Search results for query: *

You assert this. You have not proved it. If, for example, you have other information in the case of Mr. Osborn, provide it for examination. Likewise, in the case of MR. Godfrey. In none of these threads do you have the last word Agricola, or make the last point. You are the one who ran...

Agricola, you insist that the evidence I've already brought to you means nothing to support my argument. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Among other statements, you made the fatuous assertion that Osborn plead guilty because: To someone who purports such things to be the truth...

To GRD. You may owe me a keyboard. Mine's got coffee dripping out of it. :neener: Thanks, TDP

The question is not whether having a right to self defense is in Blackstone, or to some poor degree in the document at the head of the thread. The ink is on the page. The question is whether it has the practical effect of securing that right from the prejudices of authority. In England, the...

And this is how it looks to me. Osborn plead guilty to a lesser crime because he was at risk of being found guilty of a crime with a far higher penalty. Given the circumstances known about the case, he can only have been at risk of conviction for the more serious crime if the prosecutors in...

When you have to fire a gun, you fire until the threat goes down. The equivalent being that Mrs. White should be able to legally stab her assailant until he is unconcscious. If she can get in 30 before he is not a threat, more power to her. There is no justifiable line of reasoning which...

In response to Art Eatman: Sparks wrote: Translation, there is definitely no practical right of self defense in Britain if you are more aged, young, small, weak, disabled, or otherwise less able to physically combat your attacker than they are able to attack you. And no matter how...

In response to my statement: sparks quoted the null document Agricola brought to our attention and wrote Osborn wasn't merely investigated, he plead guilty to a lesser charge to ensure he could not be subject to prosecution for a crime with a greater penalty. This is hallmark of...

Although, what Osborn thought Martin said* was what influenced his decision. *As well as the policy of banning as effectively as they can (not that it stops criminals) the ownership of the most effective means of self defense, the private ownership of firearms. And there is the case of Mr...

I have run away from nothing, and in more senses than one in this case, since I've left off from arguing with you. I have from time to time ceased wasting my time attempting to batter down your intransigence. However, I note from the Brett Osborn case, you missed my point or will not address...

It is perfectly obvious that Brett Osborn at least is a self evidently innocent person who could only have been placed in the position of deciding to take his case to trial and risk a life sentence or make a plea bargain to a lesser crime when the legal system in question is, as a practical...

Agricola, A) You're off topic. B) That he had the firearms in his hand and infront of him when the picture was taken is I think true. That as a practical matter he could use them today to defend himself, even in his home, from a burglar, home invasion robber, or other attacker is not in...

In this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114825&highlight=agricola In this post: And you reitereate your claim in a further post on the thread, as below: Mr. Brett Osborn is not no one. He exists. Here is a piece which states the circumstances of his case...

Agricola would love for us to be done here... ...so his misrepresentations will go unchallenged. I urge you to read Mr. Cramer's entire post. Here is a further quote from Cramer: "Dr. Lott did a few ethical shortcuts that were not part of his research--such as using the false name...

Mr. Clayton Cramer... ...has some comments about the NAS report and John Lott here. on the entry for 1/19/2005. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

TimLambert wrote: "So tell me, if Lott thought that the committee had been set up to "deal with" him, why did he, at the time, and later in his book say that it had been designed to ignore his research?" Both ideas are perfectly compatible. In fact, both are almost cumpulsory for the panel...

Sorry I mistook your sig... ...for all you wanted to say. From Wolf's post, it did meet with some approval :) Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Scarcely well said. It's pointlessly said. In this case, our enemy's enemy is one of our best advocates, and one who has been terribly ill used by his opponents--no misjudgements about his response to that changes the worth of his arguments, which have not been credibly challenged. Given...

Link fixed, thanks. Yours, TDP

I believe, and suspect that history will agree John Lott Responds John Lott, winnuh and champeen. Yours, TDP