If It Walks Like A NAZI…

It’s time for me to give Comrade Karl a break.  Today’s illustration will focus on ‘Professor’ James McPherson – or, as Kells likes to call her sweetie, SBJ (Sweet Baby, James).

In the comments section of my recent post on the NAZI-like fascist, Michael Bloomberg, SBJ objected to and mocked me for using the term NAZI-like.  Well, I think it’s time I explain why SBJ objects: BECAUSE HE SYMPATHIZES WITH THE FASCIST!  Oh, he’ll object to this assertion, and he’ll try to mock me again, but I’m prepared to make my case – using Bloomberg as our example.

I start with Bloomberg’s ban on the Big Gulp:

State judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks in New York City

Bloomberg went around the legislative process to establish this ban.  That’s called dictatorship and is typical of the fascist leader.

Bloomberg has made similar bans on salt and smoking:

Bloomberg: Nanny-in-chief or health crusader?

He doesn’t care about the health of the public; he’s just getting people used to having their rights trampled and is using healthcare as the vehicle because it is an effective mask for the evil of his true intentions.  And before SBJ tells me this is not what Bloomberg is doing, let me stop him by using Bloomberg to tell SBJ that he DOES want to trample our rights.  Not only did Bloomberg recently say that “Sometimes, our rights do need to be limited,” his actions – more than his words – show that he has no qualms forcing his opinions upon the rights of others:

If you are in favor of your natural and constitutionally protected right to self-defense – especially from tyrants like Bloomberg – Bloomberg is coming after you:

NRA chief says Bloomberg can’t ‘buy America’ amid $12M gun control ad blitz

Trying to take guns from the People?  How very NAZI-like of Bloomberg (but SBJ agrees with Bloomberg).

What happens to those representatives who try to defend our individual and constitutionally protected rights?

Bloomberg: Lawmakers Who Vote Against Gun Control Will ‘Pay a Price’

Stomping down your political opposition?  How very NAZI-like of Bloomberg (yet SBJ supports him by defending him and mocking people like me).

And then there is Bloomberg’s drive to monitor everyone, everywhere – at all times (so he can enforce his tyranny):

Michael Bloomberg: In Five Years, There Will Be ‘Cameras Every Place’

Watching everything you do?  How very Gestapo of Bloomberg (and SBJ).  OH!  Wait!  The Gestapo was a NAZI organization, and Bloomberg is using modern technology to do the same thing the Gestapo did.  How very NAZI-like of him.  Look, he doesn’t even care if the people are against it, Bloomberg openly says he is going to just do it:

Mayor Bloomberg On NYPD Drones: ‘Get Used To It.’

And do you really think Bloomberg was not involved with this?

New York offers $500 reward for reporting illegal gun owners

Encouraging people to turn on each other?  How very NAZI-like (and yet, SBJ defends this by attacking people who point out how close it parallels the history of 1930’s Germany).

And have you heard?  Today, Bloomberg is talking about limiting your 1st Amendment rights — because people can’t be trusted with free speech.

How very…NAZI-like (and I am absolutely sure that SBJ will agree with Bloomberg on this one, too).

And how about the term limit thing: do I need to remind you how Bloomberg changed the laws so he could run for office again, then changed it back to prevent anyone else from doing the same, and now is considering undoing that so he can run yet again?  How very NAZI-like, yet SBJ will probably find no fault in what Bloomberg is doing, but in what I am saying.

But then, SBJ’s a college professor.  He doesn’t see this because he doesn’t see himself for what he is.  Well, how very NAZI-like of SBJ

[That SBJ is a professor should explain a lot about the current state of our society and nation.]

ADDENDUM:

We have a commenter who happens to be a college professor, and he objects to my use of the term NAZI-like.  He claims I am not using the term correctly in reference to Bloomberg and his actions.  Actually, this is very telling of botht he professors credentials, as well as the state of education in this nation as the ‘professor’ is denying the definition of the term whereas I am using it accurately and correctly:

