Gun Control & RKBA

ellisonz

(27,776 posts)

73. Dingbat.

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:34 AM

Dec 2011

You support allowing armed civilians within sight of the President for no explicit purpose than some cockamamy reasoning about why the Secret Service wouldn't protect you and I simply say that there is no good reason for such action than to try and threaten or make an attempt on the President's life. The Secret Service does not allow armed individuals other than Secret Service agents within range of the President, and for good reason, the mere threat of assassination is sufficient reasoning. Please, go ahead and try it, I dare you.

Again, you have a really messed up view of government employees. To assert that the Secret Service would do anything other than protect the President and neutralize the attacker as expeditiously as possible is libertarian bullshit of the highest order. I'm not retracting a damn thing, you're taking that position and I'll be damned if I budge on this one.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

209 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Foreign Policy by the NRA? The Prospect of Gingrich and Bolton. [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

What was Howard Dean's NRA rating during most of his career, again? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #1

Hmm. Your thread seems to have lost direction... SteveW Dec 2011 #2

Dude, that's the title of the article... ellisonz Dec 2011 #3

It was your content that wandered. Dude. SteveW Dec 2011 #10

You're the one bringing up Howard Dean...Dude. ellisonz Dec 2011 #59

Me? Howard Dean? Please reference where I brought him in... SteveW Dec 2011 #192

Define "dangerous amounts of arms". nt rrneck Dec 2011 #4

Sure. ellisonz Dec 2011 #5

An articulate non answer. rrneck Dec 2011 #6

That was a pretty damn clear answer. ellisonz Dec 2011 #7

I call it bullshit. rrneck Dec 2011 #11

I call such lines of attack repetative. ellisonz Dec 2011 #12

That's what I thought. rrneck Dec 2011 #13

I'm not comparing gun ownership to golfing. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #16

Actually, you are. rrneck Dec 2011 #17

"people's personal recreational activities" ellisonz Dec 2011 #18

So what is the difference rrneck Dec 2011 #21

None. ellisonz Dec 2011 #27

Are members of any militia you care to name rrneck Dec 2011 #83

Oh man, not Michael Moore's huge pile of shit again. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #96

And they were able to use a straw buyers to obtain... ellisonz Dec 2011 #97

You cannot pre-emptively 'stop' straw buyers. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #118

You may be right, but we're not even trying hard to deter it... ellisonz Dec 2011 #180

Oh please. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #181

Oh yeah... ellisonz Dec 2011 #182

New poll for ya.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #186

What if we need to pass new laws to enforce the current laws? ellisonz Dec 2011 #189

Then you're screwed. :) n/t X_Digger Dec 2011 #208

Bowling for Columbine was embarrassing DissedByBush Dec 2011 #125

Agreed. Have you read Kopel's outstanding scene-by scene takedown of Moore's garbage? Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #148

Interesting read, thanks n/t DissedByBush Dec 2011 #184

"Damn right we'll confiscate." PavePusher Dec 2011 #32

Government has such rights. ellisonz Dec 2011 #68

Not without compensation, it doesn't. How will you pay for them? And hypothetically.. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #72

Considering the public cost of the current regime of laws... ellisonz Dec 2011 #84

And from whence do you derive this figure of $100 billion? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #88

Here you go... ellisonz Dec 2011 #139

"They said it, I believe it, and that settles it." friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #166

"I object to the tyranny of a few over the rights of the many." PavePusher Dec 2011 #105

That's your opinion. ellisonz Dec 2011 #140

Fixxed it for you. beevul Dec 2011 #111

Wait a minute. rrneck Dec 2011 #207

Tax's on new sales. ellisonz Dec 2011 #188

Gun and ammo sales already Federally taxed at 11%. PavePusher Dec 2011 #197

The government has no rights DissedByBush Dec 2011 #185

You gonna be the one to come pick them up? rl6214 Dec 2011 #203

Nice cartoons. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #41

You're welcome. ellisonz Dec 2011 #69

No ex post facto laws. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #95

Oh there's plenty of wiggle room on this one... ellisonz Dec 2011 #98

You propose to tell 80 million people that you're going to take their property? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #101

You propose to do little or nothing it seems... ellisonz Dec 2011 #102

No, people like YOU will make sure of that. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #121

What "festering problems" would those be? Can't be the violent crime and murder rates... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #129

Simplification and obsfucation. ellisonz Dec 2011 #149

Nice of you to highlight the 'status offense' part I already pointed out. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #119

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, for another. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #128

There is literally zero percent chance of that happening. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #113

Welcome to the United States of Fear! ellisonz Dec 2011 #152

...was that a reply to my post? Union Scribe Dec 2011 #183

Yes. ellisonz Dec 2011 #187

Right, I know that part. I wrote it. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #190

"Damn right we'll confiscate." Common Sense Party Dec 2011 #114

"we" will confiscate? Do you have a turd in your pocket? You are more than welcome to Fair Witness Dec 2011 #133

He won't volunteer for the job. PavePusher Dec 2011 #167

Cheeto-munching fatass keyboard kommandos never do. Fair Witness Dec 2011 #198

"Damn right we'll confiscate" beevul Dec 2011 #156

"Damn right we'll confiscate." MicaelS Dec 2011 #194

Not such inane ideas at all. Maybe some of you need to get your "head" out of your gun barrels. Hoyt Dec 2011 #19

Their ideas wont be clear at all rrneck Dec 2011 #20

Most folks don't know anything about bombs, poisons, etc., but we regulate them. Plenty of examples. Hoyt Dec 2011 #22

You're funny. rrneck Dec 2011 #23

We are talking about private explosives, etc., not military. Besides, you want to arm populace. Hoyt Dec 2011 #28

Awwwwww. rrneck Dec 2011 #65

Militarism according to Merriam-Webster. ellisonz Dec 2011 #30

Sounds about right. nt rrneck Dec 2011 #81

I would add that I've been around guns... ellisonz Dec 2011 #29

Sounds like part of your gun phobia is based on fiction. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #39

Well that and the front page of the newspaper... ellisonz Dec 2011 #70

Another variation on "some of my best friends are..." Fair Witness Dec 2011 #134

Are you saying I'm a liar? ellisonz Dec 2011 #158

Feel free. I said you were not the first person to preface a bigoted comment with a disclaimer. Fair Witness Dec 2011 #163

I'll take that as a gruding apology. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #169

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #199

Of course you have rl6214 Dec 2011 #204

I just don't sleep with one ellisonz Dec 2011 #205

Sort of like your "long-range laser sniper sights", or whatever hoodooo you claimed? n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #34

How many arms do you have, of the biological type? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #115

Reductio ad absurdum. ellisonz Dec 2011 #138

"Free state" DissedByBush Dec 2011 #155

It's only "treason" if you lose. PavePusher Dec 2011 #202

You won't win. ellisonz Dec 2011 #206

You can hold your rofl, as I am not endorsing such activity.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #209

I'm prepared to advocate reasonable security of firearms. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #36

Why should the tax payers at large pay for this? ellisonz Dec 2011 #37

Only the ATF provides that level of government support. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #40

So do I own a "dangerous number" of firearms? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #62

Ron Paul is in the lead now...time to switch your focus. ileus Dec 2011 #8

Ron Paul is in league with the pro-gun lobby too. ellisonz Dec 2011 #14

Why should we give the GOP the opportunity to use gun control as a wedge issue.. spin Dec 2011 #9

"I suspect that you favor the incremental approach to eventually banning all firearms." ellisonz Dec 2011 #15

There is absolutely no reason to support any form of new draconian gun law... spin Dec 2011 #25

I don't think it's going to be Romney. ellisonz Dec 2011 #31

#3.... How about 5 years after you have licences... PavePusher Dec 2011 #35

I don't understand what the heck you're arguing for. ellisonz Dec 2011 #42

"The First Amendment says nothing about regulation." PavePusher Dec 2011 #47

... ellisonz Dec 2011 #52

"well-regulated.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #55

Sophistry. ellisonz Dec 2011 #71

He doesn't have to convince you- you need to persuade the Supreme Court of your stance. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #79

How many far-right Republican judges did you need to get that Supreme Court case? ellisonz Dec 2011 #82

Of course it's the government limiting itself- see the anti-federalists' writings. X_Digger Dec 2011 #116

#4... So, you agree with this guy: PavePusher Dec 2011 #38

Not perhaps that exact phrasing of 1,000 feet...but yes, in principle... ellisonz Dec 2011 #45

Mere exercise of a Constitutional Right within sight of a political figure.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #49

Bullshit. ellisonz Dec 2011 #53

Those "Federal agents" would be there to protect the president.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #66

Dingbat. ellisonz Dec 2011 #73

I haven't asserted anything other than that the SS is there to do a particular job... PavePusher Dec 2011 #104

That's quite the delusion... ellisonz Dec 2011 #106

Again you accuse me of nefarious intent. PavePusher Dec 2011 #108

I will not... ellisonz Dec 2011 #136

Bzzzzzzt!! Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance... again. PavePusher Dec 2011 #172

I've said you're belief enables them... ellisonz Dec 2011 #173

Well, your opinion of legal carriers is now well known. Nothing I can add to your vitriol and fear. PavePusher Dec 2011 #174

Now you're just obsfucating... ellisonz Dec 2011 #175

"How does this not violate the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly?" PavePusher Dec 2011 #67

Well then denounce your previous position... ellisonz Dec 2011 #74

What position? That the indeterminate proximity of a elected public servent... PavePusher Dec 2011 #107

"indeterminate proximity" ellisonz Dec 2011 #135

Addition in response to your edit: ellisonz Dec 2011 #86

Firstly, no-one claimed any legally armed person can guarantee anyones' safety... PavePusher Dec 2011 #109

"No-one appeared concerned by my sidearm." ellisonz Dec 2011 #137

You've moved all your goal-posts (yes, we saw that), and again accused me of making threats. PavePusher Dec 2011 #168

Please make an OP declaring your belief that you should be allowed... ellisonz Dec 2011 #171

"this was the Democratic position in 2008" -- selective amnesia? Or just ignorance? X_Digger Dec 2011 #43

You object to the Democratic Nominee's and Current President's position? ellisonz Dec 2011 #48

Disagreement on one issue =/= "don't like our candidates". PavePusher Dec 2011 #50

So tell me what positions of our candidates do you like? ellisonz Dec 2011 #54

The president has changed his tune. X_Digger Dec 2011 #51

What if it's in the platform again? ellisonz Dec 2011 #57

Shall I remind you? X_Digger Dec 2011 #61

The President is not that stupid hack89 Dec 2011 #191

What possible threat is a man with 200 guns? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #63

Don't give Republicans so much credit. ellisonz Dec 2011 #75

I would think he has a nice collection and disposable income. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #123

"I don't know anyone who leaves firearms "strewn about"." ellisonz Dec 2011 #151

Really? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #157

Please use the google. ellisonz Dec 2011 #159

No thanks. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #193

And at what point does a firearm stray from a "antique" oneshooter Dec 2011 #132

At what point does the spoken word become obscenity? n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #150

It will be an interesting election year... spin Dec 2011 #130

"Gun rights were not the prime issue driving the Tea Party in the midterm election." ellisonz Dec 2011 #147

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #200

Yet less than an hour before, it was "Damn right we'll confiscate". friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #60

Whoops! His agenda is showing. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #64

What's your agenda? n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #76

With regards to what? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #124

Twisting my words. ellisonz Dec 2011 #77

Why should I denounce him for something he did not say? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #85

So you support the right to carry near Federal officials and politicians? ellisonz Dec 2011 #87

I'm also not denying that I'm better looking than George Clooney and smarter than Stephen Hawking... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #89

Dodge. ellisonz Dec 2011 #92

It sure is a good thing those Secret Service guys don't carry guns Fair Witness Dec 2011 #201

Gee, then I guess the Dems had better stop being anti-gun... krispos42 Dec 2011 #24

+1000 (n/t) spin Dec 2011 #26

They are going to play the gun card no matter what we say... ellisonz Dec 2011 #33

LOL Remmah2 Dec 2011 #44

So you don't support the NRA and its positions? ellisonz Dec 2011 #58

One can be pro2A, be a labor democrat and think the NRA is crazy. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #122

So denounce the fuckers... ellisonz Dec 2011 #143

right, denounce the gejohnston Dec 2011 #146

Lol, check this list.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #46

They give far more to Republicans... ellisonz Dec 2011 #80

They give more to Democrats than the Brady Campaign ever has. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #90

There are more powerful means of support than money you know... ellisonz Dec 2011 #91

Money aside, why on Earth can't the Bradys get more members? They're outnumbered 80:1 by the NRA friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #100

You're seriously justifying mob logic... ellisonz Dec 2011 #103

So is democracy "mob logic"? nt Remmah2 Dec 2011 #126

So here's my question to you: ellisonz Dec 2011 #145

dumb question gejohnston Dec 2011 #162

I endorse electoral reality. Telling 80 million voters they need political and psychological tests.. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #127

He was 10 years old in 1996. Of course he doesn't remember. X_Digger Dec 2011 #131

IOW, he was watching Zoom when I was picketing Newt Gingrich's residence with ADAPT. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #164

It's okay. One day this country will be tired of this nonsense... ellisonz Dec 2011 #144

How many members does the youth wing of the Brady Campaign have? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #165

Seriously? ellisonz Dec 2011 #170

There's a job for you! Start the Department of Scientific Disarmament Instruction friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #176

You think you're funny... ellisonz Dec 2011 #177

No biggie- You're not the first "Billy Sunday of gun control" to show up here... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #178

You do realize of course... ellisonz Dec 2011 #179

When where you appointed to speak for "the majority of DU"- or any other DUer, for that matter? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #196

Hahaha look at you. 8 PAGES of data and naaaa nahananahahana I can't hear you AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #94

I must be getting to you... ellisonz Dec 2011 #99

Endorsements aren't spam. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #120

Shall I start posting the names of victims of the NRA's promotion of gun violence... ellisonz Dec 2011 #142

Candidates or voters? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #154

Will do... ellisonz Dec 2011 #160

"now they pretty much just stand for Republicans" -- you agree that you misspoke? X_Digger Dec 2011 #117

Numbers don't lie. ellisonz Dec 2011 #141

Why would they endorse democrats over republicans then? X_Digger Dec 2011 #153

The NRA sucks like a neutron star krispos42 Dec 2011 #56

The seizure of power by GWB had quite a lot to do with such issues. ellisonz Dec 2011 #78

Yawn AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #161

I disagree. DanTex Dec 2011 #110

"Gun militancy is a way of saying FU to the supposedly liberal elite" MicaelS Dec 2011 #195

No, they aren't going to 'no matter what we say'. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #93

Thanks to this thread I decided to spring for a couple of AR stripped lowers. ileus Dec 2011 #112