July 3, 2009
Right Wing Extremists?
UPDATE NEWS: Earlier today, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 962. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration. No hearing date has been scheduled.
AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.
They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not restricting the right to bear arms, but the right to bear ammunition? Give me a break.
TYRANNY!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"For the record," the 'Democratic' and 'Republican' parties each had demonstrably different platforms and ideologies a hundred and fifty years ago, and labeling Lincoln as a Republican, or Jefferson as a Democrat, or anybody else with the complimentary or insulting tag of choice, is disingenuous.
ReplyDelete"For the record," in 2001, when the Department of Homeland Security (then the Office of Homeland Security) was formed, I was a vocal opponent. When it absorbed the Coast Guard, INS, Customs, and other systems in 2002, I actually made myself a shirt which had the title, "Department of Homeland Security" resting directly below a swastika. As a cabinet post, it is as frightening an entity as any truly patriotic American can imagine. To tie its views to a specific presidential administration, however, is purely dishonest.
"For the record," W. formed DHS, not Obama, and although every dumbass congressperson voted for it (what, were there two dissenting votes or something?), I didn't hear this blowhard bitching about that.
"For the record," the PATRIOT act is every bit as frightening as anything DHS says or does, and that, too, was the product of W., with, again, virtually unanimous support from the automatons in Congress... but we don't hear him bitching about that, either.
"For the record," the assertion that all homeschool students are aware of the political affiliations of Lincoln, Douglass, and King, or that they are aware of the party platforms at the times of those affiliations, is absurd. I'll bet that Dan's homeschooled kids didn't know that until Dan made them watch this video as part of their propaganda indoctrination curriculum...
"For the record," this propagandist is making things up anyway, as the actual text of the report can be viewed here, and while the language "rightwing extremism" may be unfortunate, it clearly refers not to Republicans, or social/fiscal conservatives, but to racist and/or violent organizations which are colloquially described as "rightwingers." It's not my fault that the religious whackos (not you, necessarily, but the Fred Phelpses), or the skinheads, or the anti-immigration groups all ally themselves with so-called "right wing" core values.
"For the record," if Hitler is comparable to Obama because "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the German "Nationalsozialismus," which means "National Socialism" (and we all know that Obama is a secret socialist), then clearly this whole nation is in trouble, since the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all expressly Republican (or Republics, at the least), as well as being expressly Democratic (in the case of North Korea). I guess we're all screwed... or maybe there's something wrong with his argument.
"For the record," the only thing these little webisodes have going for them is the catchy jingle with the drunken yell of its slogan.
...but I guess if it promotes your preconceived notions, you'll support it uncritically, eh?
--
Stan
In Australia, the conservative party is named "Liberal".
ReplyDelete"For the record", I'm not an American but I still knew that the Republicans used to be the liberal party and the Democrats used to be the conservative party.
ReplyDeleteSecond video.
"This Marxist is afraid..."
?
"Obama shouldn't push us too hard" (Gun cocking sound) Americans are prepared..."
I'm glad I don't live in America.
For the record, did you know the Democratic and Republican parties have essentially swapped places since the Civil War?
ReplyDeleteFor the record, did you know that the Democrats could once rely on the "Solid South" for votes, as they were the party of racism?
For the record, did you know that the Republican party now relies on the "Solid South," having become the new Democratic party?
For the record, which party is a modern racist more likely to support, Republicans or Democrats?
for the record, stan and martin and jill seem to still be asserting their historical and logical ignorance. Stan being especially ignorant did not in any way refute a single thing the video said, I am sure he thought he did, but he obviously can't seem to tell the difference between satire and jokes (regarding the homeschool apology thing) and actual assertion of facts. Considering, due to his atheism that he already has trouble thinking logically I don't expect him to understand that one.
ReplyDeleteSTD, you're a retard. That is all.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
ReplyDeleteSTD, you're a retard. That is all.
Awww is that all your ignorant atheist brain can muster? I didn't expect anything more than that anyway.
STD,
ReplyDeleteIt's not atheists that are opposing you fundies, it is main stream Christianity that is relegating you fundies to the lunatic fringe.
You haven't made a logical point yet, neither here or at your own blog.
Awww is that all your ignorant atheist brain can muster? I didn't expect anything more than that anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou really never have much to say other than attacking people, do you?