Na·zi

[naht-see, nat-] Show IPA noun, plural Na·zis, adjective

noun
1.a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.
2.( often lowercase  ) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.
3.Sometimes Offensive. ( often lowercase  ) a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.: a jazz nazi who disdains other forms of music; tobacco nazis trying to ban smoking.
Hence the term “soup NAZI,” etc.  How is it that smoking NAZI, or big gulp NAZI or sugar or salt NAZI would not apply equally to Bloomberg?  How is it that someone can say Bloomberg is not seeking to control large parts of society based on his own will when he does so totally outside of the rule of law?  And how is it that a college professor can actually deny any of this and still expect to have any credibility among those who are actually educated as opposed to indoctrinated?  Unless, of course, the professors true goal is to defend those actions from the slander tactics his side of the  political divide has used so effectively on their opponents — which is precisely what I assert SBJ is doing here.  Remember, the Left has no qualms about openly lying to you, and when they make an assertion and refuse to support it, that is usually a sign they are lying.
About these ads

58 thoughts on “If It Walks Like A NAZI…

  1. Joe, it’s tough to decide whether you intentionally lie or whether you’re just stupid, but here goes the usual round of corrections:

    “Trying to take guns from the People? How very NAZI-like of Bloomberg (but SBJ agrees with Bloomberg).”

    False. I don’t agree with the taking away of guns. I do favor some gun legislation, but not that. Nor do I support Bloomberg’s Big Gulp ban, by the way (and I happen to agree with you that it’s a ban, even if your repeated use of the term “NAZI” has become a long-running joke).

    “SBJ supports him by defending him and mocking people like me”

    Kinda like you’re doing here, oh hypocritical one?

    “Watching everything you do? How very Gestapo of Bloomberg (and SBJ).”

    Uh, wrong again–I was opposing the Patriot Act and similar invasions of privacy long before almost anyone here (though not before you, perhaps–it’s one of the few areas in which we’ve tended to agree).

    “Today, Bloomberg is talking about limiting your 1st Amendment rights … How very…NAZI-like (and I am absolutely sure that SBJ will agree with Bloomberg on this one, too).”

    Wrong again, dumbo. As has been shown here repeatedly, I’m more of a First Amendment absolutist than you are. Others will no doubt remember our discussions of such things as Glenn Beck suing for libel and doctors asking about guns, even if you can’t.

    “SBJ will probably find no fault in what Bloomberg is doing, but in what I am saying.”

    Actually, I think you’re both morons. Feel better?

        • But hey, Joe, by my count you only lied about me six times in one post–not bad at all, coming from you, even if the truth about several of those would have been pretty easy to check. Fine job, again.

          • You mock the ACCURATE use of the term NAZI. In the common vernacular, that is a defense of those you perceive as being attacked. And that is negative (i.e. passive) support for the person you think is being victimized. As that person in this case is Bloomberg, you ARE defending him and, thus, indirectly supporting his tactics.

            James, you obviously cannot understand this, but in matters of good vs evil (or liberty vs tyranny), there is no middle/gray ground. You stand on one side or the other, and YOU, SBJ, have repeatedly shown that you stand on the Left.

            • Pitiful, Joe–I go through your lies point by point, and you answer with this? I’d feel sorry for you, if I didn’t think you were being intentionally disingenuous.

        • James,

          In all your time here, you have yet to actually refute anyone’s argument. But not to worry. If the likes of you and Karl constitute those who stand in opposition to me, I am standing squarely on solid ground.

  2. College professor? Everybody stop commenting. College professors are the universal authority on validating all things pertaining to humanity. Worship his professorship! God on Earth is among us!

    I wonder how many “thinkers” like SBJ, have actually put the critical thought into paralleling 1930s Nazi Germany, with Barak Obamas 2008-2013 America? Does a thinker like SBJ even care to know what the research might yield? Or are they more concerned with perfecting the art of smoke screen tactics like the popular ad homonym and red herring?

  3. “the art of smoke screen tactics”

    You mean like GI Joe’s six overt lies above? But then if your side lies, that’s OK, right?

    And if your were a bit more of a “thinker,” you might check some sources–even my blog, for instance–to see that I’ve been a regular critic of Obama and did not vote for him in 2012. Or perhaps you’d rather just rely on “ad homonym and red herring”?

  4. Has anybody seen the “report your suspicious neighbors” commercials? FEMA Corp? Amnesty for illegal aliens and education benefits for their illegal children? How about the response from zombie liberal educators over the release of the childrens environmental indoctrination film “The Lorax”? “Civilian national security force”, equally as powerful and funded as the most powerful military in the world? Since when was the National Guard insufficient? Private corporate security firms with the ability to spy on the public for the Government? Don’t kid yourself, our country is primed and ready for a Gestapo.

    • libercrite,

      If you are arguing with James, you are dealing directly with one of the guardians of their gates (whether he is consciously aware of it or not. If he isn’t, then he’s just a useful idiot, but a guardian just the same).

      • “you are dealing directly with one of the guardians of their gates”

        If that were true, I guess it would make Lyin’ Joe one of these:

  5. “our country is primed and ready for a Gestapo”

    Which, even if true, is irrelevant to Joe’s lies about me or your apparent defense of his lying. Another “smokescreen,” libercrite?

  6. For some, it’s not just a river in Egypt — it’s a way of life:

    Definition of DENIAL
    1: refusal to satisfy a request or desire
    2a (1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge) (2) : assertion that an allegation is false
    b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : disavowal
    3: the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit
    4: self-denial
    5: negation in logic
    6: a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

    • Yep, Joe, those seem to fit you. So why not just admit that you lied repeatedly in this post (thanks for bolding “refusal to admit the truth”) –or even that you just made a mistake–in presenting my views. Oh, that’s right–you’ve never been wrong. Poor, pitiful Joey.

  7. Ok, come on. Who let the troll out of its cage? Don’t you have some tests to be grading, or some indoctrination to be preparing for lecture tomorrow or something, James?

    I find it funny that you accuse everybody and their mom of lying, but you respond with 0 content to prove otherwise. Considering that Joe documents his blogs with supporting evidence and content, instead of theory like your pal Karl, I’ll take my chances with the lies.

    “Which, even if true, is irrelevant to Joe’s lies about me or your apparent defense of his lying. Another “smokescreen,” libercrite?”
    Yes, as a matter of fact, it is a smoke screen. How? Because you refuse to engage any of these so called lies. Instead of providing evidence for why anything said in the post or in the comments is lies, you settle for petty ad hominems.

    I admit though, I may be getting the troll tamed here at last. Since you can now recognize the errors of your ways, we may be able to train you to find some course of coherent thought after all!

    • “Instead of providing evidence for why anything said in the post or in the comments is lies”

      You’ll remember, perhaps, that my comment was aimed at Joe–who wrote the post, and who knows that he lied. And you’re wrong, besides–I referred to previous comments here, which he knows well. (“As has been shown here repeatedly.”) You could look back and find those, or you could check my blog for the easy-to-find evidence.

      Or you could just “take your chances with the lies”–which is what I’d have expected of Joe’s fans, anyway. And since I know almost nothing about Karl, and have said nothing here about “theory,” that part of your comment is typically irrelevant. Carry on, clueless children.

  8. I am not interested in your bloviating, but I am curious what ‘gun legislation’ you are in ‘favor’ of, James.

    • Augger, I don’t really believe you’re interested, but I’ll play along. I’d favor guns a consistent, computerized background check system, makiing penalities harsher for someone who buys a gun for someone who couldn’t buy it him/herself (and for a dealer who knowingly sells one under such circumstances), weapons training courses (which some states do better than others), and having guns sold with trigger locks (which owners could then choose to use or not). I’d also continue to ban the sale of fully automatic weapons and hand grenades (which Joe thinks you and I should be able to use).

      • Actually I am quite interested in your thoughts, and for posting them I say “thank you”.

        “computerized background check system” — We have this system in place (at least in every state I have lived in. You buy a gun, you give your personals to the dealer, he calls the ATF for a background check, they run you though their computer, and you are approved/disapproved before the call is over.

        “makiing penalities harsher for someone who buys a gun for someone who couldn’t buy it him/herself (and for a dealer who knowingly sells one under such circumstances)” — I am not sure what the current penalties are, but I do believe this is appropriate as I am not much of a fan of circumventing the law.

        “weapons training courses (which some states do better than others)” – Mandatory requirement? I would not have a problem with this, if it were handled on the state level. For instance… in Florida one cannot operate a boat without a boater’s safety course recorded with the state (I believe for those born after 1981).

        “having guns sold with trigger locks” – No issue for having weapons sold with a trigger lock in the box. However, I would not support a Federal mandate requiring all guns to be trigger locked when not currently in use. Rationale: trigger locks are awfully clumsy in a crisis home defense situation.

        “I’d also continue to ban the sale of fully automatic weapons and hand grenades” – Continue to ban? I’m sorry James, but you appear to be slightly misinformed on the sale/ownership of fully automatic weapons (we’ll get to the grenades later). A person can purchase and own a fully automatic weapon, but it’s not quite as easy as one would think. One of the more popular fully automatic weapons is the M60 machine gun, so we’ll use that as an example. Here’s the steps it takes:

        1. Save up about $30,000 – $40,000 dollars US to purchase the M60.
        2. Paper work. You will need two Form 4s with two photographs of yourself attached to the Form 4s. Two fingerprint cards. One citizenship card (which incidentally you do not need to have in order to vote six times in an election).
        3. Once all of that paper work is together, you will need your local chief law enforcement officer to sign the form 4s (usually the County Sheriff, but there are others that can qualify). If (and that’s a big if as many do refuse to sign them) the sheriff is one who will sign the form 4s for you, it generally comes after an extensive background check, so you should be prepared to have the local Sheriff do his own investigation, which could mean just about anything. I had one actually send a deputy out to interview my neighbors. I have heard stories of folks who had their wives interviewed, their job performance checked in to, and others who have stated that the Sheriff had their homes checked for appropriate gun safes prior to signing the forms.
        4. A check made out to the ATF for the sum total of $200.00 dollars (the tax paid for the ‘Stamp’).
        5. All of these things are sent together in one packet, to the BATF for approval. Be patient though, I just sent a packet off, and the estimated wait period is currently at 6-7 months.

        note: The stamp I mailed off for was a suppressor. I had to purchase the suppressor first ($950.00), and it now resides in the gun dealer’s safe … where it will reside until I receive the BATF stamp. Moral of the story is; make sure you are going to get approved before making this purchase. If you are a convicted felon, you may need to walk away.

        Grenades. Classified by the BATF as destructive devices, and allowed under the National Firearms Act using the same guidelines as above. Personally, I would have no use for a grenade other than as a collectable item or a ‘fun on the range’ item, but that’s not the point. The point falls to the Constitution of the United States. If a individual state wants to ban destructive devices, then that is their business. The Constitution protects us from having our rights determined from someone’s perception of our ‘need’. (side note: if you have never played with a grenade, you are really missing out. They are wonderfully entertaining.)

        Closing thoughts: NFA Gun Trusts. If you are even thinking about getting in to the realm of Stamp II firearms, I strongly suggest you obtain one. You’ll need an attorney to help you with this, and plan on setting aside some cash in a separate account for the trust. You do not do this in order to circumnavigate the system (ie, bypassing the Sheriff’s sign off) as much as you need to do this for the proper legal transfer of said items in case of an emergency or life changing event (death). No, you create your trust to ensure that your beneficiaries do not suddenly find themselves outside of the law should you somehow become incapacitated or deceased.

        You see James, we are pretty well regulated for law abiding citizens … would you not agree? It’s those pesky criminals that in my mind, we need to sort out. :)

        Your thoughts?

        • It does sound like we agree on much. You seem to have no problem with the paperwork involved, either–but I think Joe would. He seems to think that anyone should be able to own any sort of weaponry, without restriction and without anyone keeping track via computer registry or other means. Of course, he seems to be much more paranoid than either you or I–and is probably wrong about any of that making a difference if government forces were as out to get him as he seems to think.

          Thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply.

          • At both of you. The BATF requirements are a grand infringement, and quite frankly … a pain in the ass … or at least it was the first time I went through the process. Now, just the waiting in the pain. But this bodes the question to the both of you…

            What exactly did this law accomplish? If it had truly accomplished it’s goal, none of us would be here discussing the need for ‘gun control’ at all … right?

            Right.

            This law (like most Federal Government laws) did not achieve it’s intended goal. In fact, all it did was drive up the price of such weapons, adding only a burden on law abiding citizens, yet has done absolutely little to curb the use of these brand of weapons within our borders by criminal elements.

            So why should we presuppose to believe that any further bans would yield the desired result? Does a lock deter a thief? Absolutely not. We all know locks keep honest men honest, and gun bans are no different. So what is true deterrence? I will leave that for each of you to decide.

            However, banning any ability for the law abiding citizen to arm himself or herself as she see’s fit in my mind only serves to undermine that ability to provide the very deterrence a law abiding citizen could, and would provide for themselves …. meanwhile, gangs just bring in their weapons at liberty from within, and outside our borders.

            Our Constitution was drafted with much more thought, insight, and wisdom than any of us will ever understand.

            Food for thought.

            • Augger,

              While I may not understand ALL of the things our founders considered in drafting our constitution, I object to the implication that I do not understand the spirit behind it.

              ALL “gun laws” are meant to do 1 thing — PREVENT THE PEOPLE FROM DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM THE GOVT.!!!

              They are not sold this way, but that is what they are intended to do. Only a fool actually believes they protect anyone from those with evil in their heart. So the only rational conclusion is they want to disarm the population so govt. can more easily exert its control over the masses.

              History is clear on this, and this is what the founders said the 2nd Amendment is really all about.

              • As Augger so eloquently pointed out; their only purpose is to fill purses (the govt.’s, that is…) which leads to more growth which then further leads to more control. Simple, really.

                • I think the money is just an added benefit, Kells. The way it is designed now, the can tell themselves that they haven’t “banned” anything — but they have infringed, which is actually where the spirit of the law lies. So the fee is nothing more than another fools attempt to assuage that which Comrade Karl says does not exist: their conscience.

                • “As Augger so eloquently pointed out; their only purpose is to fill purses (the govt.’s, that is…) which leads to more growth which then further leads to more control. Simple, really.”

                  Precisely, and I will add succinctly:

                  “Any time the Federal Government puts it’s hands in our business, they f**k it up and make a big ole mess.”

              • “While I may not understand ALL of the things our founders considered in drafting our constitution, I object to the implication that I do not understand the spirit behind it.”

                There was no implication to understanding. Just preaching to the choir.

                • “There isn’t a difference. The NFA 1934 regulations didn’t accomplish anything they were designed to do ”

                  So I remain confused–how can you use that to justify letting folks carry machine guns or hand grenades but not nerve gas or dirty bombs? After all, if the goal is to stop an attack by the government–which could be using drones, missiles and aircraft, your machine gun and grenades aren’t going to help much, anyway, it seems to me.

                  • James, this is going to come off as flippant, but it’s not meant to be … there’s just no easy way to say it.

                    I follow laws all the time that I do not agree with, however I do follow them. For instance, I do not like the fact that I have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes to fund a professional mother of 4 receiving $140,000 dollars per year of entitlement spending that I partially fund. I do not like the fact that I am now forced to purchase insurance without a single benefit of my own judgment as to my ‘need’. I also do not like laws that force me to wear a seat belt in a car when a motorcyclist has the choice not to wear a helmet.

                    Same goes for this crazy law. Simply stated, the government believes it has the authority to dictate to us our ‘need’ based upon their perception of it. I have said it before, and I will say it again…

                    Rights are not based upon anyone’s perception of my ‘need’.

                    I follow laws all the time that I do not agree with; however … I do follow them.

                    I justify my position as such … a law-abiding citizen. If I were a gangster in Watts with a grille that said “ray-ray” or a crazed lunatic kid with a hot hand on a video game, a deranged mind, and a sincere lack or morality … I might could give you an answer such as:

                    “Regulate away bitches; I know where to get my guns.”

            • “If it had truly accomplished it’s goal, none of us would be here discussing the need for ‘gun control’ at all … right?”

              Interesting question. How do you measure the “effectiveness” of something unless it totally eliminates behavior? We might say that not letting most folks have automatic weapons and hand grenades has kept people from using such weapons to away large numbers of people in movie theaters. But according to the typical NRA argument, as soon as someone does use a hand grenade in a theater we might as well legalize them for everyone–after all, banning them hasn’t prevented their use.

              And I suppose that if someone release nerve gas in the New York subways, or explodes a “dirty bomb” in Miami, we can legalize the use of those, too, since the laws will have “failed.” And either of those weapons might also protect us from government militants in black helicopters.

              • James,

                I am not sure if you read the same NRA stuff that I do, but I have never seen an argument put forth by them in those terms. As far as I know, no one has ever used a hand grenade in a theater crime, however … a propane tank was used as a destructive device in the Columbine attack. Would you then decide to ban all propane tanks?

                And see, that’s the problem with the whole gun control debate. Anything can be weaponized by those with the will, and the criminal inclination to do so. Shall we ban all blunt objects, sharp objects, rope, wire, string, etc, etc, etc until nothing is left for law abiding (keyword there: law abiding) citizens to have in their homes?

                Your answer would be along the lines of “Hell, no … and stop being silly.”, right? Well, for those of law abiding citizens, we view the gun ban in the same way as you would if we say (for the sake of the discourse) decided that cars were evil “because cars kill people”, and banned them.

