Write Review
2,074,798 Total Reviews 3,508 New Reviews
10,070 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Sotomeyer's bodyguard shoots carjacker outside her home
lester_prairie 12 Reviews 380 reads
posted

Guns for me but not for thee -- Sotomeyer

lester_prairie44 reads

"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense." -- Sotomayor

ReplyQuoteReport
BigPapasan45 reads

What else is new?

 
The carjacker pointed a 40  caliber handgun at a U.S Marshal.  The Marshal shot the carjacker in self-defense.  

 
It had nothing to do with Sotomayor other than the marshal was in her protection detail.  
Lester is an IDIOT.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17548 reads

Sonia’s words, accurately quoted by Lester:

"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense." -- Sotomayor
Lester’s words, summarizing the incident
Sotomeyer's bodyguard did shoot the carjacker. And Sotomayor does have guns assigned to protect her that she denies lesser peon citizens.
The three facts BigP posted in his own failed rebuttal support Lester’s incident summary:
1. The carjacker pointed a 40  caliber handgun at a U.S Marshal.  
2. The Marshal shot the carjacker in self-defense.
3. The marshal was in her protection detail.  
Nicky omits KEY details (highlighted in bold) about the incident that have EVERYTHING to do with Lester’s point.
The gunman was trying to carjack a government vehicle with a US Marshall (WHO WAS PROTECTING SOTOMAYOR) in it.  

The (ARMED) Marshall defended himself.

Conclusion:  
Lester’s “guns for me, not for thee” observation stands.

Nicky & BigP’s pathetic attempts to rebut Lester’s observation only served to buttress Lester’s point.

ReplyQuoteReport
BigPapasan45 reads

She has law enforcement assigned to protect her.  Last time I checked this is the U.S. and our LE aren't London bobbies.
Sotomayor isn't "private" - She's a public government official entitled to LE protection from far-right nutjobs.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17544 reads

Entitlement versus civil rights.  Elites (government officials and the wealthy who can afford it) feel they are entitled to armed protection. Many of those same elites (like Sotomayor) would deny the citizens their civil right to arm themselves for the purposes of self defense.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4645 reads

This incident has ZERO to do with "Guns for me but not for thee."  This was NOT about Sotomayor herself being protected from ANYONE. The gunman was trying to carjack a government vehicle with a US Marshall in it. The Marshall defended himself. End of story.
But poor, deluded Fester tried to make it something it was not.
Fester has lost his marbles. Or maybe Fester never had any marbles at all.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie43 reads

Sotomeyer's bodyguard did shoot the carjacker. And Sotomayor does have guns assigned to protect her that she denies lesser peon citizens. Everything I said above is factually correct.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4650 reads

I guess nothing is obvious to you, so read my lips: your errors were those of OMISSION.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie49 reads

So you all have to admit that Sotomayor opposes guns for self defense for others but has the benefit of taxpayer funded personal 24hour armed guards who literally sit outside her house at night to protect her with guns, and actually use the guns to shoot people.  
.
But she thinks regular peons should be unarmed, with no ability to afford 24/7 arm guards.
.
Typical liberals.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4640 reads

Fester is a militant dimwit.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie44 reads

You see above where liberals believe public people are entitled to armed guards but private individuals are not.
.
In liberal egalitarianism, some are "more equal than others ."
.
Orwell knew.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4652 reads

how does he explain the fact that I have a legally-licensed handgun? And that many liberals do NOT support the removal of all guns. In fact, most liberals would simply like to see semi-automatic weapons restricted.
Is Fester lying? Is he just extremely stupid? Or both?
Even Lurch is smarter than Fester.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie49 reads

Do you have a single action revolver? Because most handguns are semi-automatic.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4647 reads

You are trying to equate semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles. That won't wash. Because the latter can fire much further and also can have high-capacity magazines that make them far more lethal than any pistol.
Fester is obviously just another righty wack-job who wants to retain ZERO limits on fire arms.
Fester is a Loony Toon.

ReplyQuoteReport
stephenpaul61 reads

So the limp dicked, paranoid, right-wingnuts are all over this one. Even though I am all for the control of firearms within the United States, I have to admit that after studying the numbers my beliefs may be changing.

Apparently, of the 60k (+/-) deaths per year attributed to firearms, nearly 50% of these deaths are suicides.