Ever since Jill mentioned it, I always think of that Micheal Jackson interview whenever T.D. uses the word "ignorant". Or that South Park, episode where Jackson kept saying "ignorant! That's ignorant!" So in my head, T.D. has a Micheal Jackson voice.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, comments probably have slowed at TD's blog so now he's out trolling.
You haven't made a logical point yet, neither here or at your own blog.
ReplyDeleteawww the ignorant atheist can't tell the diference between asserting I have not made a logical point and actually proving I have not made a logical point, of course due to your atheism I don't expect you to understand that.
You really never have much to say other than attacking people, do you?
ReplyDeleteno, I actually make valid points in the process of attacking people. Just check my blog and various points I've made and see peoples utter inability to refute them.
Anyway, comments probably have slowed at TD's blog so now he's out trolling.
ReplyDeleteno, I actually drop in here from time to time to help Dan filter out the trash that seems to frequent this site
"...can't seem to tell the difference between satire and jokes (regarding the homeschool apology thing) and actual assertion of facts."
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I have noticed about TD is that, when his factual claims are shown to be false, he will retroactively claim that those were not "factual claims" but rather "jokes and satire." It is quite clear that they were originally meant as factual claims.
"...can't tell the diference between asserting I have not made a logical point and actually proving I have not made a logical point"
Well, I have yet to see TD make a logical point. But a proof that he never done so would require an exhaustive analysis of everything he has ever written. That being said, I have seen enough of his writing in places where one would be expected to be making a logical point where he fails to do so. It is reasonable to conclude, unless he demonstrates a counter-example, that TD has never made a logical point.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I have noticed about TD is that, when his factual claims are shown to be false, he will retroactively claim that those were not "factual claims" but rather "jokes and satire." It is quite clear that they were originally meant as factual claims.
aww the ignorant atheist begs the question here. He already assumes I made factual claims in the FIRST PLACE. Just because him and the rest of his ignorant atheist buddies ignorantly assume or THINK I made a factual claim does not indicate I did so.
Well, I have yet to see TD make a logical point. But a proof that he never done so would require an exhaustive analysis of everything he has ever written. That being said, I have seen enough of his writing in places where one would be expected to be making a logical point where he fails to do so. It is reasonable to conclude, unless he demonstrates a counter-example, that TD has never made a logical point.
My blog and this blog is full of logical points made by me, your inability to understand what a logical point is is not my problem it is yours. Simply check my blog and see the inability of anyone able to refute any significant point I've made! you can even try and refute it, my guess is due to your complete and utter ignorance and atheism you cannot.
This looks like fun!
ReplyDeleteYou Christians are ignorant. Ignorant you are, and ignorant you will remain. Your ignorance keeps you blind to the truth. Of course, I would not expect more from your ignorant brain, you ignoramuses. Did I mention you are all ignorant?
Wow! I don't even have to say anything constructive! And I win the argument!
Thanks TD, you've really helped me understand logical argument!
"aww the ignorant atheist begs the question here. He already assumes I made factual claims in the FIRST PLACE."
ReplyDeleteAh, so now the claim is that TD has never made a factual claim. But, seriously, the "ignorant atheist" TD has set it up so that he will claim a previous statement was either a factual claim, or satire, depending on what reaction he got.
"My blog and this blog is full of logical points made by me, your inability to understand what a logical point is is not my problem it is yours. Simply check my blog and see the inability of anyone able to refute any significant point I've made!"
It is not possible to refute a point that is not there. TD's posts are devoid of anything resembling a logical point. He simply makes bald assertions, sometimes backtracking and saying they were "jokes."
On TD's blog:
ReplyDeleteTD said: "where did I make a positive assertion regarding the incest line of discussion? SHOW ME?"
Flute quoted TD: "It does not change the fact that Sarah was adopted and there was no incest."
TD replied: "You being completely ignorant and pathetic cannot tell the difference between explaining my position and what I believe and telling you my position and what I believe are correct and right."
It was about then I stopped giving TD the benefit of the doubt and realised he was either dishonest or "ignorant".
Oh, sweetheart, STD had his ass handed to him on that score by yours truly on this blog (this is as good a starting point as any), and a quick skim of his comments will demonstrate several "positive assertions" regarding Abraham-Sarah brother-sister banging.
ReplyDeleteHe's a mindless douche, and I'm really surprised he has the nerve to show his head around here anymore considering the poundings he takes every time he comments...
