fred thompson and 2nd amendment.

[Rich333]

I'd rather not drive away an RP supporter with internal bickering, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in case he really is being honest, and just going about things in a backwards manner. I think we should all do the same and address his positions instead of just labeling him a troll. I don't entirely trust that he is being honest, but whether he's a troll or not is irrelevant; a rational debate never hurt anyone.

Daron: Why do you think weapon regulations are "reasonable"? Define the line between a "reasonable" and an "unreasonable" regulation. And keep in mind that "reason" must be involved; that is, it must be a logically consistent position.

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

F-off 76. I am not saying he is soft, he is about freedom, something you can't get through your rightwingnut skull. Just because you may not like that his votes for FREEDOM appeal to democrats too, you don't have to try to trash others attempt to help you reach out. I gave you actual bill numbers that you can use when appealing to democrats to show a wide appeal and you attack back with slander. I'm glad most of the rEVOLution is more accepting that some of the wingnuts in it.

No go spin some more of my sarcastic comments like the tithe one and make yourself feel better.

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

Daron: Why do you think weapon regulations are "reasonable"? Define the line between a "reasonable" and an "unreasonable" regulation. And keep in mind that "reason" must be involved; that is, it must be a logically consistent position.

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.

 

[Spirit of '76]

F-off 76. I am not saying he is soft, he is about freedom, something you can't get through your rightwingnut skull. Just because you may not like that his votes for FREEDOM appeal to democrats too, you don't have to try to trash others attempt to help you reach out. I gave you actual bill numbers that you can use when appealing to democrats to show a wide appeal and you attack back with slander. I'm glad most of the rEVOLution is more accepting that some of the wingnuts in it.

No go spin some more of my sarcastic comments like the tithe one and make yourself feel better.

You must be one of the two or three Fredheads with an IQ over 50.

 

[Rich333]

You must be one of the two or three Fredheads with an IQ over 50.

Please stop.

 

[Rich333]

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.

Okay, that's reasonable enough. Now why couldn't you frame it like that in the first place? You talk about not alienating people, but the way you framed it earlier does alienate people; in particular, people who think like me about this issue.

 

[rpfreedom08]

Damn I wasn't expecting this thread to get so crazy, lol. I was just asking a simple question to convert some of the gun guys on the rx7club forum Thanks for all the helpful info though, it was greatly appreciated!

 

[voortrekker]

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.

I agree about letting a jury decide, but do not judges also decide?

BUT again, How can one logically assert justification towards suing gun manufacturers due to the criminal activity of others.

It should not even warrant going to court no matter what any person thinks. It just doesn't make sense.

My fear with this is all it would take is one significant court case won against one gun manufacturer to make it much easier to try cases against other gun manufacturers.

In effect, it would start a brush fire that could endanger the entire firearm industry.

 

[enjerth]

Fortunately I know enough about both RP's and FT's positions to know that Daron has it completely backwards, because he seems intent on trying to trick people like me into supporting FT. I am one of those "radicals" he refers to on this issue (though not a redneck... born and raised in Brooklyn); I don't care if it's a BB gun or an H-bomb, the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and those are arms.

I'm with you all the way. People in this group have used quotes that indicate when the government no longer serves the people, it is the people's right to overthrow that government. The second amendment reinforces that notion and even mentions acknowledges such a use as legitimate. If people REALLY believe that, then what chance has a people of overthrowing a government if it's government is armed to the teeth and prevents it's people from even owning a fully-automatic rifle? Would we have any chance, being less equipped than even the Iraqi army was?