What would you do if you were president....

[DLeach]

Originally posted by loncray

.

3) Can't do it - too many folks who shouldn't have guns would be able to get them penalty free. You cannot remove ALL the regs on guns.

Who gets to make that rule? Who decides who get a gun and who doesnt. 2nd ammendment bigotry is alive and well in this country. Would you say the same thing about the first ammendment?





"Cant do it- too many people shouldnt be allowed to speak there mind or practice there religion penalty free. You cannot allow no regulations on free speech and religion"





Sounds funny huh...





Unalienable god given rights to protect yourself from other men and the government... ... .





#ad

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by Morphious
There seem to be quite a few know it all's on this board in the political arena on both sides of the issues. So what I want to know, is if you were president or had the power to "Make" things happen, what would you do. Be honest and intelligent about it and leave politicing out. ...

Morph.

1. Make foreign id contingent on eliminating human rights abuses (those inalienable rights our founding fathers spoke of).

2. Limit SS/Medicare/Medicaid to those inescapably mired in poverty.

3. As to gun laws, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Within society, we do not have the right to *use* them indiscriminately. Laws correctly regulating the proper *use* of weapons will always be needed. All other weapons laws violate our basic human right to keep and bear arms.

4. Cleans the law books of most of the stupid laws that are currently out there. I agree.

5. Political parties? The states should be forced to minimize the requirements to get a party on the ballot. Some states are nearly impossible, others are trivial.

6. Illegals? Can't shoot 'em. They have the same rights as do we. So until they are caught and shipped back, they are welcome to make the best life they can. If they break laws, they should be imprisoned for a period of time, then shipped back.

7. Corp. rights? Agreed. They are *legal* entities, but cannot have human rights. A different example is a married couple. Legally, they are a *single* person, and should be treated as such.

8. Lawyers fees and stupid suits? Agreed.

9. I've been reading VA code of regulation here and there. It's actually quite readable.

10. Exempt 130% of poverty-level income from tax, and levy 5% tax on the remainder.

11. All should *try* to speak English. Though I think most immigrants do try to learn and generally make sure their kids learn (but then, kids can't help but learn, unless they are segregated out of the mainstream into 'bilingual' classes).

N

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by loncray
I think that's a fundamental argument (Federal rights vs. State's rights) that's been going more and more to the Feds since 1865. In defense of the Federalist system we've evolved into, I don't think the individual states could run things in our country like the Federal govt. can.

The first thing we gotta do is teach people that governments have *no* rights at all. They have only the *powers* we allow them to wield. We, the people, retain our rights and all other powers not yielded to the government.

N

 

[Boomer II]

10% flat tax, States rights, Second ammendment rights restored.

 

[loncray]

Mr. Leach, you would propose getting rid of all gun laws? That would put guns in the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Was John Hinckley using his 2d Amendment rights when he shot President Reagan? What you propose is preposterous. Gun owners might wish for fewer gun laws, but there will always be a need to regulate them in some fashion. It's just a matter of to what degree you want them regulated.

 

[Boomer II]

NEWS FLASH!!!!!! loncray, they already have them!!!!!! Felons and criminals don't obey laws.

 

[The patriot]

All good stuff Morph.

I like it!



loncray, most felons do NOT get guns legally.

Why should law abiding citizens be made to jump through hoops to get a gun?

JM. 02

Eric

 

[loncray]

Ah, but having gun laws in place means that, once you catch them, you can put the felon in jail for longer. Of course, if we ever had the truth in sentencing mentioned above, there would be less need for that.

And I personally don't mind making people jump thru a few hoops before buying a gun. Law-abiding or not, you should be trained in its use and safety, and if you've got kids in the house you must keep it out of their reach. Also, we need more laws allowing people to sue gun manufacturers for defective merchandise. Why should they be different from other manufacturers?

We make people get licenses to drive cars, with some training (I make no comment on the efficacy of such training) and plenty of regulations designed to keep unsafe cars and drivers off the street, the air clean, and people safe. Why should guns be different from that? The 2d Amendment says it's for a well-regulated militia after all.

