Comments on: Fingers in ears

By: retro

retro — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:58:20 +0000

I love it! A “thinking Blogger Award” site that deletes posts he doesn’t agree with.

Real class act.

By: retro

retro — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:06:24 +0000

OK, who turned the rock over and let this maroon loose?

By: K-Romulus

K-Romulus — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:43:14 +0000

LOL! His site claims to have won a “Thinking Blogger Award”(whatever that is) . . . .

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:01:15 +0000

So did I, Jedi.

I’m writing up a post on this….

By: Unix-Jedi

Unix-Jedi — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:54:56 +0000

Rust:

Apparently so. I replied, for what it’s worth (and saved it).

He wants to talk about distasteful, having someone as emotionally unstable as him on “our side”.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:53:50 +0000

Hardly a surprising response: When faced with their own ignorance, the ad-hominem attack is Libtard SOP.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:52:14 +0000

He’s getting mad now.

I’m sick and tired of having my words taken out of context, and twisted just so you gun nuts can use them to insult me.

His definition of “out of context” must be “repeating what I say back to me and correcting the falsehoods”.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:41:27 +0000

Dunno if my comment will be approved, but I pointed out that those “little unimportant details” are the elements of felonies that were put on the books by people who have only the vaguest idea what they are banning. Far from being little and unimportant, they have been a source of great injustice against the gun owners of this country.

It has nothing to do with crime prevention or any other compelling governmental purpose- these laws were simply an embodiment of legislative animus towards gun ownership. As the sponsors of the original assault weapon ban have publicly admitted, it was an attempt to restrict solely for the purpose of getting gun owners accustomed to the idea of arbitrary restrictions.