DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

I don't get it. Why is the 2nd amendment the only thing in your eyes that shouldn't be changed?

So you'll be fine with freedom of speech being changed, voting rights to minorities being changed, and states being able to make laws the federal government hasn't defined?

But not those guns, right?

This is boiling down to you and I having completely different view points and priorities.

Now that statement I can get behind nice post.

I think bill is ultra conservative.

You guys seem to call conservatives RINOS anytime they even REMOTELY agree with liberals. Just a drop, and their RINOs.

I don't think I've ever called a liberal a fake liberal before. Because.... Well it just doesn't make any sense.

When did I say any of that? You are assuming again. I don't think the Bill of Rights should be touched or changed in any way. Those first 10 are the main foundation our entire society is built on, mostly because it shows the government what it can't do/take from us. Without those, we would have been subject to the exact same abuses of the english king right after our founding. We would have removed one tyrant only to instantly replace him with another.

Bill is a clown to me always has been in my eyes.

I call them rhinos because thats what they are...there are different levels of conservatism and some go to far this way<<<<

How much farther left can a liberal go?? Blue dog democrats go as close to the right as I can tolerate a lefty politics.. Swish Ive voted for them...Its just labels man but can be accurate.

And I do find alot of Dems are pushing to far this way<<<<<in their beliefs but hey we are free to do or get behind as we see fit for now anyway.

O'Reilly is no where close to 'ultra-conservative'. Neither are any of those that abandon their principles whenever something tragic happens to avoid the scrutiny of a biased media.

Because you aren't be clear at all to what you're saying.

If you're sitting there telling me that the bill of rights should never be changed, then you leave me with no choice but to assume that you believe allowing women and minorities the right to vote, or making blacks citizens was against the constitution.

You get that right? Damn near every post you make is so vague that I have no idea what your actual positions are, thus you leave me with no choice but to try and fill in the blanks.

Just because someone says their liberals don't mean I agree with them all the time.

Like Jeb bush being called a RINO. I thought that was wrong and disrespectful of what the man represented. I might not agree with him, but he is a good dude.

For example. I agree with conservatives in general on immigration. Y'all know that.

Does that somehow make me a fake liberal? Absolutely not.

Swish I might not just being clear...I refer to them that way because they say they believe one way then will completely stab the people in the back that they claim to align with politicaly hence the term RHINO

Or just flat out give into a leftist agenda when saying they are against it..liar RHINO not much difference.

Well, your political leaders are using the term to define anybody who's center right.

Most people in this country lean a bit to the left, or a bit to the right. But nowadays, of you aren't full blooded right wing, then you're a RINO

I'll give you I see the shift happening...just not on why I say RHINO.

Maybe something is missing here. You do know that each congressman and Senator represent the people of their state or district, right? And you do realize that each state, or even districts in those states are not all the same. The last poll I saw taken, is that 60% of Republicans want people on the no fly list not to be able to buy weapons.

Maybe, just maybe, after seeing Obama have to address the nation for the 15th time in his presidency about a mass shooting, some people have simply seen enough?

Maybe they're not actually being liberal. Maybe the media isn't influencing their decisions. Maybe it's their constituents who they represent have simply seen enough?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of the second amendment but what's so terrible about keeping dangerous people on the no fly list from obtaining weapons?

I know what you mean. But for the most part the Supreme Court has been on the side of the citizens and is what stands between our right to have guns and those who'd like to take them away.

I had to discount anything you said after the word "Obummer"

You are putting a lot of faith in a system which fails routinely if you think everybody on the no-fly list is dangerous. Somebody first has to tell me what the criteria are for being put on the no fly list or the terrorist watch list... and then tell me what it takes to get your name taken OFF the list if it somehow ends up on there... before I could support anything like this. It all seems rather secretive and subjective to me and could be used to block anybody at any time for any reason from buying a gun.

There is no open investigation, there is no due process, there is no opportunity to defend yourself, if you have suspicious associates (that you don't even know are suspicious) or send a few harshly worded e-mails BOOM.. you end up on the list, but they don't have to tell you that you are on the list until one day when you show up at the airport, then you find out.... it would be like putting somebody on a sex-offender list without due process and court orders... you just can't do it.

