Saturday, August 21, 2010

Oregon Firearms Federation alert

I don't usually pass on alerts from groups that I belong to but this one is just too good. OFF alert as follows:

Portland's Mayor ...Pathetic Media Whore

Portland's disgraced Mayor, and self admitted liar, Sam Adams, having apparently run out of teen boys to "mentor" has turned his sights (such as they are) on firearms.

In a press release issued today, timed so most local pro-gun talk show hosts had wrapped up for the week, Adams proposed sweeping new anti-gun regulations for the City of Portland.

Adams, whose predilection for underage lovers follows in the footsteps of Neil Goldschmidt (a mentor of anti-gun extremist Ginny Burdick) is asking for comments on his proposals, which would violate Oregon law. The law follows:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]


In his press release, Adams actually brags about being a "founding member" of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" an organization that is comical in its mindless pursuit of new gun restrictions each time their heavily restricted cities has a shooting...in spite of their gun restrictions.

We think it's safe to say that this latest PR stunt will backfire, just like everything else this sorry, freedom-hating loser has done. But anything can happen in Portland. So keep your powder dry.

I would also note that the comments at Mayor Pedophiles press release page are priceless!

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

They have allowed the thugs and drug pushers to take over the city and now in the light of this new wave of violence they see the answer to be taking guns from honest people. Probably those shootings East of 205 were committed by illegal alien drug pushers. The shootings West of 205 were more then likely committed by gangs who came here from California because California laws were tougher then our laws. None of those shootings or any shootings were done by those who will be impacted by the new laws they want.

DAVE01 said...

Sam Adams wants the new laws so he will be safe the next time he tries to rape a young child. I'm sure the new hotspot areas will all be minority areas. Oh that's right, just like in DC and chicago, minorities aren't allowed to own guns. If I remember correctly, the Jim Crow laws also attempted to prevent minorities from obtaining firearms to defend themselves.

I would like to see the records of these perps who did these shootings. I would bet most of the criminals had multiple convictions. It's usually a few who cause most of the crimes. I would be willing to bet that the perps had multiple convictions.

Let's hope they get all the bad guys and put them away for a long time.

Anonymous said...

Sam Adams, there is a Second Amendment in this Country. Why don't you keep your pants zipped as this is a more of a problem. Last I heard sex with children was not a Constitutional right. You are just a media whore and a sorry example of a human being.

Anonymous said...

Sam Adams did not "rape" a "young child," idiot. A 6-year-old is a child. An 18-year-old is a young man.

Anonymous said...

Hey Daniel, you keep 'forgetting' to answer why you don't go after big agribusiness and the US Chamber of Congress for their part in all the illegals...so this time I'm taking a screen cap when I post.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of questions Miglavs refuses to answer, he just gets off seeing so many people post on his blog. Welcome to the club.

Anonymous said...

To anyone with questions on gun control

....... WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MUST NEVER BE REPEALED!



After reading the following historical points, read the part
about �Switzerland �twice


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the �Soviet Union established gun control.. �From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------------------------

In 1911, �Turkey �established gun control. �From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
� China �established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated �

------------------------------

Guatemala �established gun control in 1964. �From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..
�------------------------------

Uganda �established gun control in 1970. �From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Cambodia �established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the �US �evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade �America �because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. �There is no possible victory in defense. �The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. �The final weapon is the brain �All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY MALE OVER 18 A GUN!
� � SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO AS A MEMBER OF THE MILITIA. HITLER DIDN'T INVADE �SWITZERLAND BECAUSE OF THIS. HE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID, " SWITZERLAND DOESN'T HAVE AN ARMY -- �SWITZERLAND IS AN ARMY."
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!


I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!



Just think how many freedoms our federal government is taking!
They think the above mentioned countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history.

Anonymous said...

To anyone with questions on gun control

....... WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MUST NEVER BE REPEALED!



After reading the following historical points, read the part
about �Switzerland �twice


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the �Soviet Union established gun control.. �From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------------------------

In 1911, �Turkey �established gun control. �From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
� China �established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated �

------------------------------

Guatemala �established gun control in 1964. �From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..
�------------------------------

Uganda �established gun control in 1970. �From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Cambodia �established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the �US �evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade �America �because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. �There is no possible victory in defense. �The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. �The final weapon is the brain �All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY MALE OVER 18 A GUN!
� � SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO AS A MEMBER OF THE MILITIA. HITLER DIDN'T INVADE �SWITZERLAND BECAUSE OF THIS. HE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID, " SWITZERLAND DOESN'T HAVE AN ARMY -- �SWITZERLAND IS AN ARMY."
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!


I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!



Just think how many freedoms our federal government is taking!
They think the above mentioned countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history.

Anonymous said...

You might be better off being a firm believer in anti-psychotic drugs. I'm just saying.

Anonymous said...

Daniel I made this handy link for you so you won't forget the question.

It's not the only one I made.

I'll keep reposting random times of day.

http://imgur.com/eSxA9.png

Anonymous said...

Gotta laugh at the gun bigots. UP yours we still live in a FREE country. I am keeping my guns and you can go to hell.

Anonymous said...

Gun bigots? Oh please. Honest to God, I don't give a shit how many guns you have. Knock yourself out. Blow your entire paycheck on ammo for all I care. But you'd at least appear to be a little more dignified if you wouldn't flaunt your lifestyle like some Stallone or Bruce Willis wannabe.

Anonymous said...

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany used gun laws created by the weimar(sp?) republic when Hitler came to power.

Jack

Anonymous said...

Why is the example of Nazi Germany always touted by conservatives when it comes to gun control, but ignored when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

Anonymous said...

Where can I buy cheap guns? Wikipedia says saturday night specials go for $50, but I asked someone who knows guns and he laughed and says you can't get anything for less than $250. Where can I buy cheap handguns?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:44: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. This is why Nazi Germany is normally brought up in cases such as this. Is the only reason you are objecting to it because you are sympathetic to the Nazis and their modern-day crazies, the Aryan Nation? Or is it because you are just afraid of guns?

Anon 5:43 listed many great reason why the 2nd Amendment should never be repealed, in spite of what the doofuses in power in Washington DC, or you for that matter, believe.

Scottiebill

Anonymous said...

... because you are sympathetic to the Nazis and their modern-day crazies, the Aryan Nation?

Best Miglavian response of the day, by far, right out of the Miglavian playbook:

1) Ignore the question
2) Accuse critic of being racist or holding some other absurd position that he expressed no opinion about, and,
3) Move on.

To actually answer your (stupid) question: No, Scottiebill, I'm not "sympathetic" to the Nazis or Aryan Nation. I fully understand the reasons for the Second Amendment, agree with them, and am a supporter of the Second Amendment, have been for years.

To get back to what I actually asked about, let's try this one more time. I'll boldface the crucial part, Scottie, since you ignored it the first time around:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany always touted by conservatives when it comes to gun control, but ignored when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

Bobkatt said...

One of the best defenses of the right to bear arms comes from the Daily Kos of all places.
If you believe in gun control please read it and see if it changes your attitude a bit.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:29: I answered your question about why Nazi Germany was always referred to. It was in my first sentence. You apparently either did not read my comments thoroughly, or your thinking is too oblique to understand my meaning there.

As far as the "anti-gay" reference, I chose to ignore it because the topic that Daniel posited was about gun control, not the gay/anti-gay question. But you and your ilk are consistently throwing in things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to go down that path, here goes:

The Nazis did go after any and all the homosexuals, male and female, and send them off to the death camps along with all the Jews they could round up. But they also rounded up all the Gypsies, who for the most part are native Romanians, and sent them off for extinction as well. But no one ever gives the Gypsies any notice at all in topics like this. Why is that, Anon 1:29? Is it because you don't give a damn about them, or because you don't know their history, other than their being branded as notorious thieves?

Scottiebill

Anonymous said...

You're still ducking the question, and you know it.

I know why conservatives cite the example of Nazi Germany when it comes to gun control. I don't dispute it. I agree with it. It's an excellent example. I have no problem with conservatives or anyone else using it.

