering incorrectly today). The only question is whether the “will” of today’s society favors permitting such actions.
Barack Obama has pledged to appoint judges in this liberal mold.
But conservatives and liberals are both wrong about rights. It cannot be true that rights come from society. The very concept of a right identifies the actions you can take without anyone’s permission. Rights are not social privileges but objective facts, identifying the freedoms we need to live our lives--whether a majority in society agree or not. This is why the Founding Fathers dedicated their new government to the protection of each individual’s already-existing rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments forbid the government to deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” (except when you have violated someone else’s rights, and even here the government must follow due process, such as holding a trial). The Ninth Amendment safeguards all “rights” not listed elsewhere. These principles encompass all the innumerable actions required for your survival and happiness over a lifetime--the right to make a contract, earn a profit, build a house, make a friend, speak your mind, and so on.
Because the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” judges are duty-bound to strike down statutes that violate rights. This is not improper “judicial activism” but the robust, constitutional power of judicial review.
Judges must never bow to social opinion, historical or current, when exercising judicial review. For example, laws that institutionalized government discrimination against blacks in military service and voting deserved to be struck down, even if political majorities in both the Founders’ generation and modern times favored such rights violations.
To their discredit, today’s judges--conservatives and liberals alike--have all but abandoned this essential safeguard of our liberties.
The arch-conservative Robert Bork once declared that Ninth Amendment “rights” carry no more meaning than an accidental inkblot on the constitutional parchment. And according to Justice Antonin Scalia, there’s nothing in the Constitution “authorizing judges to identify what [those rights] might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” As for life, liberty, and property, government can smash them at will, if society so wishes. “Does [the Constitution] guarantee life, liberty or property?” asks Justice Scalia rhetorically. “No, indeed! All three can be taken away. . . . It’s a procedural guarantee.”
Judicial liberals don’t dispute that a judge must bow to the “social will”--they simply divine it differently. As one liberal Justice declared, the Constitution “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
While conservatives and liberals squabble about whether society permits you this action or that, they are defaulting on their sacred constitutional duty of judicial review.
America desperately needs a new generation of judges who understand that their function is not to uphold social opinions but to protect our rights.
Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Bowden is a former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Neither McCain nor Obama will nominate judges who understand the Constitution’s basic principle of individual rights.
By Thomas A. Bowden
No matter who wins the presidency--and with it, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices--America’s judiciary will remain locked into a crucial error that corrupts their interpretation of America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights. That error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society, with judges as diviners of the so-called social will.
The most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights. But no justice asks this question anymore because none believes it objectively answerable.
Instead, and broadly speaking, judicial conservatives ask what privileges did American society at the time of ratification grant the individual. So when modern legislators make criminal offenses out of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and other acts said to be frowned upon centuries ago, conservative judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing. To conservatives, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes the right to use contraception (a question 18th-century Americans may have answered incorrectly). The only question is whether society at that time meant to permit this action.
John McCain has pledged to appoint judges in this conservative mold.
Judicial liberals reject this worship of bygone days. Instead, liberals see constitutional values evolving like a motion picture, constantly updating to reflect current social mores. So when Congress declares federal dominion over every nut, bolt, and button of American industry, liberal judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing--not because earlier Americans intended to allow such controls, but because modern Americans want them. To liberals, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes freedom of trade and contract (a question that a majority of Americans may be answering incorrectly today). The only question is whether the “will” of today’s society favors permitting such actions.
Barack Obama has pledged to appoint judges in this liberal mold.
But conservatives and liberals are both wrong about rights. It cannot be true that rights come from society. The very concept of a right identifies the actions you can take without anyone’s permission. Rights are not social privileges but objective facts, identifying the freedoms we need to live our lives--whether a majority in society agree or not. This is why the Founding Fathers dedicated their new government to the protection of each individual’s already-existing rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments forbid the government to deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” (except when you have violated someone else’s rights, and even here the government must follow due process, such as holding a trial). The Ninth Amendment safeguards all “rights” not listed elsewhere. These principles encompass all the innumerable actions required for your survival and happiness over a lifetime--the right to make a contract, earn a profit, build a house, make a friend, speak your mind, and so on.
Because the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” judges are duty-bound to strike down statutes that violate rights. This is not improper “judicial activism” but the robust, constitutional power of judicial review.
Judges must never bow to social opinion, historical or current, when exercising judicial review. For example, laws that institutionalized government discrimination against blacks in military service and voting deserved to be struck down, even if political majorities in both the Founders’ generation and modern times favored such rights violations.
To their discredit, today’s judges--conservatives and liberals alike--have all but abandoned this essential safeguard of our liberties.
The arch-conservative Robert Bork once declared that Ninth Amendment “rights” carry no more meaning than an accidental inkblot on the constitutional parchment. And according to Justice Antonin Scalia, there’s nothing in the Constitution “authorizing judges to identify what [those rights] might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” As for life, liberty, and property, government can smash them at will, if society so wishes. “Does [the Constitution] guarantee life, liberty or property?” asks Justice Scalia rhetorically. “No, indeed! All three can be taken away. . . . It’s a procedural guarantee.”
Judicial liberals don’t dispute that a judge must bow to the “social will”--they simply divine it differently. As one liberal Justice declared, the Constitution “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
While conservatives and liberals squabble about whether society permits you this action or that, they are defaulting on their sacred constitutional duty of judicial review.
America desperately needs a new generation of judges who understand that their function is not to uphold social opinions but to protect our rights.
Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Bowden is a former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 152
I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness. 
