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

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 13, 2009

So I guess you say she didn't say it.
Typical.

Nope, I am saying what she did say is being misrepresented and that even the right side of the aisle has admitted that on nation media.

Do you not find it odd that the NRA does not cover the issue themselves but instead just posts a reference to a blogazine and a link?

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 13, 2009

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.

So you DO believe things you read on the internet? Even when there are alternate and more in depth opinions available (even from the right side) on this topic? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying it does not matter how unreliable and unspecific the source is as long as it conforms to your own narrow opinion?

The one single article that is linked is very misleading, non-specific, and has been addressed in mainstream media. Have you not been following the confirmation? Are you just talking without any point of reference?

Trlsmn · Jul 13, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
So you DO believe things you read on the internet? Even when there are alternate and more in depth opinions available (even from the right side) on this topic? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying it does not matter how unreliable and unspecific the source is as long as it conforms to your own narrow opinion?

The one single article that is linked is very misleading, non-specific, and has been addressed in mainstream media. Have you not been following the confirmation? Are you just talking without any point of reference?

The guy that NEVER provides any reference to back up anything he says is going to talk to me about reference pfft.

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 13, 2009

Trlsmn said:
The guy that NEVER provides any reference to back up anything he says is going to talk to me about reference pfft.

Google "Sotomayer" and "Maloney v. Cuomo"

Then do yourself a favor and actually read the info provided. You probably will not like it since it is not a biased blog that suppoirts your preconceived notions, but the facts are that she simply joined a three party panel in issuing an unsigned statement addressing the fact that the SCOTUS did not address their previous rulings regarding the 2A with their ruling regarding Heller. Which is in fact the case...as has been adressed multiple times on TV and in print over the past weeks.

She did not rule that the 2A does not apply to states. She was just a member of a panel that stated the SCOTUS had not yet definitively reversed their previous rulings. Even Ed Rollins stated that on Wolf Blitzer's show. She simply stated, and rightfully so, that a plaintiff cannot use the approach of trying to apply the restrictions of the 2A upon local government without supporting precedent. Which is the truth of the matter from a legal standpoint. She is simply stating that the SCOTUS needs to rectify their contradictions (and the vagueness of the Heller ruling...which is something even the far right has been saying) before clear case law can be established. Which once again is correct to the letter of the law.

I will ask again...are you actually familiar with this issue? Are you following to proceedings? Are you actually actively seeking to understand the issue? Or are you just speaking with no point of reference beside hysteria on internet blogs?

Trlsmn · Jul 14, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
Google "Sotomayer" and "Maloney v. Cuomo"

Then do yourself a favor and actually read the info provided. You probably will not like it since it is not a biased blog that suppoirts your preconceived notions, but the facts are that she simply join a three party panel in issuing an unsigned statement addressing the fact that the SCOTUS did not address their previous ruling regarding the 2A with their ruling regarding Heller. Which is in fact the case...as has been adressed multiple times on TV and in print over the past weeks.

She did not rule that the 2A does not apply to states. She was just a member of a panel that stated the SCOTUS had not yet definitively reversed their previous rulings. Even Ed Rollins stated that on Wolf Blitzer's show. She simply stated, and rightfully so, that a plaintiff cannot use the approach of trying to apply the restrictions of the 2A upon local government without supporting precedent. Which is the truth of the matter from a legal standpoint. She is simply stating that the SCOTUS needs to rectify their contradictions before clear case law can be established. Which once again is correct to the letter of the law.

I will ask again...are you actually familiar with this issue? Are you following to proceedings? Are you actually actively seeking to understand the issue? Or are you just speaking with no point of reference beside hysteria on internet blogs?

Is it so hard to post a link so we are on the same page?

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 14, 2009

Trlsmn said:
Is it so hard to post a link so we are on the same page?

Is it so hard to use google? I assume you have a computer on hand as you are posting to this forum...and I would also assume that you had done some research before addressing the topic or supporting the claim.