Two issues came up here, Scottie: Gun control, and Nazi Germany. I didn't raise the issue of Nazi Germany; Jack did, and I don't see you complaining that he was straying "off topic."

What I find interesting, and the thing that you still aren't really addressing (and no doubt won't) is why those same conservatives ignore or dismiss the example of Nazi Germany's persecution of gays when it comes to the persecution of gays in this country? Persecution of gays by political conservatives.

[To address your red herring question: The reason Gypsies don't come up here, Scottie, is because it's a non-issue in this country. The Gypsy population here is miniscule in the context of the entire population, and there is no organized political or social opposition directed toward them. Certainly not on the level that is directed toward gays. How many times in the last five years has Pat Robertson railed about gays and the "gay agenda"? How many times has he railed against Gypsies? The answer to that, if researched properly, would illustrate how fucking stupid (and irrelevant) that question is.]

And you are not answering my question by pointing out the spectacularly obvious fact that Nazis persecuted and killed gays. I know that, idiot. It was implicit in the question.

I don't expect you to answer the question, but you do an impressive dance. Which, in its own way, actually does answer my question.

Thank-you.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:34: I answered your question with a single-sentence truism. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." In a possible failing effort to attempt to get you to understand my meaning, I will try again. The Nazis used gun control and confiscation to control the people while they were subjecting them to their dictatorial rule. That is history dating back to the 1930s. Now the libs are trying to get control of our guns through an attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If they succeed in this, which is highly unlikely, it will be the repetition of that 1930s history. And if The Komrade Incompetent has his way, this country will become a modern-day version of a dictatorship, not to the extreme extent that the Nazis took it to, but close. Now that I have explained my meaning to you, do you get it? I'm sorry I wasn't able to use all single-syllable words so you could better understand them. Maybe you could get someone to explain it to you.

I probably shouldn't have gotten started on the Gypsies, but we have new neighbors who are Romanian Gysies and they were telling us what it was like in Romania for Gypsies in the years before they immigrated here.

And one more thing 11:34: Before you start throwing around unfounded accusations of idiocy at your naysayers, you would do well to remember that you are obviously into the mindset of the ultra-liberals who, when presented with facts they do not adhere to or approve of or agree with, resort to offensive name calling directed at people who they know nothing about but look on as somehow lesser beings because of their opinions.

I do not consider myself an idiot. Therefore, I do not give one solitary damn about your opinion of me or my ideas and thoughts. Further response to your postings here would be a total exercise in futility on my part and would most likely be beyond your comprehension anyway.

Bye.

Scottiebill

Anonymous said...

You insist on repeatedly providing an answer to the one question I've indicated repeatedly that we agree on and instead dodge the one I keep asking, which I've now worded in multiple ways:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany ignored or dismissed by conservatives when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

Maybe I should instead ask:

Why are YOU intent on ignoring the example of Nazi Germany when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

There's no need to answer, Scottie. Like I said, in your own way, you already have. In Miglavia, I've learned, silence can speak volumes, and your responses have been deafening, and not in the least bit futile.

Anonymous said...

you are obviously into the mindset of the ultra-liberals ...

How the fuck do you get that? The anon said he SUPPORTED the second amendment and AGREED with you on the example of Nazi Germany and gun laws. He said:

I fully understand the reasons for the Second Amendment, agree with them, and am a supporter of the Second Amendment, have been for years.

and ...

I know why conservatives cite the example of Nazi Germany when it comes to gun control. I don't dispute it. I agree with it. It's an excellent example. I have no problem with conservatives or anyone else using it.

Yeah, he sure sounds like an ultra-liberal to me! LOL! Scottie, hate to break it to you, but you ARE an idiot. Rethink it, baby.

FP said...

Anon 2:05,

Definition of Red Herring:

[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

Also known as a logical fallacy. From nizkor.org:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.


Anon, was the topic about anti-gay bigotry? Was the topic even about Nazi Germany? How is anti-gay bigotry relevant to gun control?

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the thread, FP!

