Miss this guy yet?

[CarmelHP]

I asked you a question and you did not answer it. Do you think congress would have overridden his veto? Answer that and I will give you my response to yours but while you are thinking of it you might want to think on this.

I don't know, it doesn't matter. Assume they didn't, what next I ask? Who writes the next bill but the same Democrat controlled Congress that wrote the first? Do you know how Congress works, how the majority party gets to write the bills and decide what gets to the calendar. So tell me, a successful veto, what happens next?

CarmelHP, you don't think Reagan was anti-gun when as Governor he signed the bill giving waiting periods and taking away citizens right to protect themselves? Also, he supported the Brady Bill and that is not an anti-gun stance? Finally, Reagan also signed the single most destructive bill into law that is against the 2A and he is still a pro 2A person in your opinion?

You mean the bill that brought hundreds of billions of rounds of ammunition and tens of millions surplus firearms into the country, ended ammunition regulation where you had to sign for even a cartridge case, and provided safe passage defense for travel with firearms? That law, with all those other parts that you conveniently left out, the parts that Reagan supported, and just mention the Hughes Amendment, added by the Democrats, which Reagan opposed? You mean that bill? But you already knew you were being dishonest, didn't you?

 

[lashicoN]

The authors of the Constitution were Communists then, they taxed and spent for an Army and Navy before and after the Constitution was written. They taxed and spent for government agencies and embassies too. Those bastards were commies, everybody's a commie, this, therefore, according to you has been a commie country since about 1775. Get used to it.

They taxed and spent for AN army and navy, not an everlasting army and navy during peacetime. The Continental Army was created in 1775, the US declared Independence from England in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787. It didn't happen the way you're making it sound. Our founders didn't declare Independence, write the constitution and create an army and navy immediately. An Army and Navy were necessary to fight off England, thus they were temporarily created.

"After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791"

"Commander in Chief George Washington commissioned seven ocean-going cruisers to interdict British supply ships, and reported the captures to the Congress. This effectively ended the debate in Congress as to whether or not to "provoke" the British by establishing a Navy as Washington's ships had already captured British ships, somewhat a provocation."

"The United States would be without a navy for nearly a decade—a state of affairs that exposed its merchant ships to a series of attacks by Barbary pirates. The sole armed maritime presence between 1790 and the launching of the U.S. Navy's first warships in 1797 was the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service (USRCS), the primary "ancestor" of the U.S. Coast Guard. Although USRCS Cutters conducted operations against these pirates, the depredations far outstripped the abilities of the USRCS and Congress ordered the construction and manning of six frigates on 27 March 1794;[12] three years later the first three were welcomed into service: the USS United States, USS Constellation and USS Constitution."

I'm okay with the government taxing us for seven cruisers and six frigates. Comparing our early army and navy to what we have now is completely insane. You have no idea what you're talking about. Here, you can have your *** back, I'm all done shredding it.

 

[irishfan]

I don't know, it doesn't matter. Assume they didn't, what next I ask? Who writes the next bill but the same Democrat controlled Congress that wrote the first? Do you know how Congress works, how the majority party gets to write the bills and decide what gets to the calendar. So tell me, a successful veto, what happens next?
It does matter but for some reason you refuse to answer the question. I think the Democrats pull the "poison pill" and then it is passed. However, we don't find that out because Reagan went right ahead and signed the bill.
You mean the bill that brought hundreds of billions of rounds of ammunition and tens of millions surplus firearms into the country, ended ammunition regulation where you had to sign for even a cartridge case, and provided safe passage defense for travel with firearms? That law, with all those other parts that you conveniently left out, the parts that Reagan supported, and just mention the Hughes Amendment, added by the Democrats, which Reagan opposed? You mean that bill? But you already knew you were being dishonest, didn't you?

Yes he did help bring surplus ammunition and firearms to America but I guess you have to give a lot of credit to the Democrats here since they are the ones who got it through congress...right? I am just using your logic from your "poison pill" idea. Also, what I am referring to is when he was Governor and stripped California of their 2A rights. You never will comment on that...why is that? I am not being dishonest in any form but am saying that I think he was not for 2A rights and I never really looked at how the Democrats were so good for our 2A rights. You pointed that out to me by saying that they helped to bring billions of rounds of ammunition and surplus firearms to us in the bill that Reagan signed.

