Enemies Foreign & Domestic

This is a discussion on Enemies Foreign & Domestic within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Stubborn I do understand that. I also understand that the same policies and programs can be carried on by two different administrations ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Enemies Foreign & Domestic

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    I do understand that. I also understand that the same policies and programs can be carried on by two different administrations with very different goals and outcomes in mind. I do not believe that Bush started this with the ultimate goal to disarm the citizenry, I do however believe that the current administration widened the scope and depth with that very end result in mind.
    That is exactly what I said in the post you disagreed with. Either I am getting senile or I am just confused now. LOL

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Somehow there is an irony that there is a quote from an oath and a diatribe of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy against an individual employe who took that oath in the same thread.

    Check out: U.S. Office of Personnel Management

    I had 31 years of combined uniform and non-uniform federal service -- most of which was working directly against "enemies, foreign and domestic." Anyone who thinks that I did not "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" throughout those years or now is playing with few cards short of a deck.

    -----

    Hang in there Hop. The use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy by an opponent in a debate is deplorable and suggest a lack of substantive logic to support his/her position. FWIIW, a debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or, more importantly, the audience from the topic of the debate. Circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances.

    Although you and I do disagree, sometimes, I respect your well thought positions and logical arguments supporting them.

    -----

    Good post Stubborn.
    Last edited by DaveH; February 28th, 2012 at 10:46 PM. Reason: spello
    Hopyard and Sig 210 like this.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    With that I bid adieu LOL. Already been down that road about UN treaties and their applicability to US citizens (NONE). Now back to topic. I have heard of the book and am going to put it on my kindle. I like good fiction or non fiction
    Why is it so unbelievable that politicians who have been so rabidly anti-gun their entire careers, will stop at nothing to further their agenda?
    Please help me to understand why, these people could or would change their spots now?
    Obama has always been anti-gun. Hillary Clinton, who is instrumental in drafting this treaty has always been anti-gun.

    Are you really so blind or gullible as to think they can be trusted with your Second Amendment rights?
    With the NRA, GOA, and JPFO all preaching doom and gloom over this treaty, do you really think it wise to stick your head in the sand?
    Last edited by Stubborn; February 28th, 2012 at 05:08 PM.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Why is it so unbelievable that politicians who have been so rabidly ant-gun their entire careers, will stop at nothing to further their agenda?
    Not at all unbelievable, IMHO.

    OTOH, a botched operation and a coverup are equally believable, IMHO.

    Left hand not having a clue what the right is doing is also equally believable.

    I have also seen local operations started, blotched, and covered up w/o folk two level up having a clue about them -- much less multiple levels up the chain of command.

    As much as I tend to think it likely had an anti-gun agenda element (at some level), I do believe the jury is still out as to who knew what and when -- albeit I also believe the coverup worked up the chain until the mess couldn't be contained and then that the damage-control has been laced with less than full truthfulness.
    Last edited by DaveH; February 28th, 2012 at 09:15 PM. Reason: typo / proofo
    Hopyard and shooterX like this.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    That is exactly what I said in the post you disagreed with. Either I am getting senile or I am just confused now. LOL
    Maybe I misunderstood you sir, But I thought you agreed that this started out as an ordinary mundane cluster.
    If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

    Sorry about hi-jacking the thread...I'll return it to it's regularly scheduled program.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    To say that the whole federal structure is constitutional suggests to me someone who hasn't sat down and read the Constitution in detail. Our entire monetary system is quite clearly unconstitutional. Just about every BOR amendment is subject to massive infringement by the grossly misnamed "Patriot Act". The very existence of the BATFE...show me where the Constitution authorizes that. The 10th Amendment might as well not even exist at this point. The only part of the Constitution that has actually become much stronger than it was is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which has been stretched to the point where the Founders wouldn't even recognize it. I doubt many here want anarchy, which is why we demand that the Constitution be enforced, rather than "interpreted" into irrelevance.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    Sorry Hopyard, you're wrong. Paper money is not authorized in the Constitution, the Congress is authorized to coin money. Paper money was emitted by private banks at the time, but was at least nominally redeemable in specie, making it representative currency, which is not the same thing. The Federal Reserve is a cartel, and the federal government has no authority to create one and give it legal tender power. Paper money prior to the founding, during the Revolution and under the Articles, led to disaster, just as it is now. That is why the only "paper money" after the ratification of the Constitution was money receipts, not the "money" itself. You need to brush up on your history more.

    As for the rest, including gun controls by the federal government, once again, actually read the Constitution and show me where this stuff is authorized. You are not going to find it. To say that we have not lost freedoms in the last 50 years even, is to put your head in the sand. Pointing out that there is a problem is not paranoid delusional thinking, it's called paying attention to what's going on around you.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Why is it so unbelievable that politicians who have been so rabidly anti-gun their entire careers, will stop at nothing to further their agenda?
    Please help me to understand why, these people could or would change their spots now?
    Obama has always been anti-gun. Hillary Clinton, who is instrumental in drafting this treaty has always been anti-gun.

    Are you really so blind or gullible as to think they can be trusted with your Second Amendment rights?
    With the NRA, GOA, and JPFO all preaching doom and gloom over this treaty, do you really think it wise to stick your head in the sand?
    Look, I replied to your post about UN treaties. OK, the UN has zero to say what our citizrns can and can not do and a UN or any other treaty does not over ride the Constitution. OK, you want to say the 2A is under attack from within, fine, we all agree on that. A UN treaty means squat. Go back to that other thread which I believe you started. Not one case of a UN treaty affecting our citizens and trumping the Constition was shown by those that fall that GOA mantra. Some tried with some lame articles which were easily disproven. The UN is impotent
    Sig 210 likes this.