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,392
Yeah really good post Jeff. I think that I shall read this "Alas Shrugged". It souds intriguing. Who was that other author you mentioned? Warren Zevon? What is a good read by him? Thanks!
This sums up the entire article rather succinctly.
I wish that our government representatives and Supreme Court Justices would grasp the idea that the Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench because it sidesteps our right to representation.
R.A.T.
Randall's Adventure & Training
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Messages
- 10,400
gottahaveit,
Warren Zevon was a musician and a musical genius, IMO. He was very liberal in part of his thinking but he was a nonconforming individualist - something I can respect. Even though I didn't agree with a lot of his social policies and ideas, they were his policies and I can respect that. He was a gun nut though
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book I've read. I've read it 3 times.
The book about Warren Zevon's life was called "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" and written by his ex-wife Crystal Zevon.
I do my best to read at least one book a week.
Warren Zevon was a musician and a musical genius, IMO. He was very liberal in part of his thinking but he was a nonconforming individualist - something I can respect. Even though I didn't agree with a lot of his social policies and ideas, they were his policies and I can respect that. He was a gun nut though
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book I've read. I've read it 3 times.
The book about Warren Zevon's life was called "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" and written by his ex-wife Crystal Zevon.
I do my best to read at least one book a week.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 707
Wow, I just read through the whole thread. Great job Guys. When I sent this to Jeff, I never imagined it would go here, or this far. Everyone made some great points, and kept the discussion intelligent and lively. I never got a sense of disrespect when reading the thread. I think this shows the inherent class of the people here. Regardless of the outcome, I think everyone here represented well. :thumbup:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,083
That may be due to the fact that this wasn't posted in the Political Forum. Now if this had been posted there..........
. Some of those threads have gone from debate to, well, my 3 yr old daughter makes more sense and behaves better 
.- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,392
Thanks for the info Jeff. I'm definitely going to check out both the book and the musician.:thumbup: By the way I just bought my first RAT (an RC-4). I can't wait to get it and put it to some good hard use 
R.A.T.
Randall's Adventure & Training
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Messages
- 10,400
Appreciate you buying an RC-4. Let us know how it performs for you.
Zevon had sort of a cult following more than a rock start status following. Even though Werewolves Of London is the song associated with him, he had much better music than that. He was a writer mainly and a lot of songs that others made famous, Zevon wrote. For sure a rebel and outlaw and it showed through in his music.
Long Live Warren Zevon!
Zevon had sort of a cult following more than a rock start status following. Even though Werewolves Of London is the song associated with him, he had much better music than that. He was a writer mainly and a lot of songs that others made famous, Zevon wrote. For sure a rebel and outlaw and it showed through in his music.
Long Live Warren Zevon!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,269
Glad to hear you're voting Libertarian R.A.T.
I am just sad that my man Mike Gravel didn't get the party nomination
Bob Barr is ok, but Gravel is awesome!
As for the original post, I think the Iraq war was a huge mistake and I think the lives lost there are a waste of our soldier's and marine's blood. Yes, they have done the best they can and should be honored. However, I feel they should be honored by being brought home. You would think that we would learn the price of nation building in a divided land (eg. Korea, Vietnam) but I guess we like to repeat our mistakes.
I am just sad that my man Mike Gravel didn't get the party nomination
Bob Barr is ok, but Gravel is awesome!
As for the original post, I think the Iraq war was a huge mistake and I think the lives lost there are a waste of our soldier's and marine's blood. Yes, they have done the best they can and should be honored. However, I feel they should be honored by being brought home. You would think that we would learn the price of nation building in a divided land (eg. Korea, Vietnam) but I guess we like to repeat our mistakes.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 1998
- Messages
- 8,917
What you describe is a small gun collection. Gun control advocates love to say that anyone with more than a couple of firearms has an "arsenal" and they wish to license those "arsenals."
"Arsenal" always sounds so much more menacing, that is why they prefer to use that term instead of "gun collection."
I know the definition of an "arsenal" and I also know the realistic definition of an arsenal is basically multiples of the same series of firearms like you would find in a National Guard Armory. So, yeah, if you have four AR-15s, five 1911 .45 Autos, yadda, yadda, yadda, I guess that could be called a small "arsenal."
I just hate the snotty liberalness of the term which is used to instill fear in the ignorant and stupid among us.
As I understand it, it is incredibly difficult to get one in NYC but a New York State Permit is not that tough at all, but is also not valid in NYC.
Let me tell you a little story. If a politician says that a Corvette is a Mustang, that Corvette is a Mustang until a Judge tells the politician it's really a Ford Mustang. Where we run into a problem is when a Judge, and I really shouldn't capitalize that word, states in a decision that a Chevrolet Corvette is a Ford Mustang. Then we must wait and hope that another Judge in a higher Court will then correct the lower Court's decision and bring sanity to the case and decision in question. Roll the dice. Such was the case when The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on the Second Amendment recently.
If you asked Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington, D.C. why he allows D.C. Metro Line Officers to carry machineguns, he would laugh in your face. Yet, in the direct aftermath of the SCOTUS Ruling on the Second Amendment, Fenty declared semi-automatic handguns to be "machineguns" and being such, would still be banned under Washington, D.C. Law. Not my opinion, this is a fact.
I believe the Court has since corrected the petty little tyrant.
I expect an Obama-Biden Administration will play all sorts of similar word games, they could possibly do a lot of damage along with what is projected to be a democrat majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate.
I would also expect that if McCain-Palin wins, which I doubt will be the case, that McCain, ever the appeaser on the gun issues of the day, will acquiesce to the demonstrably insatiable appetite for gun control that the democrat party is infected with.
- Status