 

[Kimber]

Death row

Make death row a maximum of four people. One comes in, one is executed, that gives the other two some time to get right with thier Maker. ----Three appeals max, after third attempt, instant execution.

 

[Boomer II]

Originally posted by loncray

Ah, but having gun laws in place means that, once you catch them, you can put the felon in jail for longer. Of course, if we ever had the truth in sentencing mentioned above, there would be less need for that.

And I personally don't mind making people jump thru a few hoops before buying a gun. Law-abiding or not, you should be trained in its use and safety, and if you've got kids in the house you must keep it out of their reach. Also, we need more laws allowing people to sue gun manufacturers for defective merchandise. Why should they be different from other manufacturers?

We make people get licenses to drive cars, with some training (I make no comment on the efficacy of such training) and plenty of regulations designed to keep unsafe cars and drivers off the street, the air clean, and people safe. Why should guns be different from that? The 2d Amendment says it's for a well-regulated militia after all.

Constitution says nothing about training. I haven't heard of any defective guns, just defective gun users. Driving is not a right, gun ownership is. You need to do a little reseach on the second amendment, it's the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms. Since when is it a Bill of Rights for the government? Is it freedom of speech for the government. You militia guys crack me up, read some of the founders other papers, their intent is very clear.

 

[Morphious]

regulated

adj 1: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or

law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with

regulated temperature" [ant: unregulated]

2: marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet

ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated

life" [syn: ordered, orderly]

As you can see, there are different ways of interpreting what regulated means. But here is the kicker. The Bill of Rights are for the people, not the government, so how would "A well regulated militia" that is controlled by the government be for the people to protect it from tyranical governments including itself. Also, with the constant new laws and rules, the "Government" will eventually make criminals out of us all, except for those in power because each little thing they take control of for "your own welfare" removes our basic right to make decisions for ourselves. Yes, you have the right to make stupid decisions, and we have ended up with basic stupid society because of that. The darwin cleansing of the gene pool is not taking place.



Getting carded for buying a can of spray paint, being forced to wear a seatbelt (ticketable offense), etc. is Socialism at it's finest, where the government becomes our conscience, and we it's cattle. Too stupid to be left to our own reasonings.



The flip side to the argument is, but everyone deserves the right to live. No, they don't. If they are too stupid to survive on thier own making thier own decisions, they don't deserve to go forth and populate. Sorry, a world full of crack babies is not what we need, the gene pool has more toxins in it than the EPA's thoughts on the environment.



You do not have the right to happiness, prosperity, life, etc. You have the right to pursue it, it's not guaranteed, it's not going to be handed to you. You have to get off your arse and work for it. If you don't, you don't get it, simple enough.



Yes, I sound like a cold blooded person, and will agree with you, that I am. I'm a realist, life's not a box of chocolates. People die, get over it, move on and accomplish something with your life. Support a charity, church, or whatever else flips your boat, but don't tread on me.



Morph.

 

[mcoleman]

People should never be allowed to sue gun manufacturers. Guns aren't defective people are. Try putting the murderers to death instead of giving them a cushy prison cell. Make gun laws to keep bad people from getting guns. Hello Do you really think they are using registered guns and following all of the laws on the books if they are going to shoot someone to begin with. Lets also make laws on baseball bats, pipe wrenches, using your hands to choke someone lets see have I left anything else out that can be used to kill someone. I think we should go back to public hangings myself. Personally most of my guns are unregistered and I wouldn't have it any other way. One of these days one of these self rightous liberals will end up getting elected like Gore and they will come after everyones guns that they are AWARE of. I think Rebel_Horseman is pretty close on my way of thinking. I'm not sure which is the bigger threat on our freedoms. Liberals or Communists. And yes I am an Ozark mountain Confederate thinking Hillbilly and proud of it.

 

[Kimber]

guns

I read somewhere "If guns kill people, then spoons made Rosie Odonnel fat".

 

[fkovalski]

That's a good one!, Kimber.

