Yet Another Excuse to Attack the 2nd Amendment

not-about-guns-about-controlI know that many of you were expecting that I would be talking about the travesty that occurred Saturday night in the House of Representatives. Fear not, I am going to tackle that, but not tonight. I want to finish reading the bill that passed before I begin commenting on it. I will say I am very disappointed that it passed, and thus far I am under the impression that the Democrats in Congress are interested in passing a health insurance reform bill, but have no concern with whether it will actually be a good bill or an effective bill. But enough for tonight, I am hoping to make the newly passed bill the topic tomorrow night. For tonight I offer some thoughts from over there at the Huffington Post. It seems that the tragic events at Fort Hood have become yet another excuse for those on the far left to clamor about taking people’s guns away yet again. I will offer you all the opportunity to read what this particular person had to say, and then weigh in with my own thoughts…

Robber Its RegisteredThe far left loon of the day is Bill Mann. Allow me to once again make sure everyone understands that I really have the big problem with those on the far left. Left of center doesn’t rile me up. But the kooks on the fringes of the liberal spectrum are just as dimwitted, control-seeking, and dangerous to America as the kooks on the fringes of the conservative spectrum. In truth it is about time that we started to, as Americans, ostracize them for the threats to civilization that they are. The fringes on each side are polarizing Americans against each other, and they are the primary cause for a lack of dialogue between sides today. Moderates on either side hear the radicals on the other side and then apply their lunatic ravings to the entire other side rather than recognizing it as the fringe drivel that it is. Liberals think Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh speak for regular Conservatives. Conservatives think that Pelosi, Olbermann, Franken, and a lot of the Huffington Post writers speak for regular liberals. It is time that both sides begin to force those on the far reaches of the political spectrum out of the public spotlight. They are killing America with their madness and driving the political process to ruin.

Bill Mann is someone that I sometimes find amusing. But let’s not mistake his humor for not driving the madness. Bill is a far left guy who wants to push the progressive agenda as far as possible. His website, titled “DC Weasels”, is little more than a Republican bashing website that appears to offer nothing of substance. Little more than snipey little comments about how horrible Republicans in Congress are. Apparently he has blinders to the actions of the other side of that chamber. And for this website alone, he fits the description of the fringe radicals that are hurting our country by falsely attempting to demonize the other side with infantile comments.

Mr. Mann decided that the Fort Hood shootings were a perfect opportunity to once again make a far left attack against the Second Amendment. From the Huffington Post:

Fort Hood Reminds Us: Our Gun Laws Are a National Disgrace

Our current lack of health insurance for all is a national disgrace. But so are our handgun laws — or lack of them.

You’d think you might have heard a bit more about our heedless national pistolero mentality in the wall-to-wall TV coverage of the tragic shootings at Fort Hood this week. But no such luck. How many times have we seen this movie before? It’s only the locations that change.

Experts Agree Gun ControlThere was only scant mention in all the coverage that suspected mass murderer Nidal Hasan had bought his lethal cop-killer handgun at “Guns Galore” in nearby Killeen, Texas. How charming.

Why is it that comic Stephen Colbert seems to be the only one on national TV who regularly reminds us about this country’s twisted love of handguns? (Colbert keeps his piece, “Sweetness,” under his anchor desk, occasionally taking it out to smooch its barrel).

Something I’ve written in my newspaper columns about for years bears repeating here:

Any country with as many mentally ill people as the U.S. that allows virtually unlimited access to handguns is on a suicide mission.

Gun sickness is our most pressing national illness.

I live within sight of the Canadian border, and Americans who visit Canada are often surprised at how serious Canadian customs officials regard guns — specifically, bringing them into relatively handgun-free Canada. Where are these people’s priorities, they seem to be saying?

(Note: Canadian customs can — and does — turn people back at the border who have a DUI conviction. Again, different national priorities).

Canadians recognize handguns as a direct threat to civilized society, unlike here, where the NRA and the gun-toters evidently believe we’re living in Tombstone, Ariz., circa 1885.

Gun Free Zone CartoonHow many more mass shootings and troubled-loner gun sprees (what the New York Post calls “Slayfests”) can we afford before we finally get serious about gun control? How much longer will network TV news continue to soft-peddle and play down this most basic issue?

I don’t really care that much about what drove Hasan to apparently murder all those soldiers, which has been the prime focus of nonstop cable news. The fact is, he did. What I DO care about is how easy it was for him to get the means — a lethal gun — to do it.

Not to belabor the Canadian issue — we Americans are, after all, the noisy, gun-toting downstairs neighbors — but re-entering the U.S. after living in Canada for several years (which we did) was a maddening experience.

We lived a major metropolitan area, Montreal, for seven years. And even in the more disadvantaged parts of that city, you feel safe. You never feel you might get shot, either by a handgun-toting robber or a troubled loner.

Coming back into the United States you lose that peace of mind. It’s like a slap in the face.

Constitution PermitDon’t believe me? Ask anyone else who’s lived in a developed country in which handguns are restricted and can’t be bought as easily as cigarettes.

We have millions of sick Americans who need health insurance. But there are even more of us who live in danger of being shot by an easy-to-obtain weapon. It’s way past time for the media to pay attention to THIS life and death issue.

Read the article at the Huffington Post: Bill Mann: Fort Hood Reminds Us: Our Gun Laws Are a National Disgrace

I hate to have to do this to Bill, but I think perhaps that he, along with most of the media, the federal government, and the two major parties out there, have somehow forgotten about the fact that the founders sat down and founded this country under the concept that we have rights that are not the government’s to toy with. Among those would be the Bill of Rights, which the founders felt were important enough rights to actually write them down so the forgetful wouldn’t forget that the people have them regardless of what government thinks, or regardless of what folks like Bill Mann, who must believe that he is simply smarter than the founders were, happens to believe. Among those Bill of Rights proclamations was a quirky little one called the Second Amendment. That one states fairly clearly:

Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

gun-flag-2ndNow I understand how difficult this can be to understand. So I will try to help out here where I can. The document seems to need some interpretation. I am no Supreme Court Justice, but I will give it a shot. The RIGHT (as in inherent right, existing with or without the mandate of government, unable to be taken away) to keep (as in own, possess, hold as one’s property) and bear (as in hold in one’s hand, use when necessary) Arms (as in guns), shall not be infringed (as in shall not have any lunatic who has an agenda attempt to take away such rights). I understand how difficult this must be for folks to understand. It is amazing how hard these simple amendments are for folks in the government to understand. I am sure if I was a smarter fellar, I would be able to see the nuances that make their interpretations make more sense than my simpleton manner of understanding the english language. Ahhh, if only I was more smarter.

The first falsehood in Mann’s article is that he operates under the assumption… no strike that, he knows better and intentionally attempts to mislead people… that gun control laws not being tough are the problem. He implies that the Fort Hood catastrophe is another example of how weak gun control laws have led to a tragedy. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense does it? This killer, Nidal Hasan, was a Major in the United States Military. Anyone want to take a guess at how few people in the United States military make this rank? I am sure our resident Colonel can fill us in. I submit to you that a man who can get the clearance to be a Major and to spend this long in the US military, can easily pass the background checks to get a handgun in the toughest states in America to do so. Gun Control laws were not the issue in this case. And to use this case as a basis for an article on strengthening gun control laws, which are unconstitutional in the first place, is a blatant confusing of the issues.

Don't Happen at Firing RangesI have grown tired of listening to the talking heads from the left who consistently ignore the reality in today’s world. Let me scream this little piece so maybe even someone as dense as Mann can hear it. Although I doubt he will acknowledge it, as it would destroy the entire argument from the left on this issue: WHEN YOU MAKE GUN CONTROL LAWS THAT MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL HAVE GUNS ARE THE CRIMINALS, WHO DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR GUN CONTROL LAWS. I am unsure why this concept is so hard to understand. I don’t have the statistics from a source with zero bias. Perhaps someone else does. But I know that the NRA study said that only 1% of gun crimes are committed by a person who was carrying the gun legally as it is. That can’t be too far off base. And that is just the carry law. So how many gun crimes are committed by folks who give a shit what gun laws you put in place? Exactly. None.

Mann stated, “Any country with as many mentally ill people as the U.S. that allows virtually unlimited access to handguns is on a suicide mission.” And I say bull. It isn’t usually the mentally ill that commit gun crimes. Those just get the headlines. It is the morally corrupt that commit gun crimes. I saw an article tonight about a man who shot and killed three women in a car at a gas station in St. Louis. He wasn’t mentally ill. He was a criminal with no regard for human life. I will go ahead and put even money that he obtained the gun illegally. How would stricter gun laws stop that? I would say that any country with as many criminals and morally corrupt youth as America that doesn’t have every citizen able to adequately protect themselves will eventually be overrun by criminals. And further, any country with a federal government as far reaching and out of control with power as ours that doesn’t have armed citizens is asking for a quick tyranny rather than a slow, methodical one.

Supreme Court DC Gun BanGun sickness is our most pressing national illness? Please. I would say liberalism is our most pressing national illness. OK, that was just a joke, don’t let anyone’s head explode. In reality a failure of the family unit is our most pressing national illness. Perhaps with stronger family structures our country would not resemble the Tombstone Mann describes. However, the federal government has done everything in its power over the last 50 years to eliminate the family unit as the strongest bond in America. Some still exist, but they are becoming more rare by the day.

“Canadians recognize handguns as a direct threat to civilized society, unlike here, where the NRA and the gun-toters evidently believe we’re living in Tombstone, Ariz., circa 1885.” I am interested to hear everyone else’s take on this one. I know that there are a plethora of Canadians who frequent the site. Do you find this to be a true statement? I tend to disagree, as I see a disregard for rule of law and a lack of respect for individual liberty as the direct threats to civilized society. I was surprised to see Mann also add in the following little tidbit:

(Note: Canadian customs can — and does — turn people back at the border who have a DUI conviction. Again, different national priorities).

