Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terroris

[cameronhu]

Okay Hu. Show me. Show me/us one time in this thread where I called you or PP or anyone a name.
I never even referred to the left as whackos. But I have put up with you and the playboy spewing hateful names for the right wing.
Yes I have pointed out that Dems tend to be leftist and gun banners.
Show me different.

I have put up with references from PP about my and others inability to grasp legalities etc. As if only his and your superior(sic) minds can understand the law etc. Even when you both have been proven wrong. The condescension has been thick at times, but not by me.
Show me where I called you anything derogatory.

SHOW ME!

And when you are done with that, would you like to try and refute anything I said in that post?
Or is ridicule your only response?

:huh: Huh?

I think maybe you have me confused with somebody else. Go back and read _my_ posts. I spewed hateful names? You sure about that?

_I've_ been proven wrong? About what? Again, double check _my_ posts.

As far as derogatory comments - in additions to the ones I quoted in my stone-throwing post, how about:

Can't you just be honest and acclaim your love for "the chosen one" and his elitist intellectual/secular- progressive agenda?

or perhaps --

I swear he's plugged in to Dem party headquarters.
It's as bad as what they do in the press!

Were they directed at me? Not sure; but I never said they were. I said that asking for an apology for name calling, whilst doing it yourself, was a bit counterproductive.

Personally, I don't need an apology. I'm a big kid. But I think its probably time for some folks to take a break and simmer down before anyone posts something they regret.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Cherry picking!

Why don't you quote a post and then break it down?

It is called addressing the source. It is used when the conversation has nothing of relevance in it but is merely a vehicle of innuendo and long winded rhetoric. Why give credit to the base neo-con tactic of playing to persecuted victim. That game is old and tired. Just as is the fact that neither of you, in all you long winded and victim based responses, have never done anything to dispel the original point that the AWB would likely have expired anyway. Nor have you given any credible activities of Obama that are cause for major concern or hysteria. Nor have you pointed out why Bush was considered a friend to the 2A when he really did very little over 8 years. But then it is much easier to just start playing the poor persecuted conservative in centrist's clothing than to actually address the issues.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Personally, I don't need an apology. I'm a big kid. But I think its probably time for some folks to take a break and simmer down before anyone posts something they regret.

I do not require an apology either. Nor will I give one to someone who's only defense is "I am older and know more than you" while they are spouting unsupported garbage and trying to play a victim. As I have said, none of their arguments yet have even the slightest hint of an informed opinion. Once they do those arguments will deserve direct address.

 

[Trlsmn]

It is called addressing the source. It is used when the conversation has nothing of relevance in it but is merely a vehicle of innuendo and long winded rhetoric. Why give credit to the base neo-con tactic of playing to persecuted victim. That game is old and tired. Just as is the fact that neither of you, in all you long winded and victim based responses, have never done anything to dispel the original point that the AWB would likely have expired anyway. Nor have you given any credible activities of Obama that are cause for major concern or hysteria. Nor have you pointed out why Bush was considered a friend to the 2A when he really did very little over 8 years. But then it is much easier to just start playing the poor persecuted conservative in centrist's clothing than to actually address the issues.

The above is called putting the other person on the defensive so that misdirection of a legitimate question is archived!

We need to face facts here Jaimie, a direct logical question will never be answered with a direct answer.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The above is called putting the other person on the defensive so that misdirection of a legitimate question is archived!

More victim speech? Still no real facts? Surprising...not.

 

[Trlsmn]

More victim speech? Still no real facts? Surprising...not.

Ask a relevant question! You are arguing the minutia of the irrelevant.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Ask a relevant question! You are arguing the minutia of the irrelevant.

Hehe...now diluting you lack of evidence by pretending that the original topic somehow never existed...that's rich. You might want to skip a few pages ahead in the old playbook because these are plays we have all seen already.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Hehe...now diluting you lack of evidence by pretending that the original topic somehow never existed...that's rich. You might want to skip a few pages ahead in the old playbook because these are plays we have all seen already.

Lack of evidence huh. You wouldn't recognize the evidence if it crawled up your ***.
I showed you the evidence of the reinstatement effort after you put up some hogwash about s1805 being the correct bill and how it was publicly defeated etc. Blah Blah blah,....


Conservatives are NOT going to sleep.
We will not let you further your agenda of trying to paint true gun ownership advocates as whacko-nut-jobs.
We are not uninformed, as you profess, we know you. We have been fighting these fights with you and those like you for decades.
You will not be allowed to sell the constitution down the river.
We will not let you expand your ridicule of true gun advocacy.

We will however allow you to continue to prostitute yourself to the "greater good" argument, so that you are allowed to show your true colors.
We will however allow you to show your lack of morals via the lack of truth in your words.
Just like the "Closing the Obama and guns thread:"
You have shown yourself to be more interested in defeating the argument against the gun banners.
You have again painted yourself into the liberal left's lockstep, while accusing true conservatives of the same,... Erroneously.
You continue the "divide and conquer" tactic. Another favorite scheme of the left and the Brady Campaign.

