Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90%...

Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90% of the Country That Agreed With It'CNS

There are 2469 comments on the Cybercast News Service story from Sep 16, 2013, titled Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90% of the Country That Agreed With It'CNS. In it, Cybercast News Service reports that:

Appearing on ABC News's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, President Barack Obama said he had 80 to 90 percent of the country agreeing with him in favor of gun control, but the he could not get gun-control legislation enacted because of a "faction of the Republican Party."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cybercast News Service.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2659 Nov 15, 2013
Make that Afrika Korps.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2660 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Germany got bombed back in the stone age because it turned against its ally- the Soviet Union- period.
If Germany had not attacked the USSR, the Allies would not have beaten the Axis.
Ever.
You might want to ask Herr Goering about the raving success of the "blitz". And how the R.A.F. decimated the Luftwaffe. Then ask Hitler about how Operation Sea Lion was so successful. And gee, why don't you ask why the Soviets didn't help their ally Germany when they were getting SMASHED by the British. Do you even possess a brain?

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#2662 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's what brought Europe out of the Dark Age and into the light.(As well as America). Which, as you have noted, was never properly acknowledged in the history books.
The Aryan had the cumulative wisdom of thousands of years as teachers and Hitler tarnished their image of wisdom, common sense, knowhow, and the strive for perfection and harmony. The very same thing that many but not all free societies try to attain.
Vet

Fayetteville, GA

#2664 Nov 16, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
occult?....really... where you getting your info from? and what is the occult?....there are 3000+ gods man has created... it is all occult....the christian gods are occult as well.... hence, all christians practice the occult...
Ah, child, are you still trying to debate with the adults? Listen to the smart folks, study, complete your primary education and then you won't have to communicate in broken English, child.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2666 Nov 16, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>The Aryan had the cumulative wisdom of thousands of years as teachers and Hitler tarnished their image of wisdom, common sense, knowhow, and the strive for perfection and harmony. The very same thing that many but not all free societies try to attain.
Aye, and they mostly did it with free trade.[Only occasionally pulling out the battle-axe. ;)]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2667 Nov 16, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
occult?....really... where you getting your info from? and what is the occult?....there are 3000+ gods man has created... it is all occult....the christian gods are occult as well.... hence, all christians practice the occult...
You are in for one very rude awakening here soon.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2668 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in for one very rude awakening here soon.
Are you going to announce that you will start posting under one alias?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2669 Nov 16, 2013
Or-- or, are you going to find something that is factual, something that you can back up?

Is Alexander Hamilton actually dead?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2670 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
Or-- or, are you going to find something that is factual, something that you can back up?
Is Alexander Hamilton actually dead?
Hamilton is about as dead as your lame posts are. His family is very much alive however. Which is quite unlike you. You're about as dead as they come.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2671 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to announce that you will start posting under one alias?
No need. As I have this filthy little troll following me around in the vain attempt of making some point or other. Even though the little pathetic troll doesn't realize that the only "point" it has. Is the one perched on top of its empty little head.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2672 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hamilton is about as dead as your lame posts are. His family is very much alive however.
Then we all have been waiting for you to explain your theory on how is family can collect on the slander lawsuit.

YOu do remember betting that you could prove slander?

And then running away when you couldn't prove it?

Let's for now put aside you don't know the difference between slander and libel.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2673 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
No need.
No one expects that from you, GayDavy.

Of course: A person who uses more than one alias has something to hide.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2674 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we all have been waiting for you to explain your theory on how is family can collect on the slander lawsuit.
YOu do remember betting that you could prove slander?
And then running away when you couldn't prove it?
Let's for now put aside you don't know the difference between slander and libel.
Hardly troll. It was not only conclusively PROVEN by me. But so much so, that it made you go running around madly trying to save face.[God only knows why, because you have a "face" not even a mother would love.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2675 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one expects that from you, GayDavy.
Of course: A person who uses more than one alias has something to hide.
ALIENS' GUNS TAKEN

AMERICANS NOT TOUCHED

Discrimination at McKees Rocks—
New Yorker Charges Peonage.

[By Telegraph to The Tribune]

Pittsburg. Aug. 26.-A sharp line of distinction between the American citizen and the alien striker at McKees Rocks was drawn to-day by the constabulary under alleged orders from Governor Edwin S. Stuart. The right to keep firearms in the house for protection in the strike zone was extended to the Americans, but refused the foreigners.

Fifty mounted troopers galloped into a part of Schoenville. which was expecting them this afternoon, and while half stood guard the others went through the houses from cellar to garret. Arms of all sizes and description were found, but were not taken without a fight in many cases.

"I am a subject of the United States and I protest against weapons being taken from my house in these times of trouble." said one man as he blocked the entrance of the constabulary.

"Show us that you are an American citizen and we will not search your house." said the leader of the troopers. "We have orders not to confiscate any weapons belonging to Americans."

The man. who Is a prominent striker, produced his citizenship papers and his house was passed by. Others whose firearms had already been taken proved later that they too were American citizens and their weapons were returned to them with the warning to keep them in the house.

The first testimony offered in the federal investigation into the charges of peonage against officials of the Pressed Steel Car Company, in which it is alleged, force was used to compel imported workingmen to work, developed late to-day. The Pressed Steel Car Company's attorney attempted to hold the man who testified that he was made to work against his will, but this was prevented by the Austro-Hungarlan consular attorney and the Assistant Federal District Attorney.

All testimony was taken to-day in the form of affidavits. From the first dozen witnesses called, little information upon which to base peonage charges was elicited, the witnesses for the greater part declaring that their food had been bad and their treatment rough, but citing no definite persons as being responsible.

[New-York Tribune, New-York, Friday, August 27, 1909. Vol. LXIX....No. 22,930. Pg. 2]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2676 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly troll. It was not only conclusively PROVEN by me
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.

If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.

Topix didn't remove it, dear.

Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.

Show your work, Vince.

Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.

A successful case...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2678 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.
If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.
Topix didn't remove it, dear.
Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.
Show your work, Vince.
Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.
A successful case...
Georgia
“(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Ga. Code Ann.§ 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff’d 401 U.S. 985, held that the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and remains on the books.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2679 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.
If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.
Topix didn't remove it, dear.
Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.
Show your work, Vince.
Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.
A successful case...
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2680 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.
If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.
Topix didn't remove it, dear.
Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.
Show your work, Vince.
Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.
A successful case...
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.” Kan. Stat. Ann § 21-4004 (2005).

The court in Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), found the statute required actual malice in matters of public concern and further held that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2681 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.
If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.
Topix didn't remove it, dear.
Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.
Show your work, Vince.
Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.
A successful case...
Louisiana
“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

La. Rev. Stat.§ 14:47 (2005)
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2682 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing about proof, troll: it doesn't go away.
If you proved that I slandered the homosexual Alexander Hamilton - who has been dead for 200 years- it would still be there.
Topix didn't remove it, dear.
Now you can start with telling everyone the difference between slander and libel, or at the other end, show us the state law which allows for pursuing "slander" of someone dead for 200 years.
Show your work, Vince.
Give us an example of a case of slander of someone dead 200 years.
A successful case...
Nevada
Nevada makes it a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken the memory of the dead.” Nev. Rev. Stat.§ 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There is no “intent” requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true and published “for good motive and justifiable ends.” Id. at 200.510

“Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another shall be deemed a publication thereof.” Id. at 200.520.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See 9 min payme 39
News The Right to NOT be Persecuted for being a Shee... Jul 19 Marauder 2
News Judge blocks California's high-capacity magazin... Jul 19 Red Crosse 73
News How 'The Boyfriend Loophole' Arms Domestic Abusers Jul 17 Jagermann 1
News Democrats should start playing to strengths Jul 8 im not a doctor 1
News The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment Jul 7 javawhey 4
Walmart Ammunition Policy in New York (May '13) Jul 7 against the const... 11
More from around the web