Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Piers Morgan and the Assault on American Liberty
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Feb 2, 2013, 6:20:23 PM2/2/13
to
By Jeffrey Lord
The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
Live from New York! It�s King George the Third!!!!!!!!!
Brought to you by CNN!
CNN�s Piers Morgan, a British citizen, has been in the news lately for
his views on gun control. He�s for it.
He�s not so big on the U.S. Constitution.
As he made clear in this exchange with Breitbart�s Ben Shapiro. At one
point, Morgan picked up a booklet copy of the U.S. Constitution Shapiro
had brought with him, saying:
Morgan: ��you come in and brandish your little book��
Shapiro: �That�s the Constitution of the United States.�
Later in the show was this exchange as Shapiro made the point about
tyrannical governments turning on their own citizens:
Morgan: Are you saying you really believe your own government
is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
challenge them (garbled)�
When Shapiro says governments have in fact turned on people, citing the
French Revolution in the 19th century and the rise of Nazis and Fascists
in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 20th century, Morgan is incredulous.
Stop here.
Shapiro did a superb job in making his case � but he left out one very
notable example of a government turning on its own people.
That would be, of course, the British government. And the tyranny
brought to American shores by Piers Morgan�s ancestors in the middle of
the 18th century.
By the sheerest of chance � Morgan�s selection by CNN as a replacement
for Larry King � America gets to see close-up the modern embodiment of
just how America and the United States Constitution itself came to be.
Let�s go back in time, shall we? Not to France, Germany or Italy or
Spain. But to America.
Let�s begin with an incident that took place on the night of March 5,
1770. An incident known in America as the Boston Massacre.
After endless provocations by the British government � more of which in
a moment � angry Bostonians gathered at the government�s custom�s house,
known in the day as the �King�s Chest� because it stored the revenue
from custom�s taxes. The mob � led by among others an African-American
runaway slave named Crispus Attucks � surrounded the lone British sentry
and began to taunt him. Reinforcements arrived in the form of British
troops. Insults were hurled by angry colonists who brandished clubs �
but no guns. A soldier was knocked to the ground in the turmoil � and
abruptly the command �fire� was heard.
In a blink, wrote Stanford University Professor John C. Miller in his
1943 book Origins of the American Revolution, �five Bostonians lay dead
or dying� � one of them Crispus Attucks.
Faced with an armed attack � by guns in the hands of the government �
Miller writes:
The streets echoed to the beat of drums and the cry of �To
Arms! To Arms! To Arms! Turn out with your Guns!�
Deciding the best course was to back off, the British commander on the
scene retreated until joined by an entire British regiment decidedly
armed with guns. Between the retreat and the overwhelming show of
British arms against an unarmed mob, the incident came to an end.
This may have been the first notable imprint on the American psyche of
the need for guns to deal with a tyrannical government � but it wasn�t
the last. Annually afterwards, the most prominent of Boston�s citizens
would deliver �The Boston Massacre Oration� � and these speeches were in
turn used to target the imposition of tyranny upon the King�s subjects
in the colonies. John Hancock, who would later famously fix his
unmistakably large signature on the Declaration of Independence,
delivered the Massacre Oration in 1774. Hancock went out of his way to
cite the government for tyranny, saying :
��.I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny.�
And there was no mistake: to fight government tyranny, the right to bear
arms was a necessary and fundamental liberty.
A little over one year after Hancock�s 1774 Massacre Oration, the
British army, in search of rebel stores of guns and ammunition, marched
out from Boston to Lexington and Concord. Warned by spies that the
government was coming to take their guns, the Americans were ready.
As British troops entered Lexington, marching in perfect formation in
their scarlet red coats, musket bayonets glittering, British Major
Pitcairn demanded in a yell:
�Disperse ye rebels, ye villains, disperse�.Lay down your arms.�
Which is to say, the government was demanding of its citizens that they
disarm themselves � or else.
To which the American Captain John Parker famously said to the armed men
of Lexington as they stared out at the British:
�Don�t fire unless fired on, but if they mean to have war
let it begin here.�
And so it did. Someone , a colonist perhaps, fired what would become
immortalized as the �shot heard round the world.�
So to return to the 21st century and Piers Morgan�s demand of Ben
Shapiro:
�Are you saying you really believe your own government is
going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
challenge them ��
The correct answer is: Yes, Mr. Morgan. The Second Amendment is a
specific result of the conduct of your government, the British
government, in turning on your own citizens � which is what we Americans
were that March night of 1770 and that April morning of 1775.
But there was something else going on during this time period than just
the issue of guns and a tyrannical government. A something else that is
evidenced, in fairness to Piers Morgan, not just by a British TV host
for CNN � but is seen everywhere today by all manner of Americans.
Back in 1943, Stanford�s Professor Miller called it the problem of �The
English Mind.� In fact, Miller found the problem so striking he devoted
an entire chapter to the point.
What was the problem with the English Mind? Writes Miller:
One of the convictions most firmly planted in the minds of
eighteenth-century Englishmen was the superiority of true-born
Britons to the American colonists.
This is, in conservative eyes, the precise problem demonstrated by the
English mind of Mr. Morgan. But alas, this laughable sense of
intellectual and moral superiority that Miller once described as part
and parcel of the English mind in the 1770s is today a defining
characteristic not simply of Piers Morgan but of modern American
liberalism. Whether found in the phrase disdainfully describing the
America that lies between New York and Los Angeles as �fly over country�
or candidate Barack Obama�s description of those small-town Americans
who find themselves jobless that:
��it�s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns
or religion or antipathy to people who aren�t like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to
explain their frustrations.�
However it is exhibited, superiority, both morally and intellectually is
assumed by liberals today as the Brits of the 1770s once did in relation
to their colonists.
The latest target for all this � and in point of fact this target has
been around for some time even if the attacks are now intensifying � is
the U.S. Constitution.
Morgan�s scornful taunt to Ben Shapiro of the Constitution that �you
come in and brandish your little book�� is decidedly not a stand-alone.
Note this anti-Constitution tirade that aired just this past weekend on
the CBS Sunday Morning show hosted by Charles Osgood.
As our friends at Newsbusters have recorded, the exchange between Osgood
and a Georgetown University Law professor goes like this:
CHARLES OSGOOD, HOST: Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of
the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that
from Lewis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
Georgetown University.
LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: �I�ve got a simple idea: Let�s give up
on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it�s really
not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.
For example, most of our greatest Presidents � Jefferson,
Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts � had doubts about the
Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in
their way.
To be clear, I don�t think we should give up on everything in
the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and
inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they
are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who
are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
really wasn�t a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
of most forms of gun control.
I understand, though, that�s not everyone�s view, and I�m eager
to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the
issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over
to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead
of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country,
we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.
Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
discussion. Instead of a question of policy, about which
reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one�s
commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America
itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document.�
Say again that ending phrase from a law professor: The Constitution is
�an ancient and outdated document.�
Which is where we began.
What�s really going on here these days is a full-blown assault on your
liberty. By, among others, the Obama administration, its allies in the
liberal media like Mr. Morgan and CBS�s Charles Osgood and the law
professor Mr. Seidman. Those who have an endless na�vet� � or cunning �
about the corruption of power.
These people � and there are many more � are, as Mark Levin accurately
calls them, statists.
There is a reason they want to get rid of the Constitution in 2013. And
at root it is exactly the same reason King George III wanted to take
guns from the Americans at Lexington in 1775.
There is a reason the Obama administration is using the issue of
contraceptives as a shield to their real desire of forcing the Catholic
Church to violate their religious beliefs.
Or is using the shield of the NLRB to force the Senate to give up its
right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.
There is a reason President Obama is complaining that his agenda is
being blocked because of a particular fear. That fear? To Obama that
fear supposedly held by Republicans in Congress of being �punished on
Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of
common interest��
Which is to say, in this latter case, the President is complaining about
the First Amendment. The Constitution. The First Amendment rights of Fox
and Rush Limbaugh are getting in the way of his agenda. The Constitution
being a document he has never held in high regard, as evidenced here
long ago when a 2001 audio tape surfaced in which Obama was sharply
critical of Warren Court because:
�To that extent, as radical as I think people try to
characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�t that radical. It
didn�t break free from the essential constraints that were
placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least
as it�s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the
same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties. Says what the states can�t do to you.�
While Piers Morgan and the rest of those possessing what might be called
an �English mind� circa the 1770s may not get it, there is one more
formerly liberal American who does.
No less than the famous American playwright David Mamet gets it.
Channeling his inner Mark Levin with his writing here in the Daily
Beast, Mamet excoriates the President by saying:
Karl Marx summed up Communism as �from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.� This is a good, pithy
saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon
those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery,
and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency
of its supposed utopia. The agency is called �The State,� and
the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused
must read �The State will take from each according to his
ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.�
�Needs and abilities� are, of course, subjective. So the
operative statement may be reduced to �the State shall take,
the State shall give.���
The Constitution�s drafters did not require a wag to teach them
that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of
King George�. This (The Declaration of Independence) is a
chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence
was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George
was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of
unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to
tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to
dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the
governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance
with law.�
In his own way, Piers Morgan is a walking advertisement for the U.S.
Constitution. So too Charles Osgood and law professor Seidman. His �
their � determination in 2013 to strip Americans of their Constitutional
rights is the usual thinly veiled disguise of corrupted power. Identical
to the same desire of the British troops who showed up one fine April
morning of 1775.
This argument isn�t about guns.
This argument isn�t about contraception. Or the NLRB.
This argument isn�t about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
This argument is about liberty. Freedom.
And whether it�s King George III and his redcoats in 1770 and 1775, or
whether it�s Piers Morgan sitting on the set of CNN in 2013, the reason
for the Constitution is to protect liberty.
To protect Americans from the corrupted power of the State and an
assault on their liberty.
Americans have been here before. Piers � long before.
We remember why, too.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
Live from New York! It�s King George the Third!!!!!!!!!
