Officers'Wife
Member
Surely you jest!
No, I don't. And my name is Selena.
Surely you jest!
Perhaps at some times and for some purposes, but also, perhaps, not for others. I might accept the proposition that if someone has been charged with a crime, but not convicted, he should be considered innocent and not subject to any "official" sort of disability. But if I were to have occasion to have personal dealings with that person, I could conceivably decide that notwithstanding his acquittal I'm not going to hire him to watch my house while I'm on vacation nor will I make him a personal loan. And I certainly would have objected if OJ wanted to date my daughter.winston smith said:Presumption of Innocence. It should apply outside of courtrooms too.
Too bad that wasn't the case in neither incident.
The Arizona Republic ENDORSED McCain in '08, and Bushie in '00 '04. Uh oh, how can this be??!!! Are you saying the AZ Republic is anti-gun? Seems "pro-gun" to me, endorsing three "pro-gun" candidates.
fiddletown said:The NRA should be picking its fights. It should not be spending its time, and our money, on every case involving guns. It should be making a judgment on each case in which it's asked to participate and consider (1) the probability of a good outcome and whether a good outcome is likely to advance the RKBA generally; and (2) the probability of a bad outcome and whether a bad outcome is likely to have a negative impact on the RKBA generally. You may disagree with the NRA's conclusion in a particular case, but it still needs to follow the process and can't take on every case that comes along.
It recently pursued a RKBA case in San Francisco to a favorable conclusion, and is involved in a RKBA lawsuit in Washington State. It's probably involved in other cases around the country, so it's not like it's not doing anything. It just decided that this wasn't the right case to take on.
rumor was
In addition to my comments in post #41, above, see post #2 in http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=436659.84B20 said:Getting back to why the NRA declined to intervene in the case, I'd like to know more details. I was considering renewing my membership but if they failed to help in this situation it is disturbing and I might consider otherwise.
Sure, and no one accused of a crime, who got off when the government couldn't couldn't come up with enough evidence, ever actually did it.sig220mw said:Hey it has to be we citizens that are wrong. No U.S government agency has ever had over zealous people or made an error....
What a preposterous statement.DC3-CVN-72 said:I'm sorry I have to say this, but sernv99 is an ANTI-GUN TROLL ...
Don't flatter yourself.DC3-CVN-72 said:...I'm just another faceless internet poster....
Isn't it interesting how insults can go two ways. It all started with servn99 being insulted for having his own opinion -- which just happens to conflict with yours.DC3-CVN-72 said:I'm not shure but I think you just insulted me for haveing an opinion ?...
How interesting.the article said:The case was considered a landmark prosecution in part because of cooperation with Mexican authorities, who provided evidence that guns from X-Caliber were used in criminal operations south of the border.
Maybe now the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General will have time to start arresting and prosecuting foreign nationals who come into this country illegally, under arms, to smuggle, kidnap and murder.