Thanks for posting this reference...I learned something today; I always thought it was "bleeding" not "bleating" heart liberals. Who would have thunk-it??
So now the NY Times is on record as favoring a handgun ban by Chicago, and furious over a court decision to the point of cheering on defying court orders?
Beware whenever a newspaper uses the words "simple" and "sensible", because what is "simple" and "sensible" to the writer is generally entirely unnecessary, cumbersome, ineffective and many times, unconstitutional.
What if we applied the same restrictions to the writer's product as he would apply to those who wish to possess weapons? I would expect the writer to find those proposed restrictions to be generally entirely unnecessary, cumbersome, ineffective and many times, unconstitutional.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this reference...I learned something today; I always thought it was "bleeding" not "bleating" heart liberals. Who would have thunk-it??
So now the NY Times is on record as favoring a handgun ban by Chicago, and furious over a court decision to the point of cheering on defying court orders?
Beware whenever a newspaper uses the words "simple" and "sensible", because what is "simple" and "sensible" to the writer is generally entirely unnecessary, cumbersome, ineffective and many times, unconstitutional.
What if we applied the same restrictions to the writer's product as he would apply to those who wish to possess weapons? I would expect the writer to find those proposed restrictions to be generally entirely unnecessary, cumbersome, ineffective and many times, unconstitutional.
William L. Anderson, Lew Rockwell,
January 2013: Progressives and the
Phony Gun Debate:
One cannot "debate" people who construct
their own sets of logical premises and
who see state-sponsored violence as the
"answer to all our problems"
They call em Judas Goats for a reason.
Post a Comment