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

[CEF1959]

So you are NOT calling me a typical leftist? I'm confused. I asked you about it at 9:12 pm yesterday.

 

[Trlsmn]

So you are NOT calling me a typical leftist? I'm confused. I asked you about it at 9:12 pm yesterday.

You're becoming an insufferable bore!

 

[CEF1959]

Thanks for conceding you were full of crap with the "typical leftist" accusation. Shame you didn't have the cajones to just admit you were wrong.

 

[Trlsmn]

Thanks for conceding you were full of crap with the "typical leftist" accusation. Shame you didn't have the cajones to just admit you were wrong.

I proved myself and my words, real men do that!

 

[CEF1959]

You proved I am a "typical leftist" as you accused? Was that here or in your head, Real Man? I think I missed it.

 

[Trlsmn]

You proved I am a "typical leftist" as you accused? Was that here or in your head, Real Man? I think I missed it.

Question asked and answered! look above.

 

[CEF1959]

In which post did you back up your claim that I am a "typical leftist"? I'm still waiting, Sparky. Just cite the number. That's all you have to do.

It's a weird statement to make about a conservative Republican, so I'm just wondering about it.

Sparky?

Got nuthin'?

 

[Trlsmn]

In which post did you back up your claim that I am a "typical leftist"? I'm still waiting, Sparky.

As are many people that have asked you many questions you have ignored. I will leave it for the people with the ability to comprehend to judge whether I fulfilled your request. You are just speaking in illogical circles that go nowhere. As I said you are becoming an insufferable bore!

Just cite the number. That's all you have to do.

139 :winkkiss:

 

[CEF1959]

That's lame, Sparky. Post 139 is just a repetition of your unsupported allegation.

You seem like a nice guy, if a bit frazzled, so let me help you out: http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=100670&postcount=30

 

[gunnoob75]

CEF, you are a typical leftist because you are very fast to judge and slam your opponents, and put forth no effort to address the topic at hand.

Now, where are these threats against you?

Speak up or go away, man. I am down right tired of your attitude towards members of this community. And no matter how many times you say, "You all attack me first! Blah blah blah!" It's just not true. You called the members here Kooks and whatever else, and it's very sad that a Moderator hasn't slapped you for it.

There is no reason to show the disrespect that you have shown. And you have no right to complain about everyone ganging up on you.
You're worthless, and contribute nothing but a few dollars to the web site. I will pay 50 dollars to the first mod who slaps you for being so disrespectful.

 

[CEF1959]

Now Joe, that doesn't make a conservative into a leftist. Right vs. left has to do with ideology and stuff. But you know that.

Anyway, Trlsmn promised to acknowledge the threat if I posted it. Will you do that too? It's PG rated, though, because the threat includes a little racist bomb too. You ok with that?

 

[CEF1959]

You're worthless.

What was that thing you said about "slapping" someone for being disrespectful?

 

[Trlsmn]

That's lame, Sparky. Post 139 is just a repetition of your unsupported allegation.

You're having a problem with comprehension then.

You seem like a nice guy, if a bit frazzled

Boy do you not know me, I've been accused of enjoying the sport of debate!

so let me help you out: http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=100670&postcount=30

I'm not sure what that's about? I am the last guy that would support conspiracy theories. The fact is all I have done here is call you out on your schoolyard tactics and point out that you're lacking the ability to support your own agenda with facts. Read back and you will see that I haven't put forth my beliefs for any scrutiny so your link to sarcasm is misplaced!

 

[CEF1959]

Sparky, I'm just asking you to support your contention that I'm a "typical leftist."

Is post #139 all you've got? Really? Because it doesn't offer anything to support the allegation. Plus, it came AFTER you made the allegation, so it couldn't have been the basis for your allegation anyway. If you like debate, you can do this. Just give us the support or apologize and walk away like a man.

Here's your post 139. Maybe YOU can explain how this supports your ridiculous allegation:

"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."

 

[gunnoob75]

Whoever called you a leftist wasn't calling you a Democrat. They were comparing your attitude in a debate.

 

[CEF1959]

Huh? I'm not tracking that leftist vs. Democrat thing.

So being a "leftist" style of debater is evil, but being a "rightist" style of debater is virtuous? Leftists debate unfairly and rightists debate fairly? That's your point?

Can't be. No reasonable person would make such a preposterous statement.

But not all people are reasonable of course. And people continue to surprise me in how kooky they can be, I have to say.

But I keep forgetting: Cass Sunstein is the kook. Right.....

 

[Scott]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
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.

CEF you like the liberal media choose to edit my or others comments. Thanks and that proved a theory that I have.

 

[Chee-to]

This thread started out with topic below, an email sent from the GOA, CEF didn't like the word "KOOK" being used to described Cass Sunstein, and his lets say "eccentric" views on animal rights, and his 2nd amendment stand on gun control, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.

Why not get back on track and defend "each" of our views on Mr. Sunstein stand on hunting and gun control, and why he should or shouldn't be viewed as a threat to 2A, considering the fact that he is now the 'Regulatory Czar.' lets be civil and stay on topic so this thread doesn't get locked...........Just sayin'..........

This might inspire some discussion on the subject of hunting and gun control..

Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.

This time it's the proposed "Regulatory Czar" who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.

For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence. He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:

I think we should go further ... the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities. (Italics are his emphasis.)

If that's all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.

In Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!

"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property," Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).

Well, that's a relief ... he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.

Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip ... only to find out that you've been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!

By the way, if you're wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won't be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.

In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:

Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.... [O]n the Constitution's text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.

Hmm, what part of "shall not be infringed" does Sunstein not understand?

Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.

As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life ****.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.

That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.

No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ... then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar ... now, there's an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.

It's time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.



----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this "Regulatory Czar" would have upon firearms and hunting.

Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, in Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!

Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."

I wouldn't be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority -- 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O'Leary poll in August -- who opposes licensed concealed carry.

I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein's views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.

Sincerely,

 

[CEF1959]

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:



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...



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...

King Leonidas used every power he had to win right there at Thermopolae. He didn't want to "win in the end" in history books after he was annihilated. If he had given up his weapons to Darius, Darius would have killed him anyway. He knew that. So he tried to win.

It's all about smart tactics, and Leonidas tried them all. He would have been the first to say that engaging in stupid tactics just so you can look good to history isn't worth a hill of beans. I maintain that being in a state of permanent hysteria is bad tactics. Being a loser isn't good. Leonidas understood that, and tried very hard not to be a loser at Thermopolae. But he was. And because Sparta was purely a warrior city-state, it left us nothing in terms of culture. Just dead warriors and a slogan. Great. Athens left us Western Civilization.

I don't know why people insist on losing tactics in our 2A battles today. Maybe they don't have the discipline to hold their fire. Maybe they need readers for their blogs. Maybe they have other political agendas that have more to do with politics and race than gun rights.

Remember Andrew Jackson's (maybe apocryphal command) at the Battle of New Orleans? "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." That's smart tactics. And he won. Winning is better than losing, and winning requires being smart, not impetuous or phlegmatic, let alone hysterical.

If Cass Sunstein turns out to be horrible, you won't have done anything. He was on the cusp of confirmation and was never in doubt in the Senate. So all you did was get people to waste ammo and rhetoric on a losing fight. Good job. Very effective. You can chortle on your blog that you told us so. Great. Yawn.

Meanwhile, the smart people sat back and saw his appointment as a done deal. We didn't engage in unproductive rhetoric about him. So when our Senator gets a letter, it'll be from someone not already known to be a "right wing whack job." That letter will, therefore, have more effect. You shoot your wad in a series of premature ejaculations; I'll keep my powder dry and be ready for the important events.

Leonidas would say you've been kooky. Meanwhile, the person you call a kook was confirmed by both Republican and Democratic senators. The R's in the Senate know you have to pick your points on which to stand. You don't. You wail about everything. And it hurts us.

 

[fingolfen]

Remember Andrew Jackson's (maybe apocryphal command) at the Battle of New Orleans? "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." That's smart tactics. And he won. Winning is better than losing, and winning requires being smart, not impetuous or phlegmatic, let alone hysterical.

More later... but first a history lesson...

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes..." William Prescott, Battle of Bunker Hill... may have actually said "color of their eyes"...

One of the things instrumental to Jackson's victory at New Orelans was the Kentucky Long rifle which allowed American troops to outrange the British...