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

[Scott]

I must be a nut job because:

I love guns
NRA life member
Military Veteran with training
Very pro 2A
I believe in religion
I don't agree with anything this current administration is doing

Yes CEF I am a Kook and hardright because you say so.....

I say we all get together and discuss this in a public setting as that would be much more fun. I will even spend the first $50 bucks in beer, water, soda, and wings. Got to have wings with a good beer and discussion.

 

[Buddhalux]

Why isn't CEF banned yet? I've seen people say alot less and less often get banned in the past. I don't even want to view anymore threads because of his bs rhetoric, name calling, and assumptions.

 

[leftym4]

Why isn't CEF banned yet? I've seen people say alot less and less often get banned in the past. I don't even want to view anymore threads because of his bs rhetoric, name calling, and assumptions.

"Sometimes its good to see how the other side thinks, that way we know what we are up against "



"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

-Ronald Reagan

 

[fingolfen]

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.

One thing we agree on – you didn’t use the word “kook” first. Of course, the term wasn’t used in reference to you – rather to Sunstein. Furthermore – no one on this board used it in reference to Sunstein first either as we were passing along a Gun Owners of America alert. Given Sunstein’s well outside the mainstream views, I seriously doubt GOA can even claim to have first applied the moniker.

That, however, is irrelevant. Your initial post on this topic was:

Do you see the irony in this crowd calling him a "kook"? He's a Harvard Law School professor, constitutional law scholar, and author of well-respected books on law and policy. And he's called a "kook" by people who see a presidential speech promoting hard work to school kids as a socialist plot? You can disagree with him (as I do), but for YOU guys to call him a "kook" is perfect.

Do you not see the irony? Probably not. Anyway, I gotta tell you: It's hilarious. You guys crack me up.

You claim to want a logical debate, yet your first opinion on this topic contains more logical fallacies than I can easily swing a dead cat at:

Ad homiem, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Ridicule, Guilt By Association, etc.

In addition you categorically insult the other members of this board while simultaneously setting yourself apart and above the other posters. If rather than lambasting the board, you’d indicated why you believed Sunstein did not represent a threat to the Second Amendment or firearm rights, I think the discussion would have gone better...

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.

That’s an interesting perspective putting Leonidas (who was a monarch) in the same category as Goldwater, and one I question. Leonidas was a monarch – so he’d already won the “election.” Furthermore, Leonidas falls into the “lose the battle, but win the war” tradition like the defenders of the Alamo much later. Leonidas’ sentiment is also shared in the motto of the state of New Hampshire, “Live free or die.” So while Leonidas lost the battle, he didn’t “lose” as the cause he was fighting for was ultimately victorious because of his actions and inspiration.

It’s you who continues to couple the Tea Parties, protestors at heath care rallies with those of use who respond regularly to moves by the administration to appoint anti-Second Amendment individuals. You clearly have an image in your head and are lumping a large group of people together (see logical fallacies above). The issues don’t necessarily track and have really nothing to do with each other. In short, you’re bringing baggage to the discussion, and that baggage is weighing down your argument.

When it comes to our rights and liberties under the Second Amendment, at a high level you really have two choices. You can act, or you can “wait and see.” In America we have a representative form of government. Obama, Congress, the Senate all work for us and at our pleasure. Every American has a “vision” of how things should be our elected officials more so than most. Therefore unless the people respond, politicians are going to go with their gut every time. The only way we have to communicate how we feel on an issue that matters is for us to write letters to our representatives and the administration. Therefore, I really don’t consider letter writing in an attempt to prevent individuals I consider to be unfit for the position to be confirmed “hysteria.” It’s expressing my opinion to my representative – who works for me and all of the other good citizens of my district/state/country.

Circling back to the original topic. I sincerely hope you’re right now that Cass has been confirmed and that he represents a benign influence on policy. Personally, I still believe he represents a threat to the Second Amendment, hunting, and will use his position to further an “animal-rights” agenda I strongly disagree with. Consider this, though. One of the primary criticisms the left is using against the right at this point lies around fiscal conservatism – the charge I’ve seen most often is “where we you when Bush was spending lavishly?” Suppose Cass does start working on a wedge strategy and attacking our rights. Will you stand up then? What will your answer be when someone asks “where we you when he was confirmed”? My answer will be simple – I opposed his confirmation from the outset – and I can document that...

 

[Trlsmn]

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

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?

Yes please do post it and of course I will acknowledge proof. Please post a link

 

[tkdguy]

What a waist of time. Can we more on?

 

[Trlsmn]

What a waist of time. Can we more on?

Freudian slip?

 

[gunnoob75]

CEF, I never saw you show us how you were threatened with Violence.