That's nearly 30k dead Republicans annually! I can't think of another way in which we can permanently rid our country of this weak-minded, easily manipulated, Trump-loving, America-hating,  fucking tools, whose votes allow the criminal Republican party to remain viable.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4647 reads

Our righties here are major snowflakes and get in a huge dither when any lefty talks of violence.
Because they are the only ones allowed to use violence.
Why do you think they're in love with ARs and high-capacity magazines?

ReplyQuoteReport
stephenpaul49 reads

The only violence that my post refers to is that which the morons inflict upon themselves. Most probably due to the misery of their own existence and the realization that they are actually the mindless, easily manipulated (or as they like to say "sheepel") bitches, who they accuse others of being.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4643 reads

See below. LostMind is a prime example of stupid, angry righties.
His motto is "Semper Lie."

ReplyQuoteReport
LostSon43 reads

Posted By: inicky46
Re: Watch out, Steve!
Our righties here are major snowflakes and get in a huge dither when any lefty talks of violence.  
 Because they are the only ones allowed to use violence.  
 Why do you think they're in love with ARs and high-capacity magazines?
Of course Icky is in favor of anything that reduces the number in opposition to his TDS! 🙄🙄🙄 More Proof he H A T E S anyone on the other side.  

It’s what delusional narcissists do.

ReplyQuoteReport
LostSon44 reads

Posted By: stephenpaul
Re: Guns for me and not for thee?
So the limp dicked, paranoid, right-wingnuts are all over this one. Even though I am all for the control of firearms within the United States, I have to admit that after studying the numbers my beliefs may be changing.  
   
 Apparently, of the 60k (+/-) deaths per year attributed to firearms, nearly 50% of these deaths are suicides.  
   
 That's nearly 30k dead Republicans annually! I can't think of another way in which we can permanently rid our country of this weak-minded, easily manipulated, Trump-loving, America-hating,  fucking tools, whose votes allow the criminal Republican party to remain viable.
This is a complete BULLSHIT thing to say! Your in favor of suicide if Republicans doi it?’

Interestingly liberals are more depressed.

From the article

“American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives, a trend that mental-health experts suspect is at least partly explained by liberals’ tendency to spend more time worrying about stress-inducing topics like racial injustice, income inequality, gun violence, and climate change.”

Related Link: https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals

ReplyQuoteReport
stephenpaul44 reads

Actually, I'm not for or against "suicide". What I am for is the reduction of idiots who believe all the fucking lies, the psy-ops campaigns that pollute their brains and stoke their anger and hatred.  The lazy, easily manipulated fools who listen to FOX and other right-wing bullshit broadcasts, and who mistakenly believe that Republican party good-Democratic party bad. It's these seditious fucks who provide the Republican party with the necessary votes to remain a viable political party that I'm all for reducing the numbers of. By any and all means.  If the Republican party did not have this massive disinformation operation in place and there were not so many lazy, easily manipulated Americans the Republican party would fail to win any elections. That is due to their true constituants, the actual Americans whose interests are served by the politicians of the Republican party do not have the numbers necessary to win an election. Hence the need to convince the largest percentage of the lowest common denominator Americas eligable voters. Manipulating as many voters to vote against their own, their families, their country's, and humanities best interests provides Republicans with near parity with the Democratic party while jury mandering, reducing the efficency and speed of the U.S. Postal Service, purging votes, closing down voting sites in lower income areas, enacting laws that make it impossible for non-profit groups or organisations to assisst those who may be disabled or who do not have transportation to get to voting booth locations. Lying to the public regarding the security of American elections. And any other laws that they can enact which limits the possability of lower income individuals votingprovides the criminal Republican party with a slight advantage.

ReplyQuoteReport
RespectfulRobert46 reads

Explanation please.  
.
Also explain "people that vote against their own...best interests." That just sounds very egotistical. I wouldn't want a Republican telling me what is my own best interests. I will determine that on my own. How could we possibly tell the other side what is in THEIR own best interest???

ReplyQuoteReport
LostSon39 reads

Posted By: RespectfulRobert
Re: "By any and all means?"
Explanation please.  
 .  
 Also explain "people that vote against their own...best interests." That just sounds very egotistical. I wouldn't want a Republican telling me what is my own best interests. I will determine that on my own. How could we possibly tell the other side what is in THEIR own best interest???
Yes please explain “any and all means” also Robbie has it right your seemingly implying that anyone voting for any Republican is making a LARGE mistake.

Splain it to us Lucy…

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!