Brought to you by CNN!
CNN�s Piers Morgan, a British citizen, has been in the news lately for
his views on gun control. He�s for it.
He�s not so big on the U.S. Constitution.
As he made clear in this exchange with Breitbart�s Ben Shapiro. At one
point, Morgan picked up a booklet copy of the U.S. Constitution Shapiro
had brought with him, saying:
Morgan: ��you come in and brandish your little book��
Shapiro: �That�s the Constitution of the United States.�
Later in the show was this exchange as Shapiro made the point about
tyrannical governments turning on their own citizens:
Morgan: Are you saying you really believe your own government
is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
challenge them (garbled)�
When Shapiro says governments have in fact turned on people, citing the
French Revolution in the 19th century and the rise of Nazis and Fascists
in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 20th century, Morgan is incredulous.
Stop here.
Shapiro did a superb job in making his case � but he left out one very
notable example of a government turning on its own people.
That would be, of course, the British government. And the tyranny
brought to American shores by Piers Morgan�s ancestors in the middle of
the 18th century.
By the sheerest of chance � Morgan�s selection by CNN as a replacement
for Larry King � America gets to see close-up the modern embodiment of
just how America and the United States Constitution itself came to be.
Let�s go back in time, shall we? Not to France, Germany or Italy or
Spain. But to America.
Let�s begin with an incident that took place on the night of March 5,
1770. An incident known in America as the Boston Massacre.
After endless provocations by the British government � more of which in
a moment � angry Bostonians gathered at the government�s custom�s house,
known in the day as the �King�s Chest� because it stored the revenue
from custom�s taxes. The mob � led by among others an African-American
runaway slave named Crispus Attucks � surrounded the lone British sentry
and began to taunt him. Reinforcements arrived in the form of British
troops. Insults were hurled by angry colonists who brandished clubs �
but no guns. A soldier was knocked to the ground in the turmoil � and
abruptly the command �fire� was heard.
In a blink, wrote Stanford University Professor John C. Miller in his
1943 book Origins of the American Revolution, �five Bostonians lay dead
or dying� � one of them Crispus Attucks.
Faced with an armed attack � by guns in the hands of the government �
Miller writes:
The streets echoed to the beat of drums and the cry of �To
Arms! To Arms! To Arms! Turn out with your Guns!�
Deciding the best course was to back off, the British commander on the
scene retreated until joined by an entire British regiment decidedly
armed with guns. Between the retreat and the overwhelming show of
British arms against an unarmed mob, the incident came to an end.
This may have been the first notable imprint on the American psyche of
the need for guns to deal with a tyrannical government � but it wasn�t
the last. Annually afterwards, the most prominent of Boston�s citizens
would deliver �The Boston Massacre Oration� � and these speeches were in
turn used to target the imposition of tyranny upon the King�s subjects
in the colonies. John Hancock, who would later famously fix his
unmistakably large signature on the Declaration of Independence,
delivered the Massacre Oration in 1774. Hancock went out of his way to
cite the government for tyranny, saying :
��.I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny.�
And there was no mistake: to fight government tyranny, the right to bear
arms was a necessary and fundamental liberty.
A little over one year after Hancock�s 1774 Massacre Oration, the
British army, in search of rebel stores of guns and ammunition, marched
out from Boston to Lexington and Concord. Warned by spies that the
government was coming to take their guns, the Americans were ready.
As British troops entered Lexington, marching in perfect formation in
their scarlet red coats, musket bayonets glittering, British Major
Pitcairn demanded in a yell:
�Disperse ye rebels, ye villains, disperse�.Lay down your arms.�
Which is to say, the government was demanding of its citizens that they
disarm themselves � or else.
To which the American Captain John Parker famously said to the armed men
of Lexington as they stared out at the British:
�Don�t fire unless fired on, but if they mean to have war
let it begin here.�
And so it did. Someone , a colonist perhaps, fired what would become
immortalized as the �shot heard round the world.�
So to return to the 21st century and Piers Morgan�s demand of Ben
Shapiro:
�Are you saying you really believe your own government is
going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
challenge them ��
The correct answer is: Yes, Mr. Morgan. The Second Amendment is a
specific result of the conduct of your government, the British
government, in turning on your own citizens � which is what we Americans
were that March night of 1770 and that April morning of 1775.
But there was something else going on during this time period than just
the issue of guns and a tyrannical government. A something else that is
evidenced, in fairness to Piers Morgan, not just by a British TV host
for CNN � but is seen everywhere today by all manner of Americans.
Back in 1943, Stanford�s Professor Miller called it the problem of �The
English Mind.� In fact, Miller found the problem so striking he devoted
an entire chapter to the point.
What was the problem with the English Mind? Writes Miller:
One of the convictions most firmly planted in the minds of
eighteenth-century Englishmen was the superiority of true-born
Britons to the American colonists.
This is, in conservative eyes, the precise problem demonstrated by the
English mind of Mr. Morgan. But alas, this laughable sense of
intellectual and moral superiority that Miller once described as part
and parcel of the English mind in the 1770s is today a defining
characteristic not simply of Piers Morgan but of modern American
liberalism. Whether found in the phrase disdainfully describing the
America that lies between New York and Los Angeles as �fly over country�
or candidate Barack Obama�s description of those small-town Americans
who find themselves jobless that:
��it�s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns
or religion or antipathy to people who aren�t like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to
explain their frustrations.�
However it is exhibited, superiority, both morally and intellectually is
assumed by liberals today as the Brits of the 1770s once did in relation
to their colonists.
The latest target for all this � and in point of fact this target has
been around for some time even if the attacks are now intensifying � is
the U.S. Constitution.
Morgan�s scornful taunt to Ben Shapiro of the Constitution that �you
come in and brandish your little book�� is decidedly not a stand-alone.
Note this anti-Constitution tirade that aired just this past weekend on
the CBS Sunday Morning show hosted by Charles Osgood.
As our friends at Newsbusters have recorded, the exchange between Osgood
and a Georgetown University Law professor goes like this:
CHARLES OSGOOD, HOST: Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of
the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that
from Lewis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
Georgetown University.
LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: �I�ve got a simple idea: Let�s give up
on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it�s really
not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.
For example, most of our greatest Presidents � Jefferson,
Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts � had doubts about the
Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in
their way.
To be clear, I don�t think we should give up on everything in
the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and
inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they
are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who
are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
really wasn�t a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
of most forms of gun control.
I understand, though, that�s not everyone�s view, and I�m eager
to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the
issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over
to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead
of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country,
we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.
Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
discussion. Instead of a question of policy, about which
reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one�s
commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America
itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document.�
Say again that ending phrase from a law professor: The Constitution is
�an ancient and outdated document.�
Which is where we began.
What�s really going on here these days is a full-blown assault on your
liberty. By, among others, the Obama administration, its allies in the
liberal media like Mr. Morgan and CBS�s Charles Osgood and the law
professor Mr. Seidman. Those who have an endless na�vet� � or cunning �
about the corruption of power.
These people � and there are many more � are, as Mark Levin accurately
calls them, statists.
There is a reason they want to get rid of the Constitution in 2013. And
at root it is exactly the same reason King George III wanted to take
guns from the Americans at Lexington in 1775.
There is a reason the Obama administration is using the issue of
contraceptives as a shield to their real desire of forcing the Catholic
Church to violate their religious beliefs.
Or is using the shield of the NLRB to force the Senate to give up its
right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.
There is a reason President Obama is complaining that his agenda is
being blocked because of a particular fear. That fear? To Obama that
fear supposedly held by Republicans in Congress of being �punished on
Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of
common interest��
Which is to say, in this latter case, the President is complaining about
the First Amendment. The Constitution. The First Amendment rights of Fox
and Rush Limbaugh are getting in the way of his agenda. The Constitution
being a document he has never held in high regard, as evidenced here
long ago when a 2001 audio tape surfaced in which Obama was sharply
critical of Warren Court because:
�To that extent, as radical as I think people try to
characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�t that radical. It
didn�t break free from the essential constraints that were
placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least
as it�s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the
same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties. Says what the states can�t do to you.�
While Piers Morgan and the rest of those possessing what might be called
an �English mind� circa the 1770s may not get it, there is one more
formerly liberal American who does.
No less than the famous American playwright David Mamet gets it.
Channeling his inner Mark Levin with his writing here in the Daily
Beast, Mamet excoriates the President by saying:
Karl Marx summed up Communism as �from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.� This is a good, pithy
saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon
those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery,
and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency
of its supposed utopia. The agency is called �The State,� and
the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused
must read �The State will take from each according to his
ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.�
�Needs and abilities� are, of course, subjective. So the
operative statement may be reduced to �the State shall take,
the State shall give.���
The Constitution�s drafters did not require a wag to teach them
that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of
King George�. This (The Declaration of Independence) is a
chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence
was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George
was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of
unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to
tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to
dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the
governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance
with law.�
In his own way, Piers Morgan is a walking advertisement for the U.S.
Constitution. So too Charles Osgood and law professor Seidman. His �
their � determination in 2013 to strip Americans of their Constitutional
rights is the usual thinly veiled disguise of corrupted power. Identical
to the same desire of the British troops who showed up one fine April
morning of 1775.
This argument isn�t about guns.
This argument isn�t about contraception. Or the NLRB.
This argument isn�t about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
This argument is about liberty. Freedom.
And whether it�s King George III and his redcoats in 1770 and 1775, or
whether it�s Piers Morgan sitting on the set of CNN in 2013, the reason
for the Constitution is to protect liberty.
To protect Americans from the corrupted power of the State and an
assault on their liberty.
Americans have been here before. Piers � long before.
We remember why, too.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Warren Penn
Feb 3, 2013, 5:41:49 AM2/3/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
There has not been a public Brit worth a shit since the late Duke of
Wellington.
Sorry collection of faggots and maggots.
Wellington.
