Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Bill Chapman]

Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?

Tell us why it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons.
Lets see a couple of lone nut assassins in action:

William McKinley
Lone nut assassin Czolgosz's actions were politically motivated
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Czolgosz

James A. Garfield
Lone nut assassin Charles J. Guiteau claimed to have shot Garfield out of disappointment at being passed over for appointment as Ambassador to France. He attributed the president's victory in the election to a speech he wrote in support of Garfield.
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Guiteau

Not to mention all the lone nut attempts to kill American presidents over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Gerald_Ford

[Michael Walton]

Once again Bill loves to play his wordplay game to suit his argument. Of course the instances Bill shows did not require a conspiracy to kill those presidents. And of course there have been plenty of conspiracies due to political reasons to kill other politicians.

Booth and Lincoln is one good example. The JFK one is another one.

[Bill Chapman]

Once again Bill loves to play his wordplay game to suit his argument. Of course the instances Bill shows did not require a conspiracy to kill those presidents. And of course there have been plenty of conspiracies due to political reasons to kill other politicians.

Booth and Lincoln is one good example. The JFK one is another one.

So you have one good example..

[Bill Chapman]

Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law. It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody'.
No further explanation necessary!

Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law(1). It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody(2).
No further explanation necessary!(3)

1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.
2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you. Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.
3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.

[Martin Weidmann]

Tell us why it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons.
Lets see a couple of lone nut assassins in action:

William McKinley
Lone nut assassin Czolgosz's actions were politically motivated
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Czolgosz

James A. Garfield
Lone nut assassin Charles J. Guiteau claimed to have shot Garfield out of disappointment at being passed over for appointment as Ambassador to France. He attributed the president's victory in the election to a speech he wrote in support of Garfield.
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Guiteau

Not to mention all the lone nut attempts to kill American presidents over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Gerald_Ford

Totally beside the point. I did not say it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons. I merely asked if it wouldn't point to a conspiracy. Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference. You apparently don't.

Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder. 

Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law(1). It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody(2).
No further explanation necessary!(3)

1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.
2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you. Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.
3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.

Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.

1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.

BS..

You called the "enlightening" video "one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched". Says it all, really!

2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you.

It had nothing in it I didn't already know. I found it entertaining, but I would not qualify it as "one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched". That, as you have shown, is a qualification only used by a novice who easily gets impressed.

Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.

No, that's not something I need to learn. Only a novice like you would need to learn that. And the video wasn't "largely directed at innocent people". It was completely directed at anybody who gets arrested or even interviewed by the police. It seems you haven't learned that yet.

3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.

Ah, more delusions of grandeur   

And, please stop using lines a five year old would use when he throws a temper tantrum. It's so immature.

[Bill Chapman]

Totally beside the point. I did not say it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons. I merely asked if it wouldn't point to a conspiracy. Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference.

'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.

'Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference..
See above.

That, as you have shown, is a qualification only used by a novice who easily gets impressed.
I'm easily impressed by top quality in any walk of life. I place the fellow who wrote and presented the video in that category.

Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder.
Oswald is listed as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit

Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake

It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here, sport.

[Martin Weidmann]

'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.

'Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference. You apparently don't.
See above.

Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder.
Oswald is listed as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit

Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake

It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.

HAHAHA

'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.

Nasty, nasty...    Overcompensating for your total lack of understanding of what is written?

Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake

And again, more delusions of grandeur 

It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.

Contradictio in terminis 

You corrected them? And that somehow isn't talking to the police? It seems you still haven't learned much from the video you like so much....  Hilarious!

Btw, you (mistakenly) think you can teach people something on this board, you claim to have corrected the police..... Who the f*ck do you think you are?