Judge Scalia RIP

[chipbennett]

Finally. I win.... bye.
I can agree that sides have become more entrenched since Obama, but do you think it's because of Obama, or due to past history? One could argue that had a Republican been in office, during Obama's tenure, the same rhetoric would have come from their mouths. The fact remains that your gun rights have remained intact, no, expanded under Obama's terms. King Obama, the Dictator, our Dear Leader has made NO unilateral infringements, despite what he may wish. To me that's a problem if he's going to labeled a radical leftist, or framed as someone who simply does whatever he wants..... because CLEARLY he hasn't done whatever he wants. Youre smart enough to know what "king, dictator, or Dear Leader," imply. Those that infer such are either Idiocracy transplants or intellectually dishonest.

You're refuting an argument Jamil didn't make. I'll repeat it one more time, just in case you forgot what he actually said:

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

Nowhere did Jamil say that our rights have eroded or expanded under Obama. Nowhere did Jamil say that Obama attempted to use unilateral or unlawful means to undermine the second amendment. Nowhere did Jamil say that Obama had done "whatever he wants".

Jamil said that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A.

 

[chipbennett]

You're saying something I neither said, nor implied. That is simply the place I chose to begin the discussion. Ya'll simply didn't like that I started out with a pro-Obama fact which put you on the defensive.

No, that's where you chose to limit the discussion. Allow me to copy/paste from above. Here are your words - the sum-total of your responses to those attempting to further the discussion beyond that point:

Simple question. Since he has been president, has Obama sign more legislation that's pro-gun, or anti-gun? And if you say anti-gun please cite.

So essentially, you're saying he abided by the will of the people, despite his own personal wishes? And then you have those two pieces of legislation that actually expanded gun rights. Doesn't fit in very well with the "he's going to take our guns," hysteria. Has he even been quoted asking for a ban, like the one under Clinton?

I'll ask the question again. Since he has been president, has Obama signed MORE pro-gun or anti-gun legislation?

We can do this all day, until someone decides to take a bitter pill and answer the question (T.Lex, you don't count).

Want to move the discussion forward, answer the question.

Kut (isn't amazed that answering the question is difficult for some)

I'll check back periodically, to see if someone decides to answer the very basic question.

Kut (wonders why the admission of a fact so difficult.... not really, it's Obama, after all)

 

[T.Lex]

Anyone else wonder if the [ctrl] [c] and [v] keys on chip's keyboard are worn down to nubs at this point?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're refuting an argument Jamil didn't make. I'll repeat it one more time, just in case you forgot what he actually said:



Nowhere did Jamil say that our rights have eroded or expanded under Obama. Nowhere did Jamil say that Obama attempted to use unilateral or unlawful means to undermine the second amendment. Nowhere did Jamil say that Obama had done "whatever he wants".

Jamil said that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A.

I can accept that he's "tried" to undermine the second amendment, as long as you can accept that he hasn't been successful due to observation of law. That's a noteworthy fact given how much in the past 7 years we have been told the "he" was going to take away our guns. The votes have never been there, for anybody who cared to look deep enough into congressional membership. So one can only assume, and we all know this to be true, that there was a belief he'd do so unilaterally.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Anyone else wonder if the [ctrl] [c] and [v] keys on chip's keyboard are worn down to nubs at this point?

I just now starting figure out that people don't know what the multi-quote function is. HINT: bottom right

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, that's where you chose to limit the discussion. Allow me to copy/paste from above. Here are your words - the sum-total of your responses to those attempting to further the discussion beyond that point:

Nope, I wasn't moving forward until someone fessed up. There's plenty more to be said.

 

[T.Lex]

I just now starting figure out that people don't know what the multi-quote function is. HINT: bottom right

You kids and your fancy technology just don't appreciate the natural way of things.

 

[chipbennett]

I can accept that he's "tried" to undermine the second amendment, as long as you can accept that he hasn't been successful due to observation of law. That's a noteworthy fact given how much in the past 7 years we have been told the "he" was going to take away our guns. The votes have never been there, for anybody who cared to look deep enough into congressional membership. So one can only assume, and we all know this to be true, that there was a belief he'd do so unilaterally.

Accepted and agreed. Obama's desire has not been matched by his effectiveness, and he has not acted outside of the law in order to be more effective.

I don't presume to speak for Jamil, but in the context of this discussion, he didn't argue that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully.

I've never argued, either, that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully. In fact, you will often see me pointing out that the Executive Order threat is mostly specious, because Executive Orders can't circumvent, much less contradict, federal law. Obama has pushed EOs as far as he can, even with a team of lawyers, but hasn't tried to push them beyond the limits of the law.

 

[chipbennett]

I just now starting figure out that people don't know what the multi-quote function is. HINT: bottom right

Multiquote is great for comments on a single page. It gets wonky when trying to multiquote across pages.

Nope, I wasn't moving forward until someone fessed up. There's plenty more to be said.

What was there to fess up about? Obama's efforts to undermine the second amendment have little to nothing to do with legislation he has or hasn't signed, because Obama can't directly control what legislation comes across his desk. And the two minor bills he signed pale in comparison to the bulk of his efforts to undermine the second amendment.

You kids and your fancy technology just don't appreciate the natural way of things.

Sometimes multi-quote is useful, and other times it isn't. For example, I generally won't multi-quote for different threads of discussion, because it makes following those different threads more difficult.

 

[actaeon277]

+1. Also, sorry I have to Obama the rep.

Gave an extra point for you.

 

[actaeon277]

Anyone else wonder if the [ctrl] [c] and [v] keys on chip's keyboard are worn down to nubs at this point?

I just now starting figure out that people don't know what the multi-quote function is. HINT: bottom right

Sure, if every quote you need is in the order you need it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Accepted and agreed. Obama's desire has not been matched by his effectiveness, and he has not acted outside of the law in order to be more effective.

I don't presume to speak for Jamil, but in the context of this discussion, he didn't argue that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully.

I've never argued, either, that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully. In fact, you will often see me pointing out that the Executive Order threat is mostly specious, because Executive Orders can't circumvent, much less contradict, federal law. Obama has pushed EOs as far as he can, even with a team of lawyers, but hasn't tried to push them beyond the limits of the law.

This I know... and your understanding of that key fact is uncommon.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This I know... and your understanding of that key fact is uncommon.

So, what is all this other stuff you wished to discuss?

 

[T.Lex]

So, what is all this other stuff you wished to discuss?

Beer, bacon and boo.... ze.

 

[KG1]

I guess their wishes have come truer faster by the whim of people in robes. If they had to actually change the constitution to give government the power they want, well, that just takes too much time, and it's too difficult to do when you're not the only one with an opinion about stuff.

Exactly. Judicial activism is so much quicker when Constitutional procedure creates such a daunting stumbling block.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Beer, bacon and boo.... ze.

You have my attention!

 

[jamil]

Finally. I win.... bye.
I can agree that sides have become more entrenched since Obama, but do you think it's because of Obama, or due to past history? One could argue that had a Republican been in office, during Obama's tenure, the same rhetoric would have come from their mouths. The fact remains that your gun rights have remained intact, no, expanded under Obama's terms. King Obama, the Dictator, our Dear Leader has made NO unilateral infringements, despite what he may wish. To me that's a problem if he's going to labeled a radical leftist, or framed as someone who simply does whatever he wants..... because CLEARLY he hasn't done whatever he wants. Youre smart enough to know what "king, dictator, or Dear Leader," imply. Those that infer such are either Idiocracy transplants or intellectually dishonest.

See? I suspected this was a goat ****.

You're saying something I neither said, nor implied. That is simply the place I chose to begin the discussion. Ya'll simply didn't like that I started out with a pro-Obama fact which put you on the defensive.

I'll tell you why I resisted answering the question. I'm just not into goats. Your question had nothing to do with my statement. It served no purpose, goats notwithstanding, the answer to that question isn't a thing to be sought. Who cares about the answer to that if it's not a goat ****?

I can accept that he's "tried" to undermine the second amendment, as long as you can accept that he hasn't been successful due to observation of law. That's a noteworthy fact given how much in the past 7 years we have been told the "he" was going to take away our guns. The votes have never been there, for anybody who cared to look deep enough into congressional membership. So one can only assume, and we all know this to be true, that there was a belief he'd do so unilaterally.

Obama has indeed tried very hard to impose gun control. I never said that Obama was successful in getting any legislation passed on gun control. I'm aware of the status of federal and state legislation WRT guns.

Obama's failure wasn't because of checks and balances, directly. When Obama and Biden pulled their full court press, the Republican lead congress would have gladly sold us down the river in return for some "chamber of commerce" candy. But pro-gun organizations worked the lobbies hard, along with gun owners across the nation writing countless letters and spending countless hours on phones with congresscritters, holding their feet to the fire. That Obama was unable to achieve his goals is not the fault of Congress. WE get that credit.

Implying that Obama deserves some kind of cred for being unable to win is just absurdly silly. It's not really much more than trolling. Ooh. I'll get them right-wingers to have to admit Obamas a ***damn gun saint. That'll fix 'em. **** that. I'd have loved to spend those countless hours doing something else besides prodding representatives (honestly, prodding Donnelly was kinda fun). But the dickhead-in-chief decided this was the perfect crisis not to waste and went full Alinsky for some good old fashion Chicago revenge.

I just now starting figure out that people don't know what the multi-quote function is. HINT: bottom right

Thing is, there's a limit. Hit it too many times and you have to post what you have. I hit it with this.

Accepted and agreed. Obama's desire has not been matched by his effectiveness, and he has not acted outside of the law in order to be more effective.

I don't presume to speak for Jamil, but in the context of this discussion, he didn't argue that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully.

I've never argued, either, that Obama would act unilaterally or unlawfully. In fact, you will often see me pointing out that the Executive Order threat is mostly specious, because Executive Orders can't circumvent, much less contradict, federal law. Obama has pushed EOs as far as he can, even with a team of lawyers, but hasn't tried to push them beyond the limits of the law.

Well, you've done pretty good on this topic. I tried to rep.

I do try to stay abreast of reality. Mostly for the breasts though.

This I know... and your understanding of that key fact is uncommon.

I've occasionally had to correct people IRL on some things. For example a lot of people believed Obama when he implied in his speech that he closed the gun show loophole. No one wanted to answer your question because everyone understood that it was a goat **** (trolling) question.

 

[rhino]

<sigh>

We're doomed.

 

[jamil]

Exactly. Judicial activism is so much quicker when Constitutional procedure creates such a daunting stumbling block.

Sure, if every quote you need is in the order you need it.

You can click them in the order you want them to be in your post. But that's Kinda hard to do over several pages.

 

[jamil]

<sigh>

We're doomed.

Oh. Did I use too many *'s?