Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 12,625
- Reactions
- 28,861
Forwarded from friends Up North:
Vancouver Police Says AR-15s Deter Terrorists: Georgia Straight - TheGunBlog.ca
Vancouver Police Says AR-15s Deter Terrorists: Georgia Straight - TheGunBlog.ca
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Call her out on Twitter. Respond to one of her tweets right when it is posted so you can get in at the top of replies.Here's the first "form letter" I received... I'll definitely post any further replies as I get them.
"SUBJECT: Out of state
Thank you for sending me your electronic mail message. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Because of the volume of e-mail that is received by my office, we can only respond to email that includes a California postal address. Please resend the text of your e-mail message, including your postal address, and I will respond to you as soon as possible.
Should you need additional information about the Congress, or my offices in Washington and California, please visit my homepage on the World Wide Web. The address is http://feinstein.senate.gov.
Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator"
I'll re-send it as instructed, but I predict the response will be just as automated.
If it is eliminated, it WILL affect you -- though afterward, you will have that "uh oh" Dunning Kruger moment where you recognize your lack of cognitive depth.
Let's see… you take my quote out of context, argue about it, then tell me I'm stupid? Who exactly has the cognitive problem here, Friend?
Take a moment to re-read my post with an eye towards context.
Thanks!
Your are not claiming that as your thinking, you are expressing an understanding of someone else's'.I get the "if the 2A is eliminated it won't affect me" position
LOL, sorry I wrote in a way that you perceived as an attack. It was not.
I regard you as a thoughtful and funny, literate guy.
I wrote in response to you, because as I quote your message again below, you see you have inserted quotes, which indicates you have quoted someone else. In this case, that would be @ravenswood .
My comment about a dunning kruger moment applies to his thinking.
Your are not claiming that as your thinking, you are expressing an understanding of someone else's'.
I hope what I wrote is more clear now.
That statement reminds me of a few Kalifornicatians I have known. I still cringe when I hear them waxing poetic about their last colonic -- as if I wanted to hear about it in the first place. If I didn't enjoy your posts, based on those experiences, a statement like that might warrant an automatic exercise of the "ignore" feature.like a nice colonic
"Mission Accomplished"!!!That statement reminds me of a few Kalifornicatians I have known. I still cringe when I hear them waxing poetic about their last colonic -- as if I wanted to hear about it in the first place. If I didn't enjoy your posts, based on those experiences, a statement like that might warrant an automatic exercise of the "ignore" feature.
Excellent!Made by a conservative college student at the University of Oregon in Eugene so it's a bit tongue in cheek, but accurate
That us VS them attitude is the very reason we don't make progress on either side. The complete unwillingness to compromise just stone-walls (no pun intended) everything.
Am I correct in my assumption that you are advocating a compromise? When it comes to issues that impact my ability to protect or defend myself, my family, my neighbor, my property or my country, I will NOT compromise.
Compromising with someone who wants 100% of something is foolish.
Compromise only works if both sides of the debate are willing to meet in the middle. And if neither side of the debate is willing, it's a battle that will never end. By your own definition, the anti-gun folks would also be foolish in trying to compromise.
Where have the antis EVER tried to compromise? Demanding less than all (for now) is not compromise.Compromise only works if both sides of the debate are willing to meet in the middle. And if neither side of the debate is willing, it's a battle that will never end. By your own definition, the anti-gun folks would also be foolish in trying to compromise.