 

[CarmelHP]

They taxed and spent for AN army and navy, not an everlasting army and navy during peacetime. The Continental Army was created in 1775, the US declared Independence from England in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787. It didn't happen the way you're making it sound. Our founders didn't declare Independence, write the constitution and create an army and navy immediately. An Army and Navy were necessary to fight off England, thus they were temporarily created.

"After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791"

"Commander in Chief George Washington commissioned seven ocean-going cruisers to interdict British supply ships, and reported the captures to the Congress. This effectively ended the debate in Congress as to whether or not to "provoke" the British by establishing a Navy as Washington's ships had already captured British ships, somewhat a provocation."

"The United States would be without a navy for nearly a decade—a state of affairs that exposed its merchant ships to a series of attacks by Barbary pirates. The sole armed maritime presence between 1790 and the launching of the U.S. Navy's first warships in 1797 was the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service (USRCS), the primary "ancestor" of the U.S. Coast Guard. Although USRCS Cutters conducted operations against these pirates, the depredations far outstripped the abilities of the USRCS and Congress ordered the construction and manning of six frigates on 27 March 1794;[12] three years later the first three were welcomed into service: the USS United States, USS Constellation and USS Constitution."

I'm okay with the government taxing us for seven cruisers and six frigates. Comparing our early army and navy to what we have now is completely insane. You have no idea what you're talking about. Here, you can have your *** back, I'm all done shredding it.

Well, wonderful, when they didn't have a Navy, the U.S., by your admission, left itself open to attack and enemies readily obliged. I'm sure in your world of fairly princesses and unicorns the lovely peaceful soviet Union would never have taken a similar opportunity. I guess you should have been our benevolent dictator so you get to decide what size the 1980's-ish military should have been, that it should have been the same as circa 1780. Within 8 years of the Constitution being written, those old commies decided they needed a standing army to stop continuing attacks.

If you think that's an ass-shredding, you need your medication adjusted again.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes he did help bring surplus ammunition and firearms to America but I guess you have to give a lot of credit to the Democrats here since they are the ones who got it through congress...right? I am just using your logic from your "poison pill" idea. Also, what I am referring to is when he was Governor and stripped California of their 2A rights. You never will comment on that...why is that? I am not being dishonest in any form but am saying that I think he was not for 2A rights and I never really looked at how the Democrats were so good for our 2A rights. You pointed that out to me by saying that they helped to bring billions of rounds of ammunition and surplus firearms to us in the bill that Reagan signed.

Must you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. The Democrats blocked the bill at every turn, refusing to put it on the calendar until a discharge petition (look it up, smartie) got within 1 signature. They then, in an 11th hour sleight of hand added the Hughes Amendment because the majority party gets the gavel. But you don't care about what actually happened or who did what. You just have a hot nut for Reagan, and truth just doesn't matter to your axe grinding.

So, smart guy, what happens after the veto? What wonderful good times would have reigned. Huh?

 

[irishfan]

Must you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. The Democrats blocked the bill at every turn, refusing to put it on the calendar until a discharge petition (look it up, smartie) got within 1 signature. They then, in an 11th hour sleight of hand added the Hughes Amendment because the majority party gets the gavel. But you don't care about what actually happened or who did what. You just have a hot nut for Reagan, and truth just doesn't matter to your axe grinding.

So, smart guy, what happens after the veto? What wonderful good times would have reigned. Huh?

I already answered you. Why will you never comment on his stance on 2A rights as Governor? Also, 11th hour sleight of hand? How is that?

Please answer the question about his 2A stance for once and quit side stepping it.

 

[lashicoN]

Well, wonderful, when they didn't have a Navy, the U.S., by your admission, left itself open to attack and enemies readily obliged. I'm sure in your world of fairly princesses and unicorns the lovely peaceful soviet Union would never have taken a similar opportunity. I guess you should have been our benevolent dictator so you get to decide what size the 1980's-ish military should have been, that it should have been the same as circa 1780. Within 8 years of the Constitution being written, those old commies decided they needed a standing army to stop continuing attacks.

If you think that's an ass-shredding, you need your medication adjusted again.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
And when the Soviet Union invaded us, we could have done what we did to England. Temporarily taxed and spent for an army and navy, it's the American way. How could you have taken what I said to lead you to believe that I wish to be a dictator? You should leave your personal hopes and dreams out of the argument...by the way, speaking of the Soviet Union, and your movie poster. Who was it that fought off the Communists in the original Red Dawn? Our standing army and navy came in real handy in that fictional film that you have as your icon. I know, I know, that movie was fictional, and so is your idea that the Soviets would have invaded us if we didn't have a standing army and navy.

