Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'

[Trlsmn]

You guys are on an obsessive roll. Keep going, please. It's hilarious.

What does ANY of this have to do about guns?

Just tell me when you're ready to have a debate, until then conversation with you is pointless!

 

[Scott]

I will start the debate:

This administration is a danger to our 2A rights and many others. Ask CA gun owners what they feel about liberal gun haters? They even hate the military having guns there. I know that for a fact because I was stationed there for 15 years.

 

[CEF1959]

California is a state of liberal gun haters who even hate military guns. And you know that because you were stationed there. Check. My conservative Republican gun-owning friends in Orange County will be surprised to know that.

Got any more ridiculous sweeping generalizations based exclusively on your personal experience to offer for this "debate"?

This administration would like to do damage to our gun rights, but haven't yet. I'm keeping my powder dry, because for me, it really IS about guns, rather than about "socialism" or race.

 

[CEF1959]

CEF1959 you been judged and found lacking!

And by such a well-adjusted group too. Quite a blow. I hope I can sleep tonight.

 

[gunnoob75]

My only question, CEF, is what do you think you're going to do?

Legislation goes to Congress about an AWB. What do you do? What is your first step, that is going to be so great for the 2nd Amendment?

Will you answer, or just blow me off?

 

[CEF1959]

Well, I do get bored with all this stuff, and it's tough to answer all the crap people throw around. Just look at how many of you post anti-me posts. I can't keep up with all the wack jobs posting crapola.

But you raise a fair point about the AWB, so let me answer it directly. If someone posed an AWB (or a tax on ammo or a restriction on private sales) and it was for real, I'd oppose it actively. Write some letters, pick up the phone, send some emails, attend a local rally. Heck, I've publicly said here that I think restrictions on high explosives and private ownership of cannons is inconsistent with the 2A. So much for the "hard left liberal troll" crap you so casually throw around. Check my posts. I challenge you to find one that says anything opposing gun rights or that I favor Obama's position on guns. Anyone who wasn't scared of his shadow might do so and say, "You know, I was wrong about that." But I realize that manning up is not how you guys roll.

In the world of mainstream conservatism, not every "proposal" is worth getting lathered up over. Some are thrown in the hopper to garner votes at home and aren't even going to get a committee hearing. Or maybe it's just some speech by someone that isn't going to go anywhere. Those I just ignore. Here, they get exclamation point alarm stickies.

See: That's what I'm talking about. It's distinguishing real threats from bogeymen. I'm talking about not getting hysterical and jumping to the ramparts every time there's a twitch. Because if you live in a permanent state of ridiculous hysteria hype, you become a weirdo fringe guy and become irrelevant or (worse) a goofball who hurts genuine 2A efforts. Think about that.

I understand the counterargument: We have to go nuclear in response to everything, because one thing always leads to another. I just think that's bogus. And it's counterproductive. It hurts gun rights. And there are some fringe types who carry signs to health care events that say, "Obama Agenda: White Slavery." Come on. Talk about kooks. Confusing conservatism or 2A rights with racism is dangerous. And I'm NOT down with that.

And then when you start saying stuff like we need to ban so and so for expressing his view, or we need to threaten him, or we hope he dies a painful death, or he must be a troll, that's just nutty. That's Taliban stuff. I never threaten any of you. I never wish you violence. I never question the sincerity of your views. I never seek to have your voices silenced. That would be wrong, don't you think? I just say you are wrong and goofballs and then recommend we all laugh about it.

You wanna get all goofy and slobber about Marxism and France and Obama being a Muslim or non-citizen and the illegitimacy of the federal reserve and how Obama is going to poison American youth with socialist indoctrination, go for it. But I'll tell you this: It pisses me off, because it hurts conservativsm in general and 2A rights in particular.

So how about addressing those points, reasonably, without threats?

 

[fingolfen]

But you raise a fair point about the AWB, so let me answer it directly. If someone posed an AWB and it was for real, I'd oppose it actively. Not every "proposal" is worth getting lathered up over, though. Some are thrown in the hopper to garner votes at home and aren't even going to get a committee hearing. Or maybe it's just some speech by someone that isn't going to go anywhere. Those I just ignore. Here, they get exclamation point alarm stickies.

See: That's what I'm talking about. It's distinguishing real threats from bogeymen. Not getting hysterical and jumping to the ramparts every time there's a twitch. Because if you live in a state of ridiculous hysteria hype, you become a weirdo fringe guy and become irrelevant or (worse) a goofball who hurts genuine 2A efforts. Think about that.

I honestly think you're painting with far too broad a brush here. You've stereotyped and pigeon-holed everyone here as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal and assume that we haven’t thought about things like that and are just hitting the hyper button. Please note that I have on numerous occasions drawn a line between something that has real momentum vs. something that is a flash in the pan. When H.R. 45 was introduced way back in February, I wrote something about it... However I certainly haven’t panicked on the 500 email alerts since then. Ditto for S. 2099 – looked it up, found it was from eight years ago, and spread the word that it was a dead turkey.

However, direct attacks aren’t the only way that those opposed to gun rights will (and have) come after us. If you look at any major issue, political strategies on both sides are widely varied and maintain multiple axes of attack. In short, just about every major movement has its version of the “Wedge Strategy.” Frequently people will react to what seems to be a minor appointment, not because they believe it will block it, but because they understand that it is a part of a greater strategy. If nothing else, it lets the opposition know that we’re keeping tabs on them.

As to looking like weirdoes – the right is a long way from having a monopoly on that condition...

I understand the counterargument: We have to go nuclear in response to everything, because one thing always leads to another. I just think that's bogus. And it's counterproductive. It hurts gun rights. And there are some fringe types who carry signs to health care events that say, "Obama Agenda: White Slavery." Come on. Talk about kooks. Confusing conservatism or 2A rights with racism is dangerous. And I'm NOT down with that.

... and honestly you seem to be the only person on this board doing this. You accuse people of being “right wing” and therefore “racist” or somehow “mentally deficient.” I’ll grant you I find many extremist views “kooky.” I don’t have a lot of patience for “animal rights” activists. I don’t have any use for eco-terrorists. However, I have even less use for racists regardless of what color their skin is or what particular group they choose to hate. I’m originally from down South – I know racism when I see it because I grew up with it all around me. A placard carried by an individual at an anti-tax rally in Washington has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Each side has its extremists, and the opposition is going to try and paint all members of that side as equivalent to the fringe elements. You seem to be buying into that propaganda a little too much...

And then when you start saying stuff like we need to ban so and so for expressing his view, or we need to threaten him, or we hope he dies a painful death, or he must be a troll, that's just nutty. That's Taliban stuff. I never threaten any of you. I never wish you violence. I never question the sincerity of your views. I never seek to have your voices silenced. That would be wrong, don't you think? I just say you are wrong and goofballs and then recommend we all laugh about it.

So how about addressing those points, reasonably, without threats?

I never did... and I've addressed your points reasonably, without threats on multiple occasions... your turn.

 

[CEF1959]

If your point is that there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, I agree. But that's not true here. I'm not posting on The Nation website. I'm posting here. And if you look at many of the posts over the past week, I think you would see why I think some people have gotten kooky. I'm not seeing ANY liberals posting here at all, let alone extremist liberals. The only radical extremists here are on the right. And that makes the whole pro-gun movement look goofy by the acts of those who engage in it.

And before you go all saintly, I do believe you accused me of being a troll, didn't you? And you keep making these hysterical posts about how everyone should get lathered up about this or that. It's almost daily. Come on. That's what I think of as anti-productive hysteria. (Maybe you are just trying to advertise your blog. I get that, but it'd be good if you just said so.) Anyway, I think it's unproductive. But when I make that point (hysteria is counterproductive), it becomes a blood-letting. There's a "must kill dissent" flavor to the threads. Look at them as a whole, not one post in isolation, but as a whole. Or even better, look at the multiple threads from the last few days as a whole. And it's pathological the degree to which one dissenter from the hard right position has become a focus of so much venom. I love a hard give and take, and if it gets a little rough, I think that's good hard political debate. But look at the numbers of people with an apparent blood lust and downright intolerance. It's not everyone, but it's pervasive. And if there are posts or posters on here you want to distance yourself from, you can easily do so. By piling on without saying otherwise, it's fair to assume you agree with them.

What happens here is that any post criticizing a hard right position gets pilloried as leftist or whatever, in need of a whooping or banning or worse. Not good.

Your point about painting with too broad a brush makes a good point. But understand, I'm reacting solo to multiple strings of posts, and it's tough to take the time to distinguish who is who. I sign on and there are multiple posts not about the issue, but about me personally. Some threaten violence. Some seek to ban. Some scream "liberal" or "troll". I think that's strange and intolerant. It's just a fellow conservative 2A advocate who thinks that some of the hysteria is goofy and counterproductive. That position seems to strike a nerve that goes on and on and on and gets really focused on one individual. It think that's weird. If your posts are not goofy, hysterical or counterproductive, I'm not talking about you.

I keep saying let's keep this light and laugh about it and battle hard and respect one another's views in the end. I'm not getting any takers on those ideas.

That's when I start wondering about the Taliban element.... Tolerance is a virtue handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. In my view, it's a cardinal virtue of America.

 

[Trlsmn]

Can you post a link to this violence threatened against you?

 

[CEF1959]

Sure. But be patient. This isn't my life. And only if you'll agree to acknowledge I've posted it. I'm not going to bother if the effort is just to amuse you. So are you serious? You want to see it and will acknowledge when it's posted?

In the meantime, you referred to me publicly as a "typical leftist." Can you post a link to my typical leftist point of view? It's a strange thing to call a conservative Republican. If you are challenging me, I'm challenging back.

 

[fingolfen]

If your point is that there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, I agree. But that's not true here. I'm not posting on The Nation website. I'm posting here. And if you look at many of the posts over the past week, I think you would see why I think some people have gotten kooky. I'm not seeing ANY liberals posting here at all, let alone extremist liberals. The only radical extremists here are on the right. And that makes the whole pro-gun movement look goofy by the acts of those who engage in it.

Unfortunately at this point and time, the vast majority of individuals who are pro-Second Amendment tend to be social conservatives as well. It's not true in 100% of the cases - if you go over to Democratic Underground, you'll see a fairly large contingent that is pro-Second. They're not the majority by any stretch, but they're there and they do post. Because of that fact, you shouldn't be surprised to see a firearm site gravitate to the right side of the political spectrum.

And before you go all saintly, I do believe you accused me of being a troll, didn't you? And you keep making these hysterical posts about how everyone should get lathered up about this or that. It's almost daily. Come on. That's what I think of as anti-productive hysteria. (Maybe you are just trying to advertise your blog. I get that, but it'd be good if you just said so.) Anyway, I think it's unproductive. But when I make that point (hysteria is counterproductive), it becomes a blood-letting. There's a "must kill dissent" flavor to the threads. Look at them as a whole, not one post in isolation, but as a whole. Or even better, look at the multiple threads from the last few days as a whole. And it's pathological the degree to which one dissenter from the hard right position has become a focus of so much venom. I love a hard give and take, and if it gets a little rough, I think that's good hard political debate. But look at the numbers of people with an apparent blood lust and downright intolerance. It's not everyone, but it's pervasive. And if there are posts or posters on here you want to distance yourself from, you can easily do so. By piling on without saying otherwise, it's fair to assume you agree with them.

Yes - and you were trolling. You weren't adding anything to the discussion and you were submitting posts attacking the individuals on this forum seeking to get a reaction. Granted, others did the same to you, and given the long posting history on this forum it's fairly hard to decipher who "fired the first shot", but I'll stand by my statement. Subsequent posts have been back on topic, however.

As to my "hysterical posts" - that's your read. I passed on my blog post based on a Gun Owner's of America alert. I'd responded to it and figured a lot of people here would like to do the same. I understand the fact that you don't believe that we need to be playing a tight defense at this point on Second Amendment issues - I disagree and so do a lot of other people here. Disagreement on political tactics does not equal hysteria. Writing our Representatives and the Administration regularly does not equal hysteria. Heck, even marching in Washington does not necessarily equal hysteria. It is simply people expressing their political opinions in a way they believe it will actually be heard. If you think this is “hysteria,” then you haven’t seen the real thing yet.

You’re also taking a very simplistic view of the political spectrum and the political views of the members of this forum. When it comes to social issues I’m fairly libertarian. However, the rules of this forum are that we’re only allowed to discuss politics as it relates to firearms – and I wager that most people here are fairly absolutist on the Second Amendment. Their views on other issues are – well – quite frankly I don’t know what they are. Neither do you. You’re assuming and coloring your arguments from that assumption. Throw in a little indignation and you have the recipe for disaster.

