Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

Chuck Norris kicks Hillary and her ilk in the stones

992 views 24 replies 17 participants last post by  RockWoRM 
#1 ·
#4 ·
"
  • The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
    able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property.
  • Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography.
  • I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill.
  • As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.
  • I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license.
No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do. Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.
Other candidates say gun control doesn't affect hunting. Now I'm a very avid hunter, but the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms.
I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "Criminals prefer unarmed victims." Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.
Other candidates believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address.
Other candidates filed frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers. When I was Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from exactly those types of suits. I allowed former law enforcement officials to carry concealed handguns and removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license, and of course I'm a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.
Other candidates have supported banning assault weapons. When the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, I said, "May it rest in peace." It won't be returning in the Huckabee Administration.
Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself."

I know who I'm voting for:thumbsup:
 
#6 ·
commodore_dude said:
My main hangup with Huckabee is that he was one of the ones that came out and said he didn't believe in evolution. Other than that, he seems like a pretty cool guy, and I would definitely rather have him get the nom than Giuliani or Romney...
Right or wrong about evolution I doubt if his stand on it will ever be a critical issue if he'e elected. I can't foresee a veto of the Scopes Trial in his future. :rofl:
 
#10 ·
BLS33 said:
Him saying he doesn't believe in evolution shows that despite over-whelming amounts of scientific evidence his religion still clouds his judgment. That is not a trait I want in a president.
Or it shows that no matter what other people say is right, he will stand strong on what he believes is right. Plus... just think about the morals that "religious" people have, most of the time they are good, and if that is what is clouding his judgment then I'm not too worried.

Besides, just because a group of scientists have developed a THEORY it doesn't mean that they are right, it's just another guess that is not supported by any evidence.

Oh yeah back on topic, I think i just may vote for this guy.:thumbsup:
 
#12 ·
Hate to tell you, but everyone's religion clouds their judgment. Even someone's lack of religion can cloud their judgment. It is just an area that is considered by most to be so sacred and personal, than any attack on it is an attack on them.


Kinda like my Jeep... :p


P.S.

Chuck Norris' wang is so big, it has it's own wang, and that wang is still bigger than yours.
 
#13 ·
Jakemd98 said:
Or it shows that no matter what other people say is right, he will stand strong on what he believes is right. Plus... just think about the morals that "religious" people have, most of the time they are good, and if that is what is clouding his judgment then I'm not too worried.

Besides, just because a group of scientists have developed a THEORY it doesn't mean that they are right, it's just another guess that is not supported by any evidence.

Oh yeah back on topic, I think i just may vote for this guy.:thumbsup:
That is a horrible attribute. So no matter how wrong you are proven you still hold to your false belief? That is ridiculous. For example if someone believes that 2+2=5 and they stick to their guns you respect that? Refusal to accept anything that the bible or whatever he follows doesn't specifically state is just plain dumb.

Theories are not guesses with no evidence and I have no clue where you learned that from. Ever hear of the gravitational theory? Does the bible ever reference dinosaurs? Or the other galaxies and planets? What about all the creatures that Adam never named because they didn't exist at the time. What about whale fossils with vestigial legs? People are so obsequious when it comes to religion, someone could build a machine that somehow accelerated time by 348,621,309,486,312,091 times and watch a single cell evolve into complex life and that wouldn't be enough for some people.
 
#14 ·
BLS33 said:
That is a horrible attribute. So no matter how wrong you are proven you still hold to your false belief? That is ridiculous. For example if someone believes that 2+2=5 and they stick to their guns you respect that? Refusal to accept anything that the bible or whatever he follows doesn't specifically state is just plain dumb.
And that's the beauty of checks and balances.:tea:

If the people really truly believe that 2+2=5 then i would think that they are idiots because you can take 4 physical things and count them. But for the things that aren't physical, if they can explain why they believe what they believe then, yes i do respect that.

Also i didn't say that it would be a good thing because he will do only what the bible says. I said that the morals that "religious" people have are good, most of the time. And while the morals that "religious" people have are guided by the bible, I have yet to find myself in a position that the bible cant shed some light on and give me the right answers to my problems. I think that a president who is grounded in the bible and a strong christian would be a good thing, because there's a good chance that they will do everything possible to make wise, fair, and unselfish decisions.
 
#20 ·
kiksroks said:


evolution, has just as many holes as religion. in fact science is very much like a religion isn't it....
Are you serious? That is the worst argument against evolution I have ever seen. It reminds me of Johnny Cochran's Chewbaca defense.

If no new life ever appears in food that has been processed and packaged, then evolution must be fake.
:rofl: Give me a break.

We conduct over a billion experiments per year
Thats 2,739,726 experiments per day, they must have a lot of scientists working for them.
 
#21 ·
grovesj2 said:
Are you serious? That is the worst argument against evolution I have ever seen. It reminds me of Johnny Cochran's Chewbaca defense.

:rofl: Give me a break.

Thats 2,739,726 experiments per day, they must have a lot of scientists working for them.
take the vid how you will.
i stand by the statement that it takes just as much faith in science to beleive in evolution (at least the human aspect) as it does to beleive in creationism.
Nothing can be proven in either case...
 
#24 ·
kiksroks said:


evolution, has just as many holes as religion. in fact science is very much like a religion isn't it....
That has been the major crutch of non-evolutionists for some time now. Basically they deny that spontaneous generation is possible so clearly God created everything. This however does not count against evolution at all really just the origins of life. There are plenty of theories out there hypothesizing the origins of life but they aren't exactly easy to prove. It could have come from another planet or elsewhere in the universe, or maybe lightning striking the primordial sea. The funny thing about the video is they look at the peanut butter as if we expect a ****ing creature to crawl out. :laugh: Life starts simple, as little as a single cell, and last I checked the naked eye has trouble seeing it. Also there was plenty of life in that peanut butter. Can life come from non-living matter? I don't know, but we will know someday.

If you can show me any scientific evidence showing that God exists or specifically the Christian or Catholic God be my guest.
 
#25 ·
BLS33 said:
If you can show me any scientific evidence showing that God exists or specifically the Christian or Catholic God be my guest.
I know this is off topic of the thread, but NO, U can't scientificly prove God... but U prolly already know that... its all about Faith. And btw... there's no difference between a Catholic or Christian God. Same person. ;)

having said that... Chuck Norris can support whoever he wants... I'm still undecided! (other than it WON'T be for Billery!) :D

:cheers:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top