Bob Hurt web site discusses killing government workers

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt is at it yet again. Now he has posted a long rant about a supposed right to take "vengeance," a right to use violence, against judges who issue rulings people don't like. Some excerpts (from about two-thirds of the way through his rant):

Appeals do not obtain VENGEANCE (the purpose of common law) against the offending judge. By that I mean they do not obtain justice, relief, and remedy for the injury the judge has done to the litigant. How shall the law and the society demand an exaction of justice from or the fruit of civilized vengeance from everyone BUT a judge? Why SHOULD society tolerate such flouting of propriety, common sense, and law from a judge? How shall society get justice when the judge refuses to give it?

Only one way exists: Excise the judge from government, and possibly from the planet. The judge has formed a one-man crooked government within a lawful government, and because he looks like a judge and behaves pompously like a judge, he runs that crooked one-man government under color of law. He appears legitimate when everyone who observes his behavior knows him as a crook. He has no more right to run around loose to pursue abusive, unlawful behavior than does a common street thug. And because he has betrayed the people's trust and does far more damage to the unwary and unsuspecting victim litigants in his court than does a street thug whom people can avoid, he deserves public scorn, enmity, and retribution all the more.

[ . . . . ]

Kenneth L. Smith expressed this principle succinctly in the draft of his petition for *certiorari* to the US Supreme Court in 2010:

"*The default response to judicial tyranny is lethal force*. Since the days of Cicero, the right to resort to violence in defense of our lives and liberties has been an integral part of black-letter law. As the Article III judicial power entitles judges to interpret the law -- as opposed to rewriting it on an ad hoc, ex post facto basis -- our judiciary has become, in the parlance of Judge Bork, a “band of outlaws.” [ . . . ]

(bolding added).

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 0fbab28015

[Famspear]

More from Bob Hurt:

Citizens, particularly litigants, ought to remind recalcitrant, oath-flouting, rule-breaking, law-violating judges of this reality from time to time. Plainly and simply, any public employee who violates his oath to support, protect, or defend the constitutions (meaning enforce the limits on government power and the guarantees of people's rights) BECOMES THEREBY AN ENEMY of the constitutions. And EVERYbody who encounters such an enemy has a constitutional duty to excise that enemy from government.

ONLY when the people make judges fear summary excision will judges stop behaving like enemies of the people and of the constitutions.

Consider me like the boy who blurted out that the king had no clothes on when everyone else pretended they saw the king fully clothed. I see blatant crookedness in our courts, by bailiffs and judges nearly every time I visit them and government and the media almost totally ignores it. It embarrasses me and I hate it. Please get off your butts and help me correct it....

(bolding added).

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 0fbab28015

[grixit]

Appeals do not obtain VENGEANCE (the purpose of common law) against the offending judge.

I thought the common law was meant to, among other things, provide a substitute for vengeance.

[grixit]

Kenneth L. Smith expressed this principle succinctly in the draft of his petition for *certiorari* to the US Supreme Court in 2010:

Since the days of Cicero, the right to resort to violence in defense of our lives and liberties has been an integral part of black-letter law.

That would have been news to Cicero. He was a die hard upholder of law and order. He bragged about having gotten the traditional aristocracy and the wealthier middle class to work together. His attitude towards everyone else was suspicion. He felt that the lower classes had no issues of their own, just what they were fed by demagouges (sp?).

His campaign against Cataline, whom he accused of secretly formenting revolution, include the claim that he was encouraging people in serious debt to join him with talk of destroying the bank records. And when Cataline and some of his associates were finally arrested, Cicero was adamant that they be executed.

The young backbencher, Julius Caesar, argued for life imprisonment, which of course made him too a suspect. There's probably some parallel timeline in which Caesar got the midnight knock before he could get himself sent to Gaul, and he ended up as a minor footnote.

But in any timeline, the equivalent of Bob Hurt would have been lucky to avoid a bad meeting with the lictors.

[notorial dissent]

I suspect it is more than safe bet to say that Bobby did indeed got handed his butt in one or more legal forays, and that the judges were, of course, corrupt and evil because they did not agree with his point of view. Having seen some of his legal erudition, I can't for the life of me imagine why that would have happened!!!![/sarcasm off]

I will also be willing to bet that he has made the radar screens of any number of the alphabet squad, and that the Marshall's Service in particular is keeping a very close eye on him.

