The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Let it begin

  1. #11
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    I am a gun owner. I'm what would be considered here on PP as a liberal. I support and believe in the 2nd amendement.
    However, if we gun owners wish to prevail... it might be time to disassociate ourselves with Ted Nuggent (he does not serve us well), and the NRA, who's political narrative goes way beyond gun-owners rights.

    If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD
    Doesnt have anything to do with Celebs,, NRA presidents,, O'donnels, The late night show, everyday Hunter,,ect,,
    What is has everything to do with,, is the Supreme law of the land.. The Constitution.

    I think that the act of taking the Oath of office really isnt a serious matter anymore..

    I Found this article a Bit interesting....

    I agree that Both men are highly Intelleigent,, and shouldnt have had a problem getting through a 25 second ceremony.


    The Strange Case Of Obama's
    Inaugural Oath Of Office
    A Cryptogram From The Cryptocracy?

    By Michael Hoffman
    1-23-9
    Jan. 23, 2009 RevisionistHistory.org "For a couple of smooth-talking constitutional experts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President-elect Barack Obama sure had a hard time getting through the constitutional oath of office...The chief justice seemed to say 'to' rather than 'of,' but that was not the main problem. The main problem was that the word 'faithfully' had floated upstream...Mr. Obama seemed to realize this, pausing quizzically after saying 'that I will execute ­' "The chief justice gave it another go, getting closer but still not quite right: "faithfully the office of president of the United States." This time, he omitted the word 'execute.' Mr. Obama now repeated the chief justice's initial error of putting 'faithfully' at the end of the phrase. Starting where he had abruptly paused, he said: 'the office of the president of the United States faithfully." ("I Do Solemnly Swear(Line, Please?," NY Times, Jan. 20, 2009) Yes, indeed these two "smooth-talking constitutional experts" couldn't manage to recite the brief oath as it was written. This was largely Chief Justice Roberts' fault. We can believe that this flub was due to human fallibility and that may very well be the case, or we can also wonder whether the very intelligent Chief Justice deliberately mishandled the oath so that it would be administered a second time, under very different circumstances. Here's how the media reported the second rite: ...After a day's worth of chatter over whether the president had been properly sworn into office...(i)n 25 seconds, President Obama became president again. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administered the oath to Mr. Obama on Wednesday evening, one day after the two men stumbled over each other's words during the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol. For their do-over, the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed successfully...Only hours after aides told reporters there was no reason to administer the oath again, they concluded it was easier to do it on the first day, rather than have someone challenge the legitimacy of his presidency...Mr. Obama raised his right hand and did not use a Bible....only nine people witnessed the do-over. There were four aides, four reporters and a White House photographer..." (NY Times, Jan. 22, 2009). This second-time-around doppelganger oath was the real oath, since the flawed first one, done in the sight of millions and upon the Bible of assassinated President Abraham Lincoln was a "challenge (to) the legitimacy of his presidency..." There was no Bible the second time and with Obama having been compared to John F. Kennedy during the campaign, and with all of the macabre parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln (Lincoln was killed in Ford's theatre, Kennedy was killed in a Ford automobile; Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln; Lincoln and Kennedy were both succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson, etc.), I'm not sure that if I were Barack Obama I would have wanted to step into the middle of such a highly charged symbol palimpsest -- unless of course the first inaugural oath-taking was little more more than shadow-play. What appears to be the authentic inauguration took place in a basement, and was an elite rather than a populist rite, with just nine witnesses. It occurred in former President Franklin Roosevelt's secretive, war-era "map room." Before FDR, under presidents from Chester Arthur through Wilson and Coolidge, it was reputedly used to play the game of billiards. The omission of the Bible is not invalidating since the father of our country did not use one at his inauguration and Lyndon Johnson, on the plane to Washington after's Kennedy's killing, used a Roman Catholic mass book ("missal"), rather than a Bible. Hence, the absence of a Bible per se does not invalidate the oath, but the peek-a-boo nature of the inaugural Bible may be deliberate, in that its momentous presence at the botched inauguration is all the more glaring in its inexplicable absence at the real inauguration. If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by this apparently deliberate omission? Another equally striking aspect of the second oath are the photographs of the ceremony, which feature the looming presence of a vintage portrait above the mantle on the wall behind the president and the chief justice. The oath is a ritual and this ritual has an icon hovering over it, as if by way of spiritual benediction and patronage. As of this writing, in all the prominent photos of the second oath which this writer has seen, no caption has been provided by the establishment media that identifies the enigmatic man in the portrait. Yet, symbolically, he is the "genius loci," the presiding spirit of the authentic inaugural ceremony of Barack Obama as President. Like the omission of the Bible after so much was made of its presence at the first oath-taking, the omission of any identification of the figure in the painting at the second oath-taking would seem to be significant. Let us recall that the second oath was performed in secret: "...the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed..." In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted for the One True God. This false god is identified in the masonic lodges as "the Great Architect." The mysterious man in the portrait who silently presides over the authentic inauguration of Barack Obama as Commander and Chief, is Benjamin Latrobe, the great architect of the U.S. Capitol. Copyright 2009