 

[CEF1959]

Yes please do post it and of course I will acknowledge proof. Please post a link

And you'll post the link showing that I'm a liberal? I'll acknowledge that proof if you have it. Deal? I found and am ready to quote the threat (which also included a grotesque bit of racism). So I'm just waiting for you to man up on your end.

 

[CEF1959]

In addition you categorically insult the other members of this board while simultaneously setting yourself apart and above the other posters. If rather than lambasting the board, you'd indicated why you believed Sunstein did not represent a threat to the Second Amendment or firearm rights, I think the discussion would have gone better...

If people on this forum want to call Cass Sunstein a "kook", that's ironic, because many posts by those who call Sunstein a kook are way kookier. Heck, some of them are virtually illiterate. And regardless of how you see him on the issues, Sunstein's got qualifications that no one on here has. Sorry that your science degree in whatever doesn't rank, but it just doesn't. That was my point. Sorry you missed it. I thought it was pretty clear.

And I never said Sunstein presents no threat. What I said was any threat he might pose in the future is not worth getting hysterical about yet. Hysteria hurts gun rights. How many times do I have to make that point? You read English, right? Or should I post in some other language?

 

[CEF1959]

Yes CEF I am a Kook

Glad we got that straightened out. Whew. I was beginning to think I was the only one who was seeing clearly.

 

[Trlsmn]

And you'll post the link showing that I'm a liberal?

I don't need to do that because I never called you a liberal!

I'll acknowledge that proof. Deal?

No deal, I don't need to make deals for you to back up your own words, that is ridiculous! Only you can back up your words. A real man of his word would not require deals when it comes to his word!

Sure. But be patient. This isn't my life. And only if you'll agree to acknowledge I've posted it.

You made the statement I called your bluff and agreed to the terms of your statement now you are waffling!

I'm still waiting for you to post those threats, I can't acknowledge them as you asked unless you post them. And I'm more than happy to acknowledge proof as the truth is all that matters to me.

 

[CEF1959]

I don't need to do that because I never called you a liberal!

Right you are. My apology. You referred to me as a "typical leftist." If you are prepared to back that up, I've got the threat link (with accompanying racism) handy.

Or can you not back that up? If not, but you are willing to confess error and apologize, I'll post the threat link anyway.

Your move, big boy.

 

[CEF1959]

I say we all get together and discuss this in a public setting as that would be much more fun. I will even spend the first $50 bucks in beer, water, soda, and wings. Got to have wings with a good beer and discussion.

I love this idea. I'll pitch in $50 too. Agreed about the wings and beer.

The internet is a strange place. I'll bet we'd find a lot of common ground if we had the discussion in person.

And in case of any disagreements, I'd be right of course.

 

[Trlsmn]

Right you are. My apology. You referred to me as a "typical leftist." If you are prepared to back that up, I've got the threat link (with accompanying racism) handy.

Or can you not back that up? If not, but you are willing to confess error and apologize, I'll post the threat link anyway.

Your move, big boy.

As I said before its up to you to back up you words either do or don't I have nothing to do with it!

Sorry but what exactly do I need to apologize for, or where was I in error?

 

[CEF1959]

Uh, you referred to me as a "typical leftist." So point to a post showing me as a typical leftist.

Can you?

If you can't, man up and apologize. Here's you from just a few minutes ago: "Only you can back up your words."

So?

 

[Trlsmn]

I love this idea. I'll pitch in $50 too. Agreed about the wings and beer.

The internet is a strange place. I'll bet we'd find a lot of common ground if we had the discussion in person.

And in case of any disagreements, I'd be right of course.

I'll pitch in $50 too if you will walk into a bar and yell at anonymous strangers that they are all Kooks and Taliban like you do here anonymously! :winkkiss:

 

[CEF1959]

If they get kooky and Taliban-like, I will. But we don't need your $50 anyway. We've already got $100 pledged.

Now where's that "typical leftist" stuff? You're stalling.

 

[Trlsmn]

Uh, you referred to me as a "typical leftist." So point to a post showing me as a typical leftist.

Can you?

If you can't, man up and apologize.

Sorry you said I called you a liberal!

You must take things in context so they have proper meaning!

I said "Are you going to be the typical leftist"

That clearly means, are you going to be like the typical leftist and not back up your own words. It requires no apology because it was asking a question not making a statement. I would like to point out that the question was right on the money too as proved by your later posts in this thread.

 

[Trlsmn]

If they get kooky and Taliban-like, I will. But we don't need your $50 anyway. We've already got $100 pledged.

Now where's that "typical leftist" stuff? You're stalling.

I'm stalling, now that's ironic!