Gun Free Zone DangIt is interesting to see someone from the left make a statement such as this. Does anyone else find it ironic that Mann would champion Canada for not allowing someone who has a DUI into their country while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to ensure that illegal immigrants in America convicted of DUI do not get deported back to their home country? Don’t let law abiding citizens who make the mistake of DUI into the country, but don’t dare let non law-abiding non-citizens who make that mistake be deported. A fascinating contradiction of morality there from a far left person. But I digress.

The bottom line here is that I believe that it has come time to start taking these far fringe folks from both sides out to the woodshed and teaching them a lesson or two about individual liberty and freedom. I know that the right wants to make us into a controlled stated that holds Christianity at its core. I know the left wants to make us into a controlled state with some form of socialism at its core. What I don’t understand is why there are so many moderates who don’t stand up and say “enough”. People like Pelosi should have been silenced by the majority a long, long time ago. People like Bush should have been removed from power by a vocal populace the second he signed the Patriot Act. We have allowed the far reaches of both parties to dictate the message, control the issues, and polarize the people for far too long.

Gun control is an issue that I am willing to take a stand on. I will not stand by and listen to any more of the batshit crazy rhetoric from the left about this. Mann is just one of many. The message that goes back to folks that parrot Mann’s position needs to be a loud rendition of the Second Amendment followed by “if you don’t like the idea of personal freedom and individual liberty, may I suggest that you go back to Canada?” Canadian brothers, don’t take that as a slap against your country, It is merely a recognition of where Mann came from. As the sing up there says…. it is time for people to realize that gun control is about control, not guns. The far left needs to be shut down on this issue.

Did you really expect anything different from someone with the name USWeapon?


  1. I’m with ya on this one USW. Posting for comments and will add more later.


    • “Gun sickness is our most pressing national illness? Please. I would say liberalism is our most pressing national illness.”

      You were correct in stating that liberalism is our most pressing national illness!

      • Pretty sure it’s obesity and obesity related health issues… just saying…

        But you should watch out.. I hear Avian Flu is making a comeback, and I wouldn’t want to be Birdman or Rara Avis if it is…

        • Hey, Matt, go easy on the fat guys. I’m 325 (on a good day) …

          • Sorry, Charlie

            • If your prick us, do we not bleeda?

              No problem, brother … I’m preparing to read Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I went to Youtube and watched 2 interviews with her (Wallace and Donahue). It’s interesting stuff but I’m gonna reserve comment until I read the novels.

              • You could try hitting yourself in the face with Atlas Shrugged instead.. marginally more enlightening..

        • Mathius:

          We can come up with a cure for Avian Flu. There is no cure for seriously infected liberals. Some people like freedom and some don’t. Some people think government is the answer to most things and others think government only takes away individual rights and freedom. This 100 year progressive experiment is reaching its zenith. I’m watching and living in historical times. I hope that the collapse isn’t severe and we all make it through without too much pain.

  2. Good morning all: Will be headed off to Houston so will make my comments early today.

    Of course you are right on the money about the fact that if guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns. More rules and laws are not the answer.

    Off topic but I have to bring this up: Yesterday, the Fox NFL guys did their pregame show from Afghanistan. That was just awesome!!! It was a good day for America.

    Since it was a Veteran’s Day tribute, at first I was wondering why President Obama didn’t send a message. If Bush were still President, I’m sure he would have done something. Think of how many millions of people watched this show.

    Then I started thinking (which usually gets me in trouble). First off, it was FOX Sports, not CBS. Then I thought, if you wanted to find a group of people who were the most unhappy with him, who better than our folks in Afghanistan. They probably would have booed him. I wonder how those would be punished.

    The bottom line is, Obama doesn’t give a shit. So supporting the troops is just something he says, not that he does. They’re still dying over there while Obama dithers.

    So God Bless our troops and all you Veterans on the site. Sorry to be off topic, but wanted to share this.

    • Wasabi

      Hope your travels are safe today.

      I saw the post last evening about this as well and would like to make two point.

      1. Kudos to Fox Sports for doing it..Awsome!!

      2. Veteran’s day is actually this coming Wed, November 11th. Just guessing but I bet POTUS will do something on the actual day of recognition.

      Perhaps our distaste for the fellow sometimes causes us to criticize when its not time???

      • The previous (and I believe even the one before him) would have made it a point to tape a message to play yesterday. It will be interesting to see if there is any sort of a message from the POTUS played today, since he couldn’t be botherd to attend. (You do know what happened 20 years ago today, don’t you?)

        • Redleg:

          Sorry for letting your question lanquish for so long. Constitutional discussion just grab me and won’t let go.

          Yes I know what happened 20 years ago today. It was one of those few times in my life where remote actions caused tears to run from my eyes.

          My comment was aimed at the criticism that Mr. Obama did not make statement regarding “veterans day” when it isn’t until Wed.

          I share your disapproval of his apparent lack of enthusiasm over the 20 yr anniversary. But we will see how the day ends. I am guessing they are cobbling something together to avoid complete egg on face.

      • That is very possible. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does. He is sending more troops so that’s a good sign. Arrived in Houston safely, thanks for your concern.

  3. USW said:

    “Perhaps with stronger family structures our country would not resemble the Tombstone Mann describes. However, the federal government has done everything in its power over the last 50 years to eliminate the family unit as the strongest bond in America. Some still exist, but they are becoming more rare by the day.”

    You sir have hit the nail on the head with that one statement. The destruction of the family unit has done more harm to us as a people than any other force.

  4. It is like this every time after a major shooting, some far left people say they want tougher gun control laws because they think it is the PC thing to do. But the reaction after the 1994 assult weapons ban is still on every democrats mind. Nothing will ever get past congress for gun control for a long time.

    • I happen to be far left, but I think it should be noted that the position of people wanting tough gun control is not necessarily far left. Just left. It’s not a fringe element, it is a mainstream view. Equal is in size and conviction to those on the right who believe the opposite.

      • If gun control is so mainstream then how come nothing has been done since 1994?

        • Because of a very large, very vocal, very successful opposition. For example, pro-choice is a mainstream view, as is pro-life (strange how they’re both pro-something…). Despite the mainstream view that abortion is murder and should be made illegal, it has not been. This does not mean that pro-lifers should be views as the far-right. There are extremists on both sides, but the views themselves are both mainstream and neither is inherently far-anything.

          Thus, though they are losing the fight, gun control advocates should not be viewed as holding an extremist far-left view.

          Further, we do not think guns should be controlled because it is the PC thing to do. We think that because guns are dangerous. (They are the leading cause of death among African-Americans 15-19 year olds – accounting for almost half of all deaths). Just as you may chafe at the idea of us thinking you dislike guns because you’re a trigger-happy gun-toting hillbilly redneck (a view I do not happen to hold), we do not appreciate being portrayed as shallowly willing to control people just for the appearance of political correctness.

          • The leading cause of deaths to this age group across the board is motor vehicle accidents. Shall we outlaw cars?

            • No, but we do heavily regulate their use. We mandate training, we register the car and the driver, we mandate insurance to cover potential damage, we say where and how they can drive, etc. Do you think it would be a safer world if he allowed anyone able to afford a car to drive? You’re talking about giving everyone the freedom to operate 2,000 pound kinetic missiles at freeway speeds.

              I do not think we should necessary eliminate all guns from society – but heavily regulating such dangerous machines them seems only prudent.

              • Matt….all vehicles are not registered to the operator. Insurance is attached to a vehicle or a driver or both.
                Regulate guns???? How? You mean regulate their owners?
                Matt have you ever lived in England???

              • Gun control does not stop crime…
                Criminal control does.

              • And that regulation on cars works like a charm…

                Look, I think I’m sort of with you. I think reasonable regulation is fine, I just don’t expect regulation to work as well as you think. Our thoughts on reasonable also differ some…

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “Further, we do not think guns should be controlled because it is the PC thing to do. We think that because guns are dangerous. (They are the leading cause of death among African-Americans 15-19 year olds – accounting for almost half of all deaths).”

            Gun ownership is not only a right, it is also a RESPONSIBILITY. If these teens were brought up to be responsible people, and were taught about safe, responsible gun ownership, would this be nearly as much of a problem?

            Or, perhaps do you claim that for some reason they are incapable of being raised to be responsible people?

            • Teens as a group are incapable of being responsible. Their brains are simply not developed to the point of maturity where consequences are sufficiently weighed before acting. It is biological fact. Adults and teens are not the same.

              You can raise a teen to be as responsible as you like, but if he gets into an argument and he is armed, he is far more likely to draw his weapon. I have no studies to back this up (though I’m sure they’re out there somewhere). Do you dispute this?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                No, I do not necessarily dispute this, but is it not the responsibility of the PARENTS to teach the children about such things, and to make sure that their children are not running around with guns and no adult supervision at age 15?

                I first shot a rifle when I was 12. Blew the hell out of some empty beer cans. Was taught all about gun safety, appropriate and inappropriate uses of firearms, and that they were not toys, and were never to be used against another person except in self defense.

                As a result, I was NOT running around on the streets with a gun at age 15.

                Seems to me, pretty much ANYONE can learn this. However, it is pretty hard to learn this if the only parent in your house is your mom, and she never learned it from anyone herself.

                So, what is the answer? Mandate that the government control guns, or mandate that we get rid of “social programs” that outright encourage personal irresponsibility and allow for this sort of crap to happen in the first place?

              • Mathius

                I owned my first gun at 12 and hunted by myself at 14. When in High School probably close to half of the boys that drove to school had guns in their vehicles. If hunting season was out, no better fun than target shooting after school. Imagine all those guns within reach and no one was shot at school.

              • Matt:

                You said: “You can raise a teen to be as responsible as you like, but if he gets into an argument and he is armed, he is far more likely to draw his weapon.”

                Once again I think this is a reflection of your upbringing versus some of the rest of us. I would guess this may be a true statement of city dwellers. It is not a true statment for country boys and girls.

