Less than two weeks to the general election. Where is the candidate info?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who is this "we" for which you speak?

People that existed in country long before you or I were a gleam in our father's eyes.

 

[Henry]

Doesn't mean it must be accepted or tolerated.

Clearly, our "founding fathers" chose not to.

 

[gvsugod]

I don't vote along straight party lines, so I try to read at least a little about as many candidates as possible. To date, I've only been able to find the official candidate list and a couple of special interest candidate guides. The NRA guide is here. Are there no candidate info guides this year or has my search-fu simply failed?

I know im a few days behind. But i work in politics, I'd be happy to disclose as much info about candidates as I can do, yet protect my jobs integrity. But suffice it to say its my job to know the candidates, and the districts.

Not promising I will have all the answers, but feel free to ask.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Doesn't mean it must be accepted or tolerated.

Clearly, our "founding fathers" chose not to.

There are mechanisms available for changing things. For too long, we've tried to do it at the ballot box. We need to move upstream from there. If you're hinging restoring or maintaining rights on the results of elections or the outcome of a court case, you've already lost. I've said it before but it's taken us over 100 years to slouch to our current circumstance. It'll take as long or longer to straighten back up--if it's even really possible. I'm not sure it is.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know im a few days behind. But i work in politics, I'd be happy to disclose as much info about candidates as I can do, yet protect my jobs integrity. But suffice it to say its my job to know the candidates, and the districts.

Not promising I will have all the answers, but feel free to ask.

How about just the judges that up for retention? All of the other candidates, I can read up on but the judges are the toughest for me.

ETA: Related threads--
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ment/363514-2014-election-indiana-judges.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2424-state-supreme-court-justices-ballot.html

 

[gvsugod]

How about just the judges that up for retention? All of the other candidates, I can read up on but the judges are the toughest for me.

Sorry, should have specified. I forget to mention legislative candidates are my specialty. I spend all day talking about 'em so I dont even think the need to mention it.

 

[mrjarrell]

How about just the judges that up for retention? All of the other candidates, I can read up on but the judges are the toughest for me.

ETA: Related threads--
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ment/363514-2014-election-indiana-judges.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2424-state-supreme-court-justices-ballot.html

I always vote against retention, regardless of their record. Being a judge shouldn't be a lifetime job. Even if you're a good one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I always vote against retention, regardless of their record. Being a judge shouldn't be a lifetime job. Even if you're a good one.

I've done that too. And I tend to agree with your reason but I'd rather keep ones that have Constitutional temperament, if possible.

 

[Henry]

There are mechanisms available for changing things. For too long, we've tried to do it at the ballot box. We need to move upstream from there. If you're hinging restoring or maintaining rights on the results of elections or the outcome of a court case, you've already lost. I've said it before but it's taken us over 100 years to slouch to our current circumstance. It'll take as long or longer to straighten back up--if it's even really possible. I'm not sure it is.

Indeed.

 

[mrjarrell]

Who cares, as long as you dont vote D or L, then the D's wont win. pretty simple plan, we all know third party never wins and only helps the D's, so i dont think its that tough of a choice

[video=youtube_share;hkIZR-CE3iY]http://youtu.be/hkIZR-CE3iY[/video]

Won't be voting for dems or reps. Neither of them have done anything to earn my vote and my reps are crapheads on their best days. I'll be leaving a few blank spots on my ballot, as usual.

 

[Dosproduction]

Guess this one doesn't even exist, since most people just flat out ignore it. They love the 10th, but forget the more important one.



Yes, driving and freely traveling IS a Right. 88GT is quite correct.

Free travel is a right but driving is not. When u say that some one has the RIGHT TO DRIVE u imply that they have the RIGHT TO A CAR. That would take away the car manufactures right to price the car as they see fit because they would have an obligation to supply cars to the poor. You can never give a right to someone that takes a right from someone else that is Unconstitutional and against the concept of Liberty.

Now I can see how some are going to try to jump to the conclusion about the right to keep and bear arms would mean the right to a gun manufactures weapons but pay attention to the wording. The right to drive means u have to have some thing to drive. The right to keep and bear arms is not the same as the right to shoot which would be equivalent to the driving part and imply u have the right to ammo and guns from someone else. In order for the 2nd and driving to be equalized it would be closer to the right to own a car and use it. Which u do not have a right to.

When the Founders wrote this they made sure the writing was perfect. If they had wrote u have the right to shoot then that would mean u have to be supplied with ammo. But by stating that u have the right to keep and bear arms it only implies just that u can keep weapons and u can carry them around. Not that u have a "right to a weapon" which means the government has a obligation to supply that weapon which means it has to be taken from someone else (since the government owns nothing and all they do is redistribute things).

The right to travel is fine but once u say they have a right to sitting on a wagon (revolution times) then u take the wagon owners rights.