--
Stan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStan, he likes the poundings, they feed his persecution complex which in turn feeds his bitterness. This enables him to go out, all righteous and indignant, and call everyone who doesn't subscribe to his specific way of thinking, ignorant.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAh, so now the claim is that TD has never made a factual claim. But, seriously, the "ignorant atheist" TD has set it up so that he will claim a previous statement was either a factual claim, or satire, depending on what reaction he got.
wow how ignorant are you? I never once said I never made a factual claim, I simply said that just because you and your ignorant atheist buddies think I made a factual claim doesn't mean I did. Not my problem you're too ignorant to understand the difference.
It is not possible to refute a point that is not there. TD's posts are devoid of anything resembling a logical point. He simply makes bald assertions, sometimes backtracking and saying they were "jokes
awww the ignorant atheist begs the question again assuming I have not made a point. You just simply assert with no evidence whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIt was about then I stopped giving TD the benefit of the doubt and realised he was either dishonest or "ignorant
awww Jill is struggling just like flute, unable to grasp the difference between explaining my position and asserting that position is a fact. Atheist logic, I tell ya.
ReplyDeletesweetheart, STD had his ass handed to him on that score by yours truly on this blog (this is as good a starting point as any), and a quick skim of his comments will demonstrate several "positive assertions" regarding Abraham-Sarah brother-sister banging
yes, if you mean being unable to prove your assertion then yes you sure did hand me my butt. You like all the other ignorant atheists can't differentiate between a positive statement explaining my position and a positive statement stating my position is a fact. Typical ignorant atheists. It is hilarious watching your tiny brains unable to comprehend subtle differences
"awww the ignorant atheist begs the question again assuming I have not made a point. You just simply assert with no evidence whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteIf the "ignorant atheist" TD actually thought he made a point, he could try demonstrating one as an example. (Perhaps he could go with "most recent.") Presumably, he thinks he's making a point when he calls everyone who disagrees with him "ignorant atheist" or when he talks about "tiny brains unable to comprehend subtle differences." But he's not. He is just making bare assertions. As for my assertion that he makes no points, it is similar to an assertion that there is no "Loch Ness monster." I will retract the assertion should there ever be evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteIf the "ignorant atheist" TD actually thought he made a point, he could try demonstrating one as an example. (Perhaps he could go with "most recent.") Presumably, he thinks he's making a point when he calls everyone who disagrees with him "ignorant atheist" or when he talks about "tiny brains unable to comprehend subtle differences." But he's not. He is just making bare assertions. As for my assertion that he makes no points, it is similar to an assertion that there is no "Loch Ness monster." I will retract the assertion
there are plenty of good points found on my blog, I've said this before, but you being the ignorant atheist you are most likley couldn't comprehend it, just like you can't comprehend the difference between calling someone ignorant and making a point. I never once said that calling someone ignorant was a good point, you obviously are ignorant as to what a good point is, which is your problem not mine.
It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid.
awww someone seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is. My guess is you're another ignorant atheist.
UPDATE NEWS: Earlier today, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 962. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration. No hearing date has been scheduled.
ReplyDeleteAB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.
It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid.
ReplyDeleteawww someone seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is. My guess is you're another ignorant atheist.
awww Theological Discourse is struggling unable to grasp the difference between explaining my position and asserting that position is a fact. Theological Discourse logic, I tell ya.
Reactionary much?
ReplyDeleteAB962 ... would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.
Bull. Shit.
Next time you link to a proposed law, why don't you link to the actual fucking bill rather than your sensationalized fuckwit rendition.
Your version:
...would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month
No. You've omitted a key word here: handgun. The bill applies only to handgun ammunition.
The actual version:
...no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless [he qualifies for an exemption]. (emphasis mine)
Your version:
...even between family and friends...
Wrong again. Exercise your skepticism muscles and research things rather than uncritically accepting them. Don't be a douche.
The real version (3.5; 12061-b.5):
[The 50-round monthly limit on handgun ammunition] shall not apply to or affect ... [s]ales or other transfers of ownership of handgun ammunition between immediate family members, spouses, or registered domestic
partners.
Your version:
unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.
...or unless you qualify for any of the five exemptions, including the family one listed above (the other four seem to apply to civic duty). See the previous exposition and the actual text of the bill.