I have to go along with the question of why he hasn't been locked up before now, but suspect he hasn't done anything other than run his mouth so far. Still I think he is definitely a dangerous nutcase.

[Nikki]

Why is Bob still out there, still spouting his nonsense?

He has been weighed in the balances and the answer has come out.

He's not worth the energy which could be better spent on tracking down more serious threats such as DC Comics copyright violators.

[Famspear]

Now Bob Hurt has written another bit, moderating his tone. Here is an excerpt:

......Courtrooms should have designs that prevent bailiffs from ever laying hands on anyone in court who does not ask or signal for personal help. Bailiffs must have training to show them when judges violate the law or rules, and then terminate the proceeding until the judge gets his right mind back, or till a new judge arrives.

So a bailiff should have the authority to determine whether the judge is following the law, and to terminate the court proceeding when the bailiff concludes that the judge is making a mistake????!!!!?? So, Bob is proposing that the bailiff be a sort of supervisor of the judge??!!??



There is more:

Most of all, we should treat our public servants with love and respect, even when they err, ESPECIALLY when they err. We should help them to focus on the ideals of spiritual living by setting an ideal example for them, giving them notice when we intend to correct them, and then proceed with the corrective action (such as getting them fired) lovingly.

Yes, we SHOULD discuss with them the option of using physical force to remove them from their jobs in the event nothing else seems to work. But we should realize that because we ourselves don't want to become subjected to such treatment, and because we ourselves like others to treat us lovingly, we ought to treat others that way, and devise ever better ways to replace physical force with unselfish loving service. People, especially those in government, find it mighty difficult to resist loving others who obviously love them.

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... a3d7b102bd

Sounds like Bob might be concerned about the potentially inflammatory effect of his prior writings, and is now hedging his bets.

[Famspear]

Query: Whether, based on what we know of Bob Hurt, he should be classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a "CAU" (Caution Upon Contact) Taxpayer under Internal Revenue Manual guidelines at IRM 25.4.2 et seq.:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-004-002.html

I don't believe he qualifies for the more serious Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer (PDT) designation, per the criteria at IRM 25.4.1 et seq.:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-004-001.html

[notorial dissent]

......Courtrooms should have designs that prevent bailiffs from ever laying hands on anyone in court who does not ask or signal for personal help. Bailiffs must have training to show them when judges violate the law or rules, and then terminate the proceeding until the judge gets his right mind back, or till a new judge arrives.

Does one get the impression from this statement that at some point a bailiff, at the suggestion of the judge possibly "helped" Bob find his way out of the courtroom????? Possibly because the judge decided he was a whack job wasting his time?

[Trippy]

... But we should realize that because we ourselves don't want to become subjected to such treatment, and because we ourselves like others to treat us lovingly, we ought to treat others that way, and devise ever better ways to replace physical force with unselfish loving service.

Here's something you might want to try, Bob: Stay at home, lie down, and ask Ed family: Nutjob to come on over with his Liberty Tool.

Better yet, ask Bernie Nothaus to send over a kilo of Columbian Red.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I, Bob Hurt, do not and did not advocate killing government workers. I advocated DISCUSSING the excision of CRIMINALS from government, by assassination if necessary.

Riiiight! That just makes everything all better.

God...did you and Pete Hendrickson go to the same school of semantics?

[bobhurt]

Yes, I still discuss the idea of killing criminals in government wherever one finds them. What bothers you about the discussion? So far, I have only seen insults, sarcasm, derision, and other ad hominems from Quatloosian Quatloosers. Let's call you obnoxious toads QQs. That means a Quatloosian who won't discuss the merits of an issue, but prefers instead to torment and bore others with unfounded ad hominem attacks. Oh, that's right, maybe I forgot. That's the whole purpose of Quatloos, isn't it?

Every so often someone gets so incensed with one or more lawyers, judges, bailiffs, or adversaries in court as to come to the court with with a pistol, or a bunch of weapons, and start shooting. I believe all of those so angered die in a hail of gunfire. I also believe at least 90% of them had a just, well-founded reason for their anger. A person has to get driven pretty far to become that desperate to express such anger in a courthouse.

We NEVER learn the details of such incidents. Most folks probably believe the decedent just wen crazy for no reason and deserved the killing he got. Few ever think to turn their attention to the other actors in the court and try to discover what role they played in the drama leading to such violence.

We read of seemingly loony behavior like filing commercial liens against judges (are they nuts), joining and training in militias (in a country with the most powerful military in the world, who needs a milita?), forming common law courts (read up on Susan Mokdad and Emilio Ippolito), and now the increasingly popular common law grand jury efforts. Why do Quatloosians believe people try to do these things?

Mostly we know why. Most of the people suffer from lack of education. But ALL of them have suffered or observed some form of presumed abuse from judges, government lawyers, clerks of court, tax collectors, county commissioners, code enforcers, deputies, police, etc. The press generally ignores the underlying issues, and merely points out the craziness of the "movement" and its proponents.

Tax protestors and their many organized efforts fall into that class of people, and the news media has the same apparent opinion - they are ignorant and refuse to learn and use the proper path to resolving their problems or to accept their deserved fate.

The typical Quatloosian pokes fun at the lot of them, claiming they are bozos who ignore reality and deserve the whipping they always seem to get. I never see any recommendations for practical solutions. Admittedly I don't read all the drivel and dreck Quatloosians write (and yes, famspear, most of it, at best, constitutes insincere and useless drivel and dreck), but I'd say what I have seen provides no benefit to anyone.

I propose that you answer the obvious question in this thread. What should people discuss who have tried every peaceable effort to achieve relief/remedy from wrongs they believe they have suffered, and met only with defeat? Does their defeat mean they were wrong? Or could it mean they lack the means and ability to use the available peaceable mechanisms for prevailing? Or does it mean a different stand of right and wrong applies to them?

Who in America believes all Americans are or ought to be "equal?" Nobody with any common sense believes that. Everybody intuitively knows better, whether they admit it or not. I have conjectured that at least 25% of the population lacks the cognitive ability to graduate from high school by age 18. And I believe quite a few more don't graduate because of bad parenting, laziness, and other impediments.

What does this mean to Quatloosians? To me it means that many will become dupes of, get cheated by, and become servants of smarter people, many of them will do jail time, many will get killed or maimed by their stupidity, and all of them will mug the rest of society through welfare abuse or crime or waste of government resources in efforts to get them through high school. I believe many if not most belong in protective homes or compounds of some kind. And none of them should enjoy suffrage privileges because they lack sufficient ability to evaluate relative importances or make prudent choices generally, comprehend the constitutions they swear they will support when they register to vote. Hey, federal Circuit and Supreme Court panels cannot unanimously agree on many of the constitutional issues they decide?

I wonder whether the criminal law must become so simple that a person of 81 IQ (about that of inner city ghettos of New Orleans or Los Angeles or Detroit) should comprehend it and remember it. For if society allows such people to run around unsupervised and to vote, how could they otherwise enjoy liberty for long before they get locked up in prison for life?

I believe we have a problem at Quatloos where Quatloosians seem to believe tax protestors fall into that category, and only they and crooked judges understand what the tax code and constitutions mean, and everybody who disputes it is an oaf.

People like Larry Becraft and Michael Minns never venture in the Quatloosian atmosphere of sarcasm and derision not because they cannot hold their own with you IRS/DOJ minions, but rather because they consider you idiots along with the crooked judges who make the crooked rulings that the constitution and tax code mean the contextual opposite (in certain areas) of what they contextually say.

Whether or not you are right in your estimation that the courts have spoken the truth in applying the income tax to all who receive revenue according to the IRS/DOJ/suborned Court formula, the stupid of America cannot understand it at all, and only pay it because it gets taken from them in their jobs and they don't have the remotest inkling that they are getting cheated and have no clue what to do about it even if they knew they were getting cheated. Of course most of them pay no wage or income tax because so many of them subsist off street crime and welfare that they don't care.

So you see, they don't care because they make so little they wouldn't miss what the government takes if anything. Most of the good earners don't dispute it because they don't want to face the hell fire of IRS/DOJ/Court retribution if they put up a fight. And most of the wealthy know how to protect their income from taxation or they earn so much surplus that they don't much care about the taxes. They spend their time making more money or hiring CPAs and lawyers or bribing judges to keep the IRS out of their pocket.

Who does that leave to quibble? Typically middle class entrepreneurs with the ability to study, read, and comprehend the constitutions and laws who realize the implementation of the income tax and wage tax is nothing but a monumental scam of misapplied tax code and constitution.

