PDA

View Full Version : L.A. Times supports 2nd incorporation


JBBenson
10-06-2009, 7:24 AM
"This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns6-2009oct06,0,6190425.story

Whoa. I am stunned speechless.

1BigPea
10-06-2009, 7:28 AM
"This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights."

Whoa. I am stunned speechless.


Article?

Swatter911
10-06-2009, 7:38 AM
The court should say yes, even as it reaffirms its assurance in its 2008 decision that government may still impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.


They had to get that little zinger in, didn't they?

rkt88edmo
10-06-2009, 7:39 AM
Oct. 6 LA Times Editorial (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns6-2009oct06,0,6190425.story)

1BigPea
10-06-2009, 7:43 AM
Thanks for the link...

If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment.

I just love hearing this argument over and over, more guns, more crime.

gun toting monkeyboy
10-06-2009, 8:04 AM
Here is the piece.

"Last year, the Supreme Court declared in a Washington, D.C., case that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals and not, as gun-control advocates had hoped, just to state militias. Last week, the court agreed to decide whether that broad, and debatable, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment applies to states as well as the federal government. At issue is a Chicago law imposing stringent restrictions on gun ownership, including a ban on the private ownership of handguns.

If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.

Landmark civil liberties decisions spanning eight decades were possible only because the justices concluded that key protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states, because those rights were "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment. Added to the Constitution after the Civil War, that amendment includes these words: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That language doesn't explicitly refer to any portion of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. But the court has held that many of those rights, including freedom of the press and freedom from unreasonable searches -- along with "unenumerated" ones such as a right to abortion -- are protected by the 14th Amendment's due process clause forbidding states from abridging "liberty" without due process. By contrast, the court has derived few rights from the clause referring to the "privileges" and "immunities" of citizenship.

In its decision last year, the court didn't rule on whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the states as well as to the District of Columbia, a federal entity. Lower courts have divided on the question. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor was criticized after her nomination to the Supreme Court for joining an opinion that refused to apply the amendment to the states.)

In the Chicago case, the justices are considering whether the 2nd Amendment should be applied to the states by either the 14th Amendment's due process clause (which applies to "persons") or its privileges and immunities clause (which protects only citizens). The court should say yes, even as it reaffirms its assurance in its 2008 decision that government may still impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.

This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights."

glbtrottr
10-06-2009, 8:20 AM
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day where the kind of yellow journalism that the LA Times espouses would stoop to supporting a flavor of Civil Rights they patently disagree with...like incorporation of the 2nd.

Fjold
10-06-2009, 8:24 AM
I am amazed!

The LA Times with a sensible article in favor of Second Amendment rights, maybe the world will end in 2012 after all.

boxbro
10-06-2009, 8:44 AM
I am amazed!

The LA Times with a sensible article in favor of Second Amendment rights, maybe the world will end in 2012 after all.

:smilielol5:

Nodda Duma
10-06-2009, 8:59 AM
I am amazed!

The LA Times with a sensible article in favor of Second Amendment rights, maybe the world will end in 2012 after all.

Maybe they hired a FNG writer who pretended to be a liberal but really isn't. They just haven't fired him yet.

-Jason

halifax
10-06-2009, 9:07 AM
It's a trick :43:

Soldier415
10-06-2009, 9:09 AM
Its a Trap!

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 9:11 AM
They support incorporation of the 2nd Amendment so long as it's rendered meaningless by "reasonable restrictions." That's like saying you'll gladly buy someone dinner so long as the only thing they want is bread and ice water.

GrizzlyGuy
10-06-2009, 9:15 AM
I like it, check out my new signature. :D

7x57
10-06-2009, 9:20 AM
I think only Yellowfin has really seen that it doesn't mean what most of the rest of you think it means. What it means is "hey, we got the memo and see which arguments are not working. So we now support nullification of the 2A through the "reasonable restrictions" argument instead of the "state militia" argument."

Which is why the article is a mass of self-contradiction. Any tool that nullifies the 2A can also nullify the rest. It would be trivial to destroy freedom of speech or the press through "reasonable restrictions"; in fact, this administration appears to be as dedicated to doing just that as the Bush administration was (the one thing I wanted from Obama was to repudiate the Patriot Act, but of course I didn't get even that). It's a bipartisan game, because it's in the interest of whoever happens to be in power.

So aside from just following the memo from the anti-gunners on the new, revised anti-gun rhetoric, what they're saying amounts to "ignoring the individual rights aspect of the 2A would make the rest of the individual rights vulnerable, so we prefer instead to use a mechanism to make the right meaningless in practice that would be just as useful to making the rest of the rights meaningless in practice."

7x57

Hopi
10-06-2009, 9:26 AM
I think only Yellowfin has really seen that it doesn't mean what most of the rest of you think it means. What it means is "hey, we got the memo and see which arguments are not working. So we now support nullification of the 2A through the "reasonable restrictions" argument instead of the "state militia" argument."

Which is why the article is a mass of self-contradiction. Any tool that nullifies the 2A can also nullify the rest. It would be trivial to destroy freedom of speech or the press through "reasonable restrictions"; in fact, this administration appears to be as dedicated to doing just that as the Bush administration was (the one thing I wanted from Obama was to repudiate the Patriot Act, but of course I didn't get even that). It's a bipartisan game, because it's in the interest of whoever happens to be in power.

So aside from just following the memo from the anti-gunners on the new, revised anti-gun rhetoric, what they're saying amounts to "ignoring the individual rights aspect of the 2A would make the rest of the individual rights vulnerable, so we prefer instead to use a mechanism to make the right meaningless in practice that would be just as useful to making the rest of the rights meaningless in practice."

7x57


We've pushed them to their goal line.

Collective right -> only in the home right -> uh oh

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2009, 9:26 AM
"This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns6-2009oct06,0,6190425.story

Whoa. I am stunned speechless.

You guys forget that just because it is a second amendment issue doesn't mean it cannot be used elsewhere. If they weaken incorporation for the second amendment, that argument can be used against them in things like Roe v. Wade, thereby weakening their hold on the abortion issue. Any legal argument against incorporation weakens the entire constitution, not just the second amendment. They may be raving liberals, but they have to honestly believe in a better America, even if that belief is based in ignorance.

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 9:44 AM
We've pushed them to their goal line.

Collective right -> only in the home right -> uh oh Which is why 7x57 and I say we'd better watch for a forced fumble or an interception which would have them run it back 99 yards and score a touchdown on us if we don't defeat the "reasonable restriction" tactic. They'll run the clock out with that one and win if we don't stop them from doing so. Chicago has no provision at all for legal carry with a 27 year old and is going to lose; NYC has an allowance for it but a near statistical zero percent chance for 99.999% of the population to use it based on a 98 year old law and can still put up a fight to keep it that way--this article says that they don't mind losing the Chicago scenario if they replace it with the NYC scenario. If we get that and that's where it stays, tens of millions of people haven't won anything.

The antis' strategy seems to have been, since the 90's when shall issue was starting to come around and the 94 election started to stir things up a bit, to essentially sit on the ball and run the clock out. If the pro gun demographic does not keep pace with or outgrow the increase in overall population, we will lose by demographic dilution. They figure they can live with Arkansas, Montana, Missouri, Arizona, Vermont, New Hampshire, Florida, and Ohio having Shall Issue so long as they can win national elections by grabbing up California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. and packing the Congress, watering down the presidential elections so people like McCain and Romney rather than Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal are run, let illegal immigrants and legal foreign immigration water down the demographics, let divorce and illegitimacy rip father influence out of families, and let mega cities grow to a large enough percentage of the population to where gun ownership is foreign to enough of the voters that they won't vote for it.