Why do you do this playboy?
Why do you work so hard to prove us wrong when you have the facts in front of you?
Why do you try so hard to refute what we all know,...
That gun grabbers love the left, because that's who shares their agenda!

That's not rhetoric, that's not opinion. That is the left's record.
That's where you find the facts.

While your ridicule may continue, It only shows you for what you really are. A troll, without substance or an opinion of your own.
You only have the one your masters gave you.

I'll keep my guns.
You keep the change.

 

[Jamie6.5]

We need to face facts here Jaimie, a direct logical question will never be answered with a direct answer.

Of course not. Sure sign of a troll. Start a fight for the sake of the fight.
Divide and conquer.
A stoolie of the left! Or would that be a stooge of the left,...

I can't tell, you decide!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Lack of evidence huh. You wouldn't recognize the evidence if it crawled up your ***.
I showed you the evidence of the reinstatement effort after you put up some hogwash about s1805 being the correct bill and how it was publicly defeated etc. Blah Blah blah,....

Maybe not, but I sure know what isn't evidence...all the hysterics you have been spewing that has no actual basis in reality. As for the "blah, blah, blah"...you could have saved yourself a lot of effort and just composed all your posts of that text. It would have been just as valuable information wise.

We need to face facts here Jaimie, a direct logical question will never be answered with a direct answer.

I must have missed any part where you asked a legitimate question. Maybe it was lost in all your conjecture, posturing, and unfathomable support of your beloved "W." All while condemning Obama for things he hasn't even done yet.

 

[Jamie6.5]

No "W" love here. You must be hallucinating.

You will never hear me spend appreciable amounts of effort defending Bush.

Certainly no where near as much as you have Obama!

You continue your efforts to divide gun owners,...

Why penguin? <-legitimate question!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

No "W" love here. You must be hallucinating.

You will never hear me spend appreciable amounts of effort defending Bush.

Gee...all the noise you have made about Obama even though he has done nothing bad yet while remaining silent about Bush speaks otherwise.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Gee...all the noise you have made about Obama even though he has done nothing bad yet

Apparently you have no concept of bad where gun rights are concerned. No bad yet?
Look at his state congressional voting record.
Listen to his Attorney General.
Listen to his Secretary of State.
Look at the record of his SCOTUS nominee.

Look at which party he belongs to!

Hahaha, even you said "yet."
So it's not a matter of "if", but "when."

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Apparently you have no concept of bad where gun rights are concerned. No bad yet?
Look at his state congressional voting record.
Listen to his Attorney General.
Listen to his Secretary of State.
Look at the record of his SCOTUS nominee.

Okay, show me something negative of his SCOTUS nominee that goes beyond opinion on standing court decisions.

Show me any thing Obama has done since taken office to raise any red flags.

 

[Jamie6.5]

See Penguin, you don't do your research. Turn off Rachel Maddow and look into it.
From Reason online:
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

And it can be verified here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Then there is the 60&#37; overturn rate,...
She'll be confirmed I have no doubt. It's that lockstep thing you're always accusing others of.

Why do you try to hide your desire for gun control. What are you doing here, but trying to hide your party's desire to disarm Americans?

Why?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

One, blogazines do not count as evidence for anything.

Two, it is already misleading right off the bat. She did not "rule" on anything from what I understand. She merely wrote an analysis of another ruling. Big difference. An analysis that even the fat conservative guy on Wolf Blitzer admitted was not damaging but instead simply a legal analysis of the legal opinion used to reach the decision made by the court...and a well written and thorough one from what he said.

But seriously, you cannot tell me you are reading online blogazines and thinking they should be taken at face value?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Blogs? You don't read the links posted do you.
I guess you wouldn't though. Since your opinions are given to you, facts would be irrelevant right?
Maybe you'll agree with the NRA-ILA.
They link the same article.
<broken link removed>

She makes her legal opinion on the 2ndA public and you discount it as blogosphere rumor,...

Funny, you seemed to believe what the blogs had to say about Sarah Palin.

Selective about your facts? Oh that's right, they are selected for you!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Blogs? You don't read the links posted do you.
I guess you wouldn't though. Since your opinions are given to you, facts would be irrelevant right?
Maybe you'll agree with the NRA-ILA.
They link the same article.
<broken link removed>

Yes, your initial link was to reason.com not the NRA...and the NRA is basically just repeating misrepresented information that has been pretty much dispelled in the media as misinformation by linking you back to reason.com's website. So the only source is still the reason.com blogazine.

 

[Jamie6.5]

So I guess you say she didn't say it.
Typical.
Lockstep in your defense of someone who doesn't believe you have the right to keep and bear arms. That your state or municipality can take it away from you.

And you want the rest of us to believe that's alright, because "its the law as decreed by Sonya."

Good luck with that!

 

[Trlsmn]

Yes, your initial link was to reason.com not the NRA...and the NRA is basically just repeating misrepresented information that has been pretty much dispelled in the media as misinformation by linking you back to reason.com's website. So the only source is still the reason.com blogazine.

See what you are doing is attacking the source instead of the information.

You say the information was dispelled with zero proof that it was.