It does little good for them to fight because the courts are crooked. It does little good to complain to legislators because so many stupid voters elect clueless people to Congress, and the few good ones who manage to get in (Traficant, for example) get framed and accused of bribery or some other outrage or get killed or bribed or threatened and taken out of commission one way or another. So legislators don't care about the noise they make, and who in Congress doesn't like the money the IRS brings in?

I believe that constitutes the backdrop against which Quatloosians snipe and hoot and catcall against tax protestors. But I believe you well know that attorneys Michael Minns, Tommy Cryer, Larry Becraft, Jeff Dickstein, Mac MacPherson, Oscar Stilley, and others like them were not the damned fools you seem to want to pretend they were. Many intelligent anti-income-tax attorneys have risked sanctions in order to present arguments they believed sound in an atmosphere of judicial corruption under a public policy of abusive taxation that the law does not support. Slowly but surely, the cabal in which most Quatloosians seem to function, has slammed shut one door of relief/remedy after another regarding income and wage taxation. I believe some remain open.

But back to the topic under discussion, the one that will never close: summary excision of crookedness and crooks from government. And in that we have serious risks of mistaking a good guy just trying to do his job for a crook. The IRS or DOJ might have hired a Mafia thug to threaten or intimidate the judge or DOJ attorney or jurors. The unresolved murder of federal prosecutor Nancy Bergeson certainly sent a loud, clear message to public defenders: defy us, threaten us, and you will DIE. THAT is the KILLING of a government operative privy DOJ operations who openly defied the suborners and probably had a clue who got to the jury.

I don't see any hint in Quatloos that any of you self-righteous smart-ass Quatloosians have made a single effort to get to the bottom of her murder or to urge government on in its efforts to find the murderer and handlers in the IRS or DOJ. That makes you seem implicitly to support killing government employees.

Notice the issue at hand, not "killing" of government workers, but "excision of criminals and crime from government" even if that means removal by extraordinary means.

I have discussed this topic with my favorite Domestic Terrorism FBI Agent. I have made the point that when a lot of intelligent entrepreneurs (including attorneys) take issue with the courts and government attorneys and agents about their deprivation of rights, including abusive taxation, and no other relief or remedy or path to redress remains open, the FBI should naturally expect them to discuss assassination as an option. In fact, I have asked whether any government official, who blatantly denies rights or misapplies the law to the severe detriment of citizens, does not thereby beg for someone to remove him from his position of authority and power. I have asked whether one who acts unconstitutionally/illegally under color of law has not in effect become a self-appointed oligarch, no longer in that capacity a functionary of legitimate government. I got begrudging affirmations in response.

Why not? It's only common sense.