Also there is a big problem with your theory even if u want to argue wording and it is that when u have a right it can not be taken from individuals unless they initiate the use of force to take others rights. By saying u have the right to drive u would have to give that right to every one and that would include the blind but as we all know a blind person driving is going to end in someone losing there right to life. Hence why I said "Society can regulate what means of transportation are safe at what time periods BUT only to protect lives and liberty of others." Society does not have the right to stop u from traveling as long as your traveling does not infringe on others rights to life.

Don't try to equate the blind driver to a mad man with a gun because the founders weighed the issue of bad people and figured it be worth the risk to defend liberty. Hence some of the other wording in the 2nd and the reason for the written part of the 2nd.

 

[88GT]

Free travel is a right but driving is not. When u say that some one has the RIGHT TO DRIVE u imply that they have the RIGHT TO A CAR. That would take away the car manufactures right to price the car as they see fit because they would have an obligation to supply cars to the poor. You can never give a right to someone that takes a right from someone else that is Unconstitutional and against the concept of Liberty.

No it doesn't mean that at all. The right to something doesn't mean someone has to provide it for you. That's what the idiotic liberals think and it's flat out wrong. The right to _______ means that the individual is FREE to pursue, be it possession, action, whatever without restriction by the government. It does not mean, and it never has, that said right be supplied to the individual by someone else regardless. Is that really what you think it means when someone has a right to ___________?

Now I can see how some are going to try to jump to the conclusion about the right to keep and bear arms would mean the right to a gun manufactures weapons but pay attention to the wording. The right to drive means u have to have some thing to drive. The right to keep and bear arms is not the same as the right to shoot which would be equivalent to the driving part and imply u have the right to ammo and guns from someone else. In order for the 2nd and driving to be equalized it would be closer to the right to own a car and use it. Which u do not have a right to.

Except that we do. Are you telling me I don't have a right to own and use a car?

When the Founders wrote this they made sure the writing was perfect. If they had wrote u have the right to shoot then that would mean u have to be supplied with ammo. But by stating that u have the right to keep and bear arms it only implies just that u can keep weapons and u can carry them around. Not that u have a "right to a weapon" which means the government has a obligation to supply that weapon which means it has to be taken from someone else (since the government owns nothing and all they do is redistribute things).

Where are you getting this information?

The right to travel is fine but once u say they have a right to sitting on a wagon (revolution times) then u take the wagon owners rights.

No, no, no.

Also there is a big problem with your theory even if u want to argue wording and it is that when u have a right it can not be taken from individuals unless they initiate the use of force to take others rights. By saying u have the right to drive u would have to give that right to every one and that would include the blind but as we all know a blind person driving is going to end in someone losing there right to life. Hence why I said "Society can regulate what means of transportation are safe at what time periods BUT only to protect lives and liberty of others." Society does not have the right to stop u from traveling as long as your traveling does not infringe on others rights to life.

It's not the act of driving that is regulated. It is the use of the commons (public roads) that is regulated. And, yes, I agree that there is plenty of justification for the existence of regulations governing the use of commons as that is the only way to prevent mis-use and abuse. Or in the case of public roads, to prevent (minimize, because it never actually prevents) harm to others. Creating a single standard for use, which is what traffic laws are for the most part, is not something I have a problem with. But there is no logical connection between creating a standard of use required of all participants and requiring registration of the vehicles or even licensing of the drivers. There certainly is no justification for saying that standard-of-use regulations equate to no right to drive.

Don't try to equate the blind driver to a mad man with a gun because the founders weighed the issue of bad people and figured it be worth the risk to defend liberty. Hence some of the other wording in the 2nd and the reason for the written part of the 2nd.

Wouldn't dream of it. I'll leave the logical fallacies to you.

 

[hooky]

Free travel is a right but driving is not. When u say that some one has the RIGHT TO DRIVE u imply that they have the RIGHT TO A CAR. That would take away the car manufactures right to price the car as they see fit because they would have an obligation to supply cars to the poor. You can never give a right to someone that takes a right from someone else that is Unconstitutional and against the concept of Liberty.

Now I can see how some are going to try to jump to the conclusion about the right to keep and bear arms would mean the right to a gun manufactures weapons but pay attention to the wording. The right to drive means u have to have some thing to drive. The right to keep and bear arms is not the same as the right to shoot which would be equivalent to the driving part and imply u have the right to ammo and guns from someone else. In order for the 2nd and driving to be equalized it would be closer to the right to own a car and use it. Which u do not have a right to.

When the Founders wrote this they made sure the writing was perfect. If they had wrote u have the right to shoot then that would mean u have to be supplied with ammo. But by stating that u have the right to keep and bear arms it only implies just that u can keep weapons and u can carry them around. Not that u have a "right to a weapon" which means the government has a obligation to supply that weapon which means it has to be taken from someone else (since the government owns nothing and all they do is redistribute things).

The right to travel is fine but once u say they have a right to sitting on a wagon (revolution times) then u take the wagon owners rights.

