Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Keep up the good work, sotr. This inspires lazy people like me that need to do more. It's a shame that some can't comprehend how the real world functions.
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
And the last two posts show why Phil is going to get a nice retainer from me for representative counsel !:D
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
I am a layperson, yet I have studied the Constitution of the United States. Through my studies and experiences I believe that self defense is the most basic and most important individual and undeniable human right. It is uncivilized to have a population that cannot or does not have the means to protect themselves from others and here in America, from out Government.
As far as political games are concerned, all tactics are "fair." The first loser of any game is the one who follows "rules" especially when your opponent does not believe in rules. Shackle your hands and you will be subjugated.
Too bad I could not rep the GunLawyer again... it says I have to spread some more around before giving it to him again. Someone please do it for me...
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule10b5
And remember, even truth is not an absolute defense in Pa. -
Do you happen to have a Statute or case law to back up this assertion ?
Nothing personal, but I'll take the opinion of an eminent Constitutional Law Professor and well known gun rights expert.
http://volokh.com/posts/1235577832.shtml
And a case won by one of the Founding Fathers , Alexander Hamilton
http://www.justicelearning.org/justi...1&timelineID=1
Before I take the unsubstantiated claim of a random person on teh interwebs
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Found this on page 15 of the Penn Crime Commision and Deliquency annual report for 2006 , when Susan Collins was a member
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...entid=4&mode=2
"In 2006, PCCD’s chairman, Walter Phillips, at the direction of Governor Rendell, championed legislation and policy designed to make the commonwealth a safer place to live by embarking on a media campaign to advocate for gun laws that could curb the epidemic of gun violence. Most notably, he worked to educate citizens about the importance of legislation that would limit the number of handguns someone could purchase to one a month. Research shows this legislation could curb what’s known in law enforcement circles as “straw purchases,” which are guns purchased legally by someone who then turns around and sells them illegally to someone else – often convicts who are not permitted to purchase guns"
So someone(Ms Collins)that sits on the Board of CeaseFire PA , while also serving on the Pennsylvania Commision on Crime and Deliquency and what do you know , the PCCD Chairman is pushing a PA One Gun a Month Law, which is well known as one of the signature issues of CeaseFire as a group , and yet we're all supposed to believe its just an innocent coincedence as opposed to a potential conflict of interest ?
Right.:rolleyes:
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Quote:
Originally Posted by
son of the revolution
Do you happen to have a Statute or case law to back up this assertion ?
. . .
Before I take the unsubstantiated claim of a random person on teh interwebs
First (and perhaps most importantly), Rule 10b5 is not a "random person on the Internet", he's a member here with a long and distinguished track record of being factually accurate and even wise.
Second, the libel issue was not critical to his point; he said as much. It was more about good manners. I disagree, but his point was certainly arguable, and most likely the more civilized approach.
Finally, truth is NOT an absolute defense in all matters. If you stand up at a wedding and shout that you banged the bride and it was good, well, good luck in asserting the truthfulness of that statement at your disorderly conduct trial, and the civil tort trial.
If you induce 1 party to breach his contract with another party by telling him truthful bad things about the other, "truth" is not a defense to tortious interference with contract.
I can't say for sure whether truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim (I sort of thought it was), but "truth" isn't always a license to behave badly.
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
First (and perhaps most importantly), Rule 10b5 is not a "random person on the Internet", he's a member here with a long and distinguished track record of being factually accurate and even wise.
Second, the libel issue was not critical to his point; he said as much. It was more about good manners. I disagree, but his point was certainly arguable, and most likely the more civilized approach.
Finally, truth is NOT an absolute defense in all matters. If you stand up at a wedding and shout that you banged the bride and it was good, well, good luck in asserting the truthfulness of that statement at your disorderly conduct trial, and the civil tort trial.
If you induce 1 party to breach his contract with another party by telling him truthful bad things about the other, "truth" is not a defense to tortious interference with contract.
I can't say for sure whether truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim (I sort of thought it was), but "truth" isn't always a license to behave badly.
Point taken Phil, however I reserve the right to disagree about the critique of my " random person " comment only from the standpoint of in the near year I've been here, I've rarely seen a post from 10b so in effect he would be by my definition a " random person " as opposed to a known regular such as yourself, Patriot, Greg , HeadCase and innumerable others. As you so eloquently pointed out, politics is a blood sport and Im fully prepared to fight just as dirty as our opponents.
Perhaps both parties reacted somewhat harshly to each others statements ?
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Obviously boycotting the law firms that these gremlins work for is one thing that can be done. I wonder if they can be prosecuted for attempting to deprive people of constitutional rights as well. Wasn't there a successful suit against a law firm in Vegas for intentionally destroying the medical care available in the area by aggressively targeting doctors and thus driving them away?
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rule10b5
Do I agree with her stance on gun control? Not at all. Does that change the fact that she's a hell of a decent human being who is an incredibly positive force for the downtrodden in SE Pa? Not at all.
...nothing more than an attempt to smear someone who -- despite her anti-gun inclination -- has done overwhelmingly good works.
Sorry, but that pretty much erases all the good anyone does. Actively working against people's right to defend their own lives and lives of their loved ones is unforgivable and inexcusable, period. If someone isn't good on that then they're not good for anything--nothing is more sacred than right to one's life and one's God given liberty, liberty which defines us as a people living as part of the greatest civilization of human history. There is nothing decent about someone who knowingly and willfully is an anti gun advocate; to find no fault with the Cruikshank decision, the Sullivan Act, etc. pretty much forgoes any human decency a person can claim to have.
Re: Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something el
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yellowfin
Sorry, but that pretty much erases all the good anyone does. Actively working against people's right to defend their own lives and lives of their loved ones is unforgivable and inexcusable, period. If someone isn't good on that then they're not good for anything--nothing is more sacred than right to one's life and one's God given liberty, liberty which defines us as a people living as part of the greatest civilization of human history. There is nothing decent about someone who knowingly and willfully is an anti gun advocate; to find no fault with the Cruikshank decision, the Sullivan Act, etc. pretty much forgoes any human decency a person can claim to have.
Agreed. People who work for gun control are for a society where the strong prey on the weak. If she supports that, she's not a decent human being; quite the contrary.