What happens here is that any post criticizing a hard right position gets pilloried as leftist or whatever, in need of a whooping or banning or worse. Not good.

Your point about painting with too broad a brush makes a good point. But understand, I'm reacting solo to multiple strings of posts, and it's tough to take the time to distinguish who is who. I sign on and there are multiple posts not about the issue, but about me personally. Some threaten violence. Some seek to ban. Some scream "liberal" or "troll". I think that's strange and intolerant. It's just a fellow conservative 2A advocate who thinks that some of the hysteria is goofy and counterproductive. That position seems to strike a nerve that goes on and on and on and gets really focused on one individual. It think that's weird. If your posts are not goofy, hysterical or counterproductive, I'm not talking about you.

I keep saying let's keep this light and laugh about it and battle hard and respect one another's views in the end. I'm not getting any takers on those ideas.

That's when I start wondering about the Taliban element.... Tolerance is a virtue handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. In my view, it's a cardinal virtue of America.

One thing about the internet – it’s hard to convey emotion. What you may be writing as “light hearted” certainly isn’t coming across that way. A lot of your stuff comes off as someone who thinks he’s better than the rest of the forum. If someone insults you – just don’t respond. This all started because I and another user here agreed with and passed on the characterization Gun Owners of America used to describe Cass Sunstein – a kook. I’ve looked at a lot of his views – I think he’s way out there and the shoe fits. Whether you agree with the characterization or not, he has a history of anti-Second Amendment sentiment. Your original posts seemed to ignore that, focus on the fact that a “respected constitutional scholar” was being attacked by a bunch of “right-wing nut jobs.” In short, you seemed to come to his, and the administration’s, defense. Because of that, many questioned exactly where you stood on the issue. Rather than clarifying – you began to convey disdain for the thread and the posters on it, and then it got really ugly fast. Your “Taliban” comments only made matters worse.

I can guarantee you that there are a lot of people on this forum that put the Second Amendment at the top of their list of touchstone issues. I can also guarantee you that there are a lot of Second Amendment single-issue voters on this forum. At its core, it’s not unlike any major issue – guns, abortion, the environment, etc. Not everyone cares about every issue – nor does everyone take a broad view of politics as a whole.

The Founders passed down a Republic based on respect for the individual liberties of each citizen. At that time, citizens with full rights were white, male property owners. Hamilton was killed in a duel (not exactly a strong demonstration of “tolerance”). However, they were wise enough to recognize that humans were endowed with certain inalienable rights – the right to self defense as embodied in the Second Amendment among them. The catch is are we wise enough to hold on to them.

 

[CEF1959]

Trolling is pretending to take a position just to get a rise. It's not trolling to disagree strongly. Sorry you don't like someone to disagree with you and feel it necessary to cast aspersions that don't apply.

And if you think one has to adhere to hard right doctrine on all non-gun issues to be credible in 2A issues, sorry. You are narrowing the field of acceptable points of view pretty dramatically, particularly when you join with people trying to smother any opposing point of view. That's Taliban stuff. Why not welcome opposing points of view? Celebrate them? It's great for the debate. Unless, of course, you don't want debate but rather rigid adherence to a single point of view? Is that it?

But it's all just fun and lively debate to me. And I take a LOT worse than I give. If you take it so seriously, buy yourself some Ex Lax.

By the way, what happened to King Leonidas in the end? Do you remember?

 

[CEF1959]

The Founders passed down a Republic based on respect for the individual liberties of each citizen. At that time, citizens with full rights were white, male property owners. Hamilton was killed in a duel (not exactly a strong demonstration of "tolerance"). However, they were wise enough to recognize that humans were endowed with certain inalienable rights – the right to self defense as embodied in the Second Amendment among them. The catch is are we wise enough to hold on to them.

We've learned some things since then. For example that the racism of the 18th Century is not good for today. That's not a liberal vs. conservative issue. But when people carry signs to an Obama rally saying "Obama Agenda:White Slavery", that's bad. I mean, I'm no Obama supporter, but don't you agree? Maybe you don't....

And through all of the turmoil of 2+ centuries, the one enduring virtue of our republic has been tolerance. Freedom certainly, but people debate what that means. Tolerance for other points of view is what defines us. It was a founding virtue. It's a cardinal virtue. Rough and tumble spirited debate, but without threats or guns or violence. Or the THREAT of violence. If we're ready for violent revolution, say so. Until then, let's engage in rough debate and keep our guns at the ready, at home, in case we need them. And not exaggerate the threat of this or that just to rile folks up prematurely or promote a website or news channel.