                Banning any object has never controlled the morality issues of any person, or group of persons … which is the point I see Joe trying to make.

                No matter how hard regulators may try, none will ever be able to regulate our morality.

                • So, Augger, almost anything can become a weapon — but you seem to be skirting the issue yourself. Would you therefore permit anyone to own hand grenades, nerve gas or a dirty bomb? Should I be able to stand heavily armed by a polling place , giving dirty looks to anyone who doesn’t look like me? Why or why not?

                  And yes, I admit that I’ll be pleasantly surprised if you directly answer the question.

                  And it seemed to me that the point Joe was trying to make is that Bloomberg has behaved like a NAZI — and that I must be of the same ilk because I supposedly agree with Bloomberg on some of those things (despite the fact that I disagree with Bloomberg on many of those things, and Joe simply made stuff up apparently because he was irritated with me–and he has been too cowardly since then to admit that he got things wrong or simply lied).

                  • “So, Augger, almost anything can become a weapon — but you seem to be skirting the issue yourself.”

                    No James, I am not. I am addressing the issue from a Constitutional standpoint with the understanding that the Constitution does not grant us our rights, but rather provides protection of those God given rights from any government that would take those rights.

                    “Would you therefore permit anyone to own hand grenades, nerve gas or a dirty bomb?”

                    Grenades yes. Why? Because they are provided for by law. I do not however see where nerve gas, or ‘dirty bombs’ (an ambiguous moniker) are provided for by law either on the Federal, or State level.

                    “Should I be able to stand heavily armed by a polling place , giving dirty looks to anyone who doesn’t look like me? Why or why not?”

                    The Constitution provides for peaceful assembly, and freedom of speech. Therefore as long as your demonstration is peaceful, then the answer is yes. The Constitution provides for redress of our government through peaceful demonstration, and it even allows us the freedom to say stupid things.

                    Would I do it? Absolutely not, but then again, I am not siding with the militant liberal New Black Panthers either. But, nice try. :)

                    “And it seemed to me that the point Joe was trying to make is that Bloomberg has behaved like a NAZI”

                    Nazi is not the moniker I would have applied to Bloomberg, but Totalitarian is one I might have chosen. That being said, it is clear that Bloomberg is looking to interrupt the Constitutional protected right to self-determination by attempting to ban items such as 20 ounce sodas … would you not agree?

                    I would be interested in hearing what Bloomberg agenda you would support. Might provide a good compass bearing to your understanding/belief in the validity of the U.S. Constitution.

                    And I do hope you were pleasantly surprised. :)

                    • Augger,

                      If NAZI does not describe ‘totalitarian’ and visa versa, what does? Lest we forget, the term ‘dictator’ was coined by Mussolini in reference to himself ;-)

                    • You know, that’s a good point to discuss. Those duped by Totalitarian dictators does not necessarily a totalitarian they make.

                      Hitler, and his true sycophants were totalitarians. Some of the Nazi’s however I am sure were not so much, but rather coerced, or duped.

                      It’s that logic that would compel me to label Bloomberg a totalitarian (individual), instead of a Nazi (which implies a group).

                    • Thanks, Augger, for another set of honest answers (though I disagree with your distinction between grenades and nerve gas). And in answer to your question, I’m honestly not sure what, if anything, I’d agree with Bloomberg about. Maybe the supposed “9/11 mosque” from way back when, and perhaps what I would guess are his views on gay marriage (I support its legalization).

                      Butfrankly I don’t follow New York city politics all that closely. I know I disagree with his “Big Gulp” perspective. If there are other specific views that you happen to know and would like to ask me about, I’d be happy to answer.

                      Now, how about if you acknowledge what Joe won’t–that he clearly has misrepresented my views in a post devoted largely to what I would supposedly agree with Bloomberg on? Some of Joe’s misrepresentations could simply come from ignorance (because he’d have no idea where I stand, and could conceivably be making a sincere effort to guess), but in other cases he should know better from what I’ve posted here previously. Those include my views regarding the First Amendment and privacy, of course. And even if he can’t remember what I’ve said previously, to maintain the opposite is simply dishonest.

                      If I were a conservative or someone who cared about the reputation of the RNL, I think I’d find it somewhat discouraging that the head guy here would be so dishonest that he can’t even admit that he was wrong–even if he chooses to maintain that it was an “honest mistake.” Since I’m neither consistently conservative (in the typical modern sense) nor someone who cares about the reputation of the RNL, of course, his continuing exhibition of his true nature doesn’t bother me at all. Does his lack of honesty bother you?

                    • It’s not my distinction between nerve gas and grenades. That was decided long before either of us were born my friend. That distinction falls squarely upon the shoulders of the 72nd United States Congress.

                      Unless I have missed something in the Firearms Act of 1934?

                      Nah, that clears it up about Bloomberg. I think I may have misread your first statement concerning him … that was about 4 toddies ago.

                      And there it is. You want me to fall in to the You vs Joe trap. Nope, no sir. Not going to ruin a good Scotch night scrolling back to read all the back and forth. You both are grown up, you settle it. The whole point of my first response in this thread after all, was to end all of that and get on towards something useful … which I hope that will continue.

                    • Not to belabor a point, Augger, but the automatic weapons/grenades/gas distinction still isn’t clear to me. Why are the regulations (including registration) set forth by a 1934 act of Congress any different than other federal laws? You wrote, ““Any time the Federal Government puts it’s hands in our business, they f**k it up and make a big ole mess.”

                      Is that only true since 1934? (Joe seems to think it may have begun being true in 1791). Please believe that I’m not trying to argue or push buttons here. I’m honestly trying to understand which “restrictions” are OK, and why. The serious anti-gun folks and people like Joe will never agree. But I think most of us are more moderate on guns (and most other issues), and have the capability to reach logical compromises through reasoned discussion. If fact most of us think that capability better reflects the true American ideal than some cherry-picked views of some of the Founding Fathers (who didn’t agree on everything, and compromised on quite a bit).

                      I don’t think most Americans, for example, would use phrases such as, “So the only rational conclusion is they want to disarm the population so govt. can more easily exert its control over the masses,” or “in matters of good vs evil (or liberty vs tyranny), there is no middle/gray ground.” And many of us find folks who do use such over-the-top rhetoric to be cartoonish and/or scary, rather than as serious contributors to political discourse.

                      As far as the the Joe-vs.-me argument, I don’t think you’d have to worry about the reading “all the back and forth” — you could simply have stuck with his original post here; you’ve read enough of my comments at the RNL to know where I stand on issues such as free speech and the Patriot Act, and therefore to know that Joe is lying about at least those things. But I also don’t blame you for refusing to enter the fray; it’s not your fight, and you and he have been friends for a long time. The fact that you’re not agreeing with him in this case is validations enough. Thanks for a good discussion.

                    • I know you aren’t trying to push buttons here, and I am actually happy about that. As far as Joe and I go … honestly, I have never met the man. Friends through like-minded conservative values for sure, but he can tell you, that I have absolutely no issue with disagreeing with him, and I can absolutely tell you that neither does he with me. We’ve in fact, have had some pretty serious disagreements in our history. By the time I found this post, you two had already devolved the difference of opinions to the point that nothing I could have ever said could lower the discourse even further. So I just simply passed over it as I did manage to find a gap of light with discussion to explore.

                      Now on to some of your points …

                      “Why are the regulations (including registration) set forth by a 1934 act of Congress any different than other federal laws?”

                      There isn’t a difference. The NFA 1934 regulations didn’t accomplish anything they were designed to do … unless you are a conspiracy theorist (more on that later). Can you tell me how many lives will be saved by restricting the lawful owners of guns their rights to obtain the weapons you wish to ban?

                      No. You cannot. Nor can you predict how many lives have been saved by having access to ownership of those weapons, which brings me to another point for you to ponder …. The Federal Government sure believes in use of these types of weapons for their various civilian (now militia’d) agencies, which by the way was something that Hitler, and the Nazi Party began with in Germany … and likely the historical data that Joe did draw from.

                      But I digress. So the Feds (most lately the FBI) are now on record purchasing 100 million dollars worth of 9mm rounds for their various ‘assault weapons’, specifically the Glock 17, 19, 26, Sig Sauer P226, and the H&K MP4 Submachine gun … which by the way to justify owning as “a measure to protect the lives of our officers”.

                      Hrmmmmm. Protect the lives of our officers they say. Sounds awfully familiar to another armed civilian citizen (a homeowner) who justifies having similar weapons as “to protect my family”, now doesn’t?

                      Yes, I know I am preaching to the choir here, but let’s extend the point further. The Federal Government is also on record stating that a person who purchases 4,000 rounds of any ammunition is ‘stockpiling’ as they could not possibly need that many rounds to protect themselves … but yet 100 million dollars worth of ammunition isn’t ‘stockpiling’ by one civilian militia organization?

                      Sounds a bit fishy to me. Now never mind that the government has gone absolutely hog-wild buying up millions upon millions of dollars worth of ammunition and weapons for their various civilian militia agencies … but by God they are going to make sure that local law enforcement, American individuals, and the US Military are going to make sure they find empty shelves when they go to purchase rounds … as has been well documented those shortages over the past few months.

                      Why is that, you suppose? (insert your own brand of conspiracy theory here)

                      So my assertion is this:

                      Provided for by the 2nd Amendment, the American citizen has the right to bear arms in order to protect itself against a tyrannical government. And as such, if the very weapons the government wants to ban from you and I, the law abiding citizen, then the government should also have to live by the very laws they enact.

                      This is after all, a government FOR the people, BY the people. They serve us my friend. We do not serve them.

                    • See, it’s so obvious that I am spot-on here, that no one who is paying attention to the news even has to think to come up with a “fill in the blank” Nazi label for Bloomberg — because that’s how he’s acting.

                      Yet, our resident, self-appointed “language nazi” refuses to acknowledge the definition, let alone its proper application. As I say, there usually just one reason someone does that… ;-)

                    • James,

                      The mere fact that you would disarm your fellow citizen because you hold the mistaken belief that it will somehow make you safer is enough to place you firmly on the side of opposing liberty. You will scream, and cry, and tell people I am lying, but in the end, your notion of liberty is just that: YOUR notion of liberty. When you force your beliefs on another, you have crossed over to the side of dictatorship and tyranny, and sending the govt. to do it in your name does not absolve you of your guilt.

                      Liberty is just that: individual freedom. It is not a guarantee of safety and security. It is the promise that you can have the opportunity to chart your own path, and part of that means assuring your own safety — especially from the govt., and from people such as yourself.

                      Honestly, I find it laughable that people like you think that I can’t have a machine gun — unless I wear a govt. uniform. But — by some irrational quirk of emotional magic — were I to put my eagle globe and anchor back on, your type would suddenly think me “safe.” The whole notion is absurd, but you will cling to it until you die. In truth, you’d be safer around me with a machine gun than you would be around our modern military with them — because I am not trying to tell you what to do or how to do it, but the military has to answer to people who are.

                  • I know. Let’s see if James is being sincere in honest discourse (that he is hoping for), or if this is but another baited trap.

                    In the end, it won’t matter to me. I can land on either level.

        • Augger,

          It all sounds like a lot of INFRINGEMENT to me — but then, the prof doesn’t care about liberty (as he is continuing to demonstrate) — just imposing his judgment on others (and no doubt he’ll call this another of my “lies”)

  9. “no doubt he’ll call this another of my ‘lies’”

    Having pointed out six on this post alone, Joe, I’m happy to stick with those. I am surprised somewhat that you keep avoiding dealing with those comments, instead choosing to namecall and go off on unrelated tangents–the kind of thing that in more thoughtful days you would have referred to as “fallacy.” Again, I’d pity you if I didn’t think you were aware of just how ingenuous you’re being.

    But I am happy that you keep prolonging the comments on this, so that even more people get to see just how blatantly dishonest you are. You and the RNL are a real credit to conservatism — so please keep up the good work. ;-)

    • James,

      At best, you pointed out an assertion (i.e. opinion). That you cannot tell lie from opinion is telling of your credentials as a professor (on second thought, I suppose that’s actually a requirement for your job these days).

      • “At best, you pointed out an assertion (i.e. opinion).”

        You flatly stated that I held views that you knew were contrary to those I’d made previously on this very site. If you want to call that “opinion,” then fine–it simply reinforces the view that your “opinions” are founded on little of substance. Or that you’re getting senile.

  10. “And how is it that a college professor can actually deny any of this and still expect to have any credibility among those who are actually educated as opposed to indoctrinated? Unless, of course, the professors true goal is to defend those actions”

    Poor, pititful, lyin’ Joe. I never denied anything about Bloomberg, as any half-literate simpleton can see. I denied your lies about my views. There’s a difference, and most readers will be smart enough to recognize it–even if you can’t believe that people that smart would be reading your work.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s