tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post5944096388622555337..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Right Wing Extremists?D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-40847806484199827392009-07-10T23:00:38.082-04:002009-07-10T23:00:38.082-04:00Of course you would have that viewpoint [that Dan ...<i>Of course you would have that viewpoint [that Dan does not report the news, but instead perpetuates propaganda and sensationalism]...</i> <br /><br />Yeah, <i>of course</i>, 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?<br /><br />That's a lie, Dan.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces" rel="nofollow"><i>stool</i></a>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>ALL people have their presuppositions when analyzing situations. All people.</i> <br /><br />Oh, that may be true, but obviously only <i>some</i> people bother to check things out before they grab a pitchfork and hop on the bandwagon. <i>Some</i> people.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29188264444093926192009-07-10T18:05:13.935-04:002009-07-10T18:05:13.935-04:00Stan,
Learn that in the Navy, did you?
Nope, ma...Stan,<br /><br /><i>Learn that in the Navy, did you?</i> <br /><br />Nope, mainly from Steven Seagal and Royce Gracie. B-)<br /><br /><i>No, it would increase linearly,...</i> <br /><br />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<br /><br /><i>So... instead you've joined a group intent on torturing people for eternity in the name of justice...</i> <br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i>You don't report the news, you sensationalize, and perpetuate the propaganda.</i> <br /><br />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...<br /><br />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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42675697087935626042009-07-10T15:35:15.056-04:002009-07-10T15:35:15.056-04:00Now stop the racist rhetoric it is way beneath eve...<i>Now stop the racist rhetoric it is way beneath even you, so I thought.</i> <br /><br />If you really thought that was serious, you're daft indeed.<br /><br />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 <i>are</i> 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.<br /><br /><i>Of course this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment.</i> <br /><br />Actually, of course it does <i>not</i>, 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 <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0217.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> suggest that the constitutionality of ammunition restriction has been established already.<br /><br /><i>Besides I am a stealthy, knife in the dark, kind of guy myself.</i> <br /><br />Sure you are. Learn that in the Navy, did you?<br /><br />Anyway, even if you think you are that sort, then just go to Nevada or Arizona and buy as much ammunition as you want.<br /><br /><i>The ATF does not have records of people like me.</i> <br /><br />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.)<br /><br /><i>The availability of such weapons would increase exponentially.</i> <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>I cannot see myself joining a group that has the intent on shooting people (police) in the name of justice.</i> <br /><br />So... instead you've joined a group intent on torturing people for eternity in the name of justice...<br /><br /><i>I am merely reporting the news.</i> <br /><br />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 <i>slightest</i>. You <i>reacted</i>, because <b>you are a reactionary</b>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-68409606791288702122009-07-10T13:52:58.564-04:002009-07-10T13:52:58.564-04:00Foul mouthed Stan,
I am merely reporting the news...Foul mouthed Stan,<br /><br />I 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61338954269389270662009-07-09T23:15:00.816-04:002009-07-09T23:15:00.816-04:00One more thing, reactionary Dan, even if this bill...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...<br /><br />I 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...<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61886881159887857772009-07-09T19:43:38.326-04:002009-07-09T19:43:38.326-04:00Marcus Wellington:
TD's use of the langu...Marcus Wellington:<br /><br /> TD'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.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19979503127987643352009-07-09T18:44:03.936-04:002009-07-09T18:44:03.936-04:00Is this the only thing the ignorant atheist can re...<i>Is this the only thing the ignorant atheist can respond back with? no logical points? no rational refutation, just ignorant assertion</i>.<br /><br />I 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 Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467800833497566464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66411843664076233712009-07-09T13:13:51.354-04:002009-07-09T13:13:51.354-04:00 "The ignorant atheist [TD] can't see... "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."<br /> Although TD made the statement in reference to another, it seems to apply much better to himself.<br /> "The ignorant atheist [TD] seems unable to read."<br /> I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that TD can't read. He is rather evasive, however.<br /> "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."<br /> 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."<br /> 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.<br /> "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."<br /> 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>I</i> want an example is so that I can show that something <i>he is committed to claiming as a "good point"</i> 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.<br /> 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.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45142289952749546592009-07-09T09:11:11.311-04:002009-07-09T09:11:11.311-04:00Theological Discourse the monkey is still flinging...<b><br />Theological Discourse the monkey is still flinging poop<br /></b><br />Is this the only thing the ignorant atheist can respond back with? no logical points? no rational refutation, just ignorant assertion.Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25866049815937557392009-07-09T01:55:05.833-04:002009-07-09T01:55:05.833-04:00Theological Discourse the monkey is still flinging...Theological Discourse the monkey is still flinging poopMarcus Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467800833497566464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5961154012007355332009-07-09T01:06:46.317-04:002009-07-09T01:06:46.317-04:00Strictly speaking TD has not committed to anything...<b><br /> Strictly 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.<br /></b><br />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:<br /><b><br />"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."<br /></b><br />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:<br /><b><br />One of the things I have noticed about TD is that, when his factual claims<br /></b><br />Show he is talking about factual claims, his words here:<br /><b><br /> Well, I have yet to see TD make a logical point. <br /></b><br />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 Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22933141697292274652009-07-09T01:00:27.370-04:002009-07-09T01:00:27.370-04:00awww Theological Discourse is struggling unable to...<b><br /><br />awww Theological Discourse is struggling unable to grasp the difference between explaining my position and asserting that position is a fact</b><br />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.Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-16996305945746236652009-07-08T21:54:36.436-04:002009-07-08T21:54:36.436-04:00Edit:
