Why are you a Republican or Democrat?

[Ghostpanther]

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they dont value america. That is the problem in this country. You should be allowed to disagree without accusing the one that you disagree with, of not valuing their country.

I agree with this. Well said Genn. I do not mind someone disgreeing with me, but once they start the insults as if you disgreeing with them on political issues, they become a non source of debate for myself. Kind of like, "do not cast your pearls before swine".

[unbound]

I'm actually independent.

So, as requested, I'm ignoring this thread.

Have fun!

[GennGreymane]

I agree with this. Well said Genn. I do not mind someone disgreeing with me, but once they start the insults as if you disgreeing with them on political issues, they become a non source of debate for myself. Kind of like, "do not cast your pearls before swine".

Exactly, which is why I honestly do take offense to Bucks statement earlier in the thread. That mindset gets the country no where and is actually detrimental to actually being a nation. If everyone had that mindset, it would not end well. Disagreements =/= Traitor.

Just because you disagree does not mean you dont value America

We would disagree with Jefferson, Washington, Hamillton, and Madison on many issues. Does that make them traitors? (other than to the English)

[Ghostpanther]

Never heard of that saying....

I am just correcting your statement. You made it sound like it had always been that, however it was not until much later where that wording was used to describe the second amendment

It was there. And there are many writings down thru history were many agreed with the concept it is there for self defense. Just because some felt it was not sometime during history, does not mean they were right. The latest SCOTUS ruling was a correct interpretation and more importantly, the one which allows me to use it as a constitutional right.

[GennGreymane]

It was there. And there are many writings down thru history were many agreed with the concept it is there for self defense. Just because some felt it was not sometime during history, does not mean they were right. The latest SCOTUS ruling was a correct interpretation and more importantly, the one which allows me to use it as a constitutional right.

Yes, it was there, but it was never articulated until the S.C case, I would however not say it was always self defense, Justice Scalia was a purist in terms of the written word. He was the one who went with the self defense interpretation as a modern approach.

[Osmeric]

It was there. And there are many writings down thru history were many agreed with the concept it is there for self defense. Just because some felt it was not sometime during history, does not mean they were right. The latest SCOTUS ruling was a correct interpretation and more importantly, the one which allows me to use it as a constitutional right.

I have to agree with that, but I also have to say the 2nd amendment is not something useful to have in the constitution. Attempts to backdoor it by strained interpretations didn't do anyone any good, but that doesn't mean the amendment needs to stay. I personally support its repeal, by constitutional amendment, and I hope the democrats push for that.

[TwistedSkull]

I would be a democrat because i am for the people.

[Florena]

I lean democrat because they line up with me more often than not on social issues, but I consider myself a dem leaning independant rather than a full on democrat.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes, it was there, but it was never articulated until the S.C case, I would however not say it was always self defense, Justice Scalia was a purist in terms of the written word. He was the one who went with the self defense interpretation as a modern approach.

A lot of Americans had and kept firearms for self defense for hundreds of years. There was never a attempt by the federal government to ban all firearms from private citizens use. Ever wonder why that never happened? The FBI suggested in the 1930's, with the increase of criminal mob activity, to require all firearms owned by private citizens to be registered. They abandon that idea because they said it was not one which could be realistically enforced. At the same time, the government never attempted successfully to ban all firearms for private citizens outside of a militia.

[Kraenen]

I've found that people who say this usually haven't created anything worth a shit, and tend to bring down those around them.

Which is fine given those are ideals one should strive for, their achievement isn't necessary to believe or preach them.

[Spectral]

I would be a democrat because i am for the people.

What do you think a run of the mill Republican's position is on "the people"? Against them?

[GennGreymane]

A lot of Americans had and kept firearms for self defense for hundreds of years. There was never a attempt by the government to ban all firearms from private citizens use. Ever wonder why that never happened? The FBI suggested in the 1930's, with the increase of criminal mob activity, to require all firearms owned by private citizens to be registered. They abandon that idea because they said it was not one which could be realistically enforced. At the same time, the government never attempted successfully to ban all firearms for private citizens outside of a militia.

Actually there had been many attempts by the states to limit weaponry, especially when there was a mass improvement after the civil war into ww1 in terms of design and manufacturer. Granted this was in the states and areas that were not the westward expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is fine given those are ideals one should strive for, their achievement isn't necessary to believe or preach them.

Its fine to have those ideas, but if someone has a different vision, or thinks other things are more valued, that does not mean they dont have "Americas best interest at heart" or "hate America"

That is pure garbage.

[Spectral]

I have to agree with that, but I also have to say the 2nd amendment is not something useful to have in the constitution. Attempts to backdoor it by strained interpretations didn't do anyone any good, but that doesn't mean the amendment needs to stay. I personally support its repeal, by constitutional amendment, and I hope the democrats push for that.

Why bother to repeal it when they can just appoint justices that have spent their lives coming up with creative reinterpretations of plain language to arrive at whatever conclusion they wanted in the first place? As we've all learned over the last couple decades, the Constitution means whatever Anthony Kennedy says it does. I mean, ethics might be a good reason to not take this approach, but most politicians are former lawyers, so that's basically out the window.

[Ghostpanther]

I have to agree with that, but I also have to say the 2nd amendment is not something useful to have in the constitution. Attempts to backdoor it by strained interpretations didn't do anyone any good, but that doesn't mean the amendment needs to stay. I personally support its repeal, by constitutional amendment, and I hope the democrats push for that.

I understand. But a amendment to any part of the Constitution is very hard to do. The Democrats are not strong enough without a lot of support from the GOP to get it passed. The most which has a realistic chance of becoming law, is more restrictions in place which are lawful, but still do not violate the 2nd.

[Kraenen]

Its fine to have those ideas, but if someone has a different vision, or thinks other things are more valued, that does not mean they dont have "Americas best interest at heart" or "hate America"

That is pure garbage.

What? Sometimes Genn, no clue what you're smoking (hint: was referring to creating value, capitalism, "lifting yourself up by the bootstraps", as was obvious)

[May90]

I don't want them to die, where did you get that silly notion? I just think progressive thinking is a problem and does not have America's best interests in mind.

Funny, considering the US as a country was formed based on progressive ideas of freedom from religious domination and kings/queens. If people at the time thought like you, they would have concluded that America's best interest would be to remain a domain of the empire. Luckily, they were "evil progressives"!

[Ghostpanther]

Actually there had been many attempts by the states to limit weaponry, especially when there was a mass improvement after the civil war into ww1 in terms of design and manufacturer. Granted this was in the states and areas that were not the westward expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

But not to the extent of outright banning them for private citizens use. Sure some have tried and in the wild west, some towns even banned them within city limits. But that was not challenged in the courts that I am aware of. The local governments do have the right to regulate private firearm ownership however. But not outright ban them.

[Selastan]

To put it in the most civil way possible, I believe Democrats are naive and believe in fairy tale thinking, almost like a Disney movie. This head in the clouds thinking is amusing at best, and destructive at worse.

Even though it would be nice if everybody in the world would get along, that is simply not how the world works. The human race is not perfect, and there are certain things hard-wired that won't go away. Cultures will always clash.

There will always be rich people and poor people, because there are always hard working and lazy, and sometimes lucky and unlucky.

War is necessary. Violence has also solved more problems in the history of man than "love" and diplomacy.

I love the USA. I feel Democrats either don't appreciate the USA at best, and hate it at worse. If somebody is in the USA and burning and American flag, I assume it's a liberal.

I value tradition. Change for the sake of it I do not agree with.

I value the family unit. Wife, Husband, Kids. Strong family = strong community = strong nation.

I think their ideas on equality are backwards. Racism I already think will never go away, but it especially won't go away if you give certain parties special treatment, and tell them all their problems are due to another race.

I value capitalism. Let people innovate and create and compete.

I could go on, just a few parts.

I second this, word for word.

[GennGreymane]

What? Sometimes Genn, no clue what you're smoking (hint: was referring to creating value, capitalism, "lifting yourself up by the bootstraps", as was obvious)

Im refferring to Buck in general.

The person you quote was replying to Buck essentially saying that people who disagree with him dont have America at heart and hate America.

[Osmeric]

What? Sometimes Genn, no clue what you're smoking

What exactly are you objecting to in what he wrote? His statement seems obviously correct to me.