                It would not have been a true statement 30 plus years ago but it has a ringing of truth today. So what has really changed?

                Its not the presence of guns. In the late 60’s and early 70’s you would find literally hundreds of rifles and shotguns in the cars parked in the high school parking lot. A few handguns as well. Accidents did occassionaly happen but I can not think of a single killing done in anger, by teenagers, in the area I grew up.

                Perhaps we should be discussing the true issues relative to gun violence instead of the guns!

                • I don’t think parents are buying these kids guns…The parents who do buy guns for their kids have usually spent years teaching them safety before buying them one of their own. Use to be a loaded shot gun behind every front door and loaded hand guns in a holster on the bedstead.
                  These guns are usually theft guns….they have been stolen from rightful owners…..first clue thieves are criminals.

          • “They are the leading cause of death among African-Americans 15-19 year olds – accounting for almost half of all deaths”

            Unless you are saying that the guns themselves are racists pieces of metal, I would have to conclude that guns being the leading cause of death among black males has some other cause than the guns. Otherwise, wouldn’t the other races suffer from the same calamity?

            I say again, all after… Family structure.

          • You’re still not going to take guns away from criminals, they don’t care about the law. So we’re just supposed to sit by and hope we don’t become defenseless victims??

  5. Good morning, USW. You know I will have an answer today….right now, I cannot type as I am cleaning my weapons which I do every week. It is, after all, deer season…and before anyone asks…no, I do not hunt with an assault rifle or a 30 round clip. Anyway, I wish to gather my thoughts on this subject and will post later today.

    Have a good one.

    • Real men hunt dear with their bare hands… just saying..

      And a good morning to you, D

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I prefer a bow and arrow.

      • Mathius

        I have only known one foolish man take on a trapped (hornless) deer with his bare hands and a knife. Man did win but at the cost of just under 50 stitches and multiple bruises. Them thar hooves are awful sharp. Smart men use proper weapons.

        • Bama:

          You now know two such men. Only mine was a four point mule buck (western count)and my partner and I roped him from horseback first. He held the rope tight while I got off and did him in.

          Yes, it was quite the rodeo. That darn deer tried to stab me with my own knife several times.

        • I didn’t say smart men.. just real men.. It’s quite manly to be so stupid no? I’m sure most women would agree.

          I think the most manly man I ever heard of was the guy who got his arm pinned during a rock slide while hiking. He used a two inch knife and amputated his own arm in order to escape.

          I wouldn’t want to take on any wild animal with my bare hands – we have big brains, but small teeth. Could you imagine if it were a 30pt buck?

  6. I, not too surprisingly, support strict controls on guns. Before I get jumped on by 30 people, allow me to throw out some thoughts.

    1. Having a gun does not necessarily make you safer. I cannot imagine a more heavily armed location than Fort Hood, and a more heavily trained and capable population than the soldiers who were attacked. Given that the gunman was still able to kill and injure so many, how is it a defense to say “if everyone had a gun, this wouldn’t happen”? This would go against the implication of the political cartoon you posted (the one outside the mall). Can we please put this one to rest?

    2. According to (a website I have no previous familiarity with, so take it for what it’s worth): “Virtually every illegally possessed firearm recovered in New York State began its life as a legal product, manufactured or imported by a company licensed by the federal government and sold by a licensed dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) has determined that there are multiple streams carrying guns downstream into the illegal market: corrupt sales by licensed dealers and distributors, straw purchases by individuals or rings, [v] unregulated, multiple or unlimited sales in states with weak gun laws, sales at gunshows, private sales, and theft. [vi]” This seems to be corroborated by a number of other sites I looked at. Thus, if there were fewer legal guns, there would be fewer illegal guns as well.

    3. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How is it that the first part of this sentence always seems to be ignored? A well regulated militia is not necessary anymore, but that’s not even the point. The Founders knew how to write clearly (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof […]” – see? perfectly clear). They chose to be obtuse in their language – does anyone here believe that this was an accident? For all the clarity claimed on behalf of the Second Amendment, the Founders chose (after much debate and argument) to phrase it in such a way that it is not perfectly clear. Some, myself among them, interpret this Amendment to mean that, insofar as a well-regulated militia is needed and in a militial capacity, the federal government cannot stop the militia members from processing firearms – that is, the government cannot neuter the states’ militias. This makes sense in an historical context. If they had intended gun ownership as an absolute right, wouldn’t we expect the law to read “Congress shall make no law respecting citizens’ rights to own firearms, nor the sale thereof”?

    4. The founders could not have conceived of modern firearms. The idea of a single person being able to kill 30 people before being stopped was unimaginable. It is as though they had granted the free right to own explosives and we now interpret that to mean we may own nuclear weapons. Firearms to the Constitution and firearms to modern reality are not the same things.

    I could go on, and perhaps I will later, but I want to leave you all with this: The perfect gift for the holidays:

    • I’ll answer these with quick answers.

      1. Military bases are almost gun free zones. The only military members habitually armed are MPs (military police) who do so in the conduct of there duty. I can almost guarantee that the only poeple armed thein the soldier processing center were Major Hasan, and possibly an armd security guard. even is they would have had there weapons with them ( to get them used to carrying them everywhere), they wouldn’t have had any ammo. The soldiers were completely defenseless. If there was even one of the soldiers with a loaded firearm in the building, the casualty count would have been MUCH lower. There are many cases PROVING that the presence of an armed citizen was the difference between a mass casualty event and a dead criminal.

      2. Doesn’t matter how they started. The weapons are on illeagal BECAUSE of draconian gun control laws. Please point to just ONE credible study that “gun control”(*) works.

      3. Read the Federalist Papers. The Founder’s realized that citizens are armed, and subjects are not.

      4. That’s a strawman argument. The intent is clear. Again, read the Federalist Papers.

      • 1. I was not aware of that (obviously, I am not a soldier), but I would love for you to provide me some counter-evidence. You say that there are many cases “proving” that the presense of armed citizens makes the difference. Can you please show me?

        2. . Take a look at page 37 (39 on the PDF).

        3. Federalist #46:

        Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

        Madison was essentially saying that the people should have guns for the purpose of supporting the state and repelling an oppressive federal government on behalf of the states. Specifically, as a militia. You can argue with me whether such a militia is necessary any longer (I would say no), but his intent seems pretty clear to me. Do you, perhaps, have a different essay in mind?

        4. Hardly. You say gun ownership is Constitutionally protected, and I say it is not. I say that they (may have possibly) sought to enshrine a right which had a certain maximum risk, but that a comparable right with far greater risk was not evaluated. As such, it is unfair to extrapolate in such a linear fashion that they would have necessarily reached the same conclusion.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

          “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

          “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

          All quotes by Thomas Jefferson. They all seem pretty clear on the subject.

          • “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

            Do you see it as (A) plausible, or (B) plausibly successful that the People should take up arms against the US government?

            Do you honestly believe that the fact that you are armed is what keeps the federal government in check?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Jefferson, and others among the founding fathers recognized that a well-armed citizenry was the ONLY way to keep the Federal government in check.

              The fact that we have largely failed in our duty as citizens does not make that sentiment incorrect.

              “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.” (Thomas Jefferson again)

              The people are supposed to retain the ultimate powers of society, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

              For far too long, we have let certain people foist upon us the illusion that the government is the ultimate repository of the power over society. It was not supposed to be thus.

              We, the people, have abdicated our power and responsibility, and given it to the government. When we ceded our power to the government, we allowed for tyranny, oligarchy, and despotism, and some said that it was good. Those that said that it was good then set about convincing everyone else that it was good. Believe me, it is not.

              “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” (Thomas Jefferson).

              We have abjectly failed by the standard which Jefferson set above.

            • Matt:

              There is an inherent fault in your reasoning if you cherish freedom.

              “Do you see it as (A) plausible, or (B) plausibly successful that the People should take up arms against the US government?”

              Such logic simply supports the conclusion that if the govt just becomes stronger than the citizens then it is justified in disarming them, becasue they can no longer defend themselves against the govt.

              A true recipie for Tyranny don’t you think?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If we have allowed the Federal government to become so powerful that even a well-armed citizenry is futile for resisting the power of the Federal government, then we, as citizens of a country which was supposed to be “free” are miserable failures.

        • Matt:

          But that is not all that Madison was saying here. He was also stating that the Army would never be very large because the need for a Standing Army was primarily to protect the citizens in the frontier from those savages and the incurrsions of the Brits, Spanish and French.

          So if we apply the same logic to the authorization of a standing army, such an army should have been declared unnecessary upon settlement of the continent. But alas, the army grew instead. And it now posesses firepower that far exceeds the millions of armed citizens.

          Seems like something got turned upside down along the way, doesn’t it.

    • Matt:

      Regarding the wording of the second: “A well regulated militia is not necessary anymore, but that’s not even the point.”

      Who says a well regulated malitia is NOT needed anymore to protect the freedom of the state?

      By what power, given by the people, did Congress have the authority to disban the militias?

      If this is not the point, then why do you folks so hooked on gun control keep bringing it up as the justification?

      Redleg is correct. A reading of the Federalis and Anti-Federalist papers gives you a clear picture. This is a decloratory statement added for effect not as a restriction on the actual right outlined. It was part of the style of the writing in those times.

      The same argument exists over the “general welfare” clause. The intent of this statement was clearly understood until the FDR term. It was not an authority but a general statement of why such taxes were being authorized. Its meaning has been lost to modern history because a new Supreme Court decided to change it.

      Similar changes in original meaning have already happened with the first amendment as well. I suspect the same will happen eventually with the Second Amendment.

    • Matt, Matt, Matt,

      “1. Having a gun does not necessarily make you safer.” Well, that is a true statement, I like how you frame it. But if you are attacked, and choose to be armed, I would expect your odds of survival to be enhanced.
      Here’s one of a few thousand examples.

      From the October 27, 2009 Sarasota Herald-Tribune:

      PORT CHARLOTTE – Two men, armed with a knife and a tire iron, reportedly forced their way inside a Port Charlotte home Saturday night, only to find the occupants had guns.

      The botched home invasion robbery ended quickly when one of the suspects sustained a nonfatal gunshot wound to the stomach, according to the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office.

      Authorities have arrested one man and intend to charge the other upon his release from a Fort Myers-area hospital in connection to the attempted robbery at the 21000 block of Beaverton Avenue.

      The incident occurred around 10 p.m. at the home of Peter L. Gilmore, 69, and his 25-year-old son, James S. McGlone.

      Two men, later identified as Keith Sowers, 32, of Punta Gorda, and Port Charlotte resident Joshua Eugene Becerril, 29, wearing stockings over their faces, kicked open the front door, deputies said.

      Becerril reportedly held Gilmore at knifepoint. McGlone ran into his father’s bedroom, where Gilmore kept several guns, and was chased by Sowers, toting a tire iron.

      Sowers allegedly hit McGlone over the head with the tire iron before being shot in the stomach.

      “2.if there were fewer legal guns, there would be fewer illegal guns as well.” Could we apply this theory to drugs as well?
      If there were fewer legal drugs, there would be fewer illegal drugs as well.

      3. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

      Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont ‘s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

      Maslack recently proposed a bill to register non-gun-owners and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus, Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

      Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the law-abiding individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.

      Vermont ‘s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who “are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.”

      Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise”.

      Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.

      Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state – it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third LOWEST in the nation.

      • “2.if there were fewer legal guns, there would be fewer illegal guns as well.” Could we apply this theory to drugs as well?
        If there were fewer legal drugs, there would be fewer illegal drugs as well.

        Yes, to a large extent. One of the largest sources of teenage drug hospitalizations are from prescription drugs stolen from parents’ medicine cabinets (according to The Google, “1 in 5 teens has abused a prescription (Rx) pain medication, 1 in 10 has abused cough medication”). Though I wouldn’t advocate prohibiting prescription drugs, I would not be adverse to laws requiring that parents with minors in the house lock up narcotic medications.

        I know that I bought Ritlin as a study aid back in high school. But I also knew plenty of people who took it recreationally (snorted). They were able to buy pills from students with legal prescriptions because the drugs were not adequately secured in the homes. Draw whatever parallels you would like.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I believe you just proved LOI’s point.

          If there were fewer legal drugs, there would be MORE illegal drugs (not less).

          If there were fewer legal guns, there would be MORE illegal guns (not less).

          Citing the use of “legal” drugs being used by kids to get high doesn’t support your side of the argument, because IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO USE DRUGS PRESCRIBED TO SOMEONE ELSE.

          • I’m not quite sure I follow your logic.

            I am saying that, with more control of legal drugs (gun control), then there would be less opportunity for these drugs (guns) to leak into a secondary black market.

            • Mathius

              If the government is wholly unable to prevent drugs and guns from entering the premises of which the government exerts the most maximum control – its prisons – how the heck can you claim that more control of “illegal” drugs and guns would create less opportunity to leak into the black market???

              The more contraband that is created by government, the larger the black market will be.

        • Matt, why did you skip #1 point?

          “You say that there are many cases “proving” that the presense of armed citizens makes the difference. Can you please show me?”

          Careful what you ask for. More on #15.

    • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

      Not jumping on anyone. However, I do not need to look it up. I turn on the news. Local man shoots and kills robbery suspect. Home invasion turns out badly for invader. When I see these headlines I know all I need to.

      If and when you are ever attacked do you want to be unarmed and helpless or would you rather shoot the @#$%?

      I for one have weapons and a very large german shepherd. Should someone come into my house while I am peacefully sleeping I hope he brings his own body bag. I do not promote violence however, I will not be attacked. If I shoot him and kill him I just saved the great state of Texas about a hundred thousand dollars for not having to house and feed him.

      When I tell people that they accuse me of being cruel. However, had that person not invaded my home he would still be alive. So I guess it was his choice that put him in danger not mine.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Exactly Mike.

        I don’t condone violence either, but it is the man invading your home that is being violent. Advocating the ability to defend yourself AGAINST violence is just fine.

      • Ahhh. Mike, Mike, Mike… is ok to tell everyone on here that we (Texans) are taught to shoot before we are weaned off mama’s teat. Hell, as babies, pacifiers are not what we suck on to emulate a nipple….to us a pacifier shoots a minimum of six rounds, Black Talon, Hi Power, proper shot group…etc.

    • Bottom Line says:

    • Matt
      Said ” The founders could not have conceived of modern firearms. The idea of a single person being able to kill 30 people before being stopped was unimaginable. It is as though they had granted the free right to own explosives and we now interpret that to mean we may own nuclear weapons. Firearms to the Constitution and firearms to modern reality are not the same things. ”

      How many arrows do you think an American Indian could string and shoot in 90 seconds? Cannon balls were capable of mass destruction. Even tho there many not have been 30 round clips weapons in the right hands could be massively destructible even in our founding father’s time.

      • True, but I don’t see a right to own a bow and arrow, nor a right to own a cannon. Do you?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I believe the 2nd Amendment is worded “the right to keep and bear arms”

          It does not specify the types of arms which may be kept, it simply says arms.

          • So you hold that you have the right to keep and bear any type of arms?


            You hold that you should be lawfully able to own everything from a potato launcher to M1A1 to a predator drone to an ICBM?

            • Matt… most people would tell you “no” although there are some that say Yes it gives them the right. The thing is controlling those types of arms have very little to do with controlling guns, swords, arrows ect. I think you would find a very select few who believe those types of weapons are necessary for self defense unless the military was coming after them. Of course if for some reason we were invaded….it would be nice to have some of those weapons in the basement 🙂

            • Matt:

              That is absolutely what it said and what they meant when they wrote it.

              Now if somewhere along the line the citizens decided it wasn’t a good idea for them to own nukes then we should have passed a Const. Amendment to that effect.

        • Matt…arms can be anything you use to “arm” yourself against a know or unknown….even swords can be considered arms…..although I am not interested in carring a knife to a gun fight.

        • Matt

          Right to bear arms….

          We have all rights – the onus is not on a free man to describe into infinity all the actions which bear his right.

          The onus is on you to prove why an action is not a right.

    • Mathius unlike damned near everyone likely to make any statements about gun regulation, I live in a very heavily regulated country. From those I’ve known in my days as a scooter tramp, I can get whatever illegal firearm I want and in whatever configuration I require. Regulating guns to keep them from the hands of society’s villains is naiveté to the nth and bring new meaning to “terminally stupid”. I’ve seen the exact results of massive gun control in keeping the “streets clean” in Toronto and they are pure fantasy.

      People who truly want to kill people will always manage to do so. Forcing them to get creative does little to actually prevent the deed and in fact may end up as in the HA’s and Rock Machine’s car bomb war in creating greater overall collateral damage. Push comes to shove we’re humanity and we’re the apex predators for a very simple reason, there isn’t anything we can’t kill.

    • # 3. Regulated meant “trained” in those days. The Federalist Papers are key as they lay it all out

      #4. Ah ha, somebody finally fell in this trap. Righto they could not have conceived of this but, and here is the rub, I think they could not have convceived of Television, Radio, the internet nor telephones and thereby, using your logic, I think none of these are protected by the freedom of speech clause. Hah!

      Seriously though, if you are not a gun guy, you can’t understand that with a 130 year old winchester lever action, I can put them out just as fast as a semi-auto. Semi-autos have also almost been around that long.

      If you want to argue semantics, what is so hard to understand about the word “People”. You know, the preamble starts with it Those who argue for the collective right not the individual would have you, I believe, thinking the preamble only refers to the Army or National guard.

      Born and bred in NYC, 171st Street and Broadway to be exact, not exactly rural. Was given my first rifle, a ’98 8MM Mauser that my uncle brought back from the war when I was 15. Bought my first high power rifle at 16 in 1962 (that was the legal age then). Brought it home of the A train in a clear plastic case, no hysterics, no cops, no SWAT. Until 1967 it was legal in NYC to carry a rifle openly to and from your car or the range lets say. Could and did bicycle across the George washington Bridge to navy Arms in Ridgefield Park, buy a rifle and bring it back into the city slung on my back. All these things are now illegal. Do you feel any safer? Check out back issues of :”The American Rifleman” for “The Armed Citizen” column about how people defend themselves. Check out, according to the NRA, the FBI uniform Crime Statistics which apparently tell you how many times guns have been used to thwart/deter crime.

  7. Common Man says:


    Two things to address: “They will get my gun when the pry my cold dead fingers from around it”

    I am very suspect of the Ft. Hood event. My heart goes out to all involved and my deepest sympathy to those familes who lost loved ones, or have injured family and friends.

    Does any one question the reported events…12 dead and 31 injured by one man with two handguns. Let’s say he had 30 rounds between the two guns. That means that one man killed 12 individuals and wounded 31 others with 30 bullets. Now, I realize that some of those injured could have suffered twisted ankles, or something like that just trying to get out. I am still questioning this guys ability to hit 12 people and wound a number of others with 30 rounds. (I realize he may have had more rounds and may have reloaded) but we have not heard that to be the case.

    This guy was a Doctor, not a Ranger or member of SF, he wasn’t even a combat veteran. How did he manage to kill 12 people in an environment where gun shots would have created a mass panik, resulting in most people scattering for an exit, or looking for cover. Also consider that this place was filled with soldiers returning from combat, or getting ready to go to combat. I assume that some of those would have tried to stop the shooter.

    Rapidly shooting and hitting several different staitionary targets is not an easy feat, hitting the same targets while they are moving is even more difficult. Most shooters, even those who have mastered handgun accuracy, are going to miss more often than not. Now consider that this fellow was mentally unstable, lacked the practical skills of a sharpshooter, and had never taken a life, leaves me to question the facts currently reported.

    Maybe, since I have never been in combat, or in a situation that would require me to execute as many people as I could, disqualifies me from understanding this event.