 

[tkdguy]

Some liberals manifest a narcissistic disturbance manifested by strange, condescending and egotistical ideas and see the second amendment advocates as naive and simple minded. These liberals just don't and won't ever get the big picture.

 

[fingolfen]

Trolling is pretending to take a position just to get a rise. It's not trolling to disagree strongly. Sorry you don't like someone to disagree with you and feel it necessary to cast aspersions that don't apply.

Again - you're seeing things that aren't there - you had post after post of name calling using terms deliberately chosen to offent conservatives. That's trolling.

And if you think one has to adhere to hard right doctrine on all non-gun issues to be credible in 2A issues, sorry. You are narrowing the field of acceptable points of view pretty dramatically, particularly when you join with people trying to smother any opposing point of view. That's Taliban stuff. Why not welcome opposing points of view? Celebrate them? It's great for the debate. Unless, of course, you don't want debate but rather rigid adherence to a single point of view? Is that it?

Again, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth that didn't come out of there. Stop it. I never said you had to adhere to "hard right doctrine", in fact if you go back and read my post I indicated exactly the opposite.

I'm all for free discourse of ideas, I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised that you hear it for taking what seemed to be an anti-Second position - on a firearm board. It'd be like a Klansman expecting his views to be well recieved at the NAACP.

You have started with the assumption that "fingolfen is a hard right winger". First off, I'm not. I am fairly strict when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, but as I indicated... in my last post... which you obviously didn't read... I'm a social libertarian...

But it's all just fun and lively debate to me. And I take a LOT worse than I give. If you take it so seriously, buy yourself some Ex Lax.

By the way, what happened to King Leonidas in the end? Do you remember?

I wrote what I thought was a clear, well reasoned post. You seem to have taken pieces of it totally out-of-context, twisted it based on your own preconceptions, and then lambasted me for it taking time to get a few digs in and put words in my mouth... and then you wonder why people don't receive your posts well?

As to Leonidas - he died for a cause he believed in - and he is remembered to this day for it. Honestly, of all the ways to go, that's not a bad one. Unlike him I, like so many of us, will most likely die anonymously - mourned by a few friends and family, and in a few years I'll be no more than an entry in a computer or family tree. What I learn from him, though, is that true courage is to stand up for what you believe in - regardless of the cost. If the day ever comes where we are all told to lay down our arms (which I pray it doesn't) - I hope I, on that day, have the courage to respond as he did. I look at my son and hope that I have the courage to fight to ensure that he gets to enjoy not only the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that I have, but hopefully even greater ones.

 

[capdek]

CEF don't you see how belittling the majority of your posts to this thread are? Just look at the post by fingolfen at the top of this page and your subsequent response. Any objective observer can see that fingolfen is trying to make an honest and genuine attempt to present a reasoned argument for his point of view. You seem to completely ignore this - he's simply "casting aspersions that don't apply". And are you completely blind to all the aspersions you have been casting in this thread? I mean, come-on, "...buy yourself some Ex Lax."? You are entitled to your opinion CEF, but you might try being a bit more diplomatic when expressing it.
Your very first post to this thread (number 12) belittled everyone on this site when you expressed your "irony" in "this crowd" and "YOU guys" calling a "Harvard Law School professor, constitutional law scholar, and author of well-respected books on law and policy" a "kook". And you finished up by implying that everyone on this site was too stupid to see this "irony", and that "You guys crack me up". And each of your subsequent posts continues to perpetuate this theme that we're all a bunch of "kooks". And how did you come to the conclusion that we're all a bunch of idiotic kooks CEF? Because of one person's very early post expressing a deep seated anger towards an anti-gun / anti-hunting person like Cass Sunstein. You see CEF, YOU were the first person to cast aspersions on everyone here by implying that we are all idiotic "kooks" who "crack you up". And you did this based on the post of one person you took issue with. There's a word in the dictionary describing that sort of behavior CEF. It's called bigotry. And you wonder why so many people here are upset with your posts?
If you disagree with someone posting here CEF, you should try to direct your bile at that one person instead of assuming we all share that person's point-of-view. It sort of betrays your neurotic hatred of conservative gun-owners.