    All Rights Reserved
    Michael Hoffman's latest book is "Judaism Discovered," now in its second printing; available from www.RevisionistHistory.org
    I am not saying I agree with the article,, only that I found it interesting, that so many of what was considered so ceremoniously important in the original innaguration,,, The Bible for example was absent in the second "real" re=do.

    Gooser
    Last edited by MooseGooser; 12-29-2012 at 08:02 PM.
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  2. #12
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD
    Are you saying that the minds we need are the normal .............gun owner? If so I think that we probably have quite a few of them already. Of course, I live in a small town (approx 25,000) in a generally rural part of Texas where hunting is not just an avocation, but is actually pretty big business. Lots of guns and gun owners. Not really a lot of violent crime. I haven't heard many folks here espouse the opinion that gun control is the answer. Perhaps some of the liberal professors at the Univ, but even there a good percentage are either ag or wildlife majors and not so liberal.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    I am a gun owner. I'm what would be considered here on PP as a liberal. I support and believe in the 2nd amendement.
    However, if we gun owners wish to prevail... it might be time to disassociate ourselves with Ted Nuggent (he does not serve us well), and the NRA, who's political narrative goes way beyond gun-owners rights.

    If you wish for the gun-control lobby to win... keep posting Uncle Ted. Keep posting NRA La Pierre. They will re-enforce you. However they will not change the minds you need. The normal everyday, hunting gun owner. JD
    In your left leaning mind vs those of us who are more of the moderate leaning, you see your position as reasonable whereas we see the position of eliminating gun free zones with the rest of the restrictions presently in place as reasonable.

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of negotiation - there needs to be positions on both sides that are beyond reasonable. The left has taken their extremist position, it is up to those of us on the reasonable side to take an extremist position .

    Facts are in place to back up our reasonable position & contrary to what LaPierre says IMO there is zero need for armed police officers & the resultant cost. Our country is broke & I certainly don't want another organization safeguarding little like the gropers at the airport.

    But you could be of some use, contact your representatives in congress & ask that all Secret Service folks be riffed.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  4. #14
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  5. #15
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD
    I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  6. #16
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    Think now... We wish to perpetuate our 2nd Amendment rights. Will this be done by in your face procalations by Uncle Ted, and the NRA? They might sound good to you and me. But will they get us to were we want to be? JD
    If "Uncle Ted" sounded good to you, you wouldn't be complaining about him...would you?
    Bill Davis

  7. #17
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post

    I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?
    What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  8. #18
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post

    What happened in England? I have read the breathless proclamations so I did a little searching of my own.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
    And for what it's worth, I think Nugent makes gun owners look bad.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  9. #19
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    I don't think "in your face" works very well on the national stage, but I want to know where you think "we want to be". I am pretty concerned over this. The article about what has happened in England is particularly troubling. How many law abiding citizens will refuse to obey confiscation legislation especially if the penalties for refusing are draconian?
    I think, "where we want to be", is to allow 2nd Amendment gun rights to be respected for the resonpsible citizen. The question know asks, "who is responsible?"

    Lately there seems to be a lot of irisponsible (sp) gun owners?

    JD
    Last edited by JDogger; 12-29-2012 at 09:32 PM.
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  10. #20
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Is it YOUR OPINION whether it is leaning in either direction,whats important,, or is it the Bill of RIGHTS specifically the second ammendment..

    If you want to change something in the constitution,, dont you have to Ammend it???

    Or are our Constitutional RIGHTS as Americans based on Public opinion?

    Gooser
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •