# Holy Crap! Someone gets it! Mike Huckabee on gun control...



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

Mike Huckabee seems to be the ONLY one of the canidates who really isn't afraid to address the 2nd amendment and what it is really for...



> HUCKABEE: And the Second Amendment is not about hunting. I get so frustrated when some candidates asked about the Second Amendment, they start telling me, "Well, I have a hunting license, and I`m a member of the NRA." Look, so do I. It`s not about the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about freedom. It`s about protecting ourselves, our families, our property, and ultimately, if necessary -- I know this sounds pretty bold -- but from our own government, when they get out of control. That`s what it`s all about.
> 
> ...



Amen. I am really starting to like this guy.

Here is the transcript and link to the video on youtube (the part about 2nd amendment is about 5 min. in)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/gb.01.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKHve5gd5yM&feature=related


----------



## Steel Tiger (Nov 20, 2007)

Not being an American I have different views on this, but that being said there are some things here I find odd.  I think that Huckabee is exactly right about this sort of thing being a slippery slope.  From what little I know of the US Constitution wouldn't what happened after Katrina be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?  Or does it only apply to the states?  As I understand it, this amendment is supposed to clearly define citizenship and thus who is covered by the Bill of Rights.

Of course, it is an obvious violation of the Second Amendment no matter what the excuse.


----------



## tellner (Nov 20, 2007)

Wow. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


----------



## grydth (Nov 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> Wow. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.



Ah, but that is twice as many times as the other side on this issue.

I am always amazed with the arguement that the Founders - being who they were/what they did/what they wrote  - only intended to confer rights upon governments and not individuals. That is so out of place. Like them or not, agree with them or not, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be a Socialist document.

Two plus centuries of private firearms ownership has just been a big misunderstanding? Thanks, but I prefer watchinf the dead clock.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

What frustrates me is when politicians don't want to talk about what the 2nd amendment is really for; that being self-defense. Instead, we usually get "I'm a recreational shooter too" along with pictures like this:







Not to pick on John Kerry, because republicans do it too; it's just that no one wants to talk about the real issue because they are afraid of what a sheltered public might think. It's nice to see someone with a bit of honesty on this issue, at least...


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Not to pick on John Kerry, because republicans do it too; it's just that no one wants to talk about the real issue because they are afraid of what a sheltered public might think. It's nice to see someone with a bit of honesty on this issue, at least...


 

If they were really going to be honest, they'd point out that all the mechanisms are in place-and have been for some time-to come and confiscate guns when there's a perceived 'need" to. This is why they don't touch the issue-to keep the public "sheltered," so that when the police/Federal Marshall/ATF agent/ National Guard detail shows up at your doorstep for your guns, _you give them to them...._


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Mike Huckabee seems to be the ONLY one of the canidates who really isn't afraid to address the 2nd amendment and what it is really for...
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. I am really starting to like this guy.



He's the only Republican that I would vote for.   And, Chuck Norris is throwing his weight behind him!


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

elder999 said:


> If they were really going to be honest, they'd point out that all the mechanisms are in place-and have been for some time-to come and confiscate guns when there's a perceived 'need" to. This is why they don't touch the issue-to keep the public "sheltered," so that when the police/Federal Marshall/ATF agent/ National Guard detail shows up at your doorstep for your guns, _you give them to them...._



It won't be until after the North American Union is in place.  But, it won't be long afterwards, I don't think.  I would still vote for this Huckabee guy, though, if he won the primary.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Not to pick on John Kerry,... ...


 
It does seem that despite your protestations of 'not to pick on ... ', you seem to use examples that do exactly that. 

I will probably get in trouble for mentioning it again here in the Firing Range ... but, boy is it frustrating when the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights get trashed, and nobody cries out that Somebody gets it.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> ... but, boy is it frustrating when the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights get trashed, and nobody cries out that Somebody gets it.


 
Well, that's 'cause _*nobody gets it,*_ and no one will until it's too late....have a look  here......I'm *done* crying out-I'm doing my best to keep my head down, my powder dry and watch my six-know where my water and food come from, have a good network of friends, and unlike most, I'm prepared to weather the storm......and so I shall...and so I shall.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

elder999 said:


> Well, that's 'cause _*nobody gets it,*_ and no one will until it's too late....have a look  here......I'm *done* crying out-I'm doing my best to keep my head down, my powder dry and watch my six-know where my water and food come from, have a good network of friends, and unlike most, I'm prepared to weather the storm......and so I shall...and so I shall.



And I for one bid you Good Luck in your Quest (you'll need it)!  If you can hold out long enough, remember this one thing:

Take one with you, and you are even.  Everybody after that is cake!


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 21, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It does seem that despite your protestations of 'not to pick on ... ', you seem to use examples that do exactly that.
> 
> I will probably get in trouble for mentioning it again here in the Firing Range ... but, boy is it frustrating when the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights get trashed, and nobody cries out that Somebody gets it.



People shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

You can't complain of the double standard of supporting only some amendments and not supporting others if you yourself do not support the 2nd amendment while supporting the other amendments.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2007)

Well, Ron Paul 'gets it" too:

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> People shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
> 
> You can't complain of the double standard of supporting only some amendments and not supporting others if you yourself do not support the 2nd amendment while supporting the other amendments.


 
Ignore button dude. Its worth the investment.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> People shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
> 
> You can't complain of the double standard of supporting only some amendments and not supporting others if you yourself do not support the 2nd amendment while supporting the other amendments.


 
I don't think that I have ever said that I don't support the 2nd Amendment. I have often fought with those who place it above the rest.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't think that I have ever said that I don't support the 2nd Amendment. I have often fought with those who place it above the rest.



So, you do support the second amendment, but you just don't think it should be put above the rest?

If that is what you are saying, then fair enough.

But the real question is, do you support the right to bear arms as an individual right, or do you think that this amendment needs special interpretations that the other 9 amendments don't have to have?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ignore button dude. Its worth the investment.



Yes it is.  I have a very short list. But it is worth it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So, you do support the second amendment, but you just don't think it should be put above the rest?
> 
> If that is what you are saying, then fair enough.
> 
> But the real question is, do you support the right to bear arms as an individual right, or do you think that this amendment needs special interpretations that the other 9 amendments don't have to have?


 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads



> 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.


 
and I have always supported it as written.



As to your claims of 'special interpretations' ~ well, there's the rub, isn't it. You are making the supposition that there aren't 'special interpretations' in place with the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is a supposition not in line with the facts. 


But, you go on and make the accusation that about what I do and don't support. Smear accomplished.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, you go on and make the accusation that about what I do and don't support. Smear accomplished.



Well, now your just being a dick. I am making a conjecture based on what you have said here and previously. If my conjecture is wrong, you could say so. But if your going to be like this, then we'll save it for another thread at another time. I am not even entirely sure if this is on topic anyhow...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, now your just being a dick. I am making a conjecture based on what you have said here and previously. If my conjecture is wrong, you could say so. But if your going to be like this, then we'll save it for another thread at another time. I am not even entirely sure if this is on topic anyhow...


 
Well, rather than conjecture, you could go back and read what I say. As I understand it, the posts I write stay around for a while. 

And, between comments from you, and Warrior Chief, and Mr. Parsons ... you think I am being a dick? - Wow! 


Elder999 ... thank you for your first post. It is nice to see you were raising the alarm bell a couple of years ago ... ... I don't know how I missed that thread (other than I may have agreed with it thoroughly and saw no need to comment). I think I had raised the topic in a less tactful way with my 'Is anyone one there still ...' thread. And I may be guilty of giving a prior administration or two more of a pass on some of these items ... but as I wasn't part of this message board (and that this message board didn't exist at the time) no one here will ever truly know. Will they?

Yes, I get mad as hell when someone comes and takes my Free Speech Rights away. 
Yes, I get mad as hell when someone comes and takes my Free Press Rights away. 

Boy, I wish some of those with guns would do as the Governor suggests:
_It`s about protecting ourselves.... from our own government, when they get out of control._​But, it seems no matter how out of control it gets, those with guns don't do anything to protect ourselves. They just descry that they will, someday.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 21, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 21, 2007)

> The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads
> 
> Quote:
> 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.
> and I have always supported it as written.


Even the most villainous gun-grabbers will make that claim.  They'll just say it doesn't mean that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.  And I'm not surprised that discussing the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights isn't a high priority on a board about firearms.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Boy, I wish some of those with guns would do as the Governor suggests:_It`s about protecting ourselves.... from our own government, when they get out of control._​But, it seems no matter how out of control it gets, those with guns don't do anything to protect ourselves. They just descry that they will, someday.



Seems to me you're treading a pretty fine line with regard to this piece of U.S. Code, so maybe discussing the limits of the 1st Amendment _*is*_ appropriate on this thread:

*Section 2385.  
Advocating overthrow of Government* 
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
    teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
    overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
    the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
    thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
    force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
    such government; or
      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
    such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
    sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
    matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
    desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
    government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
    to do so; or
      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
    group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
    overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
    violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
    such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
    thereof - 
      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
    the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
    years next following his conviction.
      If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
    this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
    not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
    employment by the United States or any department or agency
    thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
      As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
    with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
    the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
    regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
    of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

The words in italics are the words of the Governor. 

Is he treading a fine line?


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The words in italics are the words of the Governor.
> 
> Is he treading a fine line?



 No. He didn't say he wished people with guns would do it now as you did.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 21, 2007)

Thread Locked pending Admin Review.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assistant Admin.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 21, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

This thread is being reopened.  It is a great subject and I think we can all have an adult, friendly discussion about the matter without slinging any mud.  I am asking that you all _*please*_ refrain from name calling and stay on the subject that the OP started the thread about.  

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Deleted ...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

Back to the topic; I just wanted to say that it is refreshing to hear a politician  actually confront an issue head on, instead of just saying what they think will get them the most votes.

One might not agree with Mike Huckabee, but one can at least say that he appears honest in his views.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Back to the topic; I just wanted to say that it is refreshing to hear a politician  actually confront an issue head on, instead of just saying what they think will get them the most votes.
> 
> One might not agree with Mike Huckabee, but one can at least say that he appears honest in his views.



You're dang right!  And I'm hoping he gets the nod from his Party!  We'll see, but I'd love to see him run in the General Election.  As I have said, I would gladly cast my vote for him!


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 23, 2007)

nice to see someone with the courage to stand up for what's right.


----------

