• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gun commercial

Steve

Well-known member
it looks as if the ads are hitting a bit close to home for the liberals..

Pro-Gunpropaganda9.jpg


really close to home....

18171615141312111098765432Pro-Gunpropaganda.jpg


2524232221201918171615141312111098765432Pro-Gunpropaganda.jpg


111098765432Pro-Gunpropaganda.jpg


201918171615141312111098765432Pro-Gunpropaganda.jpg


so instead of defending their position, liberals resort to mocking their adversary again,..
 

beethoven

Well-known member
lively discussions are wonderful dont you think. as to this here, my view is that systems have proven themselves to be fluid. everything changes.
im neither liberal nor conservative in the usual political sense, tho ive met many wonderful people who were. `
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
beethoven said:
lively discussions are wonderful dont you think. as to this here, my view is that systems have proven themselves to be fluid. everything changes.
im neither liberal nor conservative in the usual political sense, tho ive met many wonderful people who were. `


If you buy into the idea everything is fluid and everything changes and nothing is constant or timeless, then you will be going down a very slippery slope that will lead to erosion of freedom and liberties. You are welcome to this belief, but don't expect me or America to go with you.

I prefer to believe, like the constitution, that we have inalienable rights that are based solidly on the fact that we were created in the image of God, and by God. And because God is a constant before creation and after creation and that his word was, is, and will always remain true, therefore basing a legal and moral system on his truth will be built on solid rock and not shifting "fluid" sand, constantly changing based on the decisions and views of whomever has achieved power at that moment with the ever constant threat of changing again with the next shift of power.

Inalienable- incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. In other words, constant.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
The Constitution is a wonderful map, follow it and we never get lost. When you have so many who have trashed it like it has been this country wanders aimlessly.
 

beethoven

Well-known member
your constitution and mine are different however generally we share some similar values.

perhaps we agree that people possess an inherent worth, value and dignity as a starting point.

my view of 'rights' translates into people ought to treat others, and ought to be treated with respect and value. it is about recognition and reassurance of worth, entitlement and lays out remedies for maltreatment.

talk of rights can be symbolic and used as a political slogan, and i am at times suspicious of the ways the word is used.

the area of creator as host ie., creator has given us our rights as a gift is an area of belief, and as such shall remain personal.

having the right and being given the right are two very different matters.. getting rights and having rights, fighting for one's rights, these are absolutely things that are worth exploring. however all these things are hard to nail down ie., systems being fluid, and being that laws and leadership and resources and many things are ever changing. thinking about the bulk of our ideas about rights it should be said that the conformity + observance should not be confused with the content for when that happens there is potential for 'spin' overruling fact.

i find it interesting that the majority of legal codes of human rights has been written only in the last few decades. efforts to clarify legal rights and ideas of common decency are on-going. again, systems are made by people and these systems are regularly being changed, more of that fluid formless stuff that seems impossible to avoid. whether individual political popularity tests are more important to snipe about than to discuss the greater truths, now that is another subject for another time.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
beethoven said:
perhaps we agree that people possess an inherent worth, value and dignity as a starting point.

Young grasshopper.... You must first establish a foundation before you can build a house.

Your hastening is not consistent with the savor of debate . Such capricious behavior for a self described connoisseur of deep thought.

From what are you basing your view that people possess an inherent worth, value and dignity?
 

Steve

Well-known member
having the right and being given the right are two very different matters..

if it is a right, it can't be given.. it can be taken.. or you can give them up..

example... we have the right to life... who can give that to you?

freedom, equality,. of speech,.. of religion.. can you really give them... no,..
Inalienable rights can never be abolished.. you can try to take them, you can suppress them but they are always there and will always live in a mans heart.. even in the most broken dis-spirited man they still live..
 

Steve

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
If you buy into the idea everything is fluid and everything changes and nothing is constant or timeless, then you will be going down a very slippery slope that will lead to erosion of freedom and liberties. You are welcome to this belief, but don't expect me or America to go with you.

I prefer to believe, like the constitution, that we have inalienable rights that are based solidly on the fact that we were created in the image of God, and by God. And because God is a constant before creation and after creation and that his word was, is, and will always remain true, therefore basing a legal and moral system on his truth will be built on solid rock and not shifting "fluid" sand, constantly changing based on the decisions and views of whomever has achieved power at that moment with the ever constant threat of changing again with the next shift of power.

Inalienable- incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. In other words, constant.

well said..
 

beethoven

Well-known member
last night the phone rang at suppertime. it was an automated system inviting residents of our province to participate in, listen or ask a question, for an hour in a townhall-style teleconference call, hosted by liberals hoping to make a few new friends around here with the upcoming election and all.

one fellow, a neighbour actually know the man, has a grain operation asked about the long gun registry. the answer was pitiful. for those of you who dont remember, there was a shooting at a montreal polytech just over 20 yrs ago where a man walked into the engineering bldg. and targetted a number of female students. the liberals are catering to those in that part of the country to stamp out crime with a registry with their stance on this. rural ranchers however take exception to the idea that law-abiding citizens should be dragged into that and resent paying for the damn thing. it has been mishandled in an extraordinary way.

anyroad, the candidate thought it would be helpful to explain why the registry is important, illustrated by the mayerthorpe incident where 4 Rcmp officers were shot and killed by a man who would never dream of registering long guns, or any other sort of gun for that matter.

right there on this issue of the long gun registry liberals will not get the rural western vote. total futility simply bears mention. annoyed with the whole crew for mishandling things.
 

Steve

Well-known member
anyroad, the candidate thought it would be helpful to explain why the registry is important, illustrated by the mayerthorpe incident where 4 Rcmp officers were shot and killed by a man who would never dream of registering long guns, or any other sort of gun for that matter.

while I disagree with gun registration laws, I disagree with murder more..

with that said.. What was the guy's original crime that brought the RCMP to his door?
 

beethoven

Well-known member
there was issuance of a warrant after stolen truck parts and grow-op was detected, not to mention the fact this man had a lifetime of run-ins with the law.
 

Steve

Well-known member
beethoven said:
there was issuance of a warrant after stolen truck parts and grow-op was detected, not to mention the fact this man had a lifetime of run-ins with the law.

so one might conclude "he was a criminal and no laws even the outright banning of all guns would have prevented this? "

this is the part of gun control that I see as the problem..
 
Top