Coulter NAILS it ...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • md123

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 29, 2011
    2,005
    No one is more effective 1 on 1 with libs.

    She goes for the throat with a smile and knows her facts. I'll forgive her for mis-judging Christie Creme. Most other "conservatives" are scared to speak truth on TV or become intoxicated with the libs like that punk Joe Scarborough.
     

    JAY1234

    Retired Radioman Chief
    Dec 1, 2012
    731
    St Marys County Maryland
    I desire to protect the children also, however, adults are being murdered, raped, robbed, and abused at the same time, yet the politicians are doing everything in their power to prevent a properly experienced, legal gun owner from protecting his family (wife, children, animals, in-laws, next door neighbors, etc.) Law enforcement personnel are rarely on the scene when a nut job is killing people with a firearm unless they have been dispatched to a hostage situation or robbery in progress and they can arrive in time to confront the robbers. They generally arrive after the crime has been committed and then do a thorough job of evidence collection, crime scene processing, and detective work that normally results in an arrest where the current court system will find a way to release the culprit on a technicality. None of the investigation and subsequent arrest will resurrect the dead victim(s). I had rather die at the hands of a criminal while resisting with a firearm than stand there with my hat in my hand and wait for the end.

    Some of the illustrious politicians know this but continue to attempt to strip the working, tax paying, legal gun owners, and Americans of their Constitutional rights.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    She does write good stuff ...

    I am a republican and cant stand her. There is also something to be said that she loooovvvess chris christi

    And, she has fallen 'out of love' ...
    Ann Coulter Blasts Chris Christie, Says He’s ‘Off My List’ For 2016 In Fiery CPAC Speech
    "Even CPAC has had to cut their budget by over 300 lbs"

    I do find her redeeming qualities far outweigh her 'romantic political encounters' in this oldie from 2012.

    Negroes With Guns

    The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

    In the preface to "Negroes With Guns," author and civil rights hero Robert F. Williams writes: "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Avoid the Need for Spying Using This One Not-So-Weird Trick

    In summation ...

    If you can't trust "American citizen" Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, what Americans can you trust these days? Or to quote Sen. Bob Casey, the mentally disabled Democratic senator from Pennsylvania: "It's really disturbing -- Americans becoming radicalized."

    But we needed them! As Marco Rubio's staff recently told The New Yorker, American workers "can't cut it."

    If the government can spy on Cherry Hill's Mohamad Shnewer, how can we draw the line at Fox News' James Rosen and CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson?

    That's why the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA, expressly prohibited the agency from engaging in domestic operations. Now we have to spy on Americans because of all the imported Tsarnaevs and Zazis. We have created two huge problems where none existed before -- domestic terrorism and government spying -- all to help the Democrats win elections by changing the electorate.

    When we're referring to "American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki" -- provoking Rand Paul to carry on for 13 hours about Obama killing an "American citizen" with a drone -- the phrase "American citizen" has lost its essential meaning. We don't have a drone problem. We don't have a spying problem. We have an immigration problem.

    Go ahead and call me a jingo, but it all makes sense.
     

    Benanov

    PM Bomber
    May 15, 2013
    910
    Shrewsbury, PA
    Avoid the Need for Spying Using This One Not-So-Weird Trick

    Go ahead and call me a jingo, but it all makes sense.

    Oh sure it makes sense, if you don't mind changing the entire way the country has worked for 200 years because of a few people who believe their mythology a little too hard.

    The Al-Awaki case is *really* disconcerting, and the fact that you indicate you might have been in support of that scares me. Rights go to everyone - period, everyone. The reason MSI is "Maryland Shall Issue" is because it's the idea that the state should find a reason *not* to give you a firearm/carry permit - that you get the right by default.

    If it's okay to get rid of someone's rights because they're brown or muslim or have unpopular opinions, then it slowly becomes okay to "other" different groups of people. Go down this slope long enough and rights are only available for fair-skinned wealthy people who have connections.

    (Oh wait, this is Maryland. That already describes carry permits.)
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Oh sure it makes sense, if you don't mind changing the entire way the country has worked for 200 years because of a few people who believe their mythology a little too hard.

    The Al-Awaki case is *really* disconcerting, and the fact that you indicate you might have been in support of that scares me. Rights go to everyone - period, everyone. The reason MSI is "Maryland Shall Issue" is because it's the idea that the state should find a reason *not* to give you a firearm/carry permit - that you get the right by default.