I confess that even as I type this, my fingers are trembling at the prospect of facing the awesome power of your command of language, a power that you demonstrated a couple weeks ago when you objected strenuously to my comments about the U.S. military, objecting that American soldiers do not "murder" civilians, but that they merely "kill" them, a distinction that I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have lost friends and family over the decades to the glory of U.S. firepower find deep solace in.

Anon, was the topic about anti-gay bigotry? Was the topic even about Nazi Germany?

So first, I have to ask: Which "anon" are you referring to? The two Miglavian anons who brought up Nazi Germany in the first place? Or me, the anon who asked the follow-up question?

Also, I want to thank you for copying and pasting a definition of "red herring" for everyone to read. That is exactly the term I intended to use, and I would use it again. To bring up gypsies in the context of the question I actually asked (without bothering to actually answer the question) was a classic red herring argument.

How is anti-gay bigotry relevant to gun control?

So, just so we're absolutely clear, here is the central question I raised, repeatedly, that no one has answered:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany ignored or dismissed by conservatives when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

The reason I asked that, FP, is because, as a long-time tourist in Miglavia, I know that many Miglavians are fond of citing the example of Nazi Germany when it comes to discussions of the Second Amendment. Issue #1 here, of course, is "illegal aliens." But the Second Amendment isn't far behind, and the crimes of Nazi Germany invariably get an airing when it comes up.

But (and here's the funny thing) another topic that comes up here occasionally is gays. I get the distinct sense that Miglavians who are upset about "illegal aliens" (and who also support the Second Amendment, and who sometimes cite the example of Nazi Germany when they argue in support of the Second Amendment) also have a thing about gays. Basically: They don't like them. "Anti-gay" bigotry, you might call it.

So given that broader context, I thought it would be interesting, for the purposes of discussion, to ask:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany always touted by conservatives when it comes to gun control, but ignored when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

So far, no one has answered that question. The Miglavians want to talk about other things. You might say that they want to "lead attention away from the topic to another topic."

Like, for example, the definition of "red herring."

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the thread, FP!

I confess that even as I type this, my fingers are trembling at the prospect of facing the awesome power of your command of language, a power that you demonstrated a couple weeks ago when you objected strenuously to my comments about the U.S. military, objecting that American soldiers do not "murder" civilians, but that they merely "kill" them, a distinction that I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have lost friends and family over the decades to the glory of U.S. firepower find deep solace in.

Anon, was the topic about anti-gay bigotry? Was the topic even about Nazi Germany?

So first, I have to ask: Which "anon" are you referring to? The two Miglavian anons who brought up Nazi Germany in the first place? Or me, the anon who asked the follow-up question?

Also, I want to thank you for copying and pasting a definition of "red herring" for everyone to read. That is exactly the term I intended to use, and I would use it again. To bring up gypsies in the context of the question I actually asked (without bothering to actually answer the question) was a classic red herring argument.

How is anti-gay bigotry relevant to gun control?

So, just so we're absolutely clear, here is the central question I raised, repeatedly, that no one has answered:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany ignored or dismissed by conservatives when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

The reason I asked that, FP, is because, as a long-time tourist in Miglavia, I know that many Miglavians are fond of citing the example of Nazi Germany when it comes to discussions of the Second Amendment. Issue #1 here, of course, is "illegal aliens." But the Second Amendment isn't far behind, and the crimes of Nazi Germany invariably get an airing when it comes up.

But (and here's the funny thing) another topic that comes up here occasionally is gays. I get the distinct sense that Miglavians who are upset about "illegal aliens" (and who also support the Second Amendment, and who sometimes cite the example of Nazi Germany when they argue in support of the Second Amendment) also have a thing about gays. Basically: They don't like them. "Anti-gay" bigotry, you might call it.

So given that broader context, I thought it would be interesting, for the purposes of discussion, to ask:

Why is the example of Nazi Germany always touted by conservatives when it comes to gun control, but ignored when it comes to anti-gay bigotry?

So far, no one has answered that question. The Miglavians want to talk about other things. You might say that they want to "lead attention away from the topic to another topic."

Like, for example, the definition of "red herring."

FP said...

The Miglavians want to talk about other things.

Like, say, the issue of gun control?