50 rounds per month -- that's 1800 rounds per year, per adult (over the age of 21). Just how often do you fire your handguns, anyway? You're still free to purchase as many rifle rounds as you like, and I'd bet that even .22LR are exempt, so if you have a Ruger or some other pea-shooter, you can still stockpile.
Anyway, as I said, read the bill before buying in to sensationalist bullshit. That's partly why you believe the bible in the first place, you know...
--
Stan
"I never once said that calling someone ignorant was a good point...."
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking TD has not committed to anything in particular of his being a good point. Please note that he will not give a single instance of what he considers to be a good point. He can always say, "nope, that wasn't what I meant was a good point either; but there are plenty of good points on my blog." If he committed to one, his charade would be over. I am quite capable of recognizing a good point. But he submits no examples. He does say "ignorant atheist" a lot, which leads me to think he pats himself on the back every time he says it.
Fine Stan, you're right about the slight subtle details of the bill. I did take it on faith. But that doesn't take away how wrong that bill is. They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not restricting the right to bear arms, but the right to bear ammunition? Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteTYRANNY!!!!
They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not restricting the right to bear arms, but the right to bear ammunition? Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteTYRANNY!!!!
As long as everyone has the right to bear nuclear arms it'll all be okay.
Wait...
Flute,
ReplyDeleteGood point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation.
Flute,
ReplyDeleteGood point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation.
So they can and we can't? Hypocrisy!!
Flute,
ReplyDeleteGood point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation.
I meant there's restrictions on the second amendment anyway (You can't have your own personal nuclear bomb, etc...) but, yeah, too many countries have the bomb. In a way, maybe even one country is too many but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Oh and Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou exaggerated the claim also.
You said: "that's 1800 rounds per year, per adult (over the age of 21). "
It's actually a limit is 50 rounds a month. Not 1800 a year. To prevent people getting ready for "something" or stockpiling. They are passing laws against the first and the second amendment! This is completely outrageous. Even for someone like you...so I thought.
Fine Stan, you're right about the slight subtle details of the bill.
ReplyDelete"Slight subtle details"? I'd say they're pretty damned poignant, and considering the hullabaloo Beck, O'Reilly, and every other dipshit on Fox News, and the bitching and moaning sure to come from every illiterate redneck, it damned sure isn't a "slight subtle" detail.
I did take it on faith.
Yeah, I noticed. I see that strategy works wonders for you, eh?
Next time, try evidence, and try substantiating the claims of others before you join the idiot mob.
But that doesn't take away how wrong that bill is. They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not restricting the right to bear arms, but the right to bear ammunition? Give me a break.
Your right to bear ammunition, as well as arms, is already restricted -- especially in the state of California. Since this bill only applies to that state, and your right to move or travel to another state is unhindered, you could avoid this law's reach even if it passed (which it probably will).
As Flute said, you cannot own a nuclear weapon. Not only that, but you cannot own certain types of ammunition, with restrictions based on caliber as well as type (e.g. belt-fed rounds, incendiary rounds, "cop-killers," etc.). Your cry of foul play is too little, too late, and is ultimately nothing more than special pleading.
It's actually a limit [of] 50 rounds a month. Not 1800 a year.
Hmmm. For some reason I took a year to be 36 months... My mistake. 600 rounds per year. Still more than enough to shoot stray niggers or spics, yes?
To prevent people getting ready for "something" or stockpiling.
No, you're going reactionary again. You are free to stockpile as many rounds as you like -- just because you may only purchase 50 rounds per adult per month does not mean that you must fire all 50 rounds each month. Besides this, do you think for a moment that there won't be a rush on handgun ammunition in the interim year before this bill takes effect (assuming it passes)? You'll have an entire year to purchase as many .38 special rounds as you like, or whatever caliber your derringer takes.
They are passing laws against the first and the second amendment!
Now there's another bill? One which affects the First Amendment? The lady dost protest too much, me thinks.
Even if your outrageous sensationalism were at all true, the California state legislature is quite unable to pass a bill which usurps the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution -- that takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress (or state legislatures), and must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, remember? I'm just spitballing here, but I don't think the California state legislature quite has that jurisdictional reach...
This is completely outrageous.
Hey, that's what I said... Oh. I was talking about what you were saying...
Even for someone like you...so I thought.
He don't know me very well, do he?
Your right to acquire rifle ammunition is unaffected by this bill. Your right to acquire shotgun ammunition is unaffected by this bill. Your right to acquire handgun ammunition which also serves as rifle ammunition is unaffected by this bill. Your right to travel to Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon (just to name the adjacent states) is unaffected by this bill.
I don't think it outrageous that a state which is ravaged by handgun violence would seek to reduce it by whatever means available within reason. I would like to hear you now argue why you need more than a combined 100 rounds per month (50 for you, 50 for Patty) for your handguns.
Ready? Go.
--
Stan
Edit:
ReplyDelete"Still more than enough to shoot stray niggers or spics, yes?"
Should read:
"Still more than enough to shoot stray niggers, spics, or fags, yes?"
Sorry for any confusion.
--
Stan
ReplyDeleteawww Theological Discourse is struggling unable to grasp the difference between explaining my position and asserting that position is a fact
The ignorant atheist can't seem to tell the difference between me asserting he seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is and the difference between explaining a position and asserting a position to be a fact. He thought he had some type of point only for it to blow up in his face. I simply said that he seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is, no where did I say anything about his position. Another ignorant atheist devoid of logical thought exposed.
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking TD has not committed to anything in particular of his being a good point. Please note that he will not give a single instance of what he considers to be a good point. He can always say, "nope, that wasn't what I meant was a good point either; but there are plenty of good points on my blog." If he committed to one, his charade would be over. I am quite capable of recognizing a good point. But he submits no examples. He does say "ignorant atheist" a lot, which leads me to think he pats himself on the back every time he says it.
The ignorant atheist seems unable to read. I said there are tons of good points on my blog, he obviously cannot recognize a good point. His whole thing here:
"He can always say, "nope, that wasn't what I meant was a good point either; but there are plenty of good points on my blog."
Is simply an evasion, either to evade the fact that he found lots of good points and he simply doesn't want to admit it or evade the fact that he simple does not want to look for them, or some other equally ignorant option. He continues to ask for examples, just go through my blog and bring some of them out. Furthermore, the ignorant atheist is slyly trying to change the subject. His words here:
One of the things I have noticed about TD is that, when his factual claims
Show he is talking about factual claims, his words here:
Well, I have yet to see TD make a logical point.
Show that he is talking about logical points. Now we see him trying to change it from factual claims and logical points, to simply 'good points.' Either he is too ignorant to keep up with his own words or he is being deceptive.
Theological Discourse the monkey is still flinging poop
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteTheological Discourse the monkey is still flinging poop
Is this the only thing the ignorant atheist can respond back with? no logical points? no rational refutation, just ignorant assertion.
"The ignorant atheist [TD] can't seem to tell the difference between me asserting he seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is and the difference between explaining a position and asserting a position to be a fact. He thought he had some type of point only for it to blow up in his face."
ReplyDeleteAlthough TD made the statement in reference to another, it seems to apply much better to himself.
"The ignorant atheist [TD] seems unable to read."
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that TD can't read. He is rather evasive, however.
"Now we see him trying to change it from factual claims and logical points, to simply 'good points.' Either he is too ignorant to keep up with his own words or he is being deceptive."
I agree with TD that there has been quite a bit of shift. But he has initiated all of it. "Well, I have yet to see TD make a logical point," was a response to his claim that Froggie "can't tell the diference between asserting I have not made a logical point and actually proving I have not made a logical point, of course due to your atheism I don't expect you to understand that."
Now TD says that the shift in terms indicates deception. Well, if he wishes to attribute deception to his own motives, I will not dispute it. But if the reader will look back through the comments, he will find that each such term I have used has been in response to TD's own use of the term.
"His whole thing here, "he can always say, 'nope, that wasn't what I meant was a good point either; but there are plenty of good points on my blog,' is simply an evasion, either to evade the fact that he found lots of good points and he simply doesn't want to admit it or evade the fact that he simple does not want to look for them, or some other equally ignorant option. He continues to ask for examples, just go through my blog and bring some of them out."
As I have already said, anything I bring over from his blog will be a non-point, because that is all that is over there. But right now, TD is maintaining the cop-out so that for anything I do bring over, he can say that it wasn't what he meant by a "good point." The reason I want an example is so that I can show that something he is committed to claiming as a "good point" is nothing of the kind. I expect he knows this. By maintaining a "good point of the gaps" position, he can continue to claim that there are good points in areas of his blog that I have not specificly shown not to be good points. I have no intention of doing a comprehensive analysis of everything he has ever written on his blog. That would be too exhausting. There aren't any good or logical points on his blog. So he needs to maintain the gaps. He is apparently aware that, if he commits himself to saying something in particular is a "good point," I only need to show that his example fails.
More bluntly, I assert that there are no examples of good points on his blog. He asserts that there are. If I bring over something that I say is not a good point, he can simply agree that my example was never intended as a good point. But he can run and hide because bringing over his entire blog for analysis would be too time-consuming. That is why he needs to bring forth the example, so that he can no longer rely on the gaps.
Is this the only thing the ignorant atheist can respond back with? no logical points? no rational refutation, just ignorant assertion.
ReplyDeleteI AM NOT AN ATHIEST. So watch what you say. You're a monkey flinging poop cos you act like one. You say make no points just waste peoples time.
Marcus Wellington:
ReplyDeleteTD's use of the language is "non-standard." When he says "ignorant atheist" it has nothing to do with either ignorance or atheism. He applies the expression to anyone who disagrees with him.
One more thing, reactionary Dan, even if this bill passes, it would still have to withstand [state] Constitutional scrutiny. I have no doubt that there will be a suit filed alleging that it violates the Second Amendment, and while my previous arguments still stand -- that is, ammunition and weapons are already regulated, your right to travel is unhindered, your right to stockpile is hindered only by your shooting habits, and 50 rounds per adult per month is plenty for offing niggers, spics, fags, or Jews -- it is also true that a potentially successful challenge may come from the standpoint that if a given type of weapon is legal to own, then restrictions on its ammunition infringe upon the Second Amendment...
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend to know if such an argument would have legs or not, but it may. For what it's worth, I respect the desire to reduce the amount of handgun deaths, and I think this bill is a reasonable compromise toward that end. If your concern is only for your own ability to pack heat, then you're a bit of a douche. If your concern includes a desire to be able to rise up against tyranny should it head your way, then what use is a handgun, anyway? Like I've said before, get yourself an assault rifle... Oh... well, get yourself one of the many loophole-beating rifles which are legal despite being remarkably similar to an assault rifle...
--
Stan
Foul mouthed Stan,
ReplyDeleteI am merely reporting the news. Of course this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment. The fact that they are doing it anyway says something about our legislators complete disregard of the principles of our constitution and our rights. They are literally trying to destroy it completely, one bill at a time. As far as fighting back I will do so if my immediate family is being placed in jeopardy in an extreme way. Like all Christians will be arrested. I cannot see myself joining a group that has the intent on shooting people (police) in the name of justice. That seems oxymoronic (sic) to me. Besides I am a stealthy, knife in the dark, kind of guy myself. The ATF does not have records of people like me. These days they might though since, by sheer definition, I would be considered one of those right wing people.
I am sure, if there is a complete meltdown, there will be plenty of weapons to fight against a tyrannical government movement. After all, dead soldiers/police cannot hold on to their weapons. The availability of such weapons would increase exponentially.
Americans, I still believe, just will not allow such a thing. I am qualified to to man pretty much any post for the cause. My choice would be the .50 cal, if it goes that far. Even I cannot even imagine that situation ever happening though. I would think that Jesus would intervene way before we would have to battle our own government. We never know the plan though. Arresting peaceful Christians, and beast marking, would indeed bring the lion out of me though. Now stop the racist rhetoric it is way beneath even you, so I thought.
Now stop the racist rhetoric it is way beneath even you, so I thought.
ReplyDeleteIf you really thought that was serious, you're daft indeed.
In all your inane fantasizing about the apocalypse, you failed to mention why a 50-round per adult per month limit is insufficient -- the racism joke was actually on you, since I can think of no legitimate reason you would really need more ammunition than that, unless you are a competitive marksman. Although I doubt that you are a competitive marksman, or even a member of a local range, there does not seem to be a provision for this sort of perfectly legal activity, and hence there is yet another angle from which it could be challenged.
Of course this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment.
Actually, of course it does not, or it will not survive a challenge. State statutes cannot usurp the federal Constitution. Regarding the possibility that the bill may fail due to restricting ammunition for legal firearms, I realize now that this is unlikely to succeed -- after all, the purchase of various legal over-the-counter medications is restricted in most states, for a reasonably similar reason. Indeed, the restrictions outlined here suggest that the constitutionality of ammunition restriction has been established already.