Look, I'm all for having an army or navy when we are at war. They created the standing army and navy to fight off native Americans and Barbary pirates. They are both beaten. This, of course, doesn't mean new threats can't rise. But the United States military in not currently engaged with anyone on our soil, other than the war they're waging on tax payers, year after year.

 

[CarmelHP]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
And when the Soviet Union invaded us, we could have done what we did to England. Temporarily taxed and spent for an army and navy, it's the American way. How could you have taken what I said to lead you to believe that I wish to be a dictator? You should leave your personal hopes and dreams out of the argument...by the way, speaking of the Soviet Union, and your movie poster. Who was it that fought off the Communists in the original Red Dawn? Our standing army and navy came in real handy in that fictional film that you have as your icon. I know, I know, that movie was fictional, and so is your idea that the Soviets would have invaded us if we didn't have a standing army and navy.

Look, I'm all for having an army or navy when we are at war. They created the standing army and navy to fight off native Americans and Barbary pirates. They are both beaten. This, of course, doesn't mean new threats can't rise. But the United States military in not currently engaged with anyone on our soil, other than the war they're waging on tax payers, year after year.

They didn't have to invade. They had ICBMs. You said you didn't want to fund NORAD, an air defense agency. How do you temporarily tax when the missiles are arriving in 20 minutes. It ain't 1775 anymore. As for dictator, you despise the institutions left by the Founders to make those decisions, so how would you make the call?

 

[CarmelHP]

I already answered you. Why will you never comment on his stance on 2A rights as Governor? Also, 11th hour sleight of hand? How is that?

Please answer the question about his 2A stance for once and quit side stepping it.

You have not answered anything. I've answered many times here and elsewhere these same repetitions from you, use the search feature. Get over it. You don't like Reagan, everybody gets it, it's the 20th thread where you kicked the corpse, what else is new.

 

[irishfan]

You have not answered anything. I've answered many times here and elsewhere these same repetitions from you, use the search feature. Get over it. You don't like Reagan, everybody gets it, it's the 20th thread where you kicked the corpse, what else is new.

I said that I believe if Reagan vetoed the bill then they would have pulled the ammendment to pass the rest of the legislation. You will not give an answer on his 2A stance as Governor and his taking away citizens right to carry and protect themselves. I have asked you before on several threads and you always refuse or change the issue. Just once a straight answer on that would be great but highly unlikely.

Ronald Reagan had a better record than any of our leaders in recent history but he is in NO WAY the conservative everybody wishes to make him out to be. If you compare him to the other people who have been President since his term then yes he is compared to them but that is like saying Barack Obama is less liberal than Nancy Pelosi.

 

[CarmelHP]

I said that I believe if Reagan vetoed the bill then they would have pulled the ammendment to pass the rest of the legislation.

We were talking about vetoing a spending bill. If you're talking about FOPA, we know it would never again have gotten to the floor. The Democrats held the gavel, it wouldn't have gotten on the calendar at all if not for the discharge petition that took 18 months to get enough signatures. That process would have had to be completely restarted. Reagan offered to veto because of the poison pill, but it was pro-gun organizations, including CCRKBA, SAF, NRA and GOA that urged it to be signed with the promise that they would work to get the Hughes Amendment stripped in the next Congress. It didn't work out, the 100th Congress was not markedly better in the party totals than the 99th, but to say it was Reagan's fault is so gross a distortion of what happened as to not even resemble truth.

You will not give an answer on his 2A stance as Governor and his taking away citizens right to carry and protect themselves. I have asked you before on several threads and you always refuse or change the issue. Just once a straight answer on that would be great but highly unlikely.

I've told you before, I don't know how the bill was passed or Reagan's involvement in it. I could make wild, unsubstantiated, unsupported allegations, and I know that's what you want, but I decline. He wasn't President then, I don't know what he said about that bill though I've tried to find histories of it's passage. If he was anti- or ambivalent about guns pre-'70, he was a forceful voice for gun owners post-'80, when he was president, and that's what I care about.

 

[lashicoN]

They didn't have to invade. They had ICBMs. You said you didn't want to fund NORAD, an air defense agency. How do you temporarily tax when the missiles are arriving in 20 minutes. It ain't 1775 anymore. As for dictator, you despise the institutions left by the Founders to make those decisions, so how would you make the call?

So let me take this all in. You are saying that if the United States of America didn't have a standing army or navy, the USSR would have nuked us...for...what, exactly? Because they hate us for our freedom?

The FOUNDERS didn't create an everlasting army and navy. I clearly disproved that earlier. That's how I handed you your ***. You said one thing, I showed facts that completely destroyed your argument that our founders said "Let there be America!" and then directly created an always standing army and navy. The FOUNDERS didn't trust a standing army, so they disband it.

 

[Suprtek]

Sorry, but no standing army, navy etc. would make this entire conversation irrelevant because we wouldn't be allowed to have it. And THIS forum wouldn't even be a figment of someone's imagination. The only way we could get away with not having any military would be if none of our enemies had one. Pretty obvious that's not gonna happen. Bottom line: No military = No freedom

 

[lashicoN]

Sorry, but no standing army, navy etc. would make this entire conversation irrelevant because we wouldn't be allowed to have it. And THIS forum wouldn't even be a figment of someone's imagination. The only way we could get away with not having any military would be if none of our enemies had one. Pretty obvious that's not gonna happen. Bottom line: No military = No freedom

Sure, except that we did have freedom without having a standing army and navy in the first years of our existence as a country.

Our entire country is the military, because our people have the right to keep and bear arms, for the security of our states. We could maintain a decent number of tanks, airplanes, artillery, and whatnot for times of war and have special forces guarding those depots, just like we used to.

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

just let my avatar do the speaking for me...his face should be engraved on the side of a mountain..

 

[Suprtek]

Sure, except that we did have freedom without having a standing army and navy in the first years of our existence as a country.

Our entire country is the military, because our people have the right to keep and bear arms, for the security of our states. We could maintain a decent number of tanks, airplanes, artillery, and whatnot for times of war and have special forces guarding those depots, just like we used to.

Are you serious? Really? Because what you are suggesting would quickly result in eliminating this country completely. If our country does not have a military superior to all others, we will no longer have a country as we know it, period. It is really starting to sound like you are trying to prolong an argument based on the most outlandish concept you can think of. Not to mention that it is getting pretty far from the original subject, which is why I'm done with this debate. You may think this country could maintain freedom with "whatnot", but you would be sorely mistaken.

 

[lashicoN]

just let my avatar do the speaking for me...his face should be engraved on the side of a mountain..

Right next to Obama and FDR's face. They can name it Mt. Expansion/Taxation

 

[lashicoN]

Are you serious? Really? Because what you are suggesting would quickly result in eliminating this country completely. If our country does not have a military superior to all others, we will no longer have a country as we know it, period. It is really starting to sound like you are trying to prolong an argument based on the most outlandish concept you can think of. Not to mention that it is getting pretty far from the original subject, which is why I'm done with this debate. You may think this country could maintain freedom with "whatnot", but you would be sorely mistaken.

Really, then how to you account for the fact that our country wasn't eliminated completely when we didn't have a standing army and navy?

Are you serious?

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

Right next to Obama and FDR's face. They can name it Mt. Expansion/Taxation

wheres theres smoke..theres a 357..if ya know what i mean..

 

[UncleMike]

Sure, except that we did have freedom without having a standing army and navy in the first years of our existence as a country.

Our entire country is the military, because our people have the right to keep and bear arms, for the security of our states. We could maintain a decent number of tanks, airplanes, artillery, and whatnot for times of war and have special forces guarding those depots, just like we used to.

Uhhh. You're comparing apples to b*llsh*t.
In the late 1700's a large standing Army was impractical to say the least. We were an Agrarian society and the populace was tied up growing food and raising animals in order to feed each other. No one was available at that time to populate a standing Army.
We only had the luxury of being able to establish a permanent armed force after the start of The Industrial Revolution when it became possible for one to do the work of many by the use of machinery.
Which coincidently is why the Civil war could be fought with massive Armies instead of "Summer Soldiers" like we had relied on previously.
In addition nations of the period had the common courtesy to declare a war before hostilities began, or at least cut off diplomatic relations, thereby giving their adversary time to raise an Army.
The concept of a Pearl Harbor type attack would never have crossed the mind of any established Government at that time.
It wasn't done by countries of Honor.
The idea that the Government today could call up "Citizen Soldiers" from the ranks of the common Citizenry is about as likely as the Pope becoming a Muslim.
The finances alone, to keep EVERYONE in a state of readiness, would make our current debt look like pocket change and the constant training necessary to field an effective Army would bankrupt Business and Industry almost immediately. If everyone were in the Military who in the Hell would make the implements of War necessary for a victory?
Or maybe you propose that we all emulate the French and surrender at the first sign of a fight?
Mike