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Then sir, he is either willfully blind or delusional. What part isn't based on the Constitution? Fifty states each with a bicameral
    legislature
    , a governor, and a system of functioning courts[at the state level]? Which part isn't Constitutional? Our Supreme Court and system
    of Circuit Courts of Appeal and District Trial courts [these are only mentioned in the Constitution as inferior courts that the Congress may, from time to time, create. They are also subject to control by the Congress although Congress is far to timid to exercize this control.]
    ?

    What is Unconstitutional about Congress being in session? Yup, legislation is a messy thing--- the sausage factory story-- but
    it was designed to be that way.

    Is there something Unconstitutional about the Executive having been elected by Electors chosen by the various states?

    Here and there-- and maybe way more than a smattering-- are individual rules, regulations, and laws which are open to
    debate as to their constitutionality [You are correct, this is way more than a smattering. Look at the establishment clause and you will be hard pressed to find Constitutional support for most of the functions the federal government performs.]
    . The courts or sometimes Congress, sort it out, exactly as intended.

    If you want perfection, all you will find is fault.
    Hop - For openers, the bolded parts are not in the Constitution. Nobody is suggesting perfection, just abiding by the Contsitution as written and amended. If you don't like it or feel that something needs to be added to it, amend it, there is a provision for that.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ...The important point which really needs making and is in keeping with this thread, (we don't want it to drift to be about money,)

    is the foolishness of complaints that we don't have constitutional government and that our officials are conspiring to deprive us of our rights. There is more than a little bit of paranoid delusional thinking in those concerns--sorry to say.
    This is very much a fact, and if you don't see it you havn't been paying attention.
    We have already lost a good part of our first amendment rights. With the advent of laws governing "hate speech". Under the Constitution everyone is guaranteed the right to their opinions and the right to vocalize those opinions. Whether or not they are "hateful" in nature or not, whether you and I agree with them or not. It is their right. No longer, legislated right out of existence.

    We have had our second amendment rights infringed for many decades...since 1934 when we were denied the right to purchase automatic weapons, and many more times since. Legislated right out of existence.

    It is a sad state of affairs when the Constitutionality of something hangs on the balance of whether or not there is a liberal or conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices should be far above pandering their own personal beliefs and agendas in the deciding of case law...but sadly, they are not.

    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    I take it you were a soldier and he was a squid?
    LOL Matt was a SEAL OFFICER and served in Beirut during the time of the barracks truck bomb. Me? I was a cold war infantry captain. More like an adult boy scout. Matt served and was a hero for real in a very ugly place. I ran around the woods of Washington State and played army. I was able to go to Germany and play the game as well as Panama and do more of the same in 1986. Well before the US invasion there.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Sorry Hopyard, you're wrong. Paper money is not authorized in the Constitution, the Congress is authorized to coin money. Paper money was emitted by private banks at the time, but was at least nominally redeemable in specie, making it representative currency, which is not the same thing. The Federal Reserve is a cartel, and the federal government has no authority to create one and give it legal tender power. Paper money prior to the founding, during the Revolution and under the Articles, led to disaster, just as it is now. That is why the only "paper money" after the ratification of the Constitution was money receipts, not the "money" itself. You need to brush up on your history more.

    As for the rest, including gun controls by the federal government, once again, actually read the Constitution and show me where this stuff is authorized. You are not going to find it. To say that we have not lost freedoms in the last 50 years even, is to put your head in the sand. Pointing out that there is a problem is not paranoid delusional thinking, it's called paying attention to what's going on around you.








    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^I'm inclined^^^^^^^^^^^^


    To be in this camp.


    Hopyard, just because congress passed a law against something or another, and just because we supposedly elected those officials to that office, doesn't mean our rights haven't been infringed or erradicated, just because they ( the elected official) followed due process.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We are just re-litigating old claims, going nowhere.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is what it is until The Supremes say otherwise; and they won't. Sounds constitutional to me.
    It is here that we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In your view, the SCOTUS is a superior third of the federal government that can, by itself, trump the other 2/3. In my view - and the true reading of the constitution - it is not. Just because John Marshall usurped Article I powers for the court and nobody had the stones to put him in his place, does not mean that it is constitutional.

    The Congress needs to stand up and redefine the role of the federal courts - which is within its perview to do constitutionally. Congress can disband, reorganize or restructure courts, they can impeach judges and justices if there is cause and they can limit the scope of the courts to eliminate certain items from consideration by the courts. Further, through the control of the purse, Congress can disband the unconstitutional alphabet soup agencies that have sprung up over the last many years under both Republican and Democrat leadership.

    It is time to have a ballot box revolution in this country to effect a resurrection of Constitutional principles. Note I am not advocating a shooting war, but a war on the current government at the ballot boxes, i.e., voting out the incumbents. I realize that this is not overly likely, but it would be in the best interest of the country.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Congress could do all kinds of stuff. However, so far all they have done is lie, argue about feel good stuff of little substance and collaborate in the amassing of a crushing national debt. There is little indication that congress will do anything of real value anytime soon.

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Congress could do all kinds of stuff. However, so far all they have done is lie, argue about feel good stuff of little substance and collaborate in the amassing of a crushing national debt. There is little indication that congress will do anything of real value anytime soon.
    I concur.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment, all enemies foreign or domestic
,
2nd ammendment foreign and domestic statement
,
2nd. amendment foreign and domestic
,
amendments .. foreign enemys
,
could the book enemies foreign and domestic could happen?
,
defensivecarry.cic
,
enemies foreign and domestic
,
enemies foreign and domestic series discussion group
,
enemies foriegn and domestic forum
,
enemies- foreign & domestic
,
fallacy of freebies to non-citizens
,
matt bracken facebook
,
matthew bracken's enemies foreign & domestic
,
operation efad matt bracken
,

second amendment foreign domestic

Click on a term to search for related topics.