So why don't YOU want to discuss it?


~~~~

[.]

Oh, look, Bob woke up and has revived a thread that's been dead for over 3 years.

I read your first three sentences and that part about "insults, sarcasm" and "derision" certainly got my attention, but then you immediately devolved into insults, sarcasm and derision and then, well, I scrolled down 5 pages and, well, that's just way too many words, Bob. Why do you have this need to write a book? Most people can make their point in a sentence or three.

I enjoy interacting with raving nut-balls as much as the next guy, but would it be too much to ask that you rant and rave in, say, three or four paragraphs or less per post?

I'm sure that we'll all understand if you feel that you simply have to froth at the mouth for at least 20 paragraphs at a shot, and, to your credit you at least know what a paragraph is, but you lose your audience, you know?

You might want to consider a shorter format. Or, at least a good editor.

[The Observer]

Bob, there is a simple reason why we end up deriding the TPs and sovruns here. It is because they, like you, will never admit that they are wrong. They will not listen if and when we or others give them sage advice about their problems. They ignore the truth and will repeat their mistakes over and over again in the hopes that they won't have to pay taxes, traffic tickets, or any other number of civic obligations for which they are legally responsible.

You are no different in that respect, Bob. You continue to push your own beliefs about the system and how there must be something sinister going on behind the scenes to explain the results you are seeing with your own eyes. You take that stubborn route because you will not accept the simple truth that people end up in jail (or worse) because they decided to illegally confront the system of laws that we have in this country and lose.

Admittedly I don't read all the drivel and dreck Quatloosians write (and yes, famspear, most of it, at best, constitutes insincere and useless drivel and dreck), but I'd say what I have seen provides no benefit to anyone.

This is a perfect example why, Bob, it would be a waste of time for us to try reason with TPs and sovruns. Because you and them see nothing but "dreck." But guess what, Bob? Because we believe in our "dreck" we are living decent lives and don't have felony convictions. Something to think about, I would say.

And now for the Famspear challenge: Create a limerick with the word "dreck" and with bobhurt as the subject!

[Famspear]

....And now for the Famspear challenge: Create a limerick with the word "dreck" and with bobhurt as the subject!

Oh, boy. I come in and the first thing on Monday morning, I already have my work cut out for me.....

[Famspear]

Yes, I still discuss the idea of killing criminals in government wherever one finds them. What bothers you about the discussion?

Because it's against the law, and it's morally wrong.

So far, I have only seen insults, sarcasm, derision, and other ad hominems from Quatloosian Quatloosers.

No. And I don't think you even know what an ad hominem argument is.

Let's call you obnoxious toads QQs. That means a Quatloosian who won't discuss the merits of an issue, but prefers instead to torment and bore others with unfounded ad hominem attacks.

No, that's called "using an epithet." It's name-calling Bob. The problem is not that Quatloosians won't discuss the merits of issues. The problem is that Quatloos regulars DO discuss the merits of the issues, and people like you can't stand up to that.

Oh, that's right, maybe I forgot. That's the whole purpose of Quatloos, isn't it?

The purpose of Quatloos is to expose scams. You have, in the past, promoted scams, or at least claimed to believe that certain scams -- such as tax evasion scams -- are not scams. You were wrong.

Every so often someone gets so incensed with one or more lawyers, judges, bailiffs, or adversaries in court as to come to the court with with a pistol, or a bunch of weapons, and start shooting. I believe all of those so angered die in a hail of gunfire. I also believe at least 90% of them had a just, well-founded reason for their anger.

And you're full of baloney.

We NEVER learn the details of such incidents.

Yes, you do learn the details of most of those incidents. And you don't like what you learn. So you block it out and come up with your own noodle-headed theories. You've been doing that for years, Bob.

We read of seemingly loony behavior like filing commercial liens against judges (are they nuts), joining and training in militias (in a country with the most powerful military in the world, who needs a milita?), forming common law courts (read up on Susan Mokdad and Emilio Ippolito), and now the increasingly popular common law grand jury efforts. Why do Quatloosians believe people try to do these things?

For a variety of reasons -- which are clearly discussed here in these forum, over and over.

People do bad things, Bob. And while you have not done those things, you are part of the problem Bob, because you encourage others to do bad things. You are wrong.

Mostly we know why. Most of the people suffer from lack of education. But ALL of them have suffered or observed some form of presumed abuse from judges, government lawyers, clerks of court, tax collectors, county commissioners, code enforcers, deputies, police, etc....

Bulls**t, Bob. Most of the people that you're talking about have brought their legal problems on themselves, and they have lashed out at judges, lawyers, court clerks, tax collectors, etc., who are just doing their jobs.

Are the bad apples in every "government" barrel? Sure. But the big problem is not abusive government personnel. The big problem is crooks and corruption in the so-called "tax protester" community and the "sovereign citizen" community, etc. The problem is people like you, Bob, who cater to the crooks and who encourage the bad behavior.

The typical Quatloosian pokes fun at the lot of them, claiming they are bozos who ignore reality and deserve the whipping they always seem to get. I never see any recommendations for practical solutions. Admittedly I don't read all the drivel and dreck Quatloosians write (and yes, famspear, most of it, at best, constitutes insincere and useless drivel and dreck), but I'd say what I have seen provides no benefit to anyone.

