Tuesday, April 15, 2008
posted by Spencerblog at
Liberalism with its childish, feel-good, emotion-fueled, ill-conceived and shortsighted “solutions” always ends up backfiring and causing further harm with unintended consequences. Always, always, always. Why then does anyone still listen to anything the Libs say on any topic? You’d think they would have learned by now.
Liberals don't care about consequences of their programs. To them it is important to just do something. Look what Liberal Mayor Nutter did last week in Phila, he signed ordinances into law last week knowing that they are unconstitutional.C. Scott Shields, Esquirewww.shieldsandhoppe.com
"But George Bush is shredding the Constitution! Wah! Wah! Weepweepweep!"
Nutter's got a tough situation in the city, Scott. I'll give him a pass due to the fact that no one in the State will lend a hand to the problems with violence and Murder in West and North Philly. The cameras are a good start, and more officers will do it as well, and while we have a right to bear arms, a lot of them in those neighborhoods are illegal.BTW, you response to Diano on the gay issue (I think it was the Kerry Post) was one of the best I've seen here. The line that "its between them and God" was key.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Umm, the “illegal” guns are already illegal. And if you had your way even legal guns would be grabbed. Why should we even consider further limiting the rights of the law-abiding and their ability to defend themselves for the illegal actions of the few? Makes no sense at all. This is why emotional Libs like you are dismissed from the gun debate.More not so veiled threats of violence, eh Dave. What say I send my black friends over to your place and tell them that your home is unarmed? And they don’t care if you’re an apologist or not.
Why is it that you blame ethanol on the liberals? Bush pushed for increased federal subsidies to encourage ethanol production. For many years the liberal "treehuggers" have been warning about the consequences on food prices and the destruction of the rainforest to grow cellulose feedstocks. I remember Hannity ridiculing those who opposed ethanol, and now you're ridiculing those who supported it.This is just plain scapegoating.
Diano Edwards:I just sued the City over the unconstitutional gun control ordinances. Nutter knows they are illegal. Lower Chi will be next if they pass theirs. I represent the NRA and many other pro constitution/gun groups.Pay attention.C. Scott Shields, Esquirewww.shieldsandhoppe.com
Wait, do you guys think we're using bio-fuels to power guns?
To Anon's question: Why is it that you blame ethanol on the liberals? Bush pushed for increased federal subsidies to encourage ethanol production. For many years the liberal "treehuggers" have been warning about the consequences on food prices and the destruction of the rainforest to grow cellulose feedstocks. Bush didn't push, he succumbed - like most Republicans to the scam. Both Republicans and Dems are drinking the Kool-Aid on pop environmentalism and big business is taking advantage. But it's the Dems who are serving it up.Time to listen to guys like the former Greenpeace prez and build nuke plants.
Scott,We have a right to bear arms, but we also have a right to stay alive. Please explain to me why it would be unconstitutional not to report stolen or missing firearms? (Serious Question, I'd like to know).Spencer - I bought into ethanol as well, should have seen it coming, just like how people tried to hype 'nanotechnology' in 99 and 2000 as the next wave ("Bill Clinton's investing in it!!!"). Nuke plants are the best option, but how do we address mobile power? Electric cars are still not there...
randal, I understand illegal guns, the problem is how they come about. Are they acquired through those permitted to carry? Are they stolen from those who are legal?While it's a right, I feel it's also a responsibility to keep them under one's own possession. That's why I'm interested in Scott's reply.
Look, most sensible people are for sensible gun laws. The problem is that we have become wary of the Slippery Slope. We’ve seen it before. Every time the gun grabbers come up with another good sounding idea of another way to restrict firearms, it greases that slope. For example, sure, limiting people to one gun a month seems reasonable on its surface, but if this were to go through you can bet your ass that in a couple years the Daves will come back with “Hey, who needs to buy more than one gun a year?” trying to make this further restriction sound just as reasonable. And so on… Bet on it. Just as MADD is blind in their zealot march to total prohibition and they implement their scheme one BAC % at a time, so too is the anti-gun lobby focused only on ending our Second Amendment right. And they also employ the Incremental Slippery Slope to do it. The NRA actually does not oppose sensible laws like the serial numbers one. This shows that, unlike their blind zealot gun-grabbing opposition, that they are indeed reasonable. Additionally, I don’t care how much emotion someone has connected to restricting guns due to personal trauma. That is their problem, not ours. It make ZERO sense to further restrict the gun availability for law-abiding gun owners for the illegal actions of the few –mostly urban black males- who can’t handle them responsibly and whose guns are illegal already anyway. Why can’t Libs understand this?
Mr. Shields was in the paper today taking on the illegal Philly gun laws. Good show, Mr. S! Hey, any chance of getting criminal charges brought against those Philly Libs who drafted these new gun "laws" while knowing they were illegal? Isn't it a crime to willfully violate the law? That would throw a scare into other Libs around the country thinking of pulling similar illegal stunts while ignoring the law, the Constitution and the will of the People.
you want lower fuel prices, don,t elect a conservitive republican.
That's deep, Anon. You think of that all by yourself?Figures you would also support the MADD kooks, Dave. (You know that they’re not all really mothers, right?) Yes, Dave, I am saying it would certainly seem that young urban black males cannot own guns responsibly. Judging by the gun crimes in which they are overwhelmingly involved, this is a reasonable conclusion. So maybe the answer is we should just outlaw them having guns? What’s that you say? That would be unconstitutional? Well, I figure that if we’re going to be picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to ignore we may as well accomplish something worthwhile. Besides, why restrict the rights of the law abiding for the illegal and irresponsible acts of the few? Makes no sense at all.
outlaw young black males from owning guns/ wait a minute. what about the white guys that run down to virgina and buy handguns by the gross. they will be out of bussiness, you know free trade and all. you got to stop and think. how about 13 and under.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Create a Link
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]