Sorry collection of faggots and maggots.
Jeff Strickland
Feb 3, 2013, 12:56:27 PM2/3/13
to
Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied Piper
from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
It's one thing for Americans to stand against the Constitution, but when a
foreigner comes around to stand against it, he should pack his bags and keep
moving. When Mr. Morgan makes his application for citizenship, it ought to
be denied. "Come here and brandish your little book," indeed. What a bafoon.
How he ever got hired by CNN is beyond me. There are plenty of ultra
leftists that are also Americans that CNN could have hired to fill Larry's
timeslot.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:kek7tf$dno$4...@dont-email.me...
> his views on gun control. He�s for it.
>
> He�s not so big on the U.S. Constitution.
>
> As he made clear in this exchange with Breitbart�s Ben Shapiro. At one
>
> Shapiro: �That�s the Constitution of the United States.�
> the 18th century.
>
> By the sheerest of chance � Morgan�s selection by CNN as a replacement
> for Larry King � America gets to see close-up the modern embodiment of
> Spain. But to America.
>
> Let�s begin with an incident that took place on the night of March 5,
> a moment � angry Bostonians gathered at the government�s custom�s house,
> known in the day as the �King�s Chest� because it stored the revenue
> from custom�s taxes. The mob � led by among others an African-American
> runaway slave named Crispus Attucks � surrounded the lone British sentry
> but no guns. A soldier was knocked to the ground in the turmoil � and
> abruptly the command �fire� was heard.
> or dying� � one of them Crispus Attucks.
>
> Faced with an armed attack � by guns in the hands of the government �
> Miller writes:
>
> The streets echoed to the beat of drums and the cry of �To
> Arms! To Arms! To Arms! Turn out with your Guns!�
> the last. Annually afterwards, the most prominent of Boston�s citizens
> would deliver �The Boston Massacre Oration� � and these speeches were in
> turn used to target the imposition of tyranny upon the King�s subjects
> let it begin here.�
>
> So to return to the 21st century and Piers Morgan�s demand of Ben
> Shapiro:
>
> �Are you saying you really believe your own government is
>
> Back in 1943, Stanford�s Professor Miller called it the problem of �The
> English Mind.� In fact, Miller found the problem so striking he devoted
> or candidate Barack Obama�s description of those small-town Americans
> or religion or antipathy to people who aren�t like them or
> been around for some time even if the attacks are now intensifying � is
> the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Morgan�s scornful taunt to Ben Shapiro of the Constitution that �you
> come in and brandish your little book�� is decidedly not a stand-alone.
> on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it�s really
> Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts � had doubts about the
> professor Mr. Seidman. Those who have an endless na�vet� � or cunning �
> characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�t that radical. It
> didn�t break free from the essential constraints that were
> ability, to each according to his needs.� This is a good, pithy
> ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.�
> �Needs and abilities� are, of course, subjective. So the
> operative statement may be reduced to �the State shall take,
> the State shall give.���
>
> The Constitution�s drafters did not require a wag to teach them
> their � determination in 2013 to strip Americans of their Constitutional
>
> This argument isn�t about contraception. Or the NLRB.
>
> This argument isn�t about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
> whether it�s Piers Morgan sitting on the set of CNN in 2013, the reason
from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
It's one thing for Americans to stand against the Constitution, but when a
foreigner comes around to stand against it, he should pack his bags and keep
moving. When Mr. Morgan makes his application for citizenship, it ought to
be denied. "Come here and brandish your little book," indeed. What a bafoon.
How he ever got hired by CNN is beyond me. There are plenty of ultra
leftists that are also Americans that CNN could have hired to fill Larry's
timeslot.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:kek7tf$dno$4...@dont-email.me...
> By Jeffrey Lord
>
> The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>
> Live from New York! It�s King George the Third!!!!!!!!!
>
> The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>
>
> Brought to you by CNN!
>
> CNN�s Piers Morgan, a British citizen, has been in the news lately for
> Brought to you by CNN!
>
> his views on gun control. He�s for it.
>
> He�s not so big on the U.S. Constitution.
>
> As he made clear in this exchange with Breitbart�s Ben Shapiro. At one
> point, Morgan picked up a booklet copy of the U.S. Constitution Shapiro
> had brought with him, saying:
>
> Morgan: ��you come in and brandish your little book��
> had brought with him, saying:
>
>
> Shapiro: �That�s the Constitution of the United States.�
>
> Later in the show was this exchange as Shapiro made the point about
> tyrannical governments turning on their own citizens:
>
> Morgan: Are you saying you really believe your own government
> is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
> challenge them (garbled)�
> Later in the show was this exchange as Shapiro made the point about
> tyrannical governments turning on their own citizens:
>
> Morgan: Are you saying you really believe your own government
> is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
>
> When Shapiro says governments have in fact turned on people, citing the
> French Revolution in the 19th century and the rise of Nazis and Fascists
> in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 20th century, Morgan is incredulous.
>
> Stop here.
>
> Shapiro did a superb job in making his case � but he left out one very
> When Shapiro says governments have in fact turned on people, citing the
> French Revolution in the 19th century and the rise of Nazis and Fascists
> in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 20th century, Morgan is incredulous.
>
> Stop here.
>
> notable example of a government turning on its own people.
>
> That would be, of course, the British government. And the tyranny
> brought to American shores by Piers Morgan�s ancestors in the middle of
>
> That would be, of course, the British government. And the tyranny
> the 18th century.
>
> By the sheerest of chance � Morgan�s selection by CNN as a replacement
> for Larry King � America gets to see close-up the modern embodiment of
> just how America and the United States Constitution itself came to be.
>
> Let�s go back in time, shall we? Not to France, Germany or Italy or
>
> Spain. But to America.
>
> Let�s begin with an incident that took place on the night of March 5,
> 1770. An incident known in America as the Boston Massacre.
>
> After endless provocations by the British government � more of which in
>
> a moment � angry Bostonians gathered at the government�s custom�s house,
> known in the day as the �King�s Chest� because it stored the revenue
> from custom�s taxes. The mob � led by among others an African-American
> runaway slave named Crispus Attucks � surrounded the lone British sentry
> and began to taunt him. Reinforcements arrived in the form of British
> troops. Insults were hurled by angry colonists who brandished clubs �
> but no guns. A soldier was knocked to the ground in the turmoil � and
> abruptly the command �fire� was heard.
>
> In a blink, wrote Stanford University Professor John C. Miller in his
> 1943 book Origins of the American Revolution, �five Bostonians lay dead
> In a blink, wrote Stanford University Professor John C. Miller in his
> or dying� � one of them Crispus Attucks.
>
> Faced with an armed attack � by guns in the hands of the government �
> Miller writes:
>
> The streets echoed to the beat of drums and the cry of �To
> Arms! To Arms! To Arms! Turn out with your Guns!�
>
> Deciding the best course was to back off, the British commander on the
> scene retreated until joined by an entire British regiment decidedly
> armed with guns. Between the retreat and the overwhelming show of
> British arms against an unarmed mob, the incident came to an end.
>
> This may have been the first notable imprint on the American psyche of
> the need for guns to deal with a tyrannical government � but it wasn�t
> Deciding the best course was to back off, the British commander on the
> scene retreated until joined by an entire British regiment decidedly
> armed with guns. Between the retreat and the overwhelming show of
> British arms against an unarmed mob, the incident came to an end.
>
> This may have been the first notable imprint on the American psyche of
> the last. Annually afterwards, the most prominent of Boston�s citizens
> would deliver �The Boston Massacre Oration� � and these speeches were in
> turn used to target the imposition of tyranny upon the King�s subjects
> in the colonies. John Hancock, who would later famously fix his
> unmistakably large signature on the Declaration of Independence,
> delivered the Massacre Oration in 1774. Hancock went out of his way to
> cite the government for tyranny, saying :
>
> ��.I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny.�
> unmistakably large signature on the Declaration of Independence,
> delivered the Massacre Oration in 1774. Hancock went out of his way to
> cite the government for tyranny, saying :
>
>
> And there was no mistake: to fight government tyranny, the right to bear
> arms was a necessary and fundamental liberty.
>
> A little over one year after Hancock�s 1774 Massacre Oration, the
> And there was no mistake: to fight government tyranny, the right to bear
> arms was a necessary and fundamental liberty.
>
> British army, in search of rebel stores of guns and ammunition, marched
> out from Boston to Lexington and Concord. Warned by spies that the
> government was coming to take their guns, the Americans were ready.
>
> As British troops entered Lexington, marching in perfect formation in
> their scarlet red coats, musket bayonets glittering, British Major
> Pitcairn demanded in a yell:
>
> �Disperse ye rebels, ye villains, disperse�.Lay down your arms.�
> out from Boston to Lexington and Concord. Warned by spies that the
> government was coming to take their guns, the Americans were ready.
>
> As British troops entered Lexington, marching in perfect formation in
> their scarlet red coats, musket bayonets glittering, British Major
> Pitcairn demanded in a yell:
>
>
> Which is to say, the government was demanding of its citizens that they
> disarm themselves � or else.
> Which is to say, the government was demanding of its citizens that they
>
> To which the American Captain John Parker famously said to the armed men
> of Lexington as they stared out at the British:
>
> �Don�t fire unless fired on, but if they mean to have war
> To which the American Captain John Parker famously said to the armed men
> of Lexington as they stared out at the British:
>
> let it begin here.�
>
> And so it did. Someone , a colonist perhaps, fired what would become
> immortalized as the �shot heard round the world.�
> And so it did. Someone , a colonist perhaps, fired what would become
>
> So to return to the 21st century and Piers Morgan�s demand of Ben
> Shapiro:
>
> �Are you saying you really believe your own government is
> going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to
> challenge them ��
>
> The correct answer is: Yes, Mr. Morgan. The Second Amendment is a
> specific result of the conduct of your government, the British
> government, in turning on your own citizens � which is what we Americans
> The correct answer is: Yes, Mr. Morgan. The Second Amendment is a
> specific result of the conduct of your government, the British
> were that March night of 1770 and that April morning of 1775.