Baloney. And here are some practical solutions for the kind of person you describe: Get some education. Get your head out of your a** and learn the stuff you should have learned in that ninth grade civics class when you were falling asleep in the back of the room. Get a job and pay your f*****g taxes, and work your way up like everyone else.

I propose that you answer the obvious question in this thread. What should people discuss who have tried every peaceable effort to achieve relief/remedy from wrongs they believe they have suffered, and met only with defeat? Does their defeat mean they were wrong? Or could it mean they lack the means and ability to use the available peaceable mechanisms for prevailing? Or does it mean a different stand of right and wrong applies to them?

In 99% of the cases we are looking at, Bob, it MEANS THAT THEY ARE WRONG. It has nothing to do with not having the means, etc., to use peaceful mechanisms.

What does this mean to Quatloosians? To me it means that many will become dupes of, get cheated by, and become servants of smarter people, many of them will do jail time, many will get killed or maimed by their stupidity, and all of them will mug the rest of society through welfare abuse or crime or waste of government resources in efforts to get them through high school. I believe many if not most belong in protective homes or compounds of some kind. And none of them should enjoy suffrage privileges because they lack sufficient ability to evaluate relative importances or make prudent choices generally, comprehend the constitutions they swear they will support when they register to vote. Hey, federal Circuit and Supreme Court panels cannot unanimously agree on many of the constitutional issues they decide?

I wonder whether the criminal law must become so simple that a person of 81 IQ (about that of inner city ghettos of New Orleans or Los Angeles or Detroit) should comprehend it and remember it. For if society allows such people to run around unsupervised and to vote, how could they otherwise enjoy liberty for long before they get locked up in prison for life?

I believe we have a problem at Quatloos where Quatloosians seem to believe tax protestors fall into that category, and only they and crooked judges understand what the tax code and constitutions mean, and everybody who disputes it is an oaf.

People like Larry Becraft and Michael Minns never venture in the Quatloosian atmosphere of sarcasm and derision not because they cannot hold their own with you IRS/DOJ minions, but rather because they consider you idiots along with the crooked judges who make the crooked rulings that the constitution and tax code mean the contextual opposite (in certain areas) of what they contextually say.

The judges are not crooked, Bob. And under the American system, neither you nor I nor Larry Becraft nor Michael Minns get to decide what interpretation of the Constitution and the tax code is the correct one. It's not your place to decide -- for everyone else -- that rulings are "crooked" merely because you disagree with them.

[more Bob Hurt ranting not reproduced]

But back to the topic under discussion, the one that will never close: summary excision of crookedness and crooks from government. And in that we have serious risks of mistaking a good guy just trying to do his job for a crook. The IRS or DOJ might have hired a Mafia thug to threaten or intimidate the judge or DOJ attorney or jurors. The unresolved murder of federal prosecutor Nancy Bergeson certainly sent a loud, clear message to public defenders: defy us, threaten us, and you will DIE. THAT is the KILLING of a government operative privy DOJ operations who openly defied the suborners and probably had a clue who got to the jury.

I don't see any hint in Quatloos that any of you self-righteous smart-ass Quatloosians have made a single effort to get to the bottom of her murder or to urge government on in its efforts to find the murderer and handlers in the IRS or DOJ. That makes you seem implicitly to support killing government employees.

Bulls**t, Bob. You don't know what you're talking about.

(more Bob Hurt ranting not reproduced).

[Duke2Earl]

Does their defeat mean they were wrong?

Yes. They are completely and totally wrong.

And the reason I will not discuss the killing of government employees because they disagree with you is because it is categorically wrong. There is no situation where that is acceptable behavior. Full Stop. End of discussion.

I will not discuss madness with an insane person.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

Notice the issue at hand, not "killing" of government workers, but "excision of criminals and crime from government" even if that means removal by extraordinary means.

Yes, we notice, Bob. We notice that you're saying that you're not talking about "killing" government personnel, but that you're talking about "excision" and "removal" of government personnel "by extraordinary means" -- which of course, in your mind magically transforms this immoral and criminal conduct you support to somehow being justified -- in your own eyes.

[Famspear]

As a refresher, to illustrate how the mind of Bob Hurt works, here is part of Bob's rant, found on his web site around July 2010 (see the beginning of this thread):

WAIT JUST A DADGUM MINUTE,” you yell. “You’re writing about killing judges here. And judges are kind of like, well, the daddies of American society We cannot just up an kill them because we don’t agree with their rulings.. … CAN WE?”

Well, ideally, NO. And that explains the Marshals and Deputy Sheriffs in our courtrooms.

...[Bob Hurt’s phony rationalizations not reproduced here; see beginning of this thread]

...Well, a pistol and a chamber of .44 magnums don’t cost all that much by comparison. And many Americans have begun to make that comparison. Rightly so, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I have started discussing VIOLENCE and THREAT OF VIOLENCE as a viable solution to our problems with criminals in government.

Bob, you have a big credibility problem.

[wserra]

[Nothing he hasn't written before.]