what do you consider to be extreme or "fringe"

And have you noticed "… use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes. " bit? Did they really put THAT sort of definition into a law?

No, the law itself has better definition (still a little fuzzy, but definitely better than the article's quote), but does anyone really think that Joe Dirt in his wifebeaters on his 3rd 6-pack is going to have the slightest understanding of that definition? Nope. Every entry will be seen as illegal, particularly if the situation made it to trial. It's open season on the cops, and I just don't see what we're gaining.

Once again I am in total agreement with you dte. Spooky or what?

It's a bit of a dissonance for me, but I guess that it comes down to, while I don't like government intrusion in my life, I don't fear government intrusion in my life. I get the whole "slippery slope" angle, but to me this particular slope just isn't that steep and the footing is fairly solid. Perhaps I'm just overly sympathetic to authority figures.

Originally Posted by dteowner
It's a bit of a dissonance for me, but I guess that it comes down to, while I don't like government intrusion in my life, I don't fear government intrusion in my life. I get the whole "slippery slope" angle, but to me this particular slope just isn't that steep and the footing is fairly solid. Perhaps I'm just overly sympathetic to authority figures.

Liberal.

Now that was just completely uncalled-for. We've got rules against vicious personal insults, mister.

In all honesty, I self-describe as a social liberal and fiscal conservative, strongly favoring small government and hawkish foreign policy. If we had a parliamentary system here, I'd probably be best off voting as a blue dog democrat, which somehow saddens me just a bit.

I'm actually a 2nd amendment purist (If you take my guns, my hands will be dead, warm, and covered in blood) myself; but to me this piece of legislation sounds a bit like someone elevating the exception above the rule. This tactic is usually used to infringe on my gun rights, so I can't condone them in this instance either.

There is a line of reasoning going around that this new law is a complex end-around by the gun control folks. The theory is that they've set the deck for some cops to get killed while just doing their job, leading to a PR campaign where gun owners are boxed into a position of "pro dead cops", thereby shifting the public to being more accepting of gun control.

Seems a little tinfoil hat-ish to me, but it does match the evidence and the gun control lobby might be desperate enough, given their dismal failure with above-board arguments, to sacrifice a few cops for an underhanded scheme.

They certainly haven't had any trouble sacrificing the lives of members of the US Border Patrol to further the antigun cause.

Seems very misguided. Good thing Mitch Daniels is governor.

Ah but, according to dte, he might be a Manchurian candidate for a complex end-around by the gun control folks Thrasher

Guns are for killing people. Killing people is wrong. Therefore, guns are wrong!! Simple really.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Guns are for killing people. Killing people is wrong. Therefore, guns are wrong!! Simple really.

Guns can be used for killing those aggressors want to kill you, not being killed by an aggressor is good. Therefore, guns are good.

'cause it is May 1st
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-…yalty-day-2012

You just can't make up stuff like this.

How very American! Does it mean that you could be al-Qaeda supporter all year as long as you pledge loyalty to the USA on May 1st?

Country would a better place if the politicians actually followed that loyalty pledge!

Yes lets forget all about that pesky little workers revolt back in the 60's so when we finally get rid of the 8 hour days and those silly little child labour law's we can all happily unite as one equally oppressed people.
Changing workers day to oppress..err loyalty day without somuch as a public hearing never mind a vote doesnt strike anyone as a tad fascist?
Ohwell you are still free to do as you are told i guess.

Originally Posted by mudsling3
'cause it is May 1st
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-…yalty-day-2012

You just can't make up stuff like this.

Apparently it's something congress came up with and passed into law - Loyalty Day.

the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

Because of how paranoid and crazy our congress went in the 50's, pretty much every president has sent out one of these fluff-filled stupid little addresses since Eisenhower. The holiday was basically created as a counterbalance to Labor Day and other commie holidays (in the minds of 1958 congress at least.) Part of the law is a line which instructs the president to issue these yearly Loyalty Day addresses.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in…#axzz1tithRStU

That's one of Ronald Regan's "Loyalty Day" addresses. I imagine the reason pretty much every president has sent out those addresses is because hey know almost nobody will care about them unless they don't send one out - then it would be come a political attack "Why is President *Insert name here* the first president since Eisenhower not to support Loyalty Day?"

Yup, like the hubbub when Obama was spotted without American flag pin in his lapel.

Geez, jh, why confuse the issue with facts? Djin and mudsling both had good foaming rants going…