 

[loncray]

The intent of folks living in 1787, needing to build an army out of those colonists, many of which had guns since they were children is absolutely clear. How that applies to modern gun owners in 2003, with a professional Army and National Guard ("well-regulated militia") is less clear. I won't try to convince you my views on this position are correct, I'm sure the NRA has long convinced you that the 'well-regulated militia' part of the 2d Amendment doesn't mean a thing, quite unlike the part about 'shall not be infringed'. The writers of the Bill of Rights were just joking about the well-regulated militia part, right?

And sure there are defective guns, that blow up in people's hands or fall apart. I've got a vault full of Saturday Night Special's in my courthouse. Some of those things are junk. And their manufacturers should absolutely be held accountable for that junk. Should they be sued if their product is used as intended? No, I don't believe that.

As to the spray paints - how else would you stop all that vandalism? And I love seatbelt laws - every time some bozo gets killed while not wearing a seatbelt, my car insurance gets more expensive. If it takes a law to force that behavior and make my insurance cost less, so be it. Same thing for motorcycle helmets. I don't mind if you don't wear your seatbelt or helmet - but if you get killed or seriously injured without it, you ought to lose all insurance claims and the right to sue for damages.

 

[mcoleman]

Should Dodge be sued because you failed to keep your truck in proper operating condition when crashes into a load of kids in a bus. It's not the gun manufacturers fault that someone didn't keep the gun in good working order. Why is it that all Liberals want to do is blame manufacturers for problems when 9 out of 10 times it's the people using the items that caused the issue. Even something as stupid as the McDonalds coffee issue. The coffee didn't spill on the lady on it's own doing she spilled it on herself but due to the liberal way of thinking suddenly it's Mickey D's fault. In 20 years this country won't be fit to live in.

 

[loncray]

You don't get the idea that there are guns that aren't fit to be fired? Straight from the factory - I'm sure nobody here would buy a Saturday Night Special, but some of those things are crap. This has nothing to do with maintenance, but manufacturing.

As to McDonalds - it wasn't their fault she spilled the coffee, it was their fault they kept their coffee much hotter than anybody else (to keep it fresher longer) so that it was much more likely to injure someone. Go read the info on the case sometime. Conservatives keep bringing that up as an example of tort law gone mad, but it's a really bad example once you know more of the facts. There are plenty of better examples out there.

 

[mcoleman]

If one of the employees did not directly spill the coffee on the lady it was no-ones fault but her own. My parents taught me that coffee was hot when I was 3. Liberals need a law passed to understand that I guess.

 

[loncray]

If she'd spilt Starbucks or 7-11 coffee or coffee from a Mr. Coffee, she woulda been burnt a little. Normal coffee is 135 - 140 degrees, McDonalds was 180 - 190. There'd been over 700 complaints about burns previously. She had to have skin grafts - you don't need those if you spill normal hot coffee on yourself. Liberal thinking had not a thing to do with this - McDonalds was willfully negligent to their customer and paid the price for it. Oh, and the woman tried to settle with McDonalds for $20,000 but was refused. The final settlement was secret, but was more than $20k.

 

[CFAR]

Putting a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car is still stupid! Regardless of the liquids temperature. Perhaps Mc'ds have some liability but it should be small say 5%. Who makes Saturday Night Specials? What company? I've never seen that model advertised. The term Saturday Night Special is a catch all used by the anti-gun crowd to instill fear in the ignorant population. (I use the word ignorant to mean lack of knowledge, not intelligence) If you buy tools from Joe's tools would you expect them to last as long, or be as well made as tools from Snap-on Probably not. Inexpensive firearms are the same way. If they are unsafe the companies making them would be out of business is a heart beat. The cities, states and individuals(backed by anti gun groups) that sue firearms manufactures are not suing because the firearms are unsafe, they are trying to put them out of business, period. Do you thing a company like Barretta makes unsafe firearms? They have been sued.









Definition: Criminal = One who has committed a crime.



Definition: Crime = An act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law.





Saying: We should outlaw the personal ownership of firearms, look how well it worked for drugs.



The saying "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" has two meanings. Do you know what they are?