>
> But there was something else going on during this time period than just
> the issue of guns and a tyrannical government. A something else that is
> evidenced, in fairness to Piers Morgan, not just by a British TV host
> for CNN � but is seen everywhere today by all manner of Americans.
>
> But there was something else going on during this time period than just
> the issue of guns and a tyrannical government. A something else that is
> evidenced, in fairness to Piers Morgan, not just by a British TV host
>
> Back in 1943, Stanford�s Professor Miller called it the problem of �The
> English Mind.� In fact, Miller found the problem so striking he devoted
> an entire chapter to the point.
>
> What was the problem with the English Mind? Writes Miller:
>
> One of the convictions most firmly planted in the minds of
> eighteenth-century Englishmen was the superiority of true-born
> Britons to the American colonists.
>
> This is, in conservative eyes, the precise problem demonstrated by the
> English mind of Mr. Morgan. But alas, this laughable sense of
> intellectual and moral superiority that Miller once described as part
> and parcel of the English mind in the 1770s is today a defining
> characteristic not simply of Piers Morgan but of modern American
> liberalism. Whether found in the phrase disdainfully describing the
> America that lies between New York and Los Angeles as �fly over country�
>
> What was the problem with the English Mind? Writes Miller:
>
> One of the convictions most firmly planted in the minds of
> eighteenth-century Englishmen was the superiority of true-born
> Britons to the American colonists.
>
> This is, in conservative eyes, the precise problem demonstrated by the
> English mind of Mr. Morgan. But alas, this laughable sense of
> intellectual and moral superiority that Miller once described as part
> and parcel of the English mind in the 1770s is today a defining
> characteristic not simply of Piers Morgan but of modern American
> liberalism. Whether found in the phrase disdainfully describing the
> or candidate Barack Obama�s description of those small-town Americans
> who find themselves jobless that:
>
> ��it�s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns
>
> or religion or antipathy to people who aren�t like them or
> anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to
> explain their frustrations.�
>
> However it is exhibited, superiority, both morally and intellectually is
> assumed by liberals today as the Brits of the 1770s once did in relation
> to their colonists.
>
> The latest target for all this � and in point of fact this target has
> However it is exhibited, superiority, both morally and intellectually is
> assumed by liberals today as the Brits of the 1770s once did in relation
> to their colonists.
>
> been around for some time even if the attacks are now intensifying � is
> the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Morgan�s scornful taunt to Ben Shapiro of the Constitution that �you
> come in and brandish your little book�� is decidedly not a stand-alone.
> Note this anti-Constitution tirade that aired just this past weekend on
> the CBS Sunday Morning show hosted by Charles Osgood.
>
> As our friends at Newsbusters have recorded, the exchange between Osgood
> and a Georgetown University Law professor goes like this:
>
> CHARLES OSGOOD, HOST: Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of
> the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that
> from Lewis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
> Georgetown University.
>
> LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT
> GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: �I�ve got a simple idea: Let�s give up
> the CBS Sunday Morning show hosted by Charles Osgood.
>
> As our friends at Newsbusters have recorded, the exchange between Osgood
> and a Georgetown University Law professor goes like this:
>
> CHARLES OSGOOD, HOST: Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of
> the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that
> from Lewis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
> Georgetown University.
>
> LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT
> on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it�s really
> not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.
>
> For example, most of our greatest Presidents � Jefferson,
>
> Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts � had doubts about the
> Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in
> their way.
>
> To be clear, I don�t think we should give up on everything in
> their way.
>
> the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and
> inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they
> are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who
> are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
>
> Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
> that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
> presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
> American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
> really wasn�t a natural-born citizen. So what?
> inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they
> are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who
> are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
>
> Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
> that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
> presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
> American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
>
> Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
> political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
> None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
> of most forms of gun control.
>
> I understand, though, that�s not everyone�s view, and I�m eager
> Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
> political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
> None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
> of most forms of gun control.
>
> to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the
> issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over
> to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead
> of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country,
> we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.
>
> Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
> obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
> discussion. Instead of a question of policy, about which
> reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one�s
> issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over
> to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead
> of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country,
> we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.
>
> Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
> obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
> discussion. Instead of a question of policy, about which
> commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America
> itself.
>
> This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
> kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
> United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
> who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
> as it exists today.
>
> If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
> decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
> outdated document.�
> itself.
>
> This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
> kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
> United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
> who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
> as it exists today.
>
> If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
> decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
>
> Say again that ending phrase from a law professor: The Constitution is
> �an ancient and outdated document.�
> Say again that ending phrase from a law professor: The Constitution is
>
> Which is where we began.
>
> What�s really going on here these days is a full-blown assault on your
> Which is where we began.
>
> liberty. By, among others, the Obama administration, its allies in the
> liberal media like Mr. Morgan and CBS�s Charles Osgood and the law
> professor Mr. Seidman. Those who have an endless na�vet� � or cunning �
> about the corruption of power.
>
> These people � and there are many more � are, as Mark Levin accurately
>
> calls them, statists.
>
> There is a reason they want to get rid of the Constitution in 2013. And
> at root it is exactly the same reason King George III wanted to take
> guns from the Americans at Lexington in 1775.
>
> There is a reason the Obama administration is using the issue of
> contraceptives as a shield to their real desire of forcing the Catholic
> Church to violate their religious beliefs.
>
> Or is using the shield of the NLRB to force the Senate to give up its
> right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.
>
> There is a reason President Obama is complaining that his agenda is
> being blocked because of a particular fear. That fear? To Obama that
> fear supposedly held by Republicans in Congress of being �punished on
>
> There is a reason they want to get rid of the Constitution in 2013. And
> at root it is exactly the same reason King George III wanted to take
> guns from the Americans at Lexington in 1775.
>
> There is a reason the Obama administration is using the issue of
> contraceptives as a shield to their real desire of forcing the Catholic
> Church to violate their religious beliefs.
>
> Or is using the shield of the NLRB to force the Senate to give up its
> right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.
>
> There is a reason President Obama is complaining that his agenda is
> being blocked because of a particular fear. That fear? To Obama that
> Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of
> common interest��
>
> Which is to say, in this latter case, the President is complaining about
> the First Amendment. The Constitution. The First Amendment rights of Fox
> and Rush Limbaugh are getting in the way of his agenda. The Constitution
> being a document he has never held in high regard, as evidenced here
> long ago when a 2001 audio tape surfaced in which Obama was sharply
> critical of Warren Court because:
>
> �To that extent, as radical as I think people try to
> Which is to say, in this latter case, the President is complaining about
> the First Amendment. The Constitution. The First Amendment rights of Fox
> and Rush Limbaugh are getting in the way of his agenda. The Constitution
> being a document he has never held in high regard, as evidenced here
> long ago when a 2001 audio tape surfaced in which Obama was sharply
> critical of Warren Court because:
>
> characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�t that radical. It
> didn�t break free from the essential constraints that were
> placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least
> as it�s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the
> same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
> negative liberties. Says what the states can�t do to you.�
>
> While Piers Morgan and the rest of those possessing what might be called
> an �English mind� circa the 1770s may not get it, there is one more
> While Piers Morgan and the rest of those possessing what might be called
> formerly liberal American who does.
>
> No less than the famous American playwright David Mamet gets it.
> Channeling his inner Mark Levin with his writing here in the Daily
> Beast, Mamet excoriates the President by saying:
>
> Karl Marx summed up Communism as �from each according to his
>
> No less than the famous American playwright David Mamet gets it.
> Channeling his inner Mark Levin with his writing here in the Daily
> Beast, Mamet excoriates the President by saying:
>
> ability, to each according to his needs.� This is a good, pithy
> saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon
> those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery,
> and death.
>
> For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency
> of its supposed utopia. The agency is called �The State,� and
> those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery,
> and death.
>
> For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency
> the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused
> must read �The State will take from each according to his
> ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.�
> �Needs and abilities� are, of course, subjective. So the
> operative statement may be reduced to �the State shall take,
> the State shall give.���
>
> The Constitution�s drafters did not require a wag to teach them
> that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of
> King George�. This (The Declaration of Independence) is a
> chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence
> was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George
> was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of
> unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to
> tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to
> dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the
> governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance
> with law.�
> was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George
> was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of
> unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to
> tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to
> dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the
> governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance
>
> In his own way, Piers Morgan is a walking advertisement for the U.S.
> Constitution. So too Charles Osgood and law professor Seidman. His �
> In his own way, Piers Morgan is a walking advertisement for the U.S.
> their � determination in 2013 to strip Americans of their Constitutional
> rights is the usual thinly veiled disguise of corrupted power. Identical
> to the same desire of the British troops who showed up one fine April
> morning of 1775.
>
> This argument isn�t about guns.
> to the same desire of the British troops who showed up one fine April
> morning of 1775.
>
>
> This argument isn�t about contraception. Or the NLRB.
>
> This argument isn�t about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
>
> This argument is about liberty. Freedom.
>
> And whether it�s King George III and his redcoats in 1770 and 1775, or
> This argument is about liberty. Freedom.
>
> whether it�s Piers Morgan sitting on the set of CNN in 2013, the reason
> for the Constitution is to protect liberty.
>
> To protect Americans from the corrupted power of the State and an
> assault on their liberty.
>
> Americans have been here before. Piers � long before.
>
> To protect Americans from the corrupted power of the State and an
> assault on their liberty.
>
Padraigh ProAmerica
Feb 3, 2013, 3:23:46 PM2/3/13
to
Morgans favourite historic Brit is Neville Chamberlain.
--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--
LTC Allen West, USA, (Ret.)
--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--
LTC Allen West, USA, (Ret.)
BTR1701
Feb 3, 2013, 3:40:57 PM2/3/13
to
In article <kem8bq$7r0$1...@dont-email.me>,
Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a gun
is worthless.
