garrettensign

15p

13 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

15 years ago @ Big Government - So we're supposed to think it's acceptable to use the term "blood libel" simply because an esteemed Harvard law professor says the phrase has a "broad metaphorical meaning?" What an absolutely asinine argument.

If a group of people find a specific term offensive, them it's an offensive term. Period. All those offended will not just magically feel better simply because some horse's ass law professor at Harvard says it's okay.

Try using that term as part of a "broad metaphor" at a synagogue and tell me how it turns out. I'm sure everyone will accept it with no problems whatsoever. Idiots!

15 years ago @ Big Government - Your mentioning of ground zero is touching, but it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your ability to recognize the horrors of a terrorist act by driving through Manhattan has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to discern who is mentally capable of owning a gun. Like I said before, you do not have the expertise to determine the effectiveness of gun control laws. I encourage you to double-check the aforementioned. You will see that all of it is easily verifiable by reputable sources. Happy hunting (no pun intended). -Garrett

15 years ago @ Big Government - Regarding Saturday, where did you obtain information suggesting Loughner circumvented the submittal of key information, which would’ve influenced the outcome of a background check, because “his mother [was] an employee of the Pima County Board of Elections?” Think about that for a moment… that’s absolutely ridiculous. A retarded chimpanzee could infer that members of a County’s Board of Elections would not be able to influence records retention. Are you saying his mother pulled some strings to allow him to purchase a gun, or that none of his peers, or his teachers, had the courage to report his strange behavior to a background check records retention facility because his mother held the “illustrious” position of being a County board member?

Use your head! None of that makes any damned sense! Whoever you heard that from is probably as nutty as Loughner himself and should not be cited as a reputable resource. (3 of 4, cont.)

15 years ago @ Big Government - Regarding the fairness doctrine, anyone saying that its re-institution is imminent is simply not telling the truth. The FCC abandoned the policy in August 1987 after it was declared unconstitutional and recent rumblings from Representatives Clyburn and Brady amount to little more than restricting media outlets from using images or language that threatens public officials. Aside from a 2005 bill titled “the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act,” which never made it out of committee, there have been zero congressional bills restoring anything resembling what the fairness doctrine was before the FCC abandoned it 23 years ago.

It’s unfortunate that disingenuous media outlets concert their efforts to push divisive issues like this when the evidence overwhelmingly indicates such issues lack legitimacy. Whoever informed you of impending doom brought about from the ominous FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is blatantly misinforming you. (2 of 4, cont.)

15 years ago @ Big Government - Your attempt to legitimize your perception that government is trying to repeal foundational Constitutional elements by providing a brief narrative of Peter Stark at a townhall meeting, as well as citing the Fairness Doctrine, is absolutely absurd.

Peter Stark was obviously talking about the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, the idea of which came from the Republican Party almost two decades ago. It originated in the healthcare debate in 1993, when 22 Republican Senators (including Bob Dole and Orin Hatch) cosponsored the “Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993,” and included the individual mandate in subtitle F of the Act.

If the individual mandate is so unconstitutional, and clearly an example of our current government repealing a foundational element of the Constitution, why did so many Republican Senators support it in their 1993 bill, including Orin Hatch, a now-sitting Senator?! (1 of 4, cont.)

15 years ago @ Big Government - The facetious aggrievement of "regulatory hoops" is laughable. You are obviously confusing an infringment of rights with mere inconveniences. Even amid all the regulations in New Jersey (which are some of the worst in the country), you're still allowed your firearm(s).Several people died in Arizona over the weekend, including a nine year old girl. Think about that for a minute. Do you have a daughter? If you had to jump through a few extra hoops that Jared Loughner may not have been able to jump through, would you do it? Would it be worth the life of a nine year old? Or would you continue to complain about a nonexistant infringement of your second amendment rights, because "anything is possible?"You have absolutely no way of knowing whether gun regulation would be useless against a "committed lunatic." Are you a psychologist? Do you know any "committed lunatics" and what they're capable of? Are you a "committed lunatic" yourself? If the answer is no, don't pretend to know whether gun regulation would be effective against such people.-Garrett

15 years ago @ Big Government - The brady bill was signed in 1993, twelve years after Reagan's attempted assasination. Twelve years! Since the signing of the bill, there have been numerous shootings (columbine and virginia tech, to name a few), and the regulatory responses were nowhere near as restrictive as what you are afraid of.The facts simply do not vindicate your paranoia of an infringement of our second amendment right. In the past thirty years, the ominous creature that is the government caused one sweeping regulatory bill amid several heinous gun crimes. One bill! If history is any indication, this most recent crime will inevitably be met with the same response.The mentioning of the Aidken case is a weak argument against excessive gun regulation. That debacle was a judicial mistake, not a product of overregulation. It was unfortunate, but the judicial system is not perfect and never will be, as long as fallable humans are involved in it. (cont)

15 years ago @ Big Government - Which ones? I've never heard of any books or plays written about assassinating Bush.

15 years ago @ Big Government - Members of the KKK, as well as infamous democrats who were against civil rights, were throwbacks to the age of Lincoln, who was a Republican. That's the only reason why secessionists and racists of the South were Democrats. Such people share next to nothing with modern-day Democrats. You would know this if you weren't so ignorant of history.

-Garrett

15 years ago @ Big Government - Loughner advocated a return to the gold standard, as well as an overall contempt for government, in his videos on youtube. I don't know of any lefty saying such things. Sorry, but he's not a liberal.

-Garrett