Also there is a big problem with your theory even if u want to argue wording and it is that when u have a right it can not be taken from individuals unless they initiate the use of force to take others rights. By saying u have the right to drive u would have to give that right to every one and that would include the blind but as we all know a blind person driving is going to end in someone losing there right to life. Hence why I said "Society can regulate what means of transportation are safe at what time periods BUT only to protect lives and liberty of others." Society does not have the right to stop u from traveling as long as your traveling does not infringe on others rights to life.

Don't try to equate the blind driver to a mad man with a gun because the founders weighed the issue of bad people and figured it be worth the risk to defend liberty. Hence some of the other wording in the 2nd and the reason for the written part of the 2nd.

Where in the Federal or State Constitution did we give either gov't the power to limit our mode/method/ability of travel?

 

[cobber]

I always vote against retention, regardless of their record. Being a judge shouldn't be a lifetime job. Even if you're a good one.

Generally speaking...

I've done that too. And I tend to agree with your reason but I'd rather keep ones that have Constitutional temperament, if possible.

But this above all else. If they are constitutionalists, I want them on the bench. There are many, many out there that would take your liberties given the chance. And we should not give them that chance.

 

[Dosproduction]

So if someone says i have the right to food. U agree with this statment? How can u. The person has the right to do as they please as long as it is not taking from others rights. So u can never have the right to food because that implies it has to be supplied. U have the right to exist (life) which u do need food but u have to go about getting the food your self with out violating others rights. This is the reason that the constitution is stated the way it is. None of the bill of rights say how u have the right to a particular thing because then u can demand it be supplied. The wording is put forth so that it says u can aquire whatever u want as long as it is not taken from the next guy against his will. When someone says i have the right to medical care do u agree with that statment. You should not that is what the European union constitution says. Or how about i have the right to a pension. Now im not saying people arnt free to proceed to get these things but that is not the same as saying i have a right to it. By saying i have the right to means it must be supplied my someone. By saying i have the right to be alive means u can do what is neccesay to stay alive as long as it does not take others rights against there will.
The means of travel is not limited unless u will infinge on others rights in the process. So if tommorow i come up with a super tank that will smash 6 lanes of traffic at once then im not allowed to use it because it will either hurt or stop other people from using there mode of transportation or if i came up with a car that proppelled itself by shooting rockets out the back that would not be allowed because the people behind me would be violated. (some will argue about the pollution of cars and it is a slippery slope to get into.

Hooky The governmnets whole job is to keep one person from taking another persons libertys wether that is life or pursuit of happiness. Or to prevent others from stoping u from traveling.IE traffic laws. So we are both clear though i think a free society can make the rules with out the governments force involved but they will have to be enforced by some one. The federal governments job is very large task but very limitied focus on just what the Constitution says.

So since we started talking about this i was thinking that i will start a thread about how u would word the 2nd amendment if u could rewrite it. Come to that thread for a nice freindly debate of wording and our rights.

 

[jamil]

So if someone says i have the right to food. U agree with this statment? How can u. The person has the right to do as they please as long as it is not taking from others rights. So u can never have the right to food because that implies it has to be supplied. U have the right to exist (life) which u do need food but u have to go about getting the food your self with out violating others rights. This is the reason that the constitution is stated the way it is. None of the bill of rights say how u have the right to a particular thing because then u can demand it be supplied. The wording is put forth so that it says u can aquire whatever u want as long as it is not taken from the next guy against his will. When someone says i have the right to medical care do u agree with that statment. You should not that is what the European union constitution says. Or how about i have the right to a pension. Now im not saying people arnt free to proceed to get these things but that is not the same as saying i have a right to it. By saying i have the right to means it must be supplied my someone. By saying i have the right to be alive means u can do what is neccesay to stay alive as long as it does not take others rights against there will.
The means of travel is not limited unless u will infinge on others rights in the process. So if tommorow i come up with a super tank that will smash 6 lanes of traffic at once then im not allowed to use it because it will either hurt or stop other people from using there mode of transportation or if i came up with a car that proppelled itself by shooting rockets out the back that would not be allowed because the people behind me would be violated. (some will argue about the pollution of cars and it is a slippery slope to get into.

Hooky The governmnets whole job is to keep one person from taking another persons libertys wether that is life or pursuit of happiness. Or to prevent others from stoping u from traveling.IE traffic laws. So we are both clear though i think a free society can make the rules with out the governments force involved but they will have to be enforced by some one. The federal governments job is very large task but very limitied focus on just what the Constitution says.

So since we started talking about this i was thinking that i will start a thread about how u would word the 2nd amendment if u could rewrite it. Come to that thread for a nice freindly debate of wording and our rights.

You're confusing what they're saying. The right to drive a car does not imply a positive right to having a car, which would require that someone other than you must give you a car. I'm pretty sure they're asserting it as a negative right, which is to say it requires no action from another party. So having a right to drive implies that people who have cars have a right to drive them.

Of course we know there really is no right to drive on public roads, and not for the reason of positive rights, but because you shouldn't need permission to exercise a right.