He tweeted last week:
Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
protecting.
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied Piper
> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
The latest steaming pile from a foreigner comes from Canadian Jim
> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied Piper
> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a gun
is worthless.
He tweeted last week:
Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
protecting.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 3, 2013, 9:10:33 PM2/3/13
to
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>By Jeffrey Lord
>
>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>
Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
--
- ReFlex76
- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
wrote:
>By Jeffrey Lord
>
>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>
Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
--
- ReFlex76
- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
Jeff Strickland
Feb 3, 2013, 10:11:15 PM2/3/13
to
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>
>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>
>
>
> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>
> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>
>
>
So, Piers Morgan is doing nothing mere than exercising his 1st Amendment
> wrote:
>
>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>
>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>
>
>
> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>
> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>
>
>
rights when he calls to trample the 2nd Amendment, is that how it works?
I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver and Big Bang Theory and the entire Rambo
series are TV. CNN is Media. Media is supposed to be accurate. More
correctly, CNN is news. News should be made by the events being covered, the
events being covered should not promote the agenda of the company presenting
the news.
Padraigh ProAmerica
Feb 3, 2013, 11:20:52 PM2/3/13
to
Re: Piers Morgan and the Assault on American Liberty
Group: alt.politics.usa Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2013, 7:11pm (EST-3) From:
crwl...@yahoo.com (Jeff Strickland)
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
By Jeffrey Lord
The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand
how the First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
So, Piers Morgan is doing nothing mere than exercising his 1st Amendment
rights when he calls to trample the 2nd Amendment, is that how it works?
I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver and Big Bang Theory and the entire
Rambo series are TV. CNN is Media. Media is supposed to be accurate.
===================
news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
By Jeffrey Lord
The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand
how the First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
So, Piers Morgan is doing nothing mere than exercising his 1st Amendment
rights when he calls to trample the 2nd Amendment, is that how it works?
I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver and Big Bang Theory and the entire
Rambo series are TV. CNN is Media. Media is supposed to be accurate.
Then please explain MSNBC.
------------------------------
More correctly, CNN is news. News should be made by the events being
covered, the events being covered should not promote the agenda of the
company presenting the news.
Boy, are YOU naive, or what?
Wnt to know whats going to be on the lamestream media TV news tonight?
Grab a copy of the NY Times- all the networks use it as a primary
source.
The news is New York centric. The rest of the nation (except for the LA-
San Fran corridor) simply doesn't exist.
-------------------------
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 4, 2013, 12:36:55 AM2/4/13
to
rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one. Try again.
RichA
Feb 4, 2013, 2:02:15 AM2/4/13
to
Can't they just dump that limey in Boston harbour?
BTR1701
Feb 4, 2013, 2:03:39 AM2/4/13
to
In article <k06ug81c6l216ju4c...@4ax.com>,
Weird. I'd heard the tragedy was caused by a guy named Adam Lanza.
You're saying it was actually caused by an inanimate object? Seems like
you're really burying the lede here. This is a scientific discovery of
ground-breaking proportions.
You're saying it was actually caused by an inanimate object? Seems like
you're really burying the lede here. This is a scientific discovery of
ground-breaking proportions.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 4, 2013, 9:04:13 AM2/4/13
to
"Warren Penn" <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:900f0783-efe4-4d7a...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> There has not been a public Brit worth a shit since the late Duke of
> Wellington.
> Sorry collection of faggots and maggots.
Maybe in your limited and ignorant world
> Wellington.
> Sorry collection of faggots and maggots.
I can name a few:
Winston Churchill
Lord Mountbatten
Lord Baden-Powell
Aldous Huxley
William Booth
..
Thad's just the first 5 that come immediately to mind.
There's a lot more.
But as a bigot, you need to paint with a very broad brush.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 4, 2013, 9:05:50 AM2/4/13
to
"BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-16CBB9...@news-europe.giganews.com...
One can NOT just go out and buy an Assault Rifle
The process is actually quite onerous
And then you're still limited to those built before 1986.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 4, 2013, 9:07:28 AM2/4/13
to
news:atropos-0C233A...@news-europe.giganews.com...
Well considering that most hoplophobes are animists, who believe that
inanimate objects have the power to influence weak-minded people like them,
it's not surprising that they would be terrified of objects such as guns.
inanimate objects have the power to influence weak-minded people like them,
it's not surprising that they would be terrified of objects such as guns.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 4, 2013, 9:08:42 AM2/4/13
to
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>
>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>
>
>
> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>
> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>
Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
> wrote:
>
>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>
>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>
>
>
> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>
> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>
(BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free speech,
not about individuals objecting to the crap that others spout..)
BTR1701
Feb 4, 2013, 11:08:12 AM2/4/13
to
In article <keofha$8fo$5...@dont-email.me>,
Well, he's an avowed communist, so it's not surprising that his version
of the 1st Amendment prohibits any criticism of those whose ideology
matches his own.
of the 1st Amendment prohibits any criticism of those whose ideology
matches his own.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 4, 2013, 1:42:05 PM2/4/13
to
news:atropos-837A1D...@news-europe.giganews.com...
Indeed.
Padraigh ProAmerica
Feb 4, 2013, 2:15:40 PM2/4/13
to
Re: Piers Morgan and the Assault on American Liberty
rande...@gmail.com (RichA)
Can't they just dump that limey in Boston harbour?
=================
Efforts have been underway for a long time to clean up the harbor.
Dumpimg that pile of crap in there would set the effort back several
years.
Capt. Justice
Feb 4, 2013, 2:28:49 PM2/4/13
to
He needs to move back to
England - evidently he's be more
satisfied living where only the
crooks have guns.
England - evidently he's be more
satisfied living where only the
crooks have guns.
RD Sandman
Feb 4, 2013, 2:42:39 PM2/4/13
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ken8rv$2gg$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>>
>>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>>
>> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
>> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So, Piers Morgan is doing nothing mere than exercising his 1st
> Amendment rights when he calls to trample the 2nd Amendment, is that
> how it works?
Actually, yes. That doesn't make him correct or pronouncing universal
truths. It simply means he can speak on whatever he wishes as long as it
isn't slander or inciting riot.
> I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver and Big Bang Theory and the entire
> Rambo series are TV. CNN is Media. Media is supposed to be accurate.
> More correctly, CNN is news. News should be made by the events being
> covered, the events being covered should not promote the agenda of the
> company presenting the news.
However, as a cable channel, they can show political punditry shows just
like FOX News or, unfortunately, MSNBC.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
news:ken8rv$2gg$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>>
>>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>>
>> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
>> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So, Piers Morgan is doing nothing mere than exercising his 1st
> Amendment rights when he calls to trample the 2nd Amendment, is that
> how it works?
truths. It simply means he can speak on whatever he wishes as long as it
isn't slander or inciting riot.
> I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver and Big Bang Theory and the entire
> Rambo series are TV. CNN is Media. Media is supposed to be accurate.
> More correctly, CNN is news. News should be made by the events being
> covered, the events being covered should not promote the agenda of the
> company presenting the news.
like FOX News or, unfortunately, MSNBC.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
RD Sandman
Feb 4, 2013, 2:44:41 PM2/4/13
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-837A1D...@news-europe.giganews.com:
When did that come about? His comment concerned our Constitution in
general and the Second Amendment specifically.
news:atropos-837A1D...@news-europe.giganews.com:
general and the Second Amendment specifically.
Ron M
Feb 4, 2013, 10:16:50 PM2/4/13
to
On Feb 4, 1:02 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't they just dump that limey in Boston harbour?
Nah!! EPA would have a fit over the pollution.
> Can't they just dump that limey in Boston harbour?
Michael America
Feb 4, 2013, 11:55:42 PM2/4/13
to
history repeats itself again= an english clown wanting to take away our
rights while a "tea party" is forming all over the country !
rights while a "tea party" is forming all over the country !
BTR1701
Feb 5, 2013, 2:43:55 AM2/5/13
to
In article <XnsA15D777BF...@216.196.121.131>,
RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> news:atropos-837A1D...@news-europe.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <keofha$8fo$5...@dont-email.me>,
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>By Jeffrey Lord
> >> >>
> >> >>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> >> > First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
> >> (BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free
> >> speech, not about individuals objecting to the crap that others
> >> spout..)
> >
> > Well, he's an avowed communist, so it's not surprising that his
> > version of the 1st Amendment prohibits any criticism of those whose
> > ideology matches his own.
>
> When did that come about?
In another thread in a different newsgroup.
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> news:atropos-837A1D...@news-europe.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <keofha$8fo$5...@dont-email.me>,
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>By Jeffrey Lord
> >> >>
> >> >>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> >> > First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
> >> (BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free
> >> speech, not about individuals objecting to the crap that others
> >> spout..)
> >
> > Well, he's an avowed communist, so it's not surprising that his
> > version of the 1st Amendment prohibits any criticism of those whose
> > ideology matches his own.
>
> When did that come about?
RD Sandman
Feb 5, 2013, 12:19:36 PM2/5/13
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in news:atropos-EA9806.23435504022013
@news-europe.giganews.com:
Gotcha......thanks.
@news-europe.giganews.com:
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 6, 2013, 1:28:37 AM2/6/13
to
believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do what he did with his
bare hands.
Seems like
>you're really burying the lede here. This is a scientific discovery of
>ground-breaking proportions.
discovery.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 6, 2013, 1:29:20 AM2/6/13
to
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:07:28 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, you are terrified of objects such as guns . . .
wrote:
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 6, 2013, 1:31:18 AM2/6/13
to
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 6, 2013, 1:36:33 AM2/6/13
to
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:08:42 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>>
>>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>>
>> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
>> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>>
>
>Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
Ummm, it's called freedom of speech.
>(BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free speech,
>not about individuals objecting to the crap that others spout..)