I'm on record as being more than willing to consider some modifications to the gun purchasing laws in this country and having an open debate (which will never happen)... but using the no-fly list seems like a very poor criteria to me. Whatever the criteria are for buying a gun need to be open and transparent and consistent... and the no-fly list is none of those.

There are set precedence's, dating back to the 1700's.

But at the same time I agree with you that the amendments can be, and have been changed in the ways you've described. It does take a bit of doing for the most part.

The Constitution has 27 amendments. The first ten amendments were ratified on December 15th, 1791 and are considered The Bill of Rights. They are not so malleable that any one group can decide for everyone what's good for them and then go on to change those rights.

We can't allow knee-jerk reactions to change amendments for political reasons nor for short-term, well-meaning proposals that have not been thought out. If we did they'd be changing every ten years to correct the previous changes.

The Constitution was written by people who had fresh on their minds the meaning of freedom and rights. They fought like hell for that and it was in that mindset they meant for guidelines to avoid losing grasp of it. The earlier methods used to take those freedoms and rights away were also fresh on their minds. They weren't writing rules based on something that happened over 200 years ago. They were in the thick of it.

That's why it's hard for us, 200 years later to fully grasp their mindset and understand the reasoning behind their decisions. They are like the parents and we are the children. They have been there, done that. They've seen the cause and effect and suffered the consequences. Hence, they created rules to keep such things from happening again. We, on the other hand, have never been there nor done that. We haven't lived the cause and effects and neither did we suffer any of the consequences of having our freedoms taken away by a heavy hand. And so, like all children, we don't appreciate nor agree with the rules. We want them changed when times get tough. Given the chance, we'd change them in ways that would spell our demise.

Now in that, I'm speaking of the Bill of Rights of which the 2nd Amendment is one of ten. Other rules beyond the Constitution are in bad need of change. The current situation of which the banks are the only ones who can create money out of thin air must change. The Federal Reserve System, we call it 'The Fed' is owned and operated by the banks. It has as little to do with the Federal Government as does Federal Express. All that needs to change.

I only added that last part to avoid anyone thinking that I believe we should all bow down to the rules like good little children. There is so much wrong that needs revision. But regarding the Bill of Rights, which has stood for 200 years and which was created by people looking out for people, it must be held in high regard and we must fight if need be to protect it.

Meh..your choice...hope you do the same with people saying Drumpf.

I prefer Barry but today Obummer it was..though have been typing Obama. I was trying to be edgy like the dump Trump and Drumpf saying folks

Please note the bolded text. I feel the same about you. You put up some rather vague posts.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it say anything about slavery, voting rights, or citizenship. It says what the government cannot do to us. That is why it's the most important part of the Constitution.

As for the other things mentioned, I'm all for everyone being equal, no matter their color or gender. I don't like the ideas of affirmative action to force equality, as that is not equal. If you want to be equal, you have to compete. I welcome the competition.

I wish I had the ability to type my responses out like you do..well said and is how I feel also...just dont put into words like you do.

Maybe the only part I differ is giving anymore talk to gun restriction...its being done in small increments and at some point its going to be a huge chunk.

1 thing I give Dems their end game is sooo much better the Rep.

I agree

I have a ton of empathy. I also have some advice,,,the biggest problem folks in the inner city have is the democratic party.

They thrive on making promised that might make life a little better, but still keeps those folks in poverty. They aren't looking for real solution like the republicans.

It's all about jobs. Real jobs. Jobs that pay. The Dems have no clue how to make that happen.

I think everybody gets that people need to make more money. I agree, we need living wages in this country, but those can't come from minimum wage type jobs. Face it, every job in this country isn't meant, nor shouldn't pay a living wage. Those wages need to happen as they did in the past...private sector given a opportunity to thrive. Entry level positions are entry level positions.

I think the biggest thing is cultural...next to jobs..though I do understand a good paying job can change your cultural concepts..it did for me.

But man until education is a cool thing to do..and the ones who want to learn arent being made fun of relentlessly idk Peen.

I do remember reading a certain President saying he would have a certain sect of people voting Democrat for the next 200yrs.

Maybe that saying is a myth?? but I sure have read it over and over...and wonder why the poor tend to follow them in mass without fail.

I have voted Dem before but in my later years no.

Given his user name, that was pretty tame.......

I guess it would be...You got me Showed it tattooed on my wrist in pic thread to. But hey you know exactly what it means to me.

But, if YOU yell "fire in a crowded theater, should that take away MY right to be in a theater?

I'm still waiting on people to ban rocks. Cain killed Abel with a rock, and I am sure many people used rocks in their murders back then.

I love this analogy, because the people that use it really thinks it says something when it doesn't. See, I have a right to own a gun in case I need it to defend myself, just like I have a right to free speech against the government in case I have to defend myself against their actions. If I use either for a criminal act, IE, I get to the front of the theater and point my gun at the crowd to cause a stampede of people, I am committing the same crime.

Therefore, if I use my gun for armed robbery, I am committing the same sort of crime if I con someone out of their money. If I talk someone into killing themselves, I am just as guilty if I pulled the trigger myself. The rights are meant to protect us from the government and others, and if used responsibly, will never be a problem with the law.

You've been waiting that long, huh?

Don't forget about pointy sticks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...ticle-1.2677497

Hope they dont buy guns and copy cat the dead husband/son

The cynical side of me hope its not..Just trying to drum up support for the No-fly list...

"Look everyone! We're using it for anti-terrorist stuff!".

I guess I should add this thought also..I think its more about preventing them from fleeing the country, in this case.

Do you think the folks at GM, Ford, Chrysler, Eaton, Emerson, GE, Dell, HP, etc etc are democrats or republicans? Liberal or conservative? I think you know the answer.

But you may not be totally aware that those companies mentioned and thousand like them have shipped good paying jobs out of the country. And got tons of tax incentives to do just that. Wanna bet who lead the fight to get/give those tax breaks?

Neither party has a hold on smarts and honor so let's call it what it really is.

Want proof, look at the two presumptive nominees. If that doesn't prove a lack of smarts, I'm not sure what does.

I keep looking at his user name, and I guess I don't see what you mean...

All the more reason to keep business here in the country by making it a great place to conduct business. The tax rates in the country are not kind to business.

You saying union members dont mostly lean and support Democrats?

Nafta was disastrous TPP will be worse...I dont blame the companies who leave for tax reasons...I blame anyone Dem or Rep that is ok with the globalist agenda and couldnt give 2 squirts of pee about the American worker.



Ill give you this one kind of...but there is a reason Trumps Nationalism is connecting with the average Joe. I actually think the politicians on both sides arent dumb..they have a global agenda and want power.

Now the honor thing...yeah no honor I'll get behind you there.

I was reading the other day and I cant remember which major union it was...but was trying to get their members not to deflect to Trump after seeing the polling of their workers sick of how they are being used...and are going to vote for the orange Jesus.

I probably have it in my history if I look and youre interested in reading it Daman.

YEP.

It probably doesn't matter what the political affiliation of the people that run the company might be, as they are in the business of making money for their shareholders. When the auto industry was in it's heyday, democrats and auto unions joined together to make more money for the workers. The democrats pushed this politically, and the unions contributed money to the democrat party, creating a symbiotic parasite on the auto industry. Just like any parasite, it will eventually grow to the point where it kills the host. This is part of what happened to the auto industry.

The current auto industry in the US has moved south, with foreign companies coming to our country to build cars. This is partly due to tariffs placed on foreign cars to raise those prices to spur Americans to buy American cars. It's cheaper for them to build here than to ship them here, just like it became cheaper for the American auto industry to build outside the country and import cars due to union labor.

The foreign companies and their workers resist the unions, as they are paid fairly and don't want the companies to move out of the country. US companies avoid the unions by building elsewhere. When you get right down to it, the failures of US auto industries are partly to blame on unions, democrats for siding with unions, and republicans for tariffs. The free market was not allowed to work as it should have, and the manipulation by the government caused failure. Once again, it appears the best thing to do was to get the government out of the free market.

Plug the letters into Google......

Want me to spell it out??

Here I'll help Daman leave off the 71...