CEF seems to have tamed down his bile somewhat. Perhaps he's not so strongly convinced anymore that we are all "kooks".

 

[CEF1959]

Again - you're seeing things that aren't there - you had post after post of name calling using terms deliberately chosen to offent conservatives. That's trolling.



Again, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth that didn't come out of there. Stop it. I never said you had to adhere to "hard right doctrine", in fact if you go back and read my post I indicated exactly the opposite.

I'm all for free discourse of ideas, I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised that you hear it for taking what seemed to be an anti-Second position - on a firearm board. It'd be like a Klansman expecting his views to be well recieved at the NAACP.

You have started with the assumption that "fingolfen is a hard right winger". First off, I'm not. I am fairly strict when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, but as I indicated... in my last post... which you obviously didn't read... I'm a social libertarian...



I wrote what I thought was a clear, well reasoned post. You seem to have taken pieces of it totally out-of-context, twisted it based on your own preconceptions, and then lambasted me for it taking time to get a few digs in and put words in my mouth... and then you wonder why people don’t receive your posts well?

As to Leonidas - he died for a cause he believed in - and he is remembered to this day for it. Honestly, of all the ways to go, that's not a bad one. Unlike him I, like so many of us, will mostly likely die anonymously - mourned by a few friends and family, and in a few years I'll be no more than an entry in a computer or family tree. What I learn from him, though, is that true courage is to stand up for what you believe in - regardless of the cost. If the day ever comes where we are all told to lay down our arms (which I pray it doesn't) - I hope I, on that day, have the courage to respond as he did. I look at my son and hope that I have the courage to fight to ensure that he gets to enjoy not only the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that I have, but hopefully even greater ones.

We've got two threads here: One has to do with the mode of argumentation. I think that's pretty lame as a point of contention. Of course any argument I come up with is going to be poorly received in this crowd, so I don't worry about how my arguments are "received". If you expect the home crowd to applaud the efforts of a dissenter, you are naive. I'll simply recall that it wasn't I who first used the term "kook" or trumpeted his degrees and point out how weird it is for a conservative 2A advocate to be pilloried like he has been.

But there is also a substantive issue worth discussing. And that's whether, as Barry Goldwater put it in 1964, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." I disagree. I think you can be out there too far as to be kooky. And remember that Goldwater lost by a landslide in 1964.

If what you want is to lose and to be remembered as a valiant loser (like Goldwater or Leonidas), OK. But I don't want to lose. I want to win. And being nutty on 2A rights -- being too hysterical about every Obama appointment or every possible proposal or taking loaded guns to a health care rally with a sign about watering the tree of liberty with blood -- hurts those of us who really want to win on gun rights, not just die a noble death.

 

[CEF1959]

Perhaps he's not so strongly convinced anymore that we are all "kooks".

Oh, I've never believed that all of you are kooks. But you might qualify. I just can't remember anything interesting that you've ever posted, so I can't say.

 

[capdek]

Thank-you CEF for the highly antagonistic response. It's so in-keeping with what appears to be a highly-predictable, vitriolic personality.
However, you'll have to forgive me for not allowing you to goad me into an argument. I've met quite a few verbal bullies like you over the years. You seem to feed on hatred and anger, and I would only be wasting my time and energy feeding that need. Frankly, I feel sorry for you. You are probably a very unhappy person deep-down. But then again, please accept my apologies if I've mistakenly misjudged you. And have a good evening!

 

[NK777]

Well this thread took an interesting turn and the debate recently started was interesting until CEF decided he just had to throw more stones at most people here.

CEF you seem to have this deep seated need to both attempt to speak as if you are above us and throw petty stones at random at just about anyone willing to debate with you, which I might add you claim you want "A rational Debate". News flash CEF your mud slinging does not reinforce your self proclaimed rational debate. You are in fact your own worse enemy. You have succeeded in doing one thing only CEF. You have succeeded in not making any friends here. This is neither good for the 2nd amendment cause or promotion of rational debate.

FYI I am not a right wing nut job or a liberal wing nut. You seem more interested in dividing us then uniting us. In fact I believe that is what you are trying to do. This isn't about RED vs BLUE here. What we need to focus on is setting our petty differences aside and uniting all 2nd amendment supporters.

Quit hating and attempting to divide us you monkey.