I didn't see anyone having difficulty understanding your previous post. Whether it's firearm permits or marriage licenses, an obstacle to a citizen exercising their civil liberties and natural rights......is an anathema to liberty.
You didn't see this one from Kurt: "What the hell are you yammering about now?" Or this one from TS: "I don't get your label. Her "bad rules be damned" stance is clearly not about gun control."
You must be one of those contentious disagreeable gun nuts.
You didn't see this one from Kurt: "What the hell are you yammering about now?"
Which I asked in an attempt to gain an understanding of what the hell you were yammering about. I guess I know now, but I doubt I'll ever figure out why you thought it would go well for you.
On the contrary...I'm quite agreeable and rational....especially where it concerns Constitutional rights and civil liberties. I also don't have to rely on using pejoratives to frame my discourse....but that's just me.
Uh... we don't have to "wonder" what it would be like if a county sheriff routinely denies gun licenses. There are a boatload of examples in California alone.
You're still not making any sense, Mikeb. I wouldn't support her and her rights-violating ways then, just as I don't support her and her rights-violating ways now.
How can this be so hard for you to grasp? I'm frankly baffled by the level of obtuseness you're exhibiting.
So, Mikeb, now that you've tried (and spectacularly failed) to trap us in some kind of hypocrisy, what would your position be, if the situation were as imagined by this Benjamin L. Corey cretin, and she was denying gun licenses in defiance of state law? Would you be pressing for her punishment, because "the law is the law"?
I'm also curious to know what his stance is on Kim Davis, because as far as I can tell he is criticizing us for not being right-wing conservative, and sharing the same position as the liberal masses (Kim Davis herself being an exception)
A liberal clerk who denied gun rights in violation of the law would be wrong. Kim Davis is wrong, how did I refer to her, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to follow the fundamental law of her own belief system, love. But in spite of that, TS, you say you're curious to know my stance on her???
Actually, that quote wasn't from you, it was speculation of how we might think of her.
MikeB: "For Kurt and TS who love to pretend to not get it, I'll explain. When a gun nut violates a law he's a hero (at least in your eyes). When this woman violates a law she's a what, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to practice the first rule of her own teachings, the one about love? How would you guys describe her?"
But, now that I see that we really do agree on her, I really have to question why you're so fixed on this. Can't we just argue on something that we disagree on- there's certainly plenty.
But there is still a little problem even though we agree on her. A person who disobeys a gun control law is good in your eyes while she's not. Both are disobeying laws based on their conscience, yet you see one good and the other bad. See the problem?
Nope, because "the problem" does not exist, meaning that if I saw it, I would be seeing something that wasn't there (grounds for forcible lifelong disarmament in your book, I imagine).
As I keep explaining, the person who violates a "gun control" law has harmed no one, and violated no one's rights. Not so with Ms. Davis' crime. Secondly, as I also keep explaining, Davis, as an elected official, is part of the government, and a lawless government is no legitimate government at all.
There's no problem. One is a good law, and one is a bad law. Ah, but who decides what is good and what is bad, you ask. For me it is wether or not it comes from a place of liberty for the people. You are coming from a place of authoritarianism where all decrees from the übermensch are considered equal. That's the difference between you and me. Aside from that, you are setting up an obvious and absurd paradox. You are saying that those who support defying a repressive law against citizen's liberties, must also support a government official defying a law that protects citizen's liberties- you know, the exact opposite.
It's not the law that's important, Mike. It's the principle.
As long as they are YOUR principles, right TS. We are a nation of laws. You can believe anything you want, as long as you don't deny someone their rights. Davis did that and deserved to be in jail.
Right. My principles are what's important to me. You go ahead and follow your own principles and so long as you are not causing me harm, including denying me my rights, then we have no problem.
"Davis did that and deserved to be in jail."
I find the jail thing to be excessive. Just fire her and replace her with someone who will do the job. I guess this just shows the problem with granting this government authority to issue marriage licenses before a marriage can take place, and having it be an elected office. Maybe some good change will come out of this.
It cracks me up that this woman who has been married and divorced several times is of the same political party as Obama and Mikeb.They certainly picked the right mascot for their party: an ass.
I didn't see anyone having difficulty understanding your previous post. Whether it's firearm permits or marriage licenses, an obstacle to a citizen exercising their civil liberties and natural rights......is an anathema to liberty.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't see this one from Kurt: "What the hell are you yammering about now?" Or this one from TS: "I don't get your label. Her "bad rules be damned" stance is clearly not about gun control."
DeleteYou must be one of those contentious disagreeable gun nuts.
You didn't see this one from Kurt: "What the hell are you yammering about now?"
DeleteWhich I asked in an attempt to gain an understanding of what the hell you were yammering about. I guess I know now, but I doubt I'll ever figure out why you thought it would go well for you.
On the contrary...I'm quite agreeable and rational....especially where it concerns Constitutional rights and civil liberties. I also don't have to rely on using pejoratives to frame my discourse....but that's just me.
DeleteSee I thought your label was pertaining to Kim Davis. But really it was pertaining to us- chastising us for being too liberal.
DeleteI bear no fault in not getting that thought train.
YUK YUK
ReplyDeleteUh... we don't have to "wonder" what it would be like if a county sheriff routinely denies gun licenses. There are a boatload of examples in California alone.
ReplyDeleteYou're still not making any sense, Mikeb. I wouldn't support her and her rights-violating ways then, just as I don't support her and her rights-violating ways now.
ReplyDeleteHow can this be so hard for you to grasp? I'm frankly baffled by the level of obtuseness you're exhibiting.
Your gun loon crowd is a little dense and dishonest. Good luck getting them to understand.
ReplyDeleteSo, Mikeb, now that you've tried (and spectacularly failed) to trap us in some kind of hypocrisy, what would your position be, if the situation were as imagined by this Benjamin L. Corey cretin, and she was denying gun licenses in defiance of state law? Would you be pressing for her punishment, because "the law is the law"?
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious to know what his stance is on Kim Davis, because as far as I can tell he is criticizing us for not being right-wing conservative, and sharing the same position as the liberal masses (Kim Davis herself being an exception)
DeleteA liberal clerk who denied gun rights in violation of the law would be wrong. Kim Davis is wrong, how did I refer to her, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to follow the fundamental law of her own belief system, love. But in spite of that, TS, you say you're curious to know my stance on her???
DeleteActually, that quote wasn't from you, it was speculation of how we might think of her.
DeleteMikeB: "For Kurt and TS who love to pretend to not get it, I'll explain. When a gun nut violates a law he's a hero (at least in your eyes). When this woman violates a law she's a what, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to practice the first rule of her own teachings, the one about love? How would you guys describe her?"
But, now that I see that we really do agree on her, I really have to question why you're so fixed on this. Can't we just argue on something that we disagree on- there's certainly plenty.
Right-o
DeleteBut there is still a little problem even though we agree on her. A person who disobeys a gun control law is good in your eyes while she's not. Both are disobeying laws based on their conscience, yet you see one good and the other bad. See the problem?
DeleteSee the problem?
DeleteNope, because "the problem" does not exist, meaning that if I saw it, I would be seeing something that wasn't there (grounds for forcible lifelong disarmament in your book, I imagine).
As I keep explaining, the person who violates a "gun control" law has harmed no one, and violated no one's rights. Not so with Ms. Davis' crime. Secondly, as I also keep explaining, Davis, as an elected official, is part of the government, and a lawless government is no legitimate government at all.
There's no problem. One is a good law, and one is a bad law. Ah, but who decides what is good and what is bad, you ask. For me it is wether or not it comes from a place of liberty for the people. You are coming from a place of authoritarianism where all decrees from the übermensch are considered equal. That's the difference between you and me. Aside from that, you are setting up an obvious and absurd paradox. You are saying that those who support defying a repressive law against citizen's liberties, must also support a government official defying a law that protects citizen's liberties- you know, the exact opposite.
DeleteIt's not the law that's important, Mike. It's the principle.
As long as they are YOUR principles, right TS.
DeleteWe are a nation of laws.
You can believe anything you want, as long as you don't deny someone their rights. Davis did that and deserved to be in jail.
"As long as they are YOUR principles, right TS."
DeleteRight. My principles are what's important to me. You go ahead and follow your own principles and so long as you are not causing me harm, including denying me my rights, then we have no problem.
"Davis did that and deserved to be in jail."
I find the jail thing to be excessive. Just fire her and replace her with someone who will do the job. I guess this just shows the problem with granting this government authority to issue marriage licenses before a marriage can take place, and having it be an elected office. Maybe some good change will come out of this.
So we are going to make this about you TS. Your gun principles are causing tens of thousands of death, yet, you claim you are hurting no one.
DeleteGee, I'm responsible for tens of thousands of deaths? I should be locked up or executed then. Is that how you see it?
DeleteYou are the one who wanted to make it about YOU. I agree you should be locked up for promoting death by gun shot.
Delete"or executed then"
DeleteNo, not that.
Do you gun loons understand Ms. Davis's position as clerk, is a SWORN position. She swore to uphold the laws and Constitution of the US.
ReplyDeleteIt cracks me up that this woman who has been married and divorced several times is of the same political party as Obama and Mikeb.They certainly picked the right mascot for their party: an ass.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
I like the picture of the "gun" in this post. All of this over a .177 pellet gun. Bravo.
ReplyDelete