I will warn you that the actual case document is 516 pages long so you might just want to skim it and go straight to legal analysis from multiple sources.

I would suggest, if you have not been following the proceedings, that you spend tonight reading up on the topic and address it again tomorrow. I assume you either work nights (around a computer) or suffer insomnia so you should have the time.

PS: I will also add that much of this has been covered in television news so video search is your friend.

Trlsmn · Jul 14, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
Is it so hard to use google? I assume you have a computer on hand as you are posting to this forum...and I would also assume that you had done some research before addressing the topic or supporting the claim.

I will warn you that the actual case document is 516 pages long so you might just want to skim it and go straight to legal analysis from multiple sources.

I would suggest, if you have not been following the proceedings, that you spend tonight reading up on the topic and address it again tomorrow. I assume you either work nights (around a computer) or suffer insomnia so you should have the time.

If you can't provide a link I can't be bothered!

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 14, 2009

If you can't provide a link I can't be bothered!

I do hope that statement is tongue-in-cheek...because if not it would solidify you as someone who is not at all interested in knowing the facts... but just in supporting their own bias. Ignorance is forgivable. Willful ignorance is not.

Trlsmn · Jul 14, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
I do hope that statement is tongue-in-cheek...because if not it would solidify you as someone who is not at all interested in knowing the facts... but just in supporting their own bias. Ignorance is forgivable. Willful ignorance is not.

You mean like kind of like this hypocrite:

PlayboyPenguin said:
I am basing it on the mission statement on the front page. As soon as I saw they are tax abolishionists I had read enough.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=83799&postcount=10

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 14, 2009

Trlsmn said:
You mean like kind of like this hypocrite:

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=83799&postcount=10

Are you trying to make a point?

I do not see you addressing the fact that you are running your mouth while being completely ignorant of the subject. I gave you the means to educate yourself and you refused. That is the worst type of ignorance.

Trlsmn · Jul 14, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
Are you trying to make a point?

I do not see you addressing the fact that you are running your mouth while being completely ignorant of the subject. I gave you the means to educate yourself and you refused. That is the worst type of ignorance.

You missed this when you quoted my post:

Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin View Post
I am basing it on the mission statement on the front page. As soon as I saw they are tax abolishionists I had read enough.

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 14, 2009

Trlsmn said:
You missed this when you quoted my post:

I still do not see your point. I made an assumption, which I admitted may be a false one in the first part of my statement (which you seem to have failed to quote), based on text I read on their website. I did not just hear someone else say something and then start repeating it. You might want to try actually reading something and then making up your own mind based on the facts at hand for a change. It really is the best way to form an opinion instead of being told what to think.

Now are you going to keep trying to divert attention from the fact that you blatantly admitted to not being willing to face the fact that you were ignorant of a topic you were being oh so vocal about? Then refused to even attempt to learn about the topic.

Trlsmn · Jul 14, 2009

PlayboyPenguin said:
I still do not see your point. I made an assumption, which I admitted may be a false one in the first part of my statement (which you seem to have failed to quote), based on text I read on their website. I did not just hear someone else say something and then start repeating it. You might want to try actually reading something and then making up your own mind based on the facts at hand for a change. It really is the best way to form an opinion instead of being told what to think.

Wrong thread

coctailer · Jul 14, 2009

If you guys are going to debate specifics, please provide links to support your specific point.

It is obviously less work than arguing back and forth about it's existence and/or meaning.

PlayboyPenguin · Jul 14, 2009

Trlsmn said:
Wrong! You are trying to make an excuse based on that one post from the thread but there are many incidences of your hypocrisy in that thread that further show your hypocrisy.

Again don't blame me for your hypocrisy or try to put me on the defensive to shift focus, you just make your hypocrisy and credibility look worse!

Wrong again...and still not addressing your own issue. Still trying to attack me to deflect attention from the fact that you got caught flatfooted and wrong and are unwilling to learn from it. You spoke to a topic, you were misinformed, you were given proper information and then chose to refuse to look at it and started attacking like a young child.