Besides I am a stealthy, knife in the dark, kind of guy myself.
Sure you are. Learn that in the Navy, did you?
Anyway, even if you think you are that sort, then just go to Nevada or Arizona and buy as much ammunition as you want.
The ATF does not have records of people like me.
They just might... You post your real, full name on this blog, alongside reactionary rhetoric. You're probably not a high priority, but it certainly is possible you may have been noticed. Greasy wheel and all, you know. (So much for knife-in-the-dark.)
The availability of such weapons would increase exponentially.
No, it would increase linearly, directly proportional to the number of downed soldiers, minus some factor based on the fact that nearby comrades will retrieve a fallen soldier's weapon(s) before a resistance fighter will. Stop exaggerating.
I cannot see myself joining a group that has the intent on shooting people (police) in the name of justice.
So... instead you've joined a group intent on torturing people for eternity in the name of justice...
I am merely reporting the news.
I saved this one for last because it is by far the most outrageous of the claims in that comment. Bull. Shit. You don't report the news, you sensationalize, and perpetuate the propaganda. You didn't even read the goddamned bill before you copy/pasted the rhetoric shat out by your source. You didn't bother to check whether what you were "reporting" was accurate in the slightest. You reacted, because you are a reactionary.
It all adds up, though, Dan, in that it all illustrates the fact I've been harping on for a few weeks now -- you uncritically accept any "news" or potential ally which comes along and affirms your preconceived notions, and you don't seem to have any problem with that.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteLearn that in the Navy, did you?
Nope, mainly from Steven Seagal and Royce Gracie. B-)
No, it would increase linearly,...
We disagree then. I believe you're not considering the growth of weapons as the soldier fatalities increase due to the weapons availability increase. More weapons, more fatalities which increase the weapons arsenal which increases the fatalities...on and on in an exponential growth until...WIN! :7P
So... instead you've joined a group intent on torturing people for eternity in the name of justice...
So you believe there is justice without ramifications of criminal actions? If you stubbornly and continually break (moral) laws then you deserve punishment. Agree? I humbly admit to my breaking of Laws and strive to stop doing so. I want to be cured of evil and stop being a criminal. Do you? Can criminals be rehabilitated? Through Christ they can. I signed on to that program indeed. I was so very wrong to be a criminal. Are you?
You don't report the news, you sensationalize, and perpetuate the propaganda.
Of course you would have that viewpoint, since you also are projecting your presuppositions on the subject. I sure hope that you are not so lost to think that people are objective. ALL people have their presuppositions when analyzing situations. All people. I magnetize towards things that agree with my worldview and so do you. According to my worldview this world will gradually get worse and worse and then ciaos until Christ comes. I look for these things (2 Timothy 3) Speaking of exponential growth...
In fact lets take a look at your blog or other posts to see how many things that you discuss actually say how wrong you are about a certain subject. You know since objectivity is the goal....Nope nothing.
Of course you would have that viewpoint [that Dan does not report the news, but instead perpetuates propaganda and sensationalism]...
ReplyDeleteYeah, of course, because I've already exposed it. Or don't you remember editing your update to remove the sensationalized bullshit regarding the inability to transfer ammunition between immediate family members?
That's a lie, Dan.
You were caught in an act of blatant propagandizing and sensationalizing, and yet you still dodge and scurry away. You have been caught in previous posts for doing precisely the same thing, and in those instances, your general reaction is to post a new topic to cover it up, and then a few weeks or months later, you'll actually link to this very thread as though it supports some claim of yours by its very title.
You're a con-artist's wet dream. You're part of the act, which you realize, but you actually think it's legitimate. You're a stool pigeon -- and I mean stool.
Admit it -- you get your RSS updates or emails or whatever that inform you of some new travesty to [insert your persecution complex' "cause"], and you uncritically post them here, with some minor tweaking of the introductory text. You engage in little more than willful ignorance, and apparently rely on participants here to actually read or view the content you post, because you clearly haven't.
ALL people have their presuppositions when analyzing situations. All people.
Oh, that may be true, but obviously only some people bother to check things out before they grab a pitchfork and hop on the bandwagon. Some people.
--
Stan