Posted on 07/29/2012 10:45:15 AM PDT by Nachum
Laura Ingraham interviewed gun rights advocate John Lott. He recounted a conversation with then-Senator Obama who told Lott: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
(Excerpt) Read more at patdollard.com ...
The anti-selfdefense cult has severe PCitis, the complete estrangement from reality.
So there will be no problem with the secret service that protects his black a## when he is relieved of duties in November is also unarmed.
And I don’t believe scumbags deserve the position of authority especially when it concerns the US Presidency.
Most likely will carry in my purse. I bought my handgun with that in mind but will check out holster you recommend. Thanks!
Is he saying other non-human mammals should be able to own guns?
If there is an audio of zero saying it, then there is no excuse for not playing it every day on air until the election.
I seem to recall somewhere that hearsay is an out of court statement (not under oath) which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Or something like that.
For Lott to say he heard Hussein say that people should not own guns IS hearsay. That's what hersay is: person X claiming that person Y said "123".
No court here of course, but if you come to me and say that you heard Bob say that yes, he does indeed owe Sam the $50 dollars...that is hearsay.
It would also be a clear declaration against interest...which the alleged Hussein comment is not.
A declaration against interest is defined as "a statement made by someone unavailable as a witness that is against that person's own interests (as pecuniary or property interests) or may subject that person to liability"
Again, that's just my read on it.
Thank you for chronicling his actions.
What gun is the easiest to use and maintain?
Well, that's where the Second Ammendment comes into play.
I see 90,000,000 people saying "Come and Take Them!"
It won't be pretty ............................................. FRegards
Admission against interest of a party-opponent is different from a declaration against penal interest. For one thing, it doesn’t have to be an admission of a crime or action involving moral turpitude. Also, he doesn’t have to be unavailable.
That’s OK Barrack. I don’t believe people elected to office should get paid or be able to serve in any capacity for more than four years, AND, I believe that as a prerequisite to running for the presidency all past records of the candidates must be released to the public. Further, I believe that by law all elected officials should be called by their first name by all constituents and the press, but these officials should also be legally required to call all of their constituents “Most honorable taxpayer (surname of constituent)” and bow to them - each and every one.
You are welcome. Pass it along every chance you get. :>)
I respectfully submit that every voting age American needs to see that photo. It depicts the Left’s most cherished vision of the balance of power between state and individual. Sorry if it upset you. As bad as it is, the images further along in the sequence are far worse.
Shoot, I wish all he’d done was spit on our Constitution but he’s peed, defecated, poured acid, vomited, blown snot rockets, and other things I can’t even THINK of on it.
For Dr. Lott, this is not second hand. Dr. Lott was there. He heard Obama say this. He could testify in a court as to what he heard Obama say. He could be cross examined as to exactly what happened. An attorney could ask him questions about it, e.g., "Where were you when you heard this? What was Mr.Obama wearing? Did anyone else hear it?" etc.
Neither you nor I could testify about this, even though we heard Dr. Lott claim this on the radio broadcast on the internet, because we did not witness it first hand.
Whether or not something is hearsay does not depend on whether it was offered under oath. That's putting the cart before the horse. Think about it. If that is what makes something hearsay, then all information is hearsay until it is offered under oath. If hearsay is not admissible, then all information is inadmissible and can never be offered in court.
I eat chicken but I don’t want to see the chicken getting the head cut off.
The Constitution has always been a joke and “just a piece of paper” to this alleged Constitutional Law lecturer.... =.=
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.