They want to divide and segregate us then hold out for us to die off, and that's exactly what has been the focus of their efforts of late, hence AB 962, and why they fight tooth and nail against carry rights. They figure we'll get tired of fighting, run out of money, and get more and more outnumbered. They've achieved a huge measure of success in New Jersey and urbanized New York, and with the latter's 3 men in a room government they have made gun owners almost politically irrelevant save for local offices they don't care about. So long as they can still use the "I'm not a social conservative/religious/Anglo/straight/rural/camo wearing/Protestant/alpha male/carnivore so I must be anti gun" card on us, that's going to continue.

B Strong
10-06-2009, 9:48 AM
Holy Smokes!

The Devil is currently wearing snowshoes.

Harley Quinn
10-06-2009, 10:05 AM
They believe (LA Times) in rights of all Amendments, I would think...

To have some restrictions is all about, the social picture, and should not be looked at, as something wrong:confused:

Extreme, does not mean, a right.

Regards

ripcurlksm
10-06-2009, 11:30 AM
The court should say yes, even as it reaffirms its assurance in its 2008 decision that government may still impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
They had to get that little zinger in, didn't they?

Well isn't this what Justice Scalia and Gene have both already stated? Scalia opined about reasonable restrictions and Gene has stated (to paraphrase) that fighting reasonable restrictions could bring us in reverse, compared to focusing on larger, sweeping cases.

Still a zinger :)

dfletcher
10-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Certainly this isn't the LA Times saying "you're right, we're wrong" on gun control. The Times would assert all current CA gun laws should remain in place and probably see fit to add more. And they'd be perfectly happy to see other states fall into the CA category of gun control as well as a federal AWB under the guise of reasonable federal gun control.

But at it's core the editorial has the Times holding its nose and putting the principle of incorporation above their distaste for the subject of the 2nd. Perhaps it gives an insight as to how those typically against the 2nd may be found on our side.

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 11:49 AM
But at it's core the editorial has the Times holding its nose and putting the principle of incorporation above their distaste for the subject of the 2nd. Perhaps it gives an insight as to how those typically against the 2nd may be found on our side. Not at all. What we're seeing is how they plan on winning the argument when it's being argued in our terms. They haven't moved an inch closer to our side, they're just borrowing our own words and turning them against us.

hoffmang
10-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Question. Why does everyone poo-pooing this in this thread wish to find a defeat hidden in a victory.

The LA Times still doesn't like the right to arms - that should surprise no one. The KKK still exists 137 years later. However, there just aren't a lot of openly racist people left. Our little civil rights battle will be over much faster.

Also, why do you think the Roster case was so critical? That's an unreasonable restriction that I'm sure the Times would like to label reasonable. By putting the stuff that can't even pass rational basis to the test first, we'll build a volume of case law that has teeth and breadth.

-Gene

Harley Quinn
10-06-2009, 12:11 PM
Question. Why does everyone poo-pooing this in this thread wish to find a defeat hidden in a victory.

It is a win for 2nd and those who support it, most of us, do here.

For the LA Times to come up with this now, is good, maybe some bad, but it is not ugly...

Time, now keep up the pressure. Treading water waiting, NOT!!!

Tell others who are on the line/fence, about the article, circulate it via e-mail...
Allow others, come to own decision...Simple

Regards

dfletcher
10-06-2009, 1:43 PM
Not at all. What we're seeing is how they plan on winning the argument when it's being argued in our terms. They haven't moved an inch closer to our side, they're just borrowing our own words and turning them against us.

Sorry, I read what they wrote - incorporation, yes. More "reasonable" gun control, yes. That's one change in our favor and a continuation of their same old position on gun control.

That this is printed in the Times and most folks who read it will not be as savvy as some here is important.

7x57
10-06-2009, 2:07 PM
They believe (LA Times) in rights of all Amendments, I would think...


The ignorance of reality required to make such a statement beggars the imagination.

7x57

7x57
10-06-2009, 2:18 PM
Question. Why does everyone poo-pooing this in this thread wish to find a defeat hidden in a victory.


I don't think it's poo-pooing, it's a nuanced understanding of what it signifies. The LA fishwrap is no less anti-gun than ever, and will insist that anything up to and including monthly public floggings for gun owners is "reasonable" and Constitutional. The enemy still has an intact army in the field.

But the fact that they've retreated from the "collective rights" stronghold demonstrates that our assault has succeeded. Nobody has suggested otherwise.


The LA Times still doesn't like the right to arms - that should surprise no one. The KKK still exists 137 years later. However, there just aren't a lot of openly racist people left. Our little civil rights battle will be over much faster.


Then what's the harm of naming them as such in public when they retreat to a new rhetorical position?


Also, why do you think the Roster case was so critical? That's an unreasonable restriction that I'm sure the Times would like to label reasonable. By putting the stuff that can't even pass rational basis to the test first, we'll build a volume of case law that has teeth and breadth.


Is there anyone here who doesn't think the Roster case is critical? Calguns has been a marvellously effective tool for teaching people a sophisticated enough view of the law to understand the kind of strategy CGF is pursuing and why.

Often enough, that amounts to simply giving you a soapbox to explain it yet again. :thumbsup:

7x57

artherd
10-06-2009, 2:45 PM
Any legal argument against incorporation weakens the entire constitution, not just the second amendment. They may be raving liberals, but they have to honestly believe in a better America, even if that belief is based in ignorance.

Yes, they're finally getting it. All our rights stand together.

This is fantastic.

shooten
10-06-2009, 3:03 PM
I think the LA Times is seeing the threat to the 1st in the canary in the coalmine that is the 2nd.

Scott

CalNRA
10-06-2009, 3:11 PM
I think the LA Times is seeing the threat to the 1st in the canary in the coalmine that is the 2nd.

Scott

yep.

the writing is on the wall. If the 2nd amendment, affirmed by the highest court in the land, cannot be incorporated against the states and localities within the 50 states, what is keeping that little provision about "press" from "reasonable restrictions"?

I don't give a rat's behind what a bunch of pinkos say in San Francisco and LA. I get to use my guns and ammo in a responsible manner, they can bash me all I want. That's what America is all about.

RRangel
10-06-2009, 3:17 PM
The LA Times appears all for the 2nd Amendment in as much as they can have bills like AB 962 become law. Then our Constitution would be a moot point which would suit them fine.

CalNRA
10-06-2009, 3:21 PM
The LA Times appears all for the 2nd Amendment in as much as they can have bills like AB 962 become law. Then our Constitution would be a moot point which would suit them fine.

look at the flip side, now we can all quote LA Times as being in support of incorporation. If even the extreme anti-gun newspapers are in support of incorporation, a more reasonable interpretation surely would leave out their "suggestions" about the restriction and focus on what we all have in common: incorporation. Ain't working together great?;)

Harley Quinn
10-06-2009, 4:54 PM
The ignorance of reality required to make such a statement beggars the imagination.

7x57

Yea, well ignorance, is a two way street.

But, I was born and raised in the city of Angels in fact in that very same hospital.

I have a fair amount of knowledge regarding that paper... Do not always agree with them, but they do know about rights, as has been shown by the various things that have changed in LA because of them.

Regards

JohnJW
10-06-2009, 5:15 PM
The ignorance of reality required to make such a statement beggars the imagination.

7x57

LA Times states their believes in gun control but for the greater good in keeping Bill of Rights intact, they caution against shortsightedness of going against 2A incorporation. The article end with "This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights"

Take it easy and relax. It's a simple article perhaps not up to your astute writing standards but no imagination is required unless you live in a different a reality with a conspiracy around every corner.

LA Times doesn't like guns but reading it is not going to change my mind on guns. It it weren't for LA Time I would never now how corrupt some of our politician are with their kids on a consultant musical chair enriching themselves financially along with other local issues. I find the article a refreshing and pleasant surprise.

BroncoBob
10-06-2009, 6:32 PM
I am amazed!

The LA Times with a sensible article in favor of Second Amendment rights, maybe the world will end in 2012 after all.

Frank, I'm with you on this one.

Canute
10-06-2009, 7:13 PM
It seems to me that the article says that they get it, but that they're tap dancing a bit. It would definitely seem to be a retreat to what they consider to be a more defensible position. I'd call it a step forward.

hoffmang
10-06-2009, 7:25 PM
And just as an aside, this is the face of freedom:

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs265.snc1/9218_141844447549_681577549_2624500_5785750_n.jpg

-Gene

dantodd
10-06-2009, 7:30 PM
And just as an aside, this is the face of freedom:

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs265.snc1/9218_141844447549_681577549_2624500_5785750_n.jpg

-Gene

Should probably make that faceS of freedom.

hoffmang
10-06-2009, 7:58 PM
Should probably make that faceS of freedom.

Indeed. Back left ISRA President. Middle Otis McDonald. Right center Alan Gura. Right David Sigale. Fuzzy w/ beard - I'm unsure.

-Gene

odysseus
10-06-2009, 8:00 PM
We live in interesting times.

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 8:02 PM
Fuzzy with beard = Elijah the prophet?

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 8:03 PM
Or Santa Claus minus the red and white hat?

7x57
10-06-2009, 8:15 PM
Take it easy and relax. It's a simple article perhaps not up to your astute writing standards but no imagination is required unless you live in a different a reality with a conspiracy around every corner.


As I attempted to express, it would be easier to relax if they did not immediately follow by pursuing a different position which is just as capable of gutting the First Amendment as their old one.

We'll eventually force them kicking and screaming into acknowledging that too, but it won't reflect well on them so much as on the efforts of the California Coalition and the gun rights movement around the country.

I'm just not inclined to cut them much slack for taking a position corresponding to a Southern paper retreating from a position of "civil rights are not enforceable against the states" to one of "well, they are, but the Jim Crow laws are all Constitutional." That's more or less what this is.

For now. :43:

7x57

M. D. Van Norman
10-06-2009, 8:21 PM
Thatís exactly what this is.

7x57
10-06-2009, 8:21 PM
And just as an aside, this is the face of freedom:

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs265.snc1/9218_141844447549_681577549_2624500_5785750_n.jpg

-Gene

Say, think Oleg Volk would make a poster featuring our man Mr. Caselaw? (And yes, I believe that all our plaintiffs acquire the proud title "Mr/Mrs Caselaw".)

7x57

CalNRA
10-06-2009, 8:22 PM
And just as an aside, this is the face of freedom:

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs265.snc1/9218_141844447549_681577549_2624500_5785750_n.jpg

-Gene

McDonald for Chicago Mayor!!!

locosway
10-06-2009, 8:55 PM
I'm not sure how the article is in favor of the 2A

If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.

7x57
10-06-2009, 9:00 PM
McDonald for Chicago Mayor!!!

In any other city, I'd say go for it. But this is Chicago we're talking about. What do you have against poor Mr. McDonald that you want to get him dumped in Lake Michigan with cement overshoes for the capital crime of challenging the machine? :chris:

I'm not entirely joking about that, but of course I'm in favor of anyone who can win against King Richard II. If they're electable I don't care if they're alive (Chicago is not prejudiced against the life-challenged), sentient, or carbon based. If they can beat that mobster, I'm in. :thumbsup:

7x57

artherd
10-06-2009, 10:52 PM
Gotta love Gura's smirk in that photo :D

dantodd
10-06-2009, 11:07 PM
McDonald for Chicago Mayor!!!

How about sending the Chicago Mayor to work at McDonald's?

CaliforniaCarry
10-07-2009, 1:35 AM
Gotta love Gura's smirk in that photo :D
I noticed that too. It made me smile :)

It's that sort of confident "yeah, we've got this sucker in the friggin' bag" look :43:

I want to shake that man's hand.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-07-2009, 7:21 AM
Yes, they're finally getting it. All our rights stand together.

This is fantastic.


Yes, this IS fantastic. This is just another example showing that The Left wants Incorporation just as much as we do.

The Raisuli

Harley Quinn
10-07-2009, 8:46 AM
Yes, this IS fantastic. This is just another example showing that The Left wants Incorporation just as much as we do.

The Raisuli

So if that statement is correct, it is just a matter of regulations, and some peace of mind for those in the ghetto (hood seems to be the term now), who die daily it seems, across the nation, because of someone using a firearm to kill innocents, or not so innocent folks...

Regards

dfletcher
10-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Just a quick question, not worth a separate thread I think - in anticipation of losing, Chicago can not at this point decide to fold, rewrite & relax their ban, correct?

ZRX61
10-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Fuzzy with beard = Elijah the prophet?

I think it's either the ghost of Chuck Darwin, or the UnaBomber...

hoffmang
10-07-2009, 4:04 PM
Just a quick question, not worth a separate thread I think - in anticipation of losing, Chicago can not at this point decide to fold, rewrite & relax their ban, correct?

They could, but Daley is pretty hard headed and they've come this far. If they do fold, we've got immediate backups and at worst would have to wait one term. I give them folding about a 1% chance.

-Gene

ship12
10-07-2009, 4:30 PM
First, the author, was antigun. He just wanted the 14A to bind the entire bill of rights. This seems resonable, but he hardly wants more guns.

Secondly, his logic and arguement are just plain wrong, the Supreme Court isn't ruling to take away a right. It did that well over 125 years ago...


The supreme court has already ruled that states are not bound by the Second Amendment, in various rulings including United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Miller v. Texas (1894). Techinically, the Bill of Rights do Not bind state or local governments, unless incorporated by the 14th Amendment. The are exceptions to incorporation remaining in the Bill of Rights, including the entire 2nd Amendment, the 7th Amendment, parts of the 5th (right to a grand jury), and 8th Amendments (excessive fines or bail). Since the Supreme Court has never ruled that states are bound to incorporate the 2A into law, most states have always had the right to regulate or even ban guns. (Wikipedia has said lower courts, specifically the 9th circuit court, briefly incorporated the 2A to state law, but this was overturned. The 9th circuit includes CA).

The arguement that not incorporating the 2A will infringe upon other rights seems flawed, because other parts of the Bill of Rights aren't incorporated. In fact, only the 1st, the 3rd (has the US quarted soldiers anyways?), 4th, and 6th Amendments are completely incorporated, the 9th and 10th amendments only restrict the powers of the congress. So, thats 4 are fully incorporated, 2 are ruled to be unicorporated, and 2 that are mostly incorporated, and 2 that specifically apply only to the federal governement. So to say the Supreme Court (or states) is suddenly deciding to ignore the Bill of Rights is wrong, since the rights these specific rights were never incorporated to begin with.

My personal opinion on the matter is that the 2A will be incorporated, but that states will retain the right to regulate arms. Basically, all that will happen is that it prevents a complete ban on guns. It's not really a big victory, more like states conceding they can't ban something they for the most part, don't. Obviously, CA bans .50bmg rifles and AR/AK series rifles. Those could become legal, as long as they don't carry AW features...

captn-tin
10-08-2009, 4:03 PM
Reasonable restrictions? When I reflect on the Heller decision, I think that the reasonable restrictions refered to were the ones like felon in posession, drug users in posession etc, not restrictions that severly limit the second amendment via costs or beaurocratic hoops to jump thru. Sure hope this is the case. Must stay ever vigilant!

nicki
10-09-2009, 3:56 AM
This is the 2nd LA Times article I remember in recent years that was favorable to our side.

Last one dealt with the failure of British gun control.

Nicki

Harley Quinn
10-09-2009, 7:20 AM
This is the 2nd LA Times article I remember in recent years that was favorable to our side.

Last one dealt with the failure of British gun control.

Nicki

Yes does seem like they are pretty one sided...

I don't think they have ever said take them away.

Most of the time (as I recall) they are writing articles about the tyranny of LAPD.

Sometimes correct, many times not... But as you can see...They had a point.

Chief Bratton is now gone and someone else will fight on :43:...