"Still more than enough to shoot stray...Edit:<br /><br />"Still more than enough to shoot stray niggers or spics, yes?"<br /><br />Should read:<br /><br />"Still more than enough to shoot stray niggers, spics, or fags, yes?"<br /><br /><br />Sorry for any confusion.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-21030831313786138622009-07-08T21:52:22.372-04:002009-07-08T21:52:22.372-04:00Fine Stan, you're right about the slight subtl...<i>Fine Stan, you're right about the slight subtle details of the bill.</i> <br /><br />"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.<br /><br /><i>I did take it on faith.</i> <br /><br />Yeah, I noticed. I see that strategy works wonders for you, eh?<br /><br /><b>Next time, try <i>evidence</i>, and try substantiating the claims of others before you join the idiot mob.</b> <br /><br /><i>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.</i> <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>It's actually a limit [of] 50 rounds a month. Not 1800 a year.</i> <br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i>To prevent people getting ready for "something" or stockpiling.</i> <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>They are passing laws against the first and the second amendment!</i> <br /><br />Now there's another bill? One which affects the First Amendment? The lady dost protest too much, me thinks.<br /><br />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), <i>and</i> 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...<br /><br /><i>This is completely outrageous.</i> <br /><br />Hey, that's what I said... Oh. I was talking about what <i>you</i> were saying...<br /><br /><i>Even for someone like you...so I thought.</i> <br /><br />He don't know me very well, do he?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ready? Go.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37046285332229721072009-07-08T20:54:03.912-04:002009-07-08T20:54:03.912-04:00Oh and Stan,
You exaggerated the claim also.
You...Oh and Stan,<br /><br />You exaggerated the claim also.<br /><br />You said: "that's 1800 rounds per year, per adult (over the age of 21). "<br /><br />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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-83163655919547624482009-07-08T20:47:12.480-04:002009-07-08T20:47:12.480-04:00Flute,
Good point, this administration sure isn&#...<i>Flute,<br /><br />Good point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation</i>.<br /><br />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.Flutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636653543618773903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-50580434297623814352009-07-08T20:45:09.594-04:002009-07-08T20:45:09.594-04:00Flute,
Good point, this administration sure isn&#...Flute,<br /><br />Good point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation.<br /><br />So they can and we can't? Hypocrisy!!D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47155023378658576702009-07-08T20:44:07.736-04:002009-07-08T20:44:07.736-04:00Flute,
Good point, this administration sure isn&#...Flute,<br /><br />Good point, this administration sure isn't doing much about Iran and North Korea's proliferation.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-3425446431661957692009-07-08T20:33:34.632-04:002009-07-08T20:33:34.632-04:00They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not ...<i>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.<br /><br />TYRANNY!!!</i>!<br /><br />As long as everyone has the right to bear nuclear arms it'll all be okay. <br /><br />Wait...Flutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636653543618773903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52122794561344642662009-07-08T20:19:25.014-04:002009-07-08T20:19:25.014-04:00Fine Stan, you're right about the slight subtl...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. <br /><br />TYRANNY!!!!D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31783035032101730232009-07-08T19:50:18.981-04:002009-07-08T19:50:18.981-04:00 "I never once said that calling someone ... "I never once said that calling someone ignorant was a good point...."<br /> Strictly 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.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25904737684823993212009-07-08T19:19:56.496-04:002009-07-08T19:19:56.496-04:00Reactionary much?
AB962 ... would make it a crime...Reactionary much?<br /><br /><i>AB962 ... 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.</i> <br /><br />Bull. Shit.<br /><br />Next time you link to a proposed law, why don't you link to <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090226_introduced.html" rel="nofollow">the actual fucking bill</a> rather than your sensationalized fuckwit rendition.<br /><br />Your version:<br /><br /><i>...would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month</i> <br /><br />No. You've omitted a key word here: <b>handgun</b>. The bill applies only to <b>handgun</b> ammunition.<br /><br />The actual version:<br /><br /><i>...no person shall sell or transfer more than 50<br />rounds of <b>handgun</b> ammunition in any month unless [he qualifies for an exemption].</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />Your version:<br /><br /><i>...even between family and friends...</i> <br /><br />Wrong again. Exercise your skepticism muscles and research things rather than uncritically accepting them. Don't be a douche.<br /><br />The real version (3.5; 12061-b.5):<br /><br /><i>[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<br />partners.</i> <br /><br />Your version:<br /><br /><i>unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.</i> <br /><br />...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74759531401374991592009-07-08T19:17:42.083-04:002009-07-08T19:17:42.083-04:00It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid....<i>It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid.<br /><br />awww someone seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is. My guess is you're another ignorant atheist</i>.<br /><br />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.ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-57462836436641330412009-07-08T18:42:34.247-04:002009-07-08T18:42:34.247-04:00UPDATE NEWS: Earlier today, the Senate Public Safe...UPDATE <a href="http://restoretherepublic.com/top-stories/bill-to-restrict-ammunition-moves-ahead" rel="nofollow">NEWS</a>: 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.<br /><br />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, 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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78935910413249389132009-07-08T18:37:28.913-04:002009-07-08T18:37:28.913-04:00It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid....<b><br />It is a fact that Theological Discourse is stupid.<br /></b><br />awww someone seems to be ignorant as to what a fact is. My guess is you're another ignorant atheist.Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.com