wirehairman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) I come from a hunting family (granted we also bowhunt) and never got the urge to hand load my shells. None of my buddies hand load either, but the hunting seasons in WI are different than in Texas. Plus we do not have a "conceal and carry" law, so I dont pack heat every day. Maybe the % has gone up lately, but I havent read about it in my hunting magazines, and my last NRA dinner was in December. Probably half of the people I know hunt, and I would guess 75% of them reload to some extent, including my wife and me. There are areas of the country where it would be a huge deal. Edited May 6, 2009 by wirehairman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It's an interesting qeustion you raise. In that case, it was congress that passed the law and the President that signed and executed it. I am not really sure what the protocol should be. I do know that IMO the SCOTUS should have determined a law allowing that treatment of citizens to be unconstitutional. Perhaps a better question is why that did not occur. Sorry Nick, disagree all the way around. Firstly, the way I read it, the founding fathers intended the rights in the BOR to be yours merely for drawing breath. So citizen or no, it applies. Perhaps there are different rules for "enemy combatants", but I'm not sure everyone in Gitmo is. And the fact that some are being held without representation, just to be sweated for what they know? That isn't american at all, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Sorry Nick, disagree all the way around. Firstly, the way I read it, the founding fathers intended the rights in the BOR to be yours merely for drawing breath. So citizen or no, it applies. Perhaps there are different rules for "enemy combatants", but I'm not sure everyone in Gitmo is. And the fact that some are being held without representation, just to be sweated for what they know? That isn't american at all, IMO. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with or what you are saying. Our Constitutionally Protected Rights are constitutionally protected so that Our Government can not interfere with the Natural Rights of our citizens. These rights are not constitutionally granted. They belong to us. The Bill of Rights is merely intended to be a legal block for the government to interfere with them. Are you saying that the constitutional protection of our rights should apply to people that are not citizens of the United States of America so far as the actions of the US Government are concerned? So you are disagreeing "all the way around" because I specified citizen? I have no issue with different rules applying for foreign nationals that seek to harm our people and our country. I am not a big believer in the "If you are not with us, you are against us" paradigm, but I think it applies when someone intends us harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Are you saying that the constitutional protection of our rights should apply to people that are not citizens of the United States of America so far as the actions of the US Government are concerned? So you are disagreeing "all the way around" because I specified citizen? The Supreme Court says yes. On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I am not sure what you are disagreeing with or what you are saying. Our Constitutionally Protected Rights are constitutionally protected so that Our Government can not interfere with the Natural Rights of our citizens. These rights are not constitutionally granted. They belong to us. The Bill of Rights is merely intended to be a legal block for the government to interfere with them. Are you saying that the constitutional protection of our rights should apply to people that are not citizens of the United States of America so far as the actions of the US Government are concerned? So you are disagreeing "all the way around" because I specified citizen? I have no issue with different rules applying for foreign nationals that seek to harm our people and our country. I am not a big believer in the "If you are not with us, you are against us" paradigm, but I think it applies when someone intends us harm. I might have said it poorly, but yes, it doesn't matter whether they're citizens. Since you put it that way (natural rights, BoR is a ban on fedgov encroachment), we seem to agree. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding but why would congress/pres be allowed to pass a law in contravention to those rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 playing this tit for tat yeah but your guy did this Seriously Perch, have'nt you been playing this game since Obama moved into the White House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I'm not sure Bush did detain any American citizens, but playing this tit for tat yeah but your guy did this will all stop with FDR detaining an entire race. What FDR did was completely wrong. I agree with you. How does that justify or vindicate Bush again? Perch, you have been "playing tit for tat" since the election. (An observation of fact, not an opinion . . .) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Sorry Nick, disagree all the way around. Firstly, the way I read it, the founding fathers intended the rights in the BOR to be yours merely for drawing breath. So citizen or no, it applies. Perhaps there are different rules for "enemy combatants", but I'm not sure everyone in Gitmo is. And the fact that some are being held without representation, just to be sweated for what they know? That isn't american at all, IMO. I completely agree with you West Virginia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I might have said it poorly, but yes, it doesn't matter whether they're citizens. Since you put it that way (natural rights, BoR is a ban on fedgov encroachment), we seem to agree. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding but why would congress/pres be allowed to pass a law in contravention to those rights? Because the SCOTUS didn't stop them, and then the dummy voters didn't vote them out for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Probably half of the people I know hunt, and I would guess 75% of them reload to some extent, including my wife and me. There are areas of the country where it would be a huge deal. Huh . . different areas of the country, different habits I guess. This relocated WI boy who has hunted forever has never (nor had the inclination to) hand load my ammo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Because the SCOTUS didn't stop them, and then the dummy voters didn't vote them out for it? I misread your original post. Pay no attention to that idiot hillbilly behind the curtain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Nick and perch need one of these bad boys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I misread your original post. Pay no attention to that idiot hillbilly behind the curtain... It's okay. I have no problem showing you where the water is 2 or 3 times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Seriously Perch, have'nt you been playing this game since Obama moved into the White House? What FDR did was completely wrong. I agree with you. How does that justify or vindicate Bush again? Perch, you have been "playing tit for tat" since the election. (An observation of fact, not an opinion . . .) I've been stating my beliefs about the current policies. I've stated several things I have disagreed with Bush on. He was a hugh disappointment, particularly in the way is expanded government and the number of leaches in the country. Still to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any American citizens serving time in Gitmo, and I don't have a problem holding enemy combatants without a public trial, that might compromise our security. Is it playing tit for tat to bring up what I believe to be ill-conceived policies, or to point out corruption? It is the guys on the left going yeah, but Bush did this. Well, guess what Bush is no longer in power, so at this point what he did really doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I've been stating my beliefs about the current policies. I've stated several things I have disagreed with Bush on. He was a hugh disappointment, particularly in the way is expanded government and the number of leaches in the country. Still to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any American citizens serving time in Gitmo, and I don't have a problem holding enemy combatants without a public trial, that might compromise our security. Is it playing tit for tat to bring up what I believe to be ill-conceived policies, or to point out corruption? It is the guys on the left going yeah, but Bush did this. Well, guess what Bush is no longer in power, so at this point what he did really doesn't matter. It matters but does not give current or future leaders a free pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It matters but does not give current or future leaders a free pass. Well Obama has a free pass to try whatever he wants to try and fix the economy based on how Bush left it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 . Well, guess what Bush is no longer in power, so at this point what he did really doesn't matter. Dude . . . . you brought up FDR . . . who has been dead for decades. Hello pot, meet kettle . . . . . .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Well Obama has a free pass to try whatever he wants to try and fix the economy based on how Bush left it. Many people, including myself, would disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two failed ecomonic policies just dig a bigger hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Dude . . . . you brought up FDR . . . who has been dead for decades. Hello pot, meet kettle . . . . . .? Get used to that. This is a fantasy football forum after all. We don't hold ourselves to rules when arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Dude . . . . you brought up FDR . . . who has been dead for decades. Hello pot, meet kettle . . . . . .? Dude, I brought him up because some idiot brought up Bush out of left field, which is becoming a trend. If a lib can't defend Obama's policies intellectually the response is "Well Bush did this, or that." I was commenting that if you wanted to play tit for tat, and then we could bring up FDR who did much worse to his own people than Bush ever thought about doing to an enemy combatant. So there is no pot & kettle scenario here. Additionally based upon the expansion of government and the amount of money Obama is spending, FDR should be brought up, as he was the last person to do anything like what Obama is doing, and he saddled us with all kinds of social programs we are trying to figure out how to pay for as well as his got the supreme court to give a bs decision that gave congress all kinds of power to avoid stacking the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Many people, including myself, would disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two failed ecomonic policies just dig a bigger hole. Excellent point! So what are your recommendations on fixing the economy? (and how can something implemented for less than 3 months be a "failed policy" yet??) Cause no one else seems to have any freakin idea . . . . it took a WORLD WAR to pull us out of the depression, along with massive public spending and huge amounts of spending cuts under FDR. We dont need a highway system built again like in the New Deal (but infrastructure does need fixin), we sure as hell dont need another world war(cause Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing in terms of strengthening our economy, actually the spending has been opposite), and it seems like BOTH PARTIES are too enamored with their own importance to have the balls to cut govt spending and unneccesary programs. Inquiring minds want to know . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Additionally based upon the expansion of government and the amount of money Obama is spending, FDR should be brought up, as he was the last person to do anything like what Obama is doing. . . . . Agreed! FDR was the president that dug us out of the great depression. A lot to be learned from that example, along with quite a few errors that should not be repeated. (like I covered in my earlier post) It is amazing that now some people (mainly hard core Republicans) are pointing out possible constitutional breachs while conveniently ignoring the constitutional breaches that were done while their party was in office. Ya cant have your cake and eat it too . . . either own up to the colossal mistakes Bush made and the incredible breaches of constitutional liberties in the Patriot Act and feel free to bash the current administration, or keep silent about both. That is why I am a registered independent . . . you dont get lumped into one set of ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Excellent point! So what are your recommendations on fixing the economy? (and how can something implemented for less than 3 months be a "failed policy" yet??) Cause no one else seems to have any freakin idea . . . . it took a WORLD WAR to pull us out of the depression, along with massive public spending and huge amounts of spending cuts under FDR. We dont need a highway system built again like in the New Deal (but infrastructure does need fixin), we sure as hell dont need another world war(cause Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing in terms of strengthening our economy, actually the spending has been opposite), and it seems like BOTH PARTIES are too enamored with their own importance to have the balls to cut govt spending and unneccesary programs. Inquiring minds want to know . . . Comparing this recession to the great depression was nothing more than a scare tactic to give liberals and excuse to go on a spending spree. I would let the car companies and banks fail. Let the FDIC insure the accounts, but let the banks fail. I'd raise taxes across the board by 5 to 10%, and decrease spending on everything by the same percentage. I'd completely do away with all federal assistance programs and any thing not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I'd let the states, counties, and charities deal with social services. I would try to pass a balanced budget amendment. I would do away with anchor laws and deport any and all illegal aliens. I would keep the tax increase until the national debt was paid off, then I would decrease taxes as much as possible to make the US a more business friendly environment. We may not be able to compete with low labor cost of foreign countries, but we can make up a good deal of it with favorable business taxes. I would really try to pass a sales tax if I could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Agreed! FDR was the president that dug us out of the great depression. A lot to be learned from that example, along with quite a few errors that should not be repeated. (like I covered in my earlier post) It is amazing that now some people (mainly hard core Republicans) are pointing out possible constitutional breachs while conveniently ignoring the constitutional breaches that were done while their party was in office. Ya cant have your cake and eat it too . . . either own up to the colossal mistakes Bush made and the incredible breaches of constitutional liberties in the Patriot Act and feel free to bash the current administration, or keep silent about both. That is why I am a registered independent . . . you dont get lumped into one set of ideology. I don't know how many times or how many ways I have to say I don't like the way Bush expanded government. I really don't think FDR pulled us out of the great depression, I think WWII pulled us out. I'm for a whole lot less government. I'm for states rights. I'd love to gut the federal government where it is little more than a military and to be an arbitrator between the states for disputes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Perch, how will that address our massive trade imbalance? That just INCREASES every year, and no amount of decreasing govt spending or increasing taxes will address the fact that America is just like most of AMERICANS. We spend more than we have every single year . . . Perch, werent you in FAVOR of the Bush tax cuts? Now you want to RAISE taxes? Confusing . . . One of my personal pet peeves about the US is the student loan programs. With costs spiraling out of control for tuition, people are assuming HUGE amounts of debt and getting useless degrees that the US govt has kindly given them an extremely low rate of interest on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.