That's part of it.
wrote:
>
>"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>By Jeffrey Lord
>>>
>>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
>>
>> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
>> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
>>
>
>Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
>(BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free speech,
>not about individuals objecting to the crap that others spout..)
BTR1701
Feb 6, 2013, 10:24:58 AM2/6/13
to
In article <mtt3h8du9uqag6k4d...@4ax.com>,
No, Lanza was the main factor.
> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> what he did with his bare hands.
Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
without him.
> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> what he did with his bare hands.
without him.
BTR1701
Feb 6, 2013, 10:28:07 AM2/6/13
to
In article <b2u3h8p24pruksvfh...@4ax.com>,
Amendment and it encompasses the right to free expression, the freedom
of the press, the non-establishment clause, the free exercise clause,
and the right of free assembly.
> >(BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free speech,
> >not about individuals objecting to the crap that others spout..)
>
> That's part of it.
It's actually the most determinative part. All aspects of the 1st
Amendment are restrictions on government action. It has no bearing or
legal effect on interactions between private parties.
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:08:42 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>By Jeffrey Lord
> >>>
> >>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
> >>
> >> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> >> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
> >>
> >
> > Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
>
> Ummm, it's called freedom of speech.
The 1st Amendment is not called 'freedom of speech'. It's called the 1st
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:08:42 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:f26ug893f9io6566q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:20:23 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>By Jeffrey Lord
> >>>
> >>>The Spirit of King George III live on CNN.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, CNN is TV, so there's that.
> >>
> >> Anyway, this is what happens when people don't understand how the
> >> First Amendment (that thing Piers Morgan was exercising) works.
> >>
> >
> > Clearly YOU do not understand the First Amendment and how it works
>
> Ummm, it's called freedom of speech.
Amendment and it encompasses the right to free expression, the freedom
of the press, the non-establishment clause, the free exercise clause,
and the right of free assembly.
> >(BIG HINT for the ignorati: It's about GOVERNMENT censorship of free speech,
> >not about individuals objecting to the crap that others spout..)
>
> That's part of it.
Amendment are restrictions on government action. It has no bearing or
legal effect on interactions between private parties.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 6, 2013, 10:43:15 AM2/6/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99
L.Ed.2d. 41 (1988): Hustler Magazine published a parody of a liquor
advertisement in which Rev. Jerry Falwell described his "first time"
as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous
Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in
order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a
result of a parody in a magazine. The Court held that political
cartoons and satire such as this parody "have played a prominent role
in public and political debate. And although the outrageous caricature
in this case "is at best a distant cousin of political cartoons," the
Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies
that would not harm public discourse, which would be poorer without
such satire.
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
L.Ed.2d. 41 (1988): Hustler Magazine published a parody of a liquor
advertisement in which Rev. Jerry Falwell described his "first time"
as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous
Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in
order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a
result of a parody in a magazine. The Court held that political
cartoons and satire such as this parody "have played a prominent role
in public and political debate. And although the outrageous caricature
in this case "is at best a distant cousin of political cartoons," the
Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies
that would not harm public discourse, which would be poorer without
such satire.
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
Ashton Crusher
Feb 6, 2013, 2:09:38 PM2/6/13
to
used. That was the pronouncement of the authorities on the scene when
it happened. They specifically said they found the "assault weapon"
in the car and only handguns on Lanza.
BTR1701
Feb 6, 2013, 4:58:58 PM2/6/13
to
BTR1701
Feb 6, 2013, 4:58:58 PM2/6/13
to
person asking the government to punish another for their bad speech. Since
*government* restriction on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is
the 1st Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
of the Constitution.
Bert
Feb 6, 2013, 5:12:58 PM2/6/13
to
In news:k06ug81c6l216ju4c...@4ax.com Antonio E. Gonzalez
> Try again.
Your turn.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
A tragedy was CAUSED by an assault "rifle?"
> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
> Try again.
Your turn.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
RD Sandman
Feb 6, 2013, 5:35:50 PM2/6/13
to
Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
news:lfa5h81vadjbcon12...@4ax.com:
Wrong. The gun in the car was a shotgun in the back seat.
news:lfa5h81vadjbcon12...@4ax.com:
Dano
Feb 6, 2013, 5:58:15 PM2/6/13
to
"Bert" wrote in message news:XnsA15FE212A21...@78.46.70.116...
In news:k06ug81c6l216ju4c...@4ax.com Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
A tragedy was CAUSED by an assault "rifle?"
> Try again.
Your turn.
========================================
How about "escalated". You and I might have a dispute. It could lead to a
fist fight...or if one of us had a firearm it could become something else.
Add in a semi-automatic and poor aim and it could lead to many deaths in a
crowded area.
So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
In news:k06ug81c6l216ju4c...@4ax.com Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
A tragedy was CAUSED by an assault "rifle?"
> Try again.
Your turn.
How about "escalated". You and I might have a dispute. It could lead to a
fist fight...or if one of us had a firearm it could become something else.
Add in a semi-automatic and poor aim and it could lead to many deaths in a
crowded area.
So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 7, 2013, 1:34:45 AM2/7/13
to
kids without an assault rifle!
>> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
>> what he did with his bare hands.
>
>Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
>without him.
Scout
Feb 7, 2013, 1:50:37 AM2/7/13
to
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com...
BTR1701
Feb 7, 2013, 4:10:17 AM2/7/13
to
In article <gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com>,
Chlorine gas.
> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> >> what he did with his bare hands.
> >
> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
> >without him.
>
> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
Actually, I didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.
> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> >> what he did with his bare hands.
> >
> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
> >without him.
>
> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 7, 2013, 8:20:35 AM2/7/13
to
>BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
You will note it's a First Amendment case without a government entity.
Two private parties.
Two private parties.
BTR1701
Feb 7, 2013, 10:31:49 AM2/7/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 7, 2013, 10:37:39 AM2/7/13
to
I left the good part, where you wrote:
It has no bearing or
legal effect on interactions between private parties.
Clearly, it does.
It has no bearing or
legal effect on interactions between private parties.
Padraigh ProAmerica
Feb 7, 2013, 10:43:00 AM2/7/13
to
Re: Piers Morgan and the Assault on American Liberty
Group: alt.politics.usa Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2013, 5:58pm From:
janea...@yahoo.com (Dano)
Sane people don't carry an AR-15 into a crowded area.
Sane people don't let disagreements grow into firefights.
This is one of the favorite canards of the gun-grabbers who opose
concealed-carry laws= "Shootouts over parking spaces! Road-rage
firefights! Blood in the streets!"
Hasn't happened.
-----------------------------------
--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--
LTC Allen West, USA, (Ret.)
Padraigh ProAmerica
Feb 7, 2013, 10:45:25 AM2/7/13
to
Re: Piers Morgan and the Assault on American Liberty
AntE...@aol.com (Antonio E. Gonzalez)
Shotgun. Handgun. Samurai sword. Dynamite. Poison gas.
Any other stupid questions?
-------------------------------
Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do what he
did with his bare hands.
Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
without him.
Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
--
-
ReFlex76
-
<http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 7, 2013, 10:57:34 AM2/7/13
to
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d.
789 (1974): The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to
public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in
society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not
public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.
Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him.
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
Thereby dissproving the comment
Bert
Feb 7, 2013, 12:22:56 PM2/7/13
to
In news:keun5h$6dh$1...@dont-email.me "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
You certainly seem to; completely detached, isolated and unaware of what
> So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
goes on around you.
Dano
Feb 7, 2013, 12:33:42 PM2/7/13
to
"Bert" wrote in message news:XnsA16073DEAF4...@78.46.70.116...
In news:keun5h$6dh$1...@dont-email.me "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
You certainly seem to; completely detached, isolated and unaware of what
goes on around you.
================================================
Well certainly YOU will do nothing to illuminate that.
But thanks loads Bert.
In news:keun5h$6dh$1...@dont-email.me "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you see...we don't exist in a vacuum.
You certainly seem to; completely detached, isolated and unaware of what
goes on around you.
Well certainly YOU will do nothing to illuminate that.
But thanks loads Bert.
Dano
Feb 7, 2013, 12:35:12 PM2/7/13
to
"Bert" wrote in message news:XnsA16073DEAF4...@78.46.70.116...
You certainly seem to be completely detached, isolated and unaware of what
goes on around you Bert.
You certainly seem to be completely detached, isolated and unaware of what
goes on around you Bert.
Bert
Feb 7, 2013, 12:43:19 PM2/7/13
to
Of course, the fact that you try to use Windows Live Mail as a news
client certainly doesn't help.
Good luck!
Dano
Feb 7, 2013, 12:50:14 PM2/7/13
to
"Bert" wrote in message news:XnsA1607753ADB...@78.46.70.116...
==========================================
Well the killfile works just fine. What a douche. See ya.
Well the killfile works just fine. What a douche. See ya.
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 7, 2013, 2:12:10 PM2/7/13
to
On Feb 7, 10:57 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Gertz, stems from laws passed by government. BTR1701 is correct.
I believe there are only two restrictions in the Constitution that
apply to private parties. What are they?
wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> > Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
> > punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
> > on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
> > Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
> > of the Constitution.
>
> And here is another one not involving government entities:
>
> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d.
> 789 (1974): The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to
> public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in
> society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not
> public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.
> Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him.
>
> http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
>
> Thereby dissproving the comment
The ability to collect damages in a defamation lawsuit, including in
> > Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
> > punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
> > on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
> > Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
> > of the Constitution.
>
> And here is another one not involving government entities:
>
> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d.
> 789 (1974): The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to
> public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in
> society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not
> public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.
> Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him.
>
> http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
>
> Thereby dissproving the comment
Gertz, stems from laws passed by government. BTR1701 is correct.