Your question isn't central to anything. Constantly repeating your question makes you a nag, not a towering intellectual.

Better luck next time.

Anonymous said...

The Miglavians were the ones who brought up Nazi Germany, not me. When you start talking about Nazi Germany, you throw the door open to all sorts of topics. I raised one of them.

And now, you can count yourself among those who don't have the balls and/or brains to address it head-on.

Better luck next time.

Anonymous said...

In Miglavia, when someone repeats a question that Miglavians keep ducking, Miglavians will assume that the person is attempting to be a "towering intellectual."

When Lars Larson repeats a question that someone won't answer, he's being "tough" and "asking the tough questions," and the Miglavians cheer.

Welcome to Miglavia.

FP said...

The Miglavians were the ones who brought up Nazi Germany...

Yeah, as an example. Nowhere in this thread was Nazi Germany made the topic.

When you start talking about Nazi Germany, you throw the door open to all sorts of topics. I raised one of them.

And how exactly does that make your herring any less red?

And now, you can count yourself among those who don't have the balls and/or brains to address it head-on.

Oh, so now I don't have any balls and/or brains because some anonymous twerp comes here and tries to hijack the thread and nobody's falling for it?

BTW, anon 6:54, I don't listen to Lars, so I must not be a Miglavian.

Welcome to the real world.

Anonymous said...

In accordance with FP's desires, NO ONE from hereforth shall be allowed to deviate at all from the topic designated by Daniel Miglavs. Unless the word or phrase appears in Miglavs' original post, the word MAY NOT (in accordance with FP's Incredibly Important Red Herring Rule) be used in ANY response.

Thank-you for your cooperation in this matter, thanks to FP's towering intellect and command of language, and welcome to Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

FP, unless your legal name is "FP," then you're also anonymous, and from what I've read, you're also a twerp.

FP said...

Oh, my sides. It's like being insulted by a five-year-old... no, wait; five-year-olds have come up with better lines.

And the bit about me being anonymous? From an anonymous poster? Priceless.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how Mr. "Command of Language" hasn't objected to Miglavs' use of "pedophile" to describe Sam Adams. I guess FP prefers to selectively command language.

FP said...

Why would I object?

Pedophelia:
sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Tell me, is a seventeen-year-old an adult?

Or is pederast the term you're looking for?

one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy .

Sounds to me like both terms apply. Doesn't make Sam Adams any less disgusting.

And it doesn't make your attempt at ridicule any less lame.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like both terms apply.

Well, I guess it would, FP, if it had, in fact, been established that Adams had had sex with Beau Breedlove when he was 17 years old.

But, in fact, that hasn't been established: Both say he had reached the age of consent when they did, and law enforcement isn't pursuing the matter, so evidently they don't think they have a case.

So it sounds like, in spite of the lack of evidence (that would hold up in court, anyway), you're ready to brand Adams a criminal and throw him in jail and throw away the key. Pedophile, pederast, what's the difference? Right? Sounds to me like both terms apply.

And yet ... weeks ago, when you and I had it out over whether US soliders are guilty of "killing" or "murdering" civilians on a mass scale over the decades, you strenuously and repeatedly objected, pointing out the legal difference between the two words, and essentially hanging your entire argument on that.

I guess whether that ol' command of language kicks in just sort of depends on what you're talking about at the time, doesn't it, FP? Bad-ass American patriot boys in uniform get a pass. Sam Adams, on the other hand, if it were up to you, goes to prison. After all, what's the big difference between two little words, right? Sounds to me like both terms apply.

I gotta tell you, FP, I didn't think you'd take the bait, but you walked right into that one. Thanks. In the meantime, I have a suggestion for our next topic: Moral relativism.

Allergy and Immunology resources said...

They have allowed the thugs and drug pushers to take over the city and now in the light of this new wave of violence they see the answer to be taking guns from honest people. Probably those shootings East of 205 were committed by illegal alien drug pushers. The shootings West of 205 were more then likely committed by gangs who came here from California because California laws were tougher then our laws. None of those shootings or any shootings were done by those who will be impacted by the new laws they want.