    If it's okay to get rid of someone's rights because they're brown or muslim or have unpopular opinions, then it slowly becomes okay to "other" different groups of people. Go down this slope long enough and rights are only available for fair-skinned wealthy people who have connections.

    (Oh wait, this is Maryland. That already describes carry permits.)

    You read WAY too much into my comment about it making sense. We need MORE scrutiny into immigration, not less ... and sure, once you're a citizen, due process should apply. But, don't go processing Form N-400's like MD's MVA does with voter cards. You're only asking for trouble ... and more American jihadis

    Except for her love for fat boy in New Jersey.

    Discussed already ... Coulter has sent him a Dear John Chris.
     

    jpo183

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,116
    in Maryland
    I dont like Coutler shes annoying to listen to. She gets some facts right but then she will go on and just rant to rant.

    When she was endorsing Chrstie I was just shaking my head. I believe she IS part of the republican establishment and sees nothing wrong with it. Just like Hannity. (cant stand him after listening to his radio show)

    I like to hear good educated arguments, but on their radio shows you actually hear the type of people they are, and they resort to the same tactics as a lot of liberals, name calling, etc.

    Coutler is right though with all of this, the problem is immigration the rest are symptoms.
     

    abean4187

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2013
    1,327
    Ann Coulter is like a broken clock. Right sometimes but that sometimes is a vast minority of all time.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    As a biased fanboy ...

    Ann Coulter is like a broken clock. Right sometimes but that sometimes is a vast minority of all time.

    You obviously haven't read any of her books ... all well researched and footnoted. Sure, she can get off on some rants when she's on Fox, or a speaking engagement on campus or at CPAC, but she is spot on with her writing.

    As far as the reference to a broken clock being right twice a day ... meh. She has bested the likes of Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Chris Matthews ... and he didn't even get a thrill down his leg when she did. :innocent0 There's something to be said for a 'fair and balanced' approach when dealing with her polar opposites.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Ann Culter is a hotter MILF (used loosely, no pun intended there either) version of Dick Morris.

    Self promoting, intelligent enough to play the politics to their personal gain. And sometimes they are right...just like the clock statement above.
     

    Benanov

    PM Bomber
    May 15, 2013
    910
    Shrewsbury, PA
    You read WAY too much into my comment about it making sense. We need MORE scrutiny into immigration, not less ... and sure, once you're a citizen, due process should apply. But, don't go processing Form N-400's like MD's MVA does with voter cards. You're only asking for trouble ... and more American jihadis

    There are plenty rights in the constitution that do not just apply to citizens. (There are some that do, such as voting rights.)

    Due process is, iirc, one of them. The fact that there are people willing to suspend it means that they do not understand it.

    While I may be a rather well-off white guy, I've been easily "othered" many times growing up; as a result I tend to understand this whole "oh it's okay, he's just a member of XXX group, that situation doesn't apply to the rest of us" pretty personally.

    I concede the point that a bad idea can be internally consistent and therefore 'make sense' on a certain level. Doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

    Scrutiny in immigration is fine. Suspending someone's rights when they're already a citizen is not. You don't get to go back in time and say "it's okay we violated his rights, he wasn't supposed to have them anyway."
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    I stand corrected ...

    There are plenty rights in the constitution that do not just apply to citizens. (There are some that do, such as voting rights.)

    Due process is, iirc, one of them. The fact that there are people willing to suspend it means that they do not understand it.

    While I may be a rather well-off white guy, I've been easily "othered" many times growing up; as a result I tend to understand this whole "oh it's okay, he's just a member of XXX group, that situation doesn't apply to the rest of us" pretty personally.

    I concede the point that a bad idea can be internally consistent and therefore 'make sense' on a certain level. Doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

    Scrutiny in immigration is fine. Suspending someone's rights when they're already a citizen is not. You don't get to go back in time and say "it's okay we violated his rights, he wasn't supposed to have them anyway."

    At least on the 'due process' point, but maybe that's what Obama is counting on. Once you've set foot on our soil, legal or not, you have pretty much the same rights as everyone else (Gitmo is a good case in point, I assume), except for voting ... but he's going to fix that too. :rolleyes:

    At that point, what good will scrutiny of immigration do ? We're all 'citizens of the world' then, except that I can't travel to Mexico (or Yemen for that matter) and expect the same lawful treatment there as provided here.

    I know, they have different laws ...

