The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: WatchManUSA on January 20, 2013, 07:36:12 PM
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/19/sen-chuck-schumer-says-the-nra-is-an-extreme-fringe-group/
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sat down with HuffPost Live Friday, where he made a noteworthy statement about the rapidly-growing National Rifle Association.
Responding to interviewer Alicia Menendez’s question about whether Schumer’s colleagues are “willing to admit” that the NRA is a “fringe group,” the senator responded: “Well they sure are a fringe group, but whether enough of my colleagues are ready to admit that, I’m not sure.”
He continued: “They are a very extreme group. They don’t even represent average gun holders.”
-
An organization nearly 150 years old with 4.8 million members doesn't represent average gun owners ?
It takes a democrat to follow that twisted logic .
-
schumer is a Jackwagon,only reason he gets re-elected is nycity.
-
Considering the source, that is a compliment.
-
I'm used to being a part of an out of touch fringe member. After all, I've spent my life as a white, heterosexual, Christian, male. According to the world I'm so out of touch I need to be put in a cage and packed away.
-
Funny.
My Sunday School teacher mentioned, yesterday, something along these lines, but not Shumer's thoughts directly. He said basically that if you are a conservative thinker, pro-life supporter, hunter, outdoorsman, gun owner, and such that you are seen as a militant extremist.
-
(http://oi45.tinypic.com/fwon5i.jpg)
-
Funny.
My Sunday School teacher mentioned, yesterday, something along these lines, but not Shumer's thoughts directly. He said basically that if you are a conservative thinker, pro-life supporter, hunter, outdoorsman, gun owner, and such that you are seen as a militant extremist.
The fact is I consider myself a moderate .
I don't give a crap about abortion, I don't give a crap if or what any one worships .
I simply demand that the Constitution be adhered to as written, they used little words so normal people wouldn't need it translated for them .
If that requires a civil war so be it .
-
The fact is I consider myself a moderate .
I don't give a crap about abortion, I don't give a crap if or what any one worships .
I simply demand that the Constitution be adhered to as written, they used little words so normal people wouldn't need it translated for them .
If that requires a civil war so be it .
thats ok there's still time to correct your attitude on those
(duck and cover drill)
;D
-
wtr...SERPENTINE.SERPENTINE.. ;D ;D
-
thats ok there's still time to correct your attitude on those
(duck and cover drill)
;D
Nothing to correct .
If you don't approve of abortion, don't get one .
Abortionists are no different than drug dealers , hookers or lawyers .
If there was no demand for their services they would be in a different line of work .
Don't delude yourself there has been a demand ever since the beginnings of civilization.
Another thing, FQ is pro, many here are anti , all the ones who have expressed strong opinions are guys who will not get pregnant .
None of your opinions amount to a piss hole in the snow since it isn't your choice.
As for religion, the Constitution promises Freedom of , not from.
It also doesn't deify Christianity as the only right answer.
-
The fact is I consider myself a moderate .
I don't give a crap about abortion, I don't give a crap if or what any one worships .
I simply demand that the Constitution be adhered to as written, they used little words so normal people wouldn't need it translated for them .
If that requires a civil war so be it .
I (we) pretty much know where you stand.... ;D ;D ;D
I was just pointing to the fact the as far as our .gov is concerned (and has stated), anyone who falls under any combination of two (or more) of the things I listed is considered a right-wing domestic militant terrorist in waiting.
**As a side note, and not intending to hi-jack the thread, but this is a tangential to the conversation:
Regardless of your view on abortion, isn't it quite ironic that the very same people whom would deny a Constitutional right (by advocating abolishing or changing the 2nd A) because of the deaths of children by madmen with guns....saying "it's for the sake of the children" have also actively sponsored, in the years since Roe v. Wade, the destruction of over 54,000,000 unborn children?
Quite the hypocrisy, IMHO,FWIW.
-
I'm used to being a part of an out of touch fringe member. After all, I've spent my life as a white, heterosexual, Christian, male. According to the world I'm so out of touch I need to be put in a cage and packed away.
Let's just call it what it is.
You, sir, are a terrorist.
Welcome to my world! ;)
Crusader
-
Let's just call it what it is.
You, sir, are a terrorist.
Welcome to my world! ;)
Crusader
What size vest do you wear?
I have a spare, and at orientation they told me they are one time use and you only need one ;)
-
wtr...SERPENTINE.SERPENTINE.. ;D ;D
Peter Falk The In-laws
-
Nothing to correct .
If you don't approve of abortion, don't get one .
Abortionists are no different than drug dealers , hookers or lawyers .
If there was no demand for their services they would be in a different line of work .
Don't delude yourself there has been a demand ever since the beginnings of civilization.
Another thing, FQ is pro, many here are anti , all the ones who have expressed strong opinions are guys who will not get pregnant .
None of your opinions amount to a piss hole in the snow since it isn't your choice.
As for religion, the Constitution promises Freedom of , not from.
It also doesn't deify Christianity as the only right answer.
I guess that might depend upon your definition of from
I do think it is meant to protect you from having someone's religion imposed upon you.
-
It means you can worship, or not as you feel best, and if your neighbor doesn't approve TFB.
It means if the community wants a Nativity scene on town property and some atheist doesn't like it TFB.
-
It means you can worship, or not as you feel best, and if your neighbor doesn't approve TFB.
It means if the community wants a Nativity scene on town property and some atheist doesn't like it TFB.
That is very democratic. The majority gets to decide which religion gets to celebrate on public property?
That only works for me if any and all get to set up their displays also. Might be distasteful to some and likely impractical due to space limitations.
-
That is very democratic. The majority gets to decide which religion gets to celebrate on public property?
That only works for me if any and all get to set up their displays also. Might be distasteful to some and likely impractical due to space limitations.
Yes, the people paying for that public property get to decide how it gets used .
-
Yes, the people paying for that public property get to decide how it gets used .
So if it is not used the way I want, I get a refund, since everyone pays for it (well, those who pay at all I mean)
So I guess if the Muslim population in a town becomes the majority, we all start getting used to their decisions on how public property is used?
-
That is very democratic. The majority gets to decide which religion gets to celebrate on public property?
That only works for me if any and all get to set up their displays also. Might be distasteful to some and likely impractical due to space limitations.
Not majority. We are a nation that follows the Constitution which protects us from the majority vote. A community can put up what they wish, and they can't stop an opposing group from putting up what they wish, within reason.
Maybe those quoting the polls should brush up on their Constitutional history before infringing on our rights in favor of the 1% majority.
-
Not majority. We are a nation that follows the Constitution which protects us from the majority vote. A community can put up what they wish, and they can't stop an opposing group from putting up what they wish, within reason.
Maybe those quoting the polls should brush up on their Constitutional history before infringing on our rights in favor of the 1% majority.
I'll go along with that.
But in my limited experience, it doesn't work out well. In Cincinnati, the 'opposing' display on the downtown fountain area was destroyed each time it was erected. And I do not approve of the philosophy of the 'opposing' display either, but, by allowing displays, the city has an obligation to protect them equally.
-
I'll go along with that.
But in my limited experience, it doesn't work out well. In Cincinnati, the 'opposing' display on the downtown fountain area was destroyed each time it was erected. And I do not approve of the philosophy of the 'opposing' display either, but, by allowing displays, the city has an obligation to protect them equally.
Nit picking like this is part of why the country is so f*cked up .
The Constitution lays out rules the Govt has to follow ,
There is nothing in the Constitution that says I can't kick your azz for being a Muslim, it just say the Govt can't make it a law that Muslims get their azzes kicked.
The destruction of the "opposing' display" is a more or less Constitutionally acceptable expression of public sentiment.
-
Nit picking like this is part of why the country is so f*cked up .
The Constitution lays out rules the Govt has to follow ,
There is nothing in the Constitution that says I can't kick your azz for being a Muslim, it just say the Govt can't make it a law that Muslims get their azzes kicked.
The destruction of the "opposing' display" is a more or less Constitutionally acceptable expression of public sentiment.
Yeah..I know..The "opposing display" wasn't religious, but political being that it was a large KKK cross...
And my thoughts maybe a "solution waiting for a problem". Until there is a rush of requests for other religious displays to share the town square, there is no problem.
The objection can't be that the Christian display offends you, it would have to be that your display was refused.
If it offends you, don't look at it. But then, if a satanist group set up their display, the same would apply.
-
Use of "community property" is decided by what the majority of the people paying for it want to do with it .
What you do on your own land is your business as long as it doesn't impact your neighbors.
The worst mistakes the Founders made when writing the Constitution were the assumptions of good character and common sense.
-
Use of "community property" is decided by what the majority of the people paying for it want to do with it .
What you do on your own land is your business as long as it doesn't impact your neighbors.
The worst mistakes the Founders made when writing the Constitution were the assumptions of good character and common sense.
Ok...so a community that is predominately Muslim does get to tell the other 49% how the town square will be used.
I don't like it, but to each his own.
-
If the other 49% were worth giving a crap about they would have solved that problem .
-
If the other 49% were worth giving a crap about they would have solved that problem .
Ok, substitute Wicans for the Muslims. They harm no one, don't have a political agenda, live as honest and productive lives as anyone else, just would fill the square with pagan idols and symbols.
-
Wiccan's are nature worshiper, their "idols and symbols" trees and earth, are there year round .
-
Wiccan's are nature worshiper, their "idols and symbols" trees and earth, are there year round .
You are partially correct Tom. However, the Twin Cities has the largest Wiccan population in the nation, we hear about it several times a year, and they are much more than "nature worshipers."
They have departed from their historic roots, and it is amazing (scary) to see and hear their response to certain events up here.
-
Wiccan's are nature worshiper, their "idols and symbols" trees and earth, are there year round .
The Witch's Pentacle is a Wiccan symbol and it is not much favored by Christians, probably because it resembles the Satanist's Pentagram which has two points up instead of the one for the Witch's.
The Pentacle has been a Christian symbol used to designate the 5 wounds of Christ, but it isn't well thought of lately.
Here is a link to some Wiccan symbols. Not many appear to be trees, although they do have one for The Holy Trinity.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wiccan+symbols&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=r2k&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bVcBUf6GOoi40AGhnoC4Cg&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1399&bih=961
-
Are you really ignorant enough to think that sort of thing would equate with or interfere with a Nativity Scene ?
What you link to is a selection of really cool posters and jewelry .
Some of the posters show ancient types of script, (surprised I didn't see Ogham or Runes)
That's about as well informed as claiming some ones dictionary and class ring interfere with your religion.
You really need to get out more before you argue this sort of thing.
-
Are you really ignorant enough to think that sort of thing would equate with or interfere with a Nativity Scene ?
What you link to is a selection of really cool posters and jewelry .
Some of the posters show ancient types of script, (surprised I didn't see Ogham or Runes)
That's about as well informed as claiming some ones dictionary and class ring interfere with your religion.
You really need to get out more before you argue this sort of thing.
According to what you have said, there would be no Nativity scene unless the Wiccan majority wanted it.
I was just trying to demonstrate that would not be a very good situation.
I'm not that ignorant, I was just trying to see if you really were....or just shooting off your mouth.