NRA releases enemy list.

[Patsfan56]

There's nothign odd about it. There are rules in this forum on how we are to engage one another. Amsternet repeatedly disobeys these rules with appreant impunity.

I do not view Feinstein as you do. I ahve my reasons, and you have yours. I think that needs to be okay. According to Amster, it isn't. Anyone who disagrees with he/ she/ it is instantly plastered with words like moronic, idiot, idiocy, lunacy, irrational, illogical, etc etc etc. He/ she/ it started this ROE in this forum, and I am happy to follow through and return the favor to soeone who demands tolerance through intolerance.

[GGGGG-Men]

Seems government and the media has successfully created another hot button distraction issue. They're magicians in that sense. Let the parties fire you up with abortion debate sleight of hand, while in the background they get away with other public policy atrocities.

All they've done is made more money off donations by the passionately paranoid on each side.

Would like to see the influx of funding support the NRA or other lobbying areas have received over the last few months.....the flip side as well.

[AmsterNat]

There's nothign odd about it. There are rules in this forum on how we are to engage one another. Amsternet repeatedly disobeys these rules with appreant impunity.

I do not view Feinstein as you do. I ahve my reasons, and you have yours. I think that needs to be okay. According to Amster, it isn't. Anyone who disagrees with he/ she/ it is instantly plastered with words like moronic, idiot, idiocy, lunacy, irrational, illogical, etc etc etc. He/ she/ it started this ROE in this forum, and I am happy to follow through and return the favor to soeone who demands tolerance through intolerance.

You've got a nice line in hyperbole, but it's not my fault if you can't read what's written. I did not call you "insane", anywhere. I argued against what I see as your absurd comparison, DIFI vs NRA. You have your opinion and expressed it, I responded in a non-personally offensive manner as per forum rules, using terms that are in common use everywhere, and you're still complaining?

I will certainly admit that I sometimes use language that may be extremely blunt and in-your-face to someone like you who completely disagrees with me, but I speak from the heart about things that I have strong views about, not because I'm trolling for a reaction. It also stems from the fact that I so often see people posting things as their gospel that are just plain wrong, as Stephkyle also alluded to. Some of us feel a need to react when we see something we know is BS. Of that, I am guilty.

[natepro]

Well, it is nice to have all the hate filled anti-constitutionalists listed in one place.

Sometimes, I have to just assume things are sarcasm in order to keep what faith I have in humanity still intact.

[stephkyle7]

There's nothign odd about it. There are rules in this forum on how we are to engage one another. Amsternet repeatedly disobeys these rules with appreant impunity.

I do not view Feinstein as you do. I ahve my reasons, and you have yours. I think that needs to be okay. According to Amster, it isn't. Anyone who disagrees with he/ she/ it is instantly plastered with words like moronic, idiot, idiocy, lunacy, irrational, illogical, etc etc etc. He/ she/ it started this ROE in this forum, and I am happy to follow through and return the favor to soeone who demands tolerance through intolerance.

But shouldnt you need to have some substanative experience regarding her tenure to draw an opinion from?As I recall you are not a Californian,so the first national exposure she has had didnt come until 1992.She has been re-elected to her seat three times already,and make no mistake, although her district is heavily Democratic, Ca has a Rich history of voting outside of party when someone doesnt do thier job.

And here is the important part,this all being true, it seems ,just as certain media outlets spent a great deal of time demonizing Nancy Pelosi,it would appear (on the surface) to me,that youve taken something youve "heard" and ran with it.
That does offend me.Its rumor mongering,its charecter asassination,and its not even based on anything that has any true anchor in reality.Your words have power,they sway opinion.
You are completely entitled to your own views and opinions,but for me anyways when someone offers something up that is wildly out of focus and on a topic that doesnt seem to be a subject of knowledge I cringe at the disservice to our community that is being done.

Diane Feinsteins position on Gun control may be extreme,but her motives are honorable and her ethics and charecter are stellar.

[asandhu23]

The title here is not mine. I took it from Addicting Info which then linked to that link. Instead of posting the link to Addicting Info page, I put the direct link to NRA's post.

[GA16Angels]

An outrage against common decency? Ease up off the throttle there. I'm not a fan of the NRA, but neither am I a fan of someone, anyone, who spends their professional life trying to delegitimize and otherwise limit the bill of rights.

I think anyone who doesn't look at the Bill of Rights from the perspective of the framers and the time period they were in is truly the person who is delegitimizing the Bill of Rights. It's like the Bible. People still believe in it, but the majority of people who do don't practice the act of stoning children who disobey them to death. That's because the Bible, like the constitution, is bound to the time in which it was written. Parts of the Bill of Rights do not translate properly into modern day American society. That's not to say we should discount the Bill of Rights, but we should factor in the fact that the country and its citizens have changed over the past 200 years.

[jomota]

I think anyone who doesn't look at the Bill of Rights from the perspective of the framers and the time period they were in is truly the person who is delegitimizing the Bill of Rights. It's like the Bible. People still believe in it, but the majority of people who do don't practice the act of stoning children who disobey them to death. That's because the Bible, like the constitution, is bound to the time in which it was written. Parts of the Bill of Rights do not translate properly into modern day American society. That's not to say we should discount the Bill of Rights, but we should factor in the fact that the country and its citizens have changed over the past 200 years.

I agree. I cannot seriously believe that the framers were thinking about lap dances when they wrote freedom of speech or religious drugs when they wrote of freedom of religion. I can't see them conceiving machine guns, automatic shotguns and assault rifles.

I think we'd all be better off with a little common sense interpretation.

[flips333]

I agree. I cannot seriously believe that the framers were thinking about lap dances when they wrote freedom of speech or religious drugs when they wrote of freedom of religion. I can't see them conceiving machine guns, automatic shotguns and assault rifles.

I think we'd all be better off with a little common sense interpretation.

Yes dudes banging their slaves knew lap dances.

[The Schmooze]

I agree. I cannot seriously believe that the framers were thinking about lap dances when they wrote freedom of speech or religious drugs when they wrote of freedom of religion. I can't see them conceiving machine guns, automatic shotguns and assault rifles.

I think we'd all be better off with a little common sense interpretation.

I see what you're saying, but anytime you leave aspects of the Constitution open to subjective analysis, it can open up alot of problems.

[cabernetluver]

I see what you're saying, but anytime you leave aspects of the Constitution open to subjective analysis, it can open up alot of problems.

That may be true, but, that is exactly how much litigation is handled. If it were truly objective, there would be no need for judge and jury, just submit briefs to a computer.

[The Schmooze]

That may be true, but, that is exactly how much litigation is handled. If it were truly objective, there would be no need for judge and jury, just submit briefs to a computer.

I agree with you there. Judicial review of course being the prime example.

[jomota]

I see what you're saying, but anytime you leave aspects of the Constitution open to subjective analysis, it can open up alot of problems.

There is no safe or comfortable answer. It almost seems like there should be another Constitutional Convention.

One odd thing about the Constitution that a always found ironic…blacks had the right to vote before women did.

[GA16Angels]

There is no safe or comfortable answer. It almost seems like there should be another Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson believed that every country's constitution should have an expiration date (approximately 20 years) at which time a new one would be written. The main reason for this is because he didn't believe the dead should rule the living. The French live by this philosophy. They're on their sixth constitution I believe.

[corralski]

The Journal News exercises it's first amendment rights and publishes a list of people that probably don't share the opinions and world view of the editorial staff by being law abiding owners of firearms.

The NRA exercises it's first amendment rights by publishing a list of organizations that don't share it's opinions or world view by not supporting the second amendment.

Seems to me that they're both using the same tool to show the approval/disapproval of the second amendment. One is lauded for it's bold new approach and the other is just stupid?

I didn't see that the NRA was saying to do anything to any one on the list, boycott or otherwise.....