    Maybe this entire event took place over several hours or minutes and this nut walked up on each victim and took careful aim, but I doubt that. Taking a life is not easy, let alone doing 11 more times. Somewhere along the line he would have realized what he did and then done what every other crazed gunman has done in history; taken his own life.

    There is just way to many factors that require examination here.

    I am not ex-military, I have not seen combat and I have never taken a life, but I am an excellent shot and have spent a great deal of time shooting combat like senerios, and I could not claim this kind of accuracy.

    Does anyone else question what we have heard? Can those of you out there who have spent time in combat shed some light on this?

    The facts, as they are currently being reported just don’t make sense.

    Again, my heart goes out to those involved, and let it be known, I have the highest respect for those who have and still serve; you are the best among us.

    God’s speed to all those affected


    • Hey CM…how are you. This guy was shooting 2 FN Herstel FNP 9 mm….each clip holds 16 rounds. Assuming he unloaded both guns with 16 rounds….takes about 20 seconds….in a room full of people ( I personally know the building ), with standard ball ammunition pushing over 1,000 ft per second, one round can go through a person (provided it does not hit a bone) and into the person behind him. Even at that, in close proximity, a ball round can actually deflect off bone intact and exit the first target and penetrate the next. According to the briefing that I have had, it took 45 seconds for the 911 call to come in and about 2-4 minutes for the first responder to get there. He actually had time to reload two or three times (do not know if he did or not, but one eye witness says he reloaded). Assuming he could reload three times that is 96 rounds in 4 minutes.

      In an area…say 60×60 with approximately 70 people in close proximity and all 70 trying to get out through doors and windows, targets of opportunity are significant. As each person falls and more rounds are shot, more casualties are a certainty.

      Shooting combat in Hogans Alley or some such is one thing. Controlled. Look what happens when one hollers fire in a crowded theater….everyone heads for the door and people are trampeled to death…imagine hollering fire in this same theater….then start methodically shooting people bunched at the door. This is what happened. When the first shots started, non combat experienced soldiers will head for an exit….those of us with experience find cover first. Some did and some did not. It was easy for him to shoot this way….and in my opinion, he picked this particular target days before. Anyone who believes the bullshit that “pre PTSD’ suddenly triggered him is…..well….just plain stupid.

    • YOu made me more curious…my preferred carry weapon is a Browning 9mm Hi Power….but the FN( shoots a standard 115 grain bullet. The deviation of the FPS…is about +/- 25 fps. The ball ammo actually pushes 1141 FPS….in an enclosed room, that is more than ample to actually wound three people with one shot…provided no impediment encountered (ie: bone).

      The fact that he was shooting such a hi power weapon is actually testimony to how many survived and the fact that the woman who was the first responder and took him down was hit three times and survived. The bullet just travels too fast and not hitting resistance..continues on. Had he been shooting a standard .45 caliber Colt automatic…the death count would have been higher. That weapon has the impact of a mule and the projectile wobbles a bit and rips a bigger hole.

      Don’t know if this helps or not.

      • D13,

        9mm stopping power –

        Yep, you’re right – its too fast IF it is a full metal jacket.

        But lead tip, half jacket or hollow point – a 9 is just fine.

        The difference is … do you want the target to live after you hit it – but it may still be a threat OR kill the target, no second chance.

        • Sorry to jump in here, but would like to add something. I’ve learned much from hunting deer, as most that hunt have. I was a weapons tech in the military, so have that on my side as well. I’ve never liked the 9mm with a full metal jacket bullit, as, I feel, does not provide either of the things I want to achieve the outcome. First, the 9mm lacks kinetic energy in it’s design, although a strong hollow point would help. Second, it does not possess the FPS to achieve the hydrostatic shock that I would want. JMHO, but short range, would rather a magnum or a .45 . Beyond 25 yards, I’d prefer a pistol chambered with a rifle cartridge, like a 30-30 cal or higher. Or just rather have a short barreled rifle, about 19 inches.


    • CM, I’m one of the few civilians in my family but I got my start shooting at the age of 6 at the ranges in 51 and 22 Divisions with a Crossman Mark 1 and a home made bi-pod. I graduated through a Remington XP-100 .221 to a TC Contender .223 14″ before leaving Toronto and my usual for messing around with short range targets was an older Llama 32 and my dad’s classic S&W 38 revolver in a 6″. Even as a kid I could rip through clips like they were free and still manage a decent grouping at 20 yards. By the way, 12 minutes is more than enough time to get a sore arm if you’re making a statement even with a revolver(using speed loaders).

  8. Buck The Wala says:

    USW, you are completely right when you say that in this particular case, gun control laws are not the issue whatsoever.

    Outside of this particular case though, gun control laws are a huge issue. As brought up in a past thread, I am from NYC and Mathius is from LA (don’t let him confuse you with his ‘I’m a NY’er, I live in Westchester garbage!) – being from these cities has certainly shaped our views on the issue. I don’t pretend to speak for Mathius, but I believe he would agree with me on this point: gun control laws are necessary; stricter gun control laws are necessary.

    You are right that criminals do not care about our gun laws. But why make it so easy for them to purchase a gun? What’s wrong with mandatory waiting periods and background checks? What’s wrong with banning assault rifles? I am all for an individual’s right to own a gun for hunting or to protect their family. But an assault rifle? Who goes hunting deer with an AK-47??

    We need smart gun control laws in this country – not across the board bans, but not free access either.

    And let me just point out one flaw in your otherwise solid definition of the 2nd Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” This is where the debate really boils down to – what precisely does this clause mean and what is its effect on the meaning of the rest of the amendment and how far government can go in regulating an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

    I’ll try to post more later, depending on how work treats me. Best!

    • Buck:

      Well what do you think their intent was in using the word “state” instead of “nation” or “country”?

      • I think it means that it was intended to protect the states against an oppressive federal government. What do you think the intent was in using the word “state” instead of “people” or “citizenry”?

        • If that is what you think it means then how can you use it to justify gun control of the citizens within a state?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Very provocative question — not sure if this answers the question, but if the purpose of the Amendment is to enshrine people with the right to protect the State itself, can’t the State decide the extent of that protection?

            • Buck:


              Because the Bill of Rights prohibits all govt, federal and state, from such actions.

              Also, while the clause mentions “state” the founders were into “individual liberty” so protection from the “state” was of equal consideration. They just assumed the state could not use its citizens to attack its citizens.

              The irony of all this is that there were in fact gun controls enforced in certain towns across the country. Yet I am unaware of any case brought against the towns or states for constitutional violations. It may be that such bans or restrictions were imposed on only private property but since that was the only type of property perhaps it effectively banned carrying such weapons. Or at least checking them at the door.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I would agree with Mathius — hence the capital ‘S’.

        • Matt and Buck:

          The use of Capitals by the founders in their writing has no special meaning.

          It was a common practice and you will find the use inconsistent if you try to apply our current understanding of grammer and punctuation.

          Sometimes they used it like we use italics or bold type face. For emphasis.

          Other times it is used to denote proper names as today.

          Aside from the capitalization Matt is correct but that was not the only intent. See my points to Matt above.

          • I agree. As everyone knows, the Founding Fathers used capitals to secretly hide clues to the whereabouts of a large national treasure on behalf of the Freemasons.

            • Matt:

              OK that was funny.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Am reading Glenn Beck’s latest book (yes – its true) – thought in his discussion that he stated linguistics, as it is being used now, was not present back then. Any truth to this folks? I know Chomsky is old, but he isn’t that old.

                • Ray:

                  Which Beck book are you reading?

                  Do you have a page or chapter for reference. Before responding I would like to know how he is using linguistics in his conclusion itself.

                  While I like alot of what Beck does (not all) I am not sure he has a full grasp of what the study of linguistics means.

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    JAC – I am reading Arguing with Idiots. Book is back home in Philly, I am presently in Denver.

                    • Thanks

                      I’ll sneak a peek through it at Hastings when I return movies later this week.

                      Don’t plan on reading that one so can’t wait for your assessment.

                • D13 fainted dead away…..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Always remember, if you make it a crime to own guns, then only criminals will own them.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I’m not suggesting making it a crime to own guns – as I said, I’m all for people owning a hunting rifle, or handgun for self protection. But there do need to be limits. Why does anyone need to own an AK-47?

        And that argument is a bit specious — the ban on AK-47s did mean that only criminals owned AK-47s. However, it was harder to obtain such a weapon, meaning that police were largely the only people with these guns. Testimony from mayors in all major cities at the time the ban was set to expire indicated that the ban was largely effective in reducing the number of crimes/deaths committed with these guns.

        • Buck:

          You have been misinformed on the AK 47 issue. It is used by gun opponents and politicos because it is easier to instill fear among the citizens. These are not assault weapons in the true sense. They are not automatic weapons. They are semi-auto and they are not the only semi-auto weapons available.

          Anyone who owns an old M-1 has such a weapon at thier disposal in 30.06 caliber.

          This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for killing, this is for fun.

          Sudden memory relapse, sorry.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I don’t believe I’m misinformed on this — I used AK-47 just as one example of a weapon that was covered under the assault weapons ban.

            • Buck,

              Assault weapon is a media/political term for re-branding gun control measures. They link it to fully automatic firearms, knowing most of the general population does not know the difference.

              The term assault weapon might be derived from confusion with the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally “storm-rifle”. There is no technical military definition of an assault weapon, but in a general sense, the term assault weapon can refer to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.

              Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. The US Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges”.[4] Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms.[citation needed] This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.

              The first use of the term is uncertain, but it gained notoriety in 1986 when Gun Digest published its book, “The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons”. This book used the term to describe a variety of firearms including bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and semi-autos.

              Recently terminology variants such as “Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon”[5] have been gaining in use by political leaders and groups who seek to limit or ban these firearms.


            • Buck, in case you wish to become a “machine gun” owner.(note the assault weapon ban will have no effect)

              A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

              Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

              A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

              Federal Firearms Regulations

              [Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]

              It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

              To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence.

              Since the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act’s passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


          • Great movie..

            Texas!? Holy shit! Only steers and queers come form Texas! And you sure don’t look like no steer to me…

            • Matt:

              Actually, I got it from a very gruff looking Sgt. Major when one poor recruit called his weapon a “gun”.

              Don’t recall which movie you are referring to. Stripes perhaps?

              • Really? Oh wow.. it’s from Full Metal Jacket. It was a gunny sergeant.. skip forward about a minute.. well worth it

                • Matt:

                  Believe it or not I have never seen the movie.

                  Just watched you clip. Oh the good ol days.

                  Have you ever watched Gunny on the history channel?

                  He was in our town last spring to get footage of one of the only functioning WWI tanks left. Blew a hole in a block wall. The guy just cracks me up to no end.

                  • He’s the guy with the mailbag, right? I saw him once or twice.

                    I love how watching those guys get torn apart qualifies as the good old days to you 🙂

                    Hope all is well with you and yours

        • Bottom Line says:

          Buck The Wala said – “Why does anyone need to own an AK-47?”

          BL – Watch the video I posed above(4:15-4:40). She(Suzanna Hupp) mentions a man on his roof defending himself with an assult rifle against an angry mob during the LA riots.

          She answers your question.

        • Need has nothing to do with anything. The question should be what right does the government have to prevent someone from owning one?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Whether you hunt or not has no bearing on your right to own a firearm, so the question, “Who goes deer hunting with an AK-47?” has no bearing on the discussion.

      The founding fathers NEVER EVER discussed gun ownership as a means for providing FOOD.

      They ALWAYS discussed ownership of arms in terms of defense against foreign and domestic threats. One of the domestic threats was a government which they foresaw could go down the slippery slope to tyranny.

      If we are framing our debate in terms of what the founding fathers actually said and intended when they said that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, lets not confuse the argument by brining up hunting, which had nothing to do with it then, and still has nothing to do with it now.

  9. I have to admit that I am too busy to read all the responses, so I apologize if this has been stated previously.

    Why such polarization? With so many people on this site against government altogether and some who want stricter government control, I know it will be likely I’m all alone out here (in rightville 🙂 ), but why can’t we set reasonable restrictions, while preserving the spirit of the law? This right is not absolute as most others. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… unless we break the law and are jailed (losing our liberty). If someone commits murder with a weapon, he should no longer have the right to posses a firearm. Doesn’t that sound reasonable. (I know I will now be inundated with descriptions of the word “right” and “law” and told how the government cannot possibly do anything but infringe people’s “innate” rights, yada yada yada…)

    In my opinion, a person has the right to keep and bear arms unless he or she shows they are unfit. That being said, I find it reasonable to have some restrictions. Waiting periods and background checks don’t seem too bad as long as we are not too restrictive on this right (I mean it is in the constitution after all). There is no way you can make the argument that I should not be allowed to own a hunting rifle. All the arguments about bad people getting guns will still apply if they steal my rifle, right? Does that mean I cannot hunt anymore, can’t own a gun at all?

    If someone steals my car they can use it to kill quite a lot of people. Are we going to ban cars now? How about knives? Pencils?

    I can appreciate the arguments of both sides. Can we come to some sort of compromise? (Not like in government where compromise means you rub my back I’ll rub yours, I mean pick the things we can both agree on and leave the rest.)

    • v. Holland says:

      People who have committed crimes losing the right to have weapons I think is okay but what I disagree with is having to register your guns-I simply don’t want anyone to be able to know who has the guns-it makes it way to easy for the unknown who to come take them.

  10. v. Holland says:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Why do people always try to break down sentences into pieces to determine the meaning? This is a statement meant to be taken together. Militia is an army of all the citizens-the people are the state, not a government institution-right of the people is pretty clear and so is shall not be infringed

    • I always thought there was a typo in the second amendment. It should say “…the right to bear arms…”

      • as in a bear….

        • Naten53:

          You just caused the light to go on my friend.

          What they really meant was that the govt could not stop the citizens from walking around in short sleeve shirts. The “people” have an absolute right to “bare arms”.

          Problem solved.

          • and people say that sleveless shirts are horrible, meanwhile, it is a federally protected right.

            • That and your right to “keep” your arms.

              The govment can’t come and chop em off.

              You got the right to keep them arms and to have them bare.

              Oh what a great country.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  My favorite Family Guy clip of all time.

                  • One of my favorites. I think the one where the stock broker gets hit in the head with the gold ball and causes a run on Waffle futures (“Listen, the market’s correcting.. I want you take all the money out of stocks and put it into ::gets hit in the head with the golf ball:: WAFFLES! Tasty waffles” Lots of syrup!” .. hundreds of Asian guys running around screaming about WAFFLES! BUY WAFFLES!!


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This is very true. The Militas never were, nor were they ever intended to be, synonymous with MILITARY.

      A militia is an organization of armed citizenry within a State.

      A STANDING ARMY is a totally different beast entirely, and one that was seen as a bad thing by the founding fathers.

      “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”

      “We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest.”

      (More from) Thomas Jefferson

  11. While we’re parsing, let’s think about this sentence…

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    “A well regulated Militia,” ok the comma means we’re getting a description of Militia…
    “being necessary to the security of a free State,” this comma means we are moving on, but the comma later on in the sentence means we are still describing now…
    “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” now we move on to something that is not a description…
    “shall not be infringed.”

    It looks to me like “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is a descriptor of Militia. That being the case, all this nonsense about regulating weapons unless it is a “militia” is just that, nonsense.

    • Maybe that wasn’t clear. A militia according to the descriptor later in the sentence is DEFINED as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A formal militia is not required for the right to apply.

  12. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – just wanted to throw out a “I’m just sayin'” here:

    A while back, and I will paraphrase here, there was a rabbit trail discussion regarding the 16th amendment. I think at the time you acknowledged that ‘it is what it is’ but also that, given druthers this could have and should have been done differently both back then, all the years since, and today (read: it was screwed up from day one). I find it interesting for discussion that the opposite tactic is taken with respect to the 2nd amendment – a lot of folks take a very hard line here and take a liberal read of the amendment (from “arms” to mean handgun or “arms” to comically mean anything whatsoever that can be used as a weapon). To me – it just doesn’t make sense from a logical perspective. From a philosophical perspective is often seems that the 12th and the 2nd fall on different sides of the idealogical fence – do we suggest that they should not?

    Food for thought – don’t just ban handguns, ban handgun ammunition.

    USW – you’re a fan of logic – is the necessity, efficacy and practicality of the 2nd amendment still logical?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am not USW,

      But for me, given the obvious descent into tyranny we are currently experiencing from “our” government, it seems like this is PRECISELY why the founding fathers put the second amendment in there in the first place.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Peter – we’ll certainly disagree on that – at least for now. I’m not sure it takes arms – for example, I don’t recall the Orange Revolution being an armed revolt. It is difficult also for me to see, under current conditions, that there will ever be another amendment – there are too many powerful and competing interests to ensure that the voice of the people is heard. The other side of that coin is that not enough people give a shit to have a voice or ensure it is heard.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          As I keep saying today, if the people no longer have freedom, it is the fault of the people themselves.

          Our duty, as people of a country which was meant to be “free” is the duty to combat tyranny and defend freedom. We have not done so.

          “It is difficult also for me to see, under current conditions, that there will ever be another amendment – there are too many powerful and competing interests to ensure that the voice of the people is heard. The other side of that coin is that not enough people give a shit to have a voice or ensure it is heard.”

          If what you say in the above quote is true, then we have indeed been failures as a people. We have allowed the government itself and “special interests” to have so much power, that the people effectively have none. Therefore, the country is no longer anything akin to what the founding fathers had envisioned.

          By the way, a “special interest” is generally a corporation or a group of people which COULD NOT EXIST without government support (at least that is MY definition).

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Peter – I only see apathy growing worse. Eventually our system of government will become a reality TV show.

            • Ray:

              “Eventually” ??????


              Come on, bet we can make it three agreements in one day.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I’m game JAC – am sitting in a conference room in Denver, growing calluses on my ass listening to a couple of instructors drone on about quantitative versus qualitative research design. Throw me a bone man – I’m likely to chew on it!

                • Ray:

                  So sorry to hear of your current situation.

                  I say that government has “already” become a reality TV show.

                  Watched some congress people giving speeches Saturday on health care. Everyone of them looked at the C-span camera and pretended to scan an audience that DID NOT EXIST in the chamber itself.

                  Made for television debates. NOBODY is even present for the debate. An absolute freakin joke.

                  Skin the bastards and hange em on the fence. OK, I may be pushin you a little to far to agree to that last one.

                  My sympathies again on your current status. Been there, done that and won’t do it no more.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Then that would be the fault of the people for failing to retain the power of society and allowing the government to have that much power unopposed.

    • Ray:

      The real point is this: If it is no longer applicable then change it through the amendment process.

      Don’t try to use arguments that link the right to the need for a militia because they are false.

      Every attempt to split hairs and find special meanings in the Constitution simply erodes the “contract” to the point it is moot.

      If you believe in “social contracts” then the Constitution must be rigid in its meaning. Yet it must have provision for change when times change. That is the right of a free people. That is why the founders provided for “amendment” and why many of them feared the powers of the “Supreme Court”. Even back then many recognized the potential that this one group of nine people could revise the document based on personal whim.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray seems to again be arguing that the Federal government has become so large and powerful, that any resistance to it by a well-armed citizenry is futile, and therefore the amendment is no longer efficacious or logical.

        Defense against a tyrannical central government was the primary REASON for the second amendment in the first place, so I would argue (again) that if the people have allowed the Federal government to become so centralized and so powerful that to resist its power is utterly futile, then we, as a people, have failed miserably in our duty to protect our own freedom.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Peter – then work out for me a scenario where the citizenry could effectively arm itself to defend itself against a tyrannical government. You assume everyone would see the same level of tyranny as you – that is not grounded in reality. If we’re going down the route of the armed government versus armed citizenry then it should not be hard to see who wins that battle. He who has the bigger and better guns wins. This argument is a nonsensical hole that has no escape or viable answer.

          However Peter – I think you raise a more interesting argument – should any government be permitted to become so centralized and so powerful that its citizenry, BY USE OF ARMS, can no longer keep that government in check?

          Or, we can we remove BY USE OF ARMS – I do not think we are in such a futile position – difficult perhaps, but not futile.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Whether enough people agree on the current level of tyranny is irrelevant to the NECESSITY of the amendment.

            It is still necessary, whether the people AGREE to what the current level of tyranny is or not.

            The problem is, the people allowed themselves to be blinded to the tyrnanny, and allowed themselves to be convince that “a little” tyrnanny is ok, the government is here to help!

            That is exactly what the 2nd amendement was SUPPOSED to prevent.

            So, because the people were stupid and allowed themselves to be misled by those in power, the amendment is no longer needed?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              The 2nd has been bastardized much as USW previously offered that the 16th was/has. The 1st is far more critical to the necessity you state than the 2nd.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                All of the first 10 were considered equally important, which is why Jefferson and others insisted that they be included WITH the Constitution prior to its ratification.

                Anything after amendment 10 is not considered part of the “Bill of Rights” and came after.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        The right was put into place because it was needed, or perceived as needed no? Not all amendments were put into place to grant rights, some were clearly to limit or ‘clarify’ rights and were removed when no longer needed.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The amendments NEVER limit the rights of the people! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!

          The amendments are there to PROTECT the rights of the people from being taken away by the government! GET THIS CLEAR IN YOUR HEADS PEOPLE!

          “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” Yet again, Thomas Jefferson.

          These are the rights that the people are entitled to AGAINST EVERY GOVERNMENT, which no just government should refuse, and the government should clearly state that the people are entitled to these rights AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT (they should not rest on inference, they should be spelled out).


          It is really simple folks.

          • phillykravist says:

            Please explain the 18th to me then Peter in light of your remarks? Or the 26th? Hell, I’ll even throw in the 16th. Talk to me Peter.

            • phillykravist says:

              Phillykravist = Ray

              Stupid WordPress requires me to log into WP to receive comments? WTF?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              As far as I know sir, only the first ten amendments constitute the “Bill of Rights”.

              I was only discussing what a “Bill of Rights” was according to Jefferson.

              To my knowledge, the amendments which you have cited were added MUCH later.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Understood Peter – you actually mentioned first “amendments” then “BoR” in your post that I replied to. No biggie. 😉

            • Ray:

              These are amendments to other provisions of the Constitution.

              They are not part of the “Bill of Rights”.

              There was debate when the original amendments were made (Bill of Rights) that they should be listed within the appropriate section of the original document and not tagged on the end. You can see which argument won the day.

              I do wish each amendment had specifically referenced the primary section under which the amendment was made. It would be easier for general citizens to follow, without footnotes.

        • Ray:

          The fact of the matter is that they were taken from various State constitutions and they were added in order to get the Constitution ratified.

          Without them the anti Federalists would have prevailed and the whole thing would have been up for rewriting.

          The mind set at the time, due to English heritage, was that a Bill of Rights was somehow critical. Madison disagreed, but he turned out to be naive as to what the document allowed, or would be “interpreted” as allowing. He feared the Bill of Rights would create the argument that these were the only rights and that govt was giving the rights.

          Do you disagree with my premise? That if you want change the proper method is amendment.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            “If I want change the proper method is amendment”

            I assume you mean to the Constitution. I am a fan of precision – lack thereof is what has allowed the legislative process to run amok. Laws should not require such extensive interpretation (or allow for it). So – yes I agree.

            • Ray:

              Thats twice in one day.

              We are on a role.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Keep it going JAC! I’m okay with that!

                Would be interested in offline how you obtain information w/o the scourge of the TV. USW has my email.


                • Ray:

                  I don’t recall the discussion you reference with USW regarding the sixteenth. Do you recall the nature of the discussion.

                  I thought the sixteenth was quite straightforward in what it authorized.

                • Ray:

                  Don’t know how the comment above got in the wrong spot but what the hey?

                  I read newspapers, magazines, books, and spend to much time searching out things on the internet.

                  I scroll through Fox, CNN and MSNBC a couple times a day. ESPN on Sat and Sun to check football scores and the latest college polls.

                  I also listen to talk radio quite a bit. Rush, Beck and a handful of the lefties on Air America or whatever its called today. NPR for more in depth discussions and mellow music.

                  I guess this is the big point for me. Everything going on around us is pretty much a distraction to me. I want this country to return to its roots of individual liberty and freedoms. Liberty and justice for all. I have a solid understanding of how we got here and what is going on today. Anything we do now is nothing but a delay tactic as the powers have an agenda and will continue pursuing it.

                  If we want change then we need to focus on what we want and how to get there. It is a future problem not a now problem. If we look at the philosophical roots instead of the noise created by modern events we will be much more successful, and I believe prosperous and happy.

                  For example. Someone thinks we need federal health care or cap n’ trade? Fine. Defend your position and then go to the “people” to get approval. That means you amend the Constitution to give Congress that authority. You don’t make an end run around the people by claiming the “commerce clause” or the “general welfare clause” gives you that authority.

                  In my life experience everyone who is trying to find ambiguity in a contract is someone who is trying to violate the clear intent of the contract.

                  Guess I gave you more than you requested. Just suddenly overcome with the big picture.

                  Best to you and the family today.
                  Stay safe and live free.

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Morning All

    Reading along for now.

    Hope all will have a great day.


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Good Morning Judy!

      I hope this day finds you well.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Peter

        Yes it does, and thank you. Hope it finds you well also.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I am having a good day, but waiting on a part to fix a broken down gas chromatograph. Luckily I can spend some quality time with friends here while I wait for the part to arrive 🙂

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Have to ask, what is a chromatograph?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            A gas chromatograph is an instrument which separates complex mixtures of chemical compounds by boiling point, polarity, or both.

            Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

            Bascially, a small amount (a few microliters at most) of a complex chemical mixture are injected into a column which (in this case) is about 60 meters long and has an inner diameter smaller than a human hair. This column is inside of an oven.

            The inside of this column is coated with a resin which helps separate each compound (usually by slight differences in polarity).

            The oven is then slowly heated to separate the low-boiling compounds from the higher-boiling compounds.

            As the individual compounds come off of the column, they go to some sort of detector (in this case a mass spectrometer). The mass spectrometer hits the molecules with a high-energy electron beam which causes the molecules to fragment. Different compounds have different mass spectra, so each compound in the mixture can be identified. If the instrument is properly calibrated using known standards (ours is), then you can also calculate the amount of each compound in the unknown mixture.

            I hope that wasn’t too “Dr. Science” for you 🙂

            I analyze outdoor air samples to evaluate just exactly what we are all breathing out there (besides just air) and if anything out there represents a credible health threat.

            Lately the air in Indiana has been pretty clean, I am happy to say 🙂

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I was in the middle of answering you, when I hit something and it went away, now I have to start all over, darn it.

              Yea, that was a little over my head, the lab where I worked at has one. I worked for my brother in law, sold his lab, but that’s another story. although he and my husband still work there. I’ll tell you about it sometime.

              Anyway, they have several different machines that do different analysis for different things. They do drinking water, well water, sand/oil separators and a whole lot of other testings there. I can name a couple machines they have, one is a mercury machine, and another one is a dionex, can’t tell you the names of the others though, because I don’t remember what they are. But I can tell you people brought in some strange things to be tested, for example, somebody once brought in a pair of socks to see what was in them, another person brought in a sample of their hair to check for mercury.

              The lab where I worked at had to follow strict EPA rules and regulations to do some of the tests they ran.

  14. Just for info…
    According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.

    Seems as if there are alot greater problems than hand guns in the US.

    • And let’s not forget that 36,000 a year die from Flu. We need stronger flu control laws.


  15. Armed citizen stops mass shooting

    On Sunday May 25, 2008 at approximately 2:30 a.m. the Winnemucca Police Department was dispatched to the Players Bar and Grill …. There were approximately 300 patrons in and around the bar….

    The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located[, treated, and released from the hospital]….

    The … investigation lead detectives to believe that [Ernesto Fuentes] Villagomez entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

    It was at this point that … [a 48-year-old Reno man] produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office…. [T]he shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was [concluded to be] a justifiable homicide ….

    The investigation is currently pursuing a lead that indicates that this event may have been the result of a long standing feud between several families….

    • Two Shot in South Richmond Store
      July 12, 2009

      A gunman who had wounded a shopkeeper and opened fire on several customers was stopped yesterday when another man shot him at the store in South Richmond, authorities said.

      The violent attempted robbery took place shortly after 1 p.m. at the Golden Food Market at 2701 Jefferson Davis Highway, the same store where another man was shot last month–and only three blocks from the scene of another robbery in June that left a shopkeeper dead.

      Owners of as many as a dozen Jefferson Davis-area businesses flocked to the scene of the shooting, and many were rattled by such a brazen daylight attack, said Councilwoman Reva Trammell, whose 8th District includes the Jefferson Davis corridor.

      Trammell, who arrived outside the store shortly after yesterday’s shootings, described a frenzied scene. One man told Trammell that the man who had shot the robber was a guardian angel.

      “Whoever did it probably saved their lives in there,” Trammell said of the shooter.

      • The difference between a massacre on the national news and a criminal being shot on the local news.

  16. Good Morning All

    Well I have to say Gun Rights is something I have always been torn on. I grew up in a family of hunters, so I get their point. I do believe people should have a right to protect themselves and their property. My uncle (retired cop) has a permit to carry a conceled weapon. I understand and support that. I do see that laws are not being followed by the people who are breaking them.

    ON the other hand I do see that background checks and a wait period is not a bad thing either. Or getting AK-47 assult rifles banned.
    So I stand conflicted as usual.

  17. Gold crossed $1110

    • Wait for 1500

      • Wait for what? What will happen @$1500?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          I think at $1500 the “world” banks will make every effort to drive the price down. This may even be effective (temporarily).

          Did you yourself not say a while back that it will hit $1500, drop back towards $1000, and then head up to $3000-5000?

          I foresee that as probably being pretty much “on the money” myself.

          • Many of the experts I listen to say that gold will go down – maybe as low as $800 – and then explode upward to infinity.

            The economy is still in a recession – which usually is a negative economy for gold. There may be a large sell off.

            However, the banks are almost out of ammo.

            The biggest gold producer has thrown in the towel at $1040 (Barrick Gold) and closed their shorts for a $5 billion loss.

            This is their experts saying that gold will not go lower in the near future than that.

            The banks have leased their gold to bullion banks.

            They can still pretend they have some in their vaults – but unless the FED is audited (which will not happen) we are only guessing.

        • Well, at $1,499, nothing will happen. The world will coast on along as though nothing were amiss. But as soon as it crosses the $1,500 mark, the dead will rise from their graves, the seas shall churn and turn red as blood, the heavens will open up and rain pestilence from the sky.. just a lot of really bad stuff.

          Gold will go to 1,500. It may even eventually go to 3,000 or 5,000. It is all sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ah, but Mathius, it does indeed signify SOMETHING, and that something is fundamentally important.

            Trust me, the world which you live in will bear little resemblance to the world which you THINK you live in if gold hits $5000.00.

            • There was a cult once led by a man named Miller who predicted that on October 22, 1844 Jesus would return. In preparation of this event, his followers sold off all their earthly belongings and gave the money to charity. When Jesus failed to show up, many returned to their previous churches, but a few were convinced that the calculations had been off slightly. So they showed up in the same field the next week with Miller to await Jesus’ return. When he still failed to show up, they came back the next week. Eventually they stopped waiting in the field and built their lives back up, but every Sunday, they expected Jesus to show up. Today they are known as the 7th Day Adventists.

              Now, why do I tell you this. Because people, convinced of a belief are content to simply move the goal posts until they are proven correct. “They” said that gold at 900 would shake the US economy to the core. That didn’t happen, but everyone made a big stink about 1,000. Nothing. So now it’s at 1,100. Still nothing. Maybe at 1,500? We’ll see, but I’m going to stick with nothing. So you say 5,000. And I say based on what? What about a million? A billion? A trillion?

              If and when the US economy collapses, it will not be because of gold prices.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Gold prices will not be a CAUSE of the collapse of the US economy, you are correct.

                Rising gold prices are an EFFECT of ever-decreasing confidence that the US can pay its debts.

                There is no magical “threshold” at which society will suddenly collapse as far as gold prices are concerned.

                $5000.00 gold will merely be the EFFECT of a nearly complete loss of confidence in the US government.

                So, the $5000.00 gold will not cause governmental or economic collapse.

                $5000.00 gold will be a REACTION TO governmental and/or economic collapse.

                • I still don’t think so. Our debt is unsustainable. We are going to have to do something about it. I know it, you know it, Flag knows it, hell, everyone knows it. So we’re either going to have to cut back on spending (ha), raise taxes (ha), or inflate it away.

                  We survived inflation in the 80’s, we’ll do it again. And even if it’s bad, very bad, hyperinflation, it can’t be much worse than Germany, Russia, or Argentina and, last time I checked, they’re still all on the map.

                  I just don’t buy into doomsday scenarios. Global warming, inflation, Obama as communist dictator, none of it. They shouldn’t be ignored. They should be prevented if possible. And, if they’re accurate and unavoidable, adjustment could be painful. But we’ll get through it.

                  The US was here before us, it’ll be here after us. There’s far too much vested interest in its being perpetuated.

                  • Matt:

                    So let me get this straight.

                    Your criteria for “successfuly dealing with it” it that the country’s boundaries still exist on a map some decades from now?

                    By the way, we did not survive the inflation of the 80’s. Volker stopped it by jacking up interest rates to double digits until the economy came to a halt.

                    Now what effect would that have in the next couple of years, given where we are starting from today?

                    • There is a price to pay for any action. Eat too much, you get fat. Drive to fast, you crash. Spend too much, you have to pay. There’s no avoiding it. We’ve spent like drunken sailors (not just Obama), so we’re going to have to pay the tab or suffer the consequences. Since we’re not going to pay the tab, the world is going to come and take it out of our collective hide. Adam Smith wins again.

                      We’ll survive it, the world will survive it. It will be unpleasant. But hopefully we’ll all learn a valuable lesson.

                  • Matt:

                    You avoided the real question.

                    So what does “we’ll survive it” look like exactly per your view of the situation?

                    • Well, I’ll sail through.. actually it’s good for me. I’m buying a house and will have little cash, so basically my mortgage will just be inflated away, and my non-existent savings will be unaffected.

                      For most people, it would mean a period of upheaval. I seem to recall that in Argentina, they used to pay workers twice a day so that they could go out and spend their money over lunch before it was worthless. Not pleasant. But they made it though, German did. Russia did. A dozen other countries did. All in all, it’s quite unpleasant.

                      But then, I don’t know that it’ll necessarily happen that way. I left my crystal ball at home, sorry.

                      We’re going to pay our due, or they’ll make us pay our due. One way or another. I can hope for the former, but the later isn’t the collapse of the civilized world. But if it is, I’m headed to BF’s place.. I’m sure his bunker is stocked for long term survival for dozens of people and I’m sure I could depend on his charity (provided it was given of his own free will).

                    • Bottom Line says:


                      In an apocolyptic America, You’d likely be killed by an illegal because you weren’t armed. lol


    Follow-up from yesterday on “Limits”.

    Here is a graph measuring what a politician believed would happen with his stimulus, without his stimulus and what really happened.

    Keep in mind, manipulating employment is thought to be directly correlated to numerous economic triggers, all of which are thought to be in the reach of manipulation of government.

    If this belief is shown to be utterly false, all claims of government intervention into the market place – in an effort to improve the market – are as well very likely to be false as well.

    • BF, as we now know, this stimulus money, for the most part, did not go into jobs creation at all. While they touted all the infrastructure jobs that would be created, it was really just payback money in many cases.

      Would it have made a difference if they would have been honest and the money would have actually gone into only infrastructure repair and building?

      • Absolutely no difference – except some people would have felt better.

        Government cannot allocate wealth efficiently or effectively.

        The economy needs a high ROI – return on investment – a dollar spent returning in a year or two, with lots of profit. That’s how the economy gets kick-started. Projects that are so profitable that interest rates of 10%,20% it will still make money.

        Government programs such as roads – as important as they are – have an average ROI of 85 years. That is, the dollar invested does not repay until 85 years later.

        The economy needs to have quick, fast productivity – not the old-man pace of government.

    • What do you mean if? To me it is so obviously false as to need no proof. The only thing government can do to markets is to screw them up so bad they don’t work any more.

  19. posting for comments

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The best way for the government to attack freedom is to create a society in which a large percentage of the population is clearly incapable of self-sufficiency and devoid of personal responsibility.

    Then the government can point to this ever-growing mass of irresponsible people and say, “See! Freedom is a great idea, but most people just cannot handle it!”

    This is a failure on the part of people who would be free. We have ceded the responsibility of educating the public to the government, and the government has taught the people that they are incapable of running their own lives.

    A free society is an educated society. Not this excuse we have for education now, but true education.

    Some of the people here seem to believe that society is “too far gone” to be brought back to the point where the majority of people can be responsible, moral, and self-sufficient. Because we are “too far gone”, attempts to bring about a free society would be “futile”.

    I fervently hope that those of you who believe that are dead wrong.

    • I hope we’re dead wrong, too, but as time goes by and I see more and more stupidity, foolishness, and ignorance on the part of the average American, I become more convinced that we are indeed, too far gone.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        If we are indeed here to “Stand Up for America” we had better start working on figuring out ways of pulling our society back from this brink of “too-far-gone-ness” I would think…

        At least that would be a great place to start!

        I bet we might even get USW, JAC, BF, me, Mathius, Charlie, Buck, and Ray to agree to SOME suggestions on what we could do to rectify the situation!

        I am sure all of us would not agree on ALL of the suggestions, but hey, gotta start somewhere, right?

        Of course, I am not going to be agreeing to any suggestions which involve more power for the central government and less freedom for the people, but you already know that 🙂

        I think perhaps the way to trick the Statists is by convincing them that some easy, common-sense ideas to help the country out of the current situation are actually workable, and before you know it, some of these proposed ideas will actually be in place and working before the Statists have a chance to muck them up! 🙂

        • I’m open to suggestions.. but I’m just fine with the way things are going.. Could be better, but I’m not going to complain. I think the country’s headed in the right direction (a/o January).

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            You claim in this post that you believe we are headed in the right direction, but in many of your other posts (even ones from today) it shows that deep down, you know that we are not.

            You point out countless things that should not happen in a “civilized” society, and clearly, you point them out because they are actually happening.

            You believe (at least for the most part) that government is the solution to these problems.

            I believe that government, in almost every case, is the cause of the problems.

            However, if we start discussing some of these problems and you inadvertantly agree to someone’s suggestion on how to solve one of these problems (and the proposed solution does NOT involve government intervention), then by seeing that you have agreed to a solution which advocates true freedom, the opening of your eyes will begin.

            Oh crap, I gave away the ending!

            Sorry to put that spoiler in there 🙂

            • I believe we are heading in the right direction. I do not believe we are there yet. There is a difference.

              Government is not the solution to all problems, nor is it the cause of all problems. There is lots of middle ground and I invite you to come find it with me.

              Abandoning government will land us in deep trouble. Abandoning all freedom to government will land us in deep trouble. There is lots of middle ground and I again invite you to come find it with me.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I am sorry Mathius,

                I believe BF when he says that there is no middle ground between freedom and slavery.