take the clicker. see this right here . y okay, i have no idea how to do it here . just making this up as we go along then you hit record and then ask you a question. all right. one time only or que every epis. all right. every episode of the angry man o go oh god. okay, yeah. . i hear your producers laughing in the background all laughing because it s easy. they re laughing at youy and e because we re hilarious.me all right. we love your show. we love you. we ll see you tomorrow. all right. i m laura ingraham. this is ingraham angle from washington tonight . writes for all that s the focus of tonight s angle now it wasn t until about 1992 when i began my clerkship for justice clarence thomas for thai really began to pay attention to how the media writes about the supreme court s. so i m talking about the new york times and the washingtonew post y time magazine, newsweek, et cetera. television reporters 90% of them believe that the court rulings were radical and outside the
now that s where we ve come. this is sheer lunacy. it s anti constitutional. it s anti-american. so in the end this is not a radical decision. it s not a crazy decision. it s a long overdue decision. and contrary to all the catter alling out therehe on the left, the ruling doesn t even meannla that states have no power toun regulate guns. it just can ts prohibit. lawts abiding residents from carryingg a gun for self-defenseca as justice alito noted. that s all we decide are holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. nor does it decide anythingd about the kinds of o weaponsha that people may possess nor have wedi disturbed anything that we said in heller or mcdonald versus chicago s about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. get it? but the modern american left,e