Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's reasonable -- and in keeping with the original intent of the framers -- to say that you have a right to bear infantry arms if you are actually serving in the infantry -- the National Guard, say, or some kind militia. Other forms of "reasonable regulation" would seem to have less basis in what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking about.

Most gunnies disagree with your view, and my application of it.

Does anyone here have a problem with a *reasonable registered concealed-carry law?

Hello


Reasonable as in no violent criminals or psychologically disturbed people need apply.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
My point was, Cheney's been making this same speech, and making this same point, every time, for months - that Kerry will treat terrorism as a crime instead of a war, and really screw the pooch. He phrased it slightly differently this time - god, how many times can you say the same thing without changing the words a little - and everyone who knows his speeches knows what he was saying. So, my end point is, the people claiming the outrage really have none - just glee.

Thank you for reminding me about this. This conceit that Kerry will treat terrorism as a crime instead of a war is a lie, a little story that Cheney and the Administration tell to scare people. Before 9/11, Republicans were not clamoring to go to war with Afghanistan or anyone else. Hell, they even opposed the judicious application of cruise missiles there, and it's not like Bush was planning a war on anyone other than Iraq during the first nine months he was in office. After 9/11, Democrats, Kerry included, supported the invasion of Afghanistan. (If you want to pretend that President Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, there's no arguing with you since it's a counterfactual, but that's also just a little story that conservatives tell themselves and others.) We all agree that there is a place for military force in the so-called war on terror, and we all agree that there is a place for law enforcement -- Republicans, too, which is why this fellow named Ashcroft keeps popping up on the TV screen to tell us what he's been doing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's good to know that Right Blogistan is positively crawling with experts in fonts and typewriters and other arcane matters involved in spotting forged documents. Where were all these people when the Administration got hoodwinked by the forgeries concerning uranium from Niger?

hoodwinked? I thought they were intentionally misleading us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hoodwinked? I thought they were intentionally misleading us.

Sorry, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. Where was Right Blogistan when the administration was hoodwinking us with bogus documents about uranium?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
My assumption was that you were making a funny stemming from your support of the ban, somewhat loosely, and that you were perpetuating a lie that you knew to be just that.

It was simply the coincidental connection between seeing a paintball gatling gun, and remembering the headline in today's paper about the ban expiring. I thought the silliness of the former would make the joke clear, but I've been wrong before.

(Admittedly, a gratuitous kick at the GOP Congress for this happening under their watch was thrown in for good measure, but that's almost required. I think it's in the manual.)

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thank you for reminding me about this. This conceit that Kerry will treat terrorism as a crime instead of a war is a lie, a little story that Cheney and the Administration tell to scare people. Before 9/11, Republicans were not clamoring to go to war with Afghanistan or anyone else. Hell, they even opposed the judicious application of cruise missiles there, and it's not like Bush was planning a war on anyone other than Iraq during the first nine months he was in office.

Weren't they looking at China for a while?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's reasonable -- and in keeping with the original intent of the framers -- to say that you have a right to bear infantry arms if you are actually serving in the infantry -- the National Guard, say, or some kind militia. Other forms of "reasonable regulation" would seem to have less basis in what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking about.

Most gunnies disagree with your view, and my application of it.

My take is that it says "bear arms", so you're limited to weapons you can carry.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
My take is that it says "bear arms", so you're limited to weapons you can carry.

The press will be devastated to hear that all this electronic "print" media isn't protected.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The press will be devastated to hear that all this electronic "print" media isn't protected.

Likewise, I think that only speech - you know, vocalizations - are protected. Where does this "written" crap come in?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cheney's been making this same speech, and making this same point, every time, for months - He phrased it slightly differently this time - god, how many times can you say the same thing without changing the words a little.

2. I've always enjoyed a good paraphrase or two, especially when it improves on the classic, original wording.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Likewise, I think that only speech - you know, vocalizations - are protected. Where does this "written" crap come in?

Let alone money.

[bilmore]

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've been trying to contribute for a long time, but hate Paypal. I'll cover $40.

S_A_M

Feel free to PM me for other arrangements.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Spend more!

Fiscal Conservatives Challenge Bush

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gn_promises_dc

Hope you get some nice cuts of meat after it gets slaughtered.



Will a real Republican please stand up? Club?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope - I tend to agree with the horrid, horrid sentiment that everyone attributes to Cheney's speech but wasn't there. I think that more Americans will die, sooner, if Kerry wins. But, since they'll all be coasties who are voting for Kerry, . . . .

My point was, Cheney's been making this same speech, and making this same point, every time, for months - that Kerry will treat terrorism as a crime instead of a war, and really screw the pooch. He phrased it slightly differently this time - god, how many times can you say the same thing without changing the words a little - and everyone who knows his speeches knows what he was saying. So, my end point is, the people claiming the outrage really have none - just glee.

Except for those of us who know Cheney for the evil, unscrupulous snake he is, who have been outraged all along.