Regards,
Peter H.

That’s quite a logical leap there.

Whats even more funny is that the leftist who make these lies never see the parellels.

rightiswrong: another deluded stance from the gop

Can you show me where the Republican Party comes into play in the link you gave?

Sort of like what they do in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and anywhere the liberals are in charge of the courts, like the Ninth Circuit.

Try again.

Regards,
Peter H.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/10/iraq.meeting/index.html

another deluded stance from the gop.

And cutting off funds, reinforcements and supplies to our soldiers in-country does what? Not only did the liberals in congress authorize it, they DEMANDED it. They were for it before they were against it.

Bush is a war-monger.

Most folks would rather have a “war monger”, who stands up for our country, as president than a total p*ssy who bends over and lubes up for “our allies”.

So now what?

The conservatives/Republicans are doing their utmost to slaughter our men and women overseas and guaranteeing more innocent will die.

Bush is a war-monger.

I think the appeal probably takes it to full DC court (vs. a 3-judge panel). SCOTUS later. I have no idea what will happen.

It will go to SCOTUS next on appeal by DC in all likelihood.

The two votes favoring the Second Amendment: Judge Laurence Silberman and Bush’s recent pick, Judge Janice Rodgers Brown.

The anti-Federalist dissenter: Judge Karen Henderson. (Her ruling was flimsy because she claimed that since DC is not a state, the Second Amendment did not apply.)

Oh happy day…..!

Regards,
Peter H.

TGC’s point was that people like yourself get pleasure out of terrorist and suicide attacks.

And the reason why we would think that is obvious; Ian, for one, has made it clear that Democrats are doing everything in their power to sabotage the war effort so that we fail in Iraq and the country collapses, which they think will vault them into political power.

Meanwhile, let’s deal with your argument directly.

Conservative-libertarians fervently believe that gun control inexorably leads to more violence, not less.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that according to libertarian-conservative dogma, the Iraqi government’s gun-grabbing program is likely to lead to more violence, thus making the Baghdad security plan less effective.

There is a key difference there, vaara; the Iraqi government’s plan involves TAKING guns from EVERYONE, not just blocking law-abiding citizens from GETTING them, as is the case in the United States.

San Francisco’s unconstitutional handgun ordinance is one example. What the law did was to prohibit the manufacture and sale of handguns in the city and make it illegal to keep one in their homes.

Which hit exactly one group of people — those who bought from legitimate businesses and who had complied with the existing law by registering their weapons. It did nothing to take guns out of the hands of people who use them for criminal purposes, who tend not to do either.

Hence the issue; you prevent the law-abiding from having guns, but you do nothing to stop their proliferation among those who DO break the law. That’s why it’s ineffective.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide it.

That’s a direct quote from Army intelligence, BTW.

Try again, lower-case-libtroll.

Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.