    I acknowledge that my 'freedoms enjoyed' are just an accident of birth, but not making a clear distinction between a citizen (natural born or naturalized) and not, certainly doesn't help to build national loyalty ... as evidenced more and more everyday. If you aren't 'invested in the dream', why support it; and if you're given something for nothing, why not despise the benefactor that provides it and demand even more while doing nothing in return ?
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    I acknowledge that my 'freedoms enjoyed' are just an accident of birth, but not making a clear distinction between a citizen (natural born or naturalized) and not, certainly doesn't help to build national loyalty ... as evidenced more and more everyday. If you aren't 'invested in the dream', why support it; and if you're given something for nothing, why not despise the benefactor that provides it and demand even more while doing nothing in return ?

    And with this, you make it clear that you don't really understand liberty at all.

    Liberty isn't something that is given, it's something that is taken away. Liberty is something you have by default. Were it not for the existence of entities in the world attempting to take liberty from you by force, liberty is exactly what you would have.

    But what you state above reverses that, and presupposes that liberty is a gift that is given, rather than an inherent trait that is taken away.

    The people you speak of don't lack investment into the dream, they have investment into its opposite.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    And with this, you make it clear that you don't really understand liberty at all.

    Liberty isn't something that is given, it's something that is taken away. Liberty is something you have by default. Were it not for the existence of entities in the world attempting to take liberty from you by force, liberty is exactly what you would have.

    But what you state above reverses that, and presupposes that liberty is a gift that is given, rather than an inherent trait that is taken away.

    The people you speak of don't lack investment into the dream, they have investment into its opposite.

    Actually you made my point for me, and very eloquently I might add. So, does every person born elsewhere in the world share in the same liberty as soon as they set foot here, or is there some 'magic criteria' that makes it so. I would offer that such 'magic criteria' is investment in 'the dream', and at the risk of repeating myself ...

    I acknowledge that my 'freedoms enjoyed' are just an accident of birth, but not making a clear distinction between a citizen (natural born or naturalized) and not, certainly doesn't help to build national loyalty ... as evidenced more and more everyday. If you aren't 'invested in the dream', why support it; and if you're given something for nothing {meaning citizenship}, why not despise the benefactor that provides it and demand even more while doing nothing in return ?

    I'm not anti-immigration, but I am anti-amnesty. For a country to open it's arms to an immigrant, shouldn't there be something, anything offered in return ? And if not, maybe we should all just join hands and sing "We Are The World, We are the ones who make a brighter day, So lets start giving" ... and giving, and giving, and giving.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Martin <=> Perry ... Interchangeable parts ?

    To avoid looking like a criminal, don’t commit a crime

    In {Officer Lee} Van Houten’s case, even after it was blindingly clear that {Edmund} Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one’s fault, but a problem of “violence,” “confusion” and “two worlds” colliding.

    Or prompting a need for a 'conversation on race' ... Sound familiar ?

    As with Zimmerman’s case this week, some journalists pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense story. Even after the grand jury’s refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled “To Be Black and Male Is Dangerous in U.S.” She asked: “How do you teach a boy to be a man in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?”

    {Like Zimmerman} Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. {And, 23} Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn’t it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than “just because he is black”?

    Do we need to have a conversation on race ? Yes absolutely, but ... it shouldn't be like the one that Emily Miller got roped into on CNN. The whole premise for any of these progressive 'calls for conversation' is confrontation, and NOT to promote goodwill and understanding between races. If it were, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be at the center of the debate.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Actually you made my point for me, and very eloquently I might add. So, does every person born elsewhere in the world share in the same liberty as soon as they set foot here, or is there some 'magic criteria' that makes it so. I would offer that such 'magic criteria' is investment in 'the dream', and at the risk of repeating myself ...

    Again, the way you say this implies that you view liberty as something to be given, rather than something to be taken away.

    You see, the nature of liberty is such that, as something that exists until removed by force, one needs to have specific justification to strip someone of it. To say otherwise, i.e. to say that stripping someone of their liberty is something that can properly be done without justification, is to favor tyranny. For tyranny is precisely what arbitrary, unjustified removal of liberty is.

    As such, when asking about someone who steps foot here, the question you're really asking is this: is there justification for forcibly stripping such a person of their liberties?


    So there are no "magic criteria" for "allowing" someone to keep their liberty. There are only criteria for removing said liberty.

    Therefore, you need to explicitly justify the removal of the liberty of the people you speak of.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,100
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom