Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IT started out as Communism.

When Communism got a bad reputation, they changed the name to Marxism.

When Marxism got a bad reputation, they changed the name to Socialism.

When Socialism got a bad reputation, they changed the name to Liberalism.

When Liberalism got a bad reputation, they changed the name to Progressivism.

[Did I leave out any of the incarnations or iterations???]

Basically it is enforced atheism [and none of the Ten Commandments] by the mechanism of a central dictator.

Read “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer.

https://www.amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Treason-Stormer/dp/0899667252

Check with AbeBooks for a cheaper price.
 
Last edited:
So liberalism and progressivism are basically the same as Communism?

If I’m a liberal, then, I’m really a Communist?

Yeah, no. I can’t really take this seriously.
 
Inisfallen said:
So liberalism and progressivism are basically the same as Communism?

If I’m a liberal, then, I’m really a Communist?

Yeah, no. I can’t really take this seriously.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it ain’t Thomas Jefferson’s liberalism.
 
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

Which of these do you accept?

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
  1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Inisfallen said:
So liberalism and progressivism are basically the same as Communism?

If I’m a liberal, then, I’m really a Communist?
Click to expand...
You have it backward, in my view.
Not all progressives are communists, even though progressivism is collectivist. But all communists, and statists for that matter, are progressives.

Classical liberals, on the other hand, and not collectivist or statist
 
Cathoholic said:
If you REALLY think this pnewton, you are missing the point.

The point is . . . . WHO gets to decide for law-abiding citizens?

Themselves?

Or Government?

You KNOW these amounts of “firepower” are reasonable.
Click to expand...
No, you are simply giving your points and ignoring mine. The clear answer that I give is the duly, democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people should decide what limits are more dangerous to the innocent. Those who cannot defend their home with that which is reasonably allowed need more training, practice, and common sense. The last thing we need is giving incompetent gun owners more fire power.

When the subject is defending one’s home, I have to just shake my head. If I was never allowed to own one gun, I could defend my home. Heck, I have asked multiple times and most gun owners do not even own a basic home security system, much less one commensurate with their offensive level. How many here have taken training in hand-to-hand combat, or even more importantly, taken training in verbal skills designed to diffuse dangerous situations? No, I will not believe, based on what I know, this is an issue of home defense.
 
Last edited:
pnewton.
The clear answer that I give is the duly, democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people should decide what limits are more dangerous to the innocent.
Click to expand...
.

So can Congress just theoretically just “make a law” and allow . . . say . . . Ex-President Obama to run for a third term?

Why or why not?
 
pnewton:
When the subject is defending one’s home, I have to just shake my head. If I was never allowed to own one gun, I could defend MY home.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)
.
To people reading this thread. pnewton has just MADE my point about the liberal mindset and how these decisions seem to always come back to THEM and what they FEEL about THEMSELVES.

.

To pnewton.

What about thinking about someone ELSE?

What about her?

planetradio.co.uk

Latest Wigan St Helens News | Wigan St Helens Articles - Greatest Hits Radio

Catch all the latest Wigan St Helens news from Greatest Hits Radio. Stay up to date with all things Wigan St Helens, with exclusive features, stories, breaking news, and videos.
planetradio.co.uk planetradio.co.uk

How about this woman? . . .

www.fox6now.com

94-year-old woman beaten, robbed inside her Chicago home

Articles and videos about 94-year-old woman beaten, robbed inside her Chicago home on FOX6 News Milwaukee.
www.fox6now.com www.fox6now.com

Or this poor elderly woman? . . .


Or this young woman? . . .

www.mcall.com

Called 4 times, police never arrest boyfriend in case that ends in murder

Lisa Menzo Santoro told police she was scared of her boyfriend, and just wanted him to finally move out of her Palmer Township home. The cast on her right arm, she reported, was from when he broke …
www.mcall.com www.mcall.com

.

Why do you attempt to bolster a national decision based upon . . . YOU . . . and YOUR FEELINGS?

Has it ever occurred to you that the gun owner takes the responsibility upon himself or herself without a nanny state to be well-trained for their OWN needs?
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
So can Congress just theoretically just “make a law” and allow . . . say . . . Ex-President Obama to run for a third term?
Click to expand...
The two term limit was established within living memory; it was done in 1947. But to answer your question Article V of the Constitution allows for congress to propose an amendment and get a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two thirds of the state legislature. There is more to the process than that. But the constitution can and has been changed.
 
Cathoholic said:
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun owner takes the responsibility upon himself or herself without a nanny state to be well-trained for their OWN needs?
Click to expand...
An 80 or 90 year old woman on a walker is capable of “taking responsibility” and handling a gun, maybe even an AR-15, fast enough and accurately enough to defend herself without being a danger to anyone else?

Yeah, I don’t think so. We wouldn’t let her drive, we sure as heck shouldn’t let her “defend herself” with a high-powered gun.
 
Last edited:
That’s the right answer thinkingsapien.

An AMENDMENT change. Not a “law”.
 
Last edited:
pnewton:

.
How many here have taken training in hand-to-hand combat, . . .
Click to expand...
.
It wouldn’t matter to some people in the elitist gun-grab mindset.

Here (featured on Stossel) is an experienced military veteran who has had more training then some police probably ever will.

Yet HE was denied a carry permit.


.

Here in this thread is your chance to tell me how New York was wrong and how our soldier has had his rights violated.

Now you get to support him at least verbally, for his Second Amendment quest.

.

pnewton:
How many here have taken training in hand-to-hand combat, or even more importantly, taken training in verbal skills designed to diffuse dangerous situations?
Click to expand...
.
SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
.
pnewton AMENDMENT pnewton’s rules being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be ALLOWED unless they have taken training in hand-to-hand combat, or even more importantly, taken training in verbal skills designed to diffuse dangerous situations that pnewton approves of.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Inisfallen:
An 80 or 90 year old woman on a walker is capable of “taking responsibility” and handling a gun, maybe even an AR-15, fast enough and accurately enough to defend herself without being a danger to anyone else?
.
Yeah, I don’t think so. We wouldn’t let her drive, we sure as heck shouldn’t let her “defend herself” with a high-powered gun.
Click to expand...
So you think the Second Amendment is predicated upon if YOU think an elderly woman’s reflexes are fast enough for YOUR opinion?

But you support unfettered full-throated Second Amendment Rights for the young gal that was killed right?

And using your logic about the “slow” elderly, can we take away their VOTING RIGHTS too?

Or do you FEEL that the extra time to deliberate a vote affords them an OK to maintain their “rights”?

What about the “young”? Aren’t they rather impetous?

Can Congress by a mere majority vote remove THEIR rights to vote too?

Or should we pick and choose Constitutional rights based on what is trendy?
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
So you think the Second Amendment is predicated upon if YOU think an elderly woman’s reflexes are fast enough for YOUR opinion?
Click to expand...
No one here on CAF is going to make this decision about the old woman, so don’t bother to personalize it to the poster you are answering. And making that decision does not nullify the 2nd amendment any more than the policy that says a 5 year old may not own an AR-15. The 2nd amendment does not say that everyone at any time has the right to own any gun.
And using your logic about the “slow” elderly, can we take away their VOTING RIGHTS too?
Click to expand...
There is no reason that voting rights should be tied to one’s ability to safely aim and fire a gun.
What about the “young”? Aren’t they rather impetous?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s why we don’t allow 5 year olds to own a gun.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle:
No one here on CAF is going to make this decision about the old woman . .
Click to expand...
But the IDEAS espoused here ARE!

THAT is what I am confronting. The pernicious IDEAS.

.

pnewton (Who seems to ASSUME a default position of “incompetence” from the citizens) . . .
Those who cannot defend their home with that which is reasonably allowed need more training, practice, and common sense. The last thing we need is giving incompetent gun owners more fire power.
Click to expand...
.

I stand by what I said.
 
LeafByNiggle:
There is no reason that voting rights should be tied to one’s ability to safely aim and fire a gun.
Click to expand...
But I never said that.

I said once you start illicitly tinkering with one Constitutional right, you can use the SAME PRINCIPLE, to tinker illicilt with ANY of them.
 
LeafByNiggle:
Yes, that’s why we don’t allow 5 year olds to own a gun.
Click to expand...
Lot’s of dads get their twelve-year olds shotguns, 22s etc.

If a dad bequeathes his gun to his twelve year-old it doesn’t belong to him?

I agree the minor can’t USE the firearm indiscriminately.

But the PARENTS are the deciders of WHEN the youth eventually comes to adolescence and young adulthood.

NOT the Government.

The parents are held ACCOUNTABLE to be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top