O oh oh, what a jolly party the Republican Party is

Since when is a CCW an effective weapon against a sniper? Did I say that? That's ridiculous and a red herring.

I couldn't disagree more. If just one guy I know who lives in Nebraska happened to be there, I bet at least five families would have a nicer Christmas. Maybe more.

You have no idea how seriously people take their CCW responsibilty. Your mind is clouded with Berkeley bay water.

The Republican party is much more jovial than their counterparts across the aisle. Recent studies indicate Republicans live much more normal lives than Dems and have better mental health. Repubs also have this:

dyslexia wrote:

for your holiday shopping pleasure; Don't go to the mall without one no matter what the law says;

Ruger SR9. Here are the specs. from the Ruger website:

** Weighs 26.5 oz., in a package of just 5.52" H x 7.55" L x 1.27" W

** Reliable, striker-fired ignition

** Easy, "Semi-Double Action" trigger-pull - 6.5 pounds.

** 17+1 Capacity. (Note: 17-round magazines are not available in all states and locales; 10-round magazines are available where required to meet state and local regulations limiting magazine capacity.)

** Chambered in 9mm Parabellum (9mm x 19).

** Short trigger reach.

** Unique reversible backstrap (flat or arched) to accommodate grip preferences.

** Slim, ergonomic grip features a 17-degree grip angle and three, 22 lpi checkered panels that provide a sure grip without being abrasive.

** Patented Ruger camblock helps absorb recoil.

** High-visibility 3-dot sight system is click adjustable for elevation and drift adjustable for windage.

** Picatinny rail accepts modern sighting devices (lights, lasers, etc.).

** Ultra-slim stainless steel slide.

** Ambidextrous magazine release.

** Ambidextrous 1911-style manual safety.

** Internal trigger bar interlock and striker blocker, trigger safety, and magazine disconnect.

** Visual and tactile loaded chamber indicator.

** Suggested retail price of just $525, including hard case, extra magazine, magazine loader, padlock, and instruction manual.

I'll take two. Too bad that mall was a "gun free zone" and people actually believed that little sticker was going to protect them. A few armed citizens could have easily made five or more family Christmases not suck.

Instead, how about addressing the topic that has come to hand. You have told some of us, respectively,

• "You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire. ... To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building."
  
  
• "By any reputable account it was" the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building.
  
  
• "Anyone who thinks the Nazis didn't start the Reichstag fire is a fool."
  
  
• The claim that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building is not disputed "by reasonable people".
  
  
• "Expert testimony showed that the supposed arsonist didn't have the time or the technical ability to start as many individual fires as were started in the building"

Now my above posts cite quite a bit of research. It includes Fritz Tobias's standard work that apparently established that it was indeed possible for one person "to start as many individual fires as were started in the building".

More generally, it includes a number of sources, including both a recently updated one and one as formal as the Institute for Dutch History, that instead draw the conclusion that it is more likely that Van der Lubbe acted alone. These are the ones I am basing my take on. The opposing take, which you have so far defended, is identified in these pieces as being held to still primarily by a group of dissenting leftist historians (a claim I can not evaluate).

Even the very cautious Encyclopedia Brittanica lemma makes clear that the question, at the very least, is very much disputed by reasonable people, and that reputable accounts are in fact divided.

These all contradict what you asserted, and provide much additional information. How would you evaluate your assertions in this light?

The concept that greater armament leads to less killing is foolish and ridiculous.

No thoughts on this bit, flaja?

nimh wrote:

Instead, how about addressing the topic that has come to hand. You have told some of us, respectively,

• "You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire. ... To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building."
  
  
• "By any reputable account it was" the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building.
  
  
• "Anyone who thinks the Nazis didn't start the Reichstag fire is a fool."
  
  
• The claim that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building is not disputed "by reasonable people".
  
  
• "Expert testimony showed that the supposed arsonist didn't have the time or the technical ability to start as many individual fires as were started in the building"

Now my above posts cite quite a bit of research. It includes Fritz Tobias's standard work that apparently established that it was indeed possible for one person "to start as many individual fires as were started in the building".

More generally, it includes a number of sources, including both a recently updated one and one as formal as the Institute for Dutch History, that instead draw the conclusion that it is more likely that Van der Lubbe acted alone. These are the ones I am basing my take on. The opposing take, which you have so far defended, is identified in these pieces as being held to still primarily by a group of dissenting leftist historians (a claim I can not evaluate).

Even the very cautious Encyclopedia Brittanica lemma makes clear that the question, at the very least, is very much disputed by reasonable people, and that reputable accounts are in fact divided.

These all contradict what you asserted, and provide much additional information. How would you evaluate your assertions in this light?

Still standing by your original claims?