Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth

Tri-Valley Herald ^ | 17 March 2002 | Dwight King-Leatham

[tpaine]

You know that is a stupid, baiting generalization of libertarians, totally without proof, yet you persist.

What an absolute clown.

[Now run tell someone that I 'abused' you again.]

[Texaggie79]

I didn't generalize, I simply am stating fact. I didn't say ALL the LP, or anyone in the LP. I just find it humorous that you won't admit it. I've admitted to the Rinos, and constitution treading members of mine.

[Texaggie79]

Now run tell someone that I 'abused' you again.

If the again is for telling someone it is false, because I have never told anyone. If it is for your abuse, it is accurate. All you do is berate anyone who does not agree with every word you type.

I realize that was probably how you were raised, back in the 1800's but the rest of us have evolved past that.

[Don Joe]

"The above is all one really needs to read to get the gist of what is going on here. Is "fewer than half the 380 Posse members" equal to 179? An even better question would be, are there any non-posse members who hold gun permits? Anyone at all?"

Oh, probably some lawyers and judges, I'd imagine, and maybe a few other prominent patrons of the crown.

But this situation pales in comparison to the travesty going on in DC, where even ownership of handguns is prohibited to mere citizens. Yet, I've read that many of our esteemed legislators manage not only to legally own, but carry with impunity.

How do they manage this feat? By getting themselves sworn in as US Marshalls. (I'd presume that would allow them to carry not only in DC, but anywhere they bloody well feel like carrying, probably even including airliners.)

The only fly in the ointment is that I'v heard that there is a Constitutional prohibition against a person holding office in two branches of the federal government at the same time. Since legislators are part of the Legislative branch, and Marshalls are part of the Exective branch, it would appear that there's a bit of a problem, right?

Wrong. I guess there's a place that's above the law, and they seem to be in that place.

Where's Woodward and Bernstein when you need some investigative journalism that's of the non-PC variety?

Oh, sorry. How stupid of me. We can't go rocking the boat, now can we...

[tpaine]

You admit you amuse yourself by divisive comments that bait others, and somehow that is OK for you to do, but its bad form if I object?

As I said above, your behavior borders on the obsessive.

You need rest.

[Travis McGee]

You sound like a slave who is thankful that the master didn't whip him that day.

Sadly, that describes about 70% of Americans on any given day.

[tpaine]

All young liars think their shabby self deceptions are unique. - They aren't. -- Guys like you are a dime a dozen, kid.

[Mini-14]

"Can you not even have the dignity to admit that many in the LP are drug users and that is the main reason they choose to be Libertarian?"

A libelous remark indeed.

[Texaggie79]

Guys like you are a dime a dozen, kid.

However, I think you have that whole grumpy old fart thing all to yourself.......

[Texaggie79]

PULEEZ dude, are you blind. I was a pot user in high school, and that was the only reason I was a Libertarian. I'm not saying that that is what the LP is all about, I'm just pointing out obvious truths. Best to fess up to it than appear ignorant.

[gatex]

"Since legislators are part of the Legislative branch, and Marshalls are part of the Exective branch, it would appear that there's a bit of a problem, right?"

They probably excuse it by saying they are engaged in interstate commerce by traveling from their states to D.C.--and as Justice Ginsburg said about interstate commerce--"anything goes."

[tpaine]

I'm just pointing out obvious truths. Best to fess up to it than appear ignorant.

One thing is obvious about how you view 'truth'. Your ignorance of it is bliss.
The blissful willful blindness of the born BS'er.

You were never a 'libertarian'. You never had the guts, - or the smarts, - to defend an unpopular position.

You're a poseur if I've ever seen one. - A Walter Mitty.

[Texaggie79]

You never had the guts, - or the smarts, - to defend an unpopular position.

Check out a drug thread some time genius.

[tpaine]

Check em out? Are you daft? - I've been opposing your communitarian/socialist 'majority rule' BS on them ever since you got here. -- And well before.

[Texaggie79]

I've been opposing your communitarian/socialist 'majority rule' BS on them ever since you got here.

Ever notice that you are in the majority on those threads?

[stands2reason]

Don't you know the Founding Fathers meant "bear arms" to mean "tolerate arms"? Heh,heh, It makes more sense thanto argue "people" aren't actual people, but the state.

[tpaine]

Ever notice that you and your obsessed drug warrior cohort are the ones baiting libertarians & bashing the constitution on those 'drug' threads?

In fact, you clowns post most of the more divisive of them, imo. It's the 'warrior' agenda. And lots of the old warriors are the old anti-freepers.

[Texaggie79]

I still wonder what it's like in that little world of yours

[tpaine]

You would be really surprised at how many freepers here support the socalled 'right' of a state to make laws that ignore the bill of rights, including the 2nd.

They deny that the 14th amendment is a valid restriction on state lawmaking power. -- Such 'reasoning' boggles the mind.