I believe there are only two restrictions in the Constitution that
apply to private parties. What are they?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 7, 2013, 3:30:05 PM2/7/13
to
>Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
I direct you to the title of the source page:
Notable First Amendment Court Cases
Notable First Amendment Court Cases
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 7, 2013, 3:32:16 PM2/7/13
to
On Feb 7, 3:30 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
So what?
wrote:
> >Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
BTR1701
Feb 7, 2013, 9:22:58 PM2/7/13
to
In article <0lj7h8dvk7r40ot8i...@4ax.com>,
defamation case. I'll reiterate, since you seem terminally slow:
Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
of the Constitution.
Oh, and that comment you think it disproves... I didn't even say that.
Someone else did.
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <mfa7h8ld2ve4f3cje...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <mfa7h8ld2ve4f3cje...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >>> It's actually the most determinative part. All aspects of the 1st
> >> >>> Amendment are restrictions on government action. It has no bearing or
> >> >>> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99
> >> >
> >> >Not sure what you think that proves.
> >>
> >> You will note it's a First Amendment case without a government entity.
> >> Two private parties.
> >
> >In your snipping frenzy, you must have missed the rest of what I wrote:
> >
> > Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
> > punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
> > on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
> > Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
> > of the Constitution.
>
> And here is another one not involving government entities:
>
> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d.
> 789 (1974): The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to
> public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in
> society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not
> public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.
> Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him.
>
> http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
>
> Thereby dissproving the comment
It does nothing of the sort. All you did was just cite another
> >> >>> Amendment are restrictions on government action. It has no bearing or
> >> >>> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99
> >> >
> >> >Not sure what you think that proves.
> >>
> >> You will note it's a First Amendment case without a government entity.
> >> Two private parties.
> >
> >In your snipping frenzy, you must have missed the rest of what I wrote:
> >
> > Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
> > punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
> > on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
> > Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
> > of the Constitution.
>
> And here is another one not involving government entities:
>
> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d.
> 789 (1974): The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to
> public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in
> society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not
> public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.
> Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him.
>
> http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
>
> Thereby dissproving the comment
defamation case. I'll reiterate, since you seem terminally slow:
Defamation law is essentially one person asking the government to
punish another for their bad speech. Since *government* restriction
on speech is implicated in defamation cases, so is the 1st
Amendment, and defamation law has to square with the requirements
of the Constitution.
Someone else did.
BTR1701
Feb 7, 2013, 9:23:34 PM2/7/13
to
In article <ogi7h8l9463tju0sf...@4ax.com>,
No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
private parties.
private parties.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 8, 2013, 12:40:59 AM2/8/13
to
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 8, 2013, 12:50:02 AM2/8/13
to
happened!)
>> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
>> >> what he did with his bare hands.
>> >
>> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
>> >without him.
>>
>> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
>
>Actually, I didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.
to kill" "kill"
Message has been deleted
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 7:45:28 AM2/8/13
to
OK, I think you can save face with that one.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 7:46:06 AM2/8/13
to
cloud dreamer
Feb 8, 2013, 8:13:52 AM2/8/13
to
On 08/02/2013 4:34 AM, frog wrote:
> Piers Morgan and some other left-wingers or socialists like to mock the
> constitution and the Americans. The Americans don't need others from other
> countries telling Americans how to live or run their culture.
>
America has spent decades telling other countries how to live and run
their culture.
Time to take some of your own medicine, hypocrite.
The "left-wingers" are not mocking the Constitution. They are presenting
it as it was meant to be. It's people like you who are twisting it to
suit your own needs.
..
> Piers Morgan and some other left-wingers or socialists like to mock the
> constitution and the Americans. The Americans don't need others from other
> countries telling Americans how to live or run their culture.
>
America has spent decades telling other countries how to live and run
their culture.
Time to take some of your own medicine, hypocrite.
The "left-wingers" are not mocking the Constitution. They are presenting
it as it was meant to be. It's people like you who are twisting it to
suit your own needs.
..
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 8:34:17 AM2/8/13
to
>cloud dreamer <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On 08/02/2013 4:34 AM, frog wrote:
>> Piers Morgan and some other left-wingers or socialists like to mock the
>> constitution and the Americans. The Americans don't need others from other
>> countries telling Americans how to live or run their culture.
>>
>
>America has spent decades telling other countries how to live and run
>their culture.
>
>Time to take some of your own medicine, hypocrite.
>
>The "left-wingers" are not mocking the Constitution. They are presenting
>it as it was meant to be.
BWAH ha ha hah ah ah ah a hah ah a hah ah --
Oh.
You're serious.
>On 08/02/2013 4:34 AM, frog wrote:
>> Piers Morgan and some other left-wingers or socialists like to mock the
>> constitution and the Americans. The Americans don't need others from other
>> countries telling Americans how to live or run their culture.
>>
>
>America has spent decades telling other countries how to live and run
>their culture.
>
>Time to take some of your own medicine, hypocrite.
>
>The "left-wingers" are not mocking the Constitution. They are presenting
>it as it was meant to be.
Oh.
You're serious.
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 10:28:06 AM2/8/13
to
In article <iqs9h891hpkrkjqk3...@4ax.com>,
[gargle]
> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
If you think an accurate statement of the law saves someone face, more
power to you.
> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
power to you.
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 10:28:38 AM2/8/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 10:29:22 AM2/8/13
to
>> >> It has no bearing or
>> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
First Amendment Cases."
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 10:31:35 AM2/8/13
to
In article <nv39h8123nadrfhpt...@4ax.com>,
for a history of everyone who's ever tried it.
> >> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> >> >> what he did with his bare hands.
> >> >
> >> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
> >> >without him.
> >>
> >> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
> >
> >Actually, I didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.
> Actually, you did: "the gun would have been able to kill " "able
> to kill" "kill"
Nice job cutting out the modifying phrase "Unless you believe", you
dishonest fuck.
Now go ahead and switch back to your 'Klaus Schadenfreude' sock and snip
my defamation answer again, seamus.
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:10:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Great, feel free to tell how Lanza could have killed those twenty
> >> kids without an assault rifle!
> >
> >Chlorine gas.
> Sure, like that one time . . . ummm . . . (hint: it's never
> happened!)
You asked how else he could have done it. I provided it. You didn't ask
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:10:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Great, feel free to tell how Lanza could have killed those twenty
> >> kids without an assault rifle!
> >
> >Chlorine gas.
> Sure, like that one time . . . ummm . . . (hint: it's never
> happened!)
for a history of everyone who's ever tried it.
> >> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
> >> >> what he did with his bare hands.
> >> >
> >> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
> >> >without him.
> >>
> >> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
> >
> >Actually, I didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.
> Actually, you did: "the gun would have been able to kill " "able
> to kill" "kill"
dishonest fuck.
Now go ahead and switch back to your 'Klaus Schadenfreude' sock and snip
my defamation answer again, seamus.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 10:30:59 AM2/8/13
to
>> >> ...bearing or
>> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
Thanks for the confirmation
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 8, 2013, 10:31:55 AM2/8/13
to
I like it when you paranoid whack jobs start seeing me everywhere.
trotsky
Feb 8, 2013, 4:16:27 PM2/8/13
to
Scout
Feb 8, 2013, 5:45:35 PM2/8/13
to
news:nt39h89ppqnrhihfo...@4ax.com...
He was already having to reload, so I fail to see why it would be a problem
with a different weapon.
with a different weapon.
Scout
Feb 8, 2013, 5:46:58 PM2/8/13
to
"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote in message
news:k_CdnXY-HO2YZ4nM...@supernews.com...
"left-wingers" claim it does.
<insert - Jepordy.wav>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 8, 2013, 6:48:38 PM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:31:35 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <nv39h8123nadrfhpt...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:10:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Great, feel free to tell how Lanza could have killed those twenty
>> >> kids without an assault rifle!
>> >
>> >Chlorine gas.
>
>> Sure, like that one time . . . ummm . . . (hint: it's never
>> happened!)
>
>You asked how else he could have done it. I provided it. You didn't ask
>for a history of everyone who's ever tried it.
>
Good point; an unrealistic method, but a method.
>In article <nv39h8123nadrfhpt...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:10:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Great, feel free to tell how Lanza could have killed those twenty
>> >> kids without an assault rifle!
>> >
>> >Chlorine gas.
>
>> Sure, like that one time . . . ummm . . . (hint: it's never
>> happened!)
>
>You asked how else he could have done it. I provided it. You didn't ask
>for a history of everyone who's ever tried it.
>
>> >> >> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
>> >> >> what he did with his bare hands.
>> >> >
>> >> >Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
>> >> >without him.
>> >>
>> >> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
>> >
>> >Actually, I didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.
>
>> Actually, you did: "the gun would have been able to kill " "able
>> to kill" "kill"
>
>Nice job cutting out the modifying phrase "Unless you believe", you
>dishonest fuck.
>
Oh, and apparently you believe guns are sapient; either way, Adam
Lanza was the man, and the gun (the main factor) was his tool.
>Now go ahead and switch back to your 'Klaus Schadenfreude' sock and snip
>my defamation answer again, seamus.
*checks*
Right, some other guy you're fixated on.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 8, 2013, 6:50:43 PM2/8/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:09:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:36:55 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez
><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:40:57 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kem8bq$7r0$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied Piper
>>>> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
>>>> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
>>>> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
>>>
>>>The latest steaming pile from a foreigner comes from Canadian Jim
>>>Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a gun
>>>is worthless.
>>>
>>>He tweeted last week:
>>>
>>> Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
>>> massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
>>> protecting.
>>
>> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
>>rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one. Try again.
>
>
>So far, all the uncensored news reports say no assault weapon was
>used. That was the pronouncement of the authorities on the scene when
>it happened. They specifically said they found the "assault weapon"
>in the car and only handguns on Lanza.
Nice lack of cites of these "uncensored news"; I'm guessing they
reported Bat Boy as the gun dealer.
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:36:55 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez
><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:40:57 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kem8bq$7r0$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied Piper
>>>> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that caused the
>>>> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who gives a
>>>> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its core?
>>>
>>>The latest steaming pile from a foreigner comes from Canadian Jim
>>>Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a gun
>>>is worthless.
>>>
>>>He tweeted last week:
>>>
>>> Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
>>> massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
>>> protecting.
>>
>> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
>
>
>So far, all the uncensored news reports say no assault weapon was
>used. That was the pronouncement of the authorities on the scene when
>it happened. They specifically said they found the "assault weapon"
>in the car and only handguns on Lanza.
Nice lack of cites of these "uncensored news"; I'm guessing they
reported Bat Boy as the gun dealer.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Feb 8, 2013, 6:51:00 PM2/8/13
to
Wow, the irony.
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 9:33:33 PM2/8/13
to
In article <sc6ah8l1542r66jii...@4ax.com>,
issue.
No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
private parties. Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A
issue.
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 9:35:14 PM2/8/13
to
BTR1701
Feb 8, 2013, 9:36:04 PM2/8/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 9, 2013, 7:13:26 AM2/9/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <sc6ah8l1542r66jii...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <iqs9h891hpkrkjqk3...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
>> >
>> >If you think an accurate statement of the law
>>
>> Try and focus. We're talking about the statement
>>
>> >> >> It has no bearing or
>> >> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
>>
>> which it clearly does, otherwise it wouldn't be listed in "Famous
>> First Amendment Cases."
>
>No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
>private parties.
I've already proven you wrong. You're a dumb ass.
>In article <sc6ah8l1542r66jii...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <iqs9h891hpkrkjqk3...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
>> >
>> >If you think an accurate statement of the law
>>
>> Try and focus. We're talking about the statement
>>
>> >> >> It has no bearing or
>> >> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
>>
>> which it clearly does, otherwise it wouldn't be listed in "Famous
>> First Amendment Cases."
>
>No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
>private parties.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 9, 2013, 7:13:41 AM2/9/13
to
SaPeIsMa
Feb 9, 2013, 9:22:40 AM2/9/13
to
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gji6h81pkiief16p6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:24:58 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <mtt3h8du9uqag6k4d...@4ax.com>,
>>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:03:39 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <k06ug81c6l216ju4c...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:40:57 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <kem8bq$7r0$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied
>>> >> >> Piper
>>> >> >> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that
>>> >> >> caused
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who
>>> >> >> gives a
>>> >> >> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its
>>> >> >> core?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The latest steaming pile from a foreigner comes from Canadian Jim
>>> >> >Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a
>>> >> >gun
>>> >> >is worthless.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >He tweeted last week:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
>>> >> > massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
>>> >> > protecting.
>>> >>
>>> >> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
>>> >> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <kem8bq$7r0$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Isn't it ironic that liberals today align themselves behind a Pied
>>> >> >> Piper
>>> >> >> from England that stands against the fundamental freedoms that
>>> >> >> caused
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> Colonists to separate themselves from the monarchy of England. Who
>>> >> >> gives a
>>> >> >> rat's ass that Piers is against anything that's American at its
>>> >> >> core?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The latest steaming pile from a foreigner comes from Canadian Jim
>>> >> >Carrey, who apparently believes that the life of anyone who owns a
>>> >> >gun
>>> >> >is worthless.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >He tweeted last week:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Anyone who would run out to buy an assault rifle after Newton
>>> >> > massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth
>>> >> > protecting.
>>> >>
>>> >> He was talking about "Anyone who would run out to buy an assault
>>> >> rifle" in the face of a tragedy caused by one.
>>> >
>>> >Weird. I'd heard the tragedy was caused by a guy named Adam Lanza.
>>> >You're saying it was actually caused by an inanimate object?
>>>
>>> The "inanimate object" was the main factor.
>>
>>No, Lanza was the main factor.
>>
>
>>> >You're saying it was actually caused by an inanimate object?
>>>
>>> The "inanimate object" was the main factor.
>>
>>No, Lanza was the main factor.
>>
>
> Great, feel free to tell how Lanza could have killed those twenty
> kids without an assault rifle!
>
A baseball bat would have worked quite well.
> kids without an assault rifle!
>
So would 3 foot 1" rebar, or steel pipe.
All he would have to do is go into a classroom, whack the teacher and then
whack the kids
I China and japan. people like Lanza use knives..
Seems to work quite well too...
Now reverse the situation
If teachers and staff of that school had not been disarmed and any one of
them was armed, how long would Lanza have lasted ?
Particularly when you consider he offed himself when the police showed up ?
Would he even have gone to that school had it not been a "Gun Free Zone" ??
The shooter in Aurora Co, had 7 other cinemas, closer to his home to choose
from. He ignored them and instead went the distance to the cinema that WAS a
"Gun Free Zone"..
>>> Unless you really believe Adam Lanza would have been able to do
>>> what he did with his bare hands.
>>
>>Unless you believe the gun would have been able to kill those people
>>without him.
>
> Nice of you to admit the gun did the killing.
>
BUT, you are the one trying to blame the tool instead of the killer..
BTR1701
Feb 9, 2013, 12:34:37 PM2/9/13
to
BTR1701
Feb 9, 2013, 12:35:02 PM2/9/13
to
In article <bafch81c9m50m6ftk...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <sc6ah8l1542r66jii...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <iqs9h891hpkrkjqk3...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
> >> >
> >> >If you think an accurate statement of the law
> >>
> >> Try and focus. We're talking about the statement
> >>
> >> >> >> It has no bearing or
> >> >> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
> >>
> >> which it clearly does, otherwise it wouldn't be listed in "Famous
> >> First Amendment Cases."
> >
> >No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
> >private parties.
>
> I've already proven you wrong. You're a dumb ass.
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <sc6ah8l1542r66jii...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <iqs9h891hpkrkjqk3...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> OK, I think you can save face with that one.
> >> >
> >> >If you think an accurate statement of the law
> >>
> >> Try and focus. We're talking about the statement
> >>
> >> >> >> It has no bearing or
> >> >> >> legal effect on interactions between private parties.
> >>
> >> which it clearly does, otherwise it wouldn't be listed in "Famous
> >> First Amendment Cases."
> >
> >No, it only has bearing on the government's interaction with those
> >private parties.
>
> I've already proven you wrong. You're a dumb ass.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 7:29:32 AM2/10/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 7:30:25 AM2/10/13
to
>Nope.
Yup.
But try stamping your feet and balling your tiny fists in frustration.
Maybe that will help.
Yup.
But try stamping your feet and balling your tiny fists in frustration.
Maybe that will help.
Josh
Feb 10, 2013, 7:41:51 AM2/10/13
to
On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>
> You mean a court. LOL
No, he means without a government law permitting one private party to
>
> You mean a court. LOL
sue another private party to recover damages for defamation, there would
be no First Amendment issue.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 8:29:29 AM2/10/13
to
>Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>>
>> You mean a court. LOL
>
>No, he means [..]
I'm going by what he WROTE.
>On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>>
>> You mean a court. LOL
>
I'm going by what he WROTE.
Josh
Feb 10, 2013, 8:32:02 AM2/10/13
to
He wrote:
"Since *government* restriction on speech is implicated in defamation
cases, so is the 1st Amendment, and defamation law has to square with
the requirements of the Constitution."
So, when above he said "government involvement" he did not mean "a
"Since *government* restriction on speech is implicated in defamation
cases, so is the 1st Amendment, and defamation law has to square with
the requirements of the Constitution."
court" as you claimed. He means "defamation law".
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 8:44:18 AM2/10/13
to
>Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On 2/10/2013 8:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>>>>
>>>> You mean a court. LOL
>>>
>>> No, he means [..]
>>
>> I'm going by what he WROTE.
>
>He wrote:
We've been over it.
>On 2/10/2013 8:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>>>>
>>>> You mean a court. LOL
>>>
>>> No, he means [..]
>>
>> I'm going by what he WROTE.
>
>He wrote:
BTR1701
Feb 10, 2013, 12:58:16 PM2/10/13
to
BTR1701
Feb 10, 2013, 12:58:53 PM2/10/13
to
In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >Nope.
>
> Yup.
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >Nope.
>
> Yup.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 1:04:33 PM2/10/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>Nope.
Yup.
>In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>Nope.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 1:05:29 PM2/10/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <858fh8d9f9ri19l9l...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>>
>> >>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>> >>
>> >> You mean a court. LOL
>> >
>> >No, he means [..]
>>
>> I'm going by what he WROTE.
>
>Where did I say I 'court'?
Are you illiterate? Cite where I claimed you said it.
>In article <858fh8d9f9ri19l9l...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Josh <us...@verizon.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >On 2/10/2013 7:29 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>>
>> >>> Without the government involvement, there'd be no 1A issue.
>> >>
>> >> You mean a court. LOL
>> >
>> >No, he means [..]
>>
>> I'm going by what he WROTE.
>
>Where did I say I 'court'?
BTR1701
Feb 10, 2013, 2:32:31 PM2/10/13
to
In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yup.
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yup.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 2:39:07 PM2/10/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>Nope.
Yup
>In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>Nope.
BTR1701
Feb 10, 2013, 5:04:57 PM2/10/13
to
In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >>
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yup
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >>
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yup
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 7:30:13 PM2/10/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup
>
>N[..]
>In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yup
>
Yup
BTR1701
Feb 10, 2013, 7:58:59 PM2/10/13
to
In article <9segh89lmhj6klmd9...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup
> >
> >N[..]
>
> Yup
> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >>
> >> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yup
> >
> >N[..]
>
> Yup
Klaus Schadenfreude
Feb 10, 2013, 8:01:19 PM2/10/13
to
>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>In article <9segh89lmhj6klmd9...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup
>> >
>> >N[..]
>>
>> Yup
>
>N[..]
>In article <9segh89lmhj6klmd9...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >In article <jqtfh854bd9m8mnlo...@4ax.com>,
>> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >>
>> >> >In article <89ofh8lbqts66fqcs...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <jl4fh8tha5t76ih22...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nope.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yup.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Yup
>> >
>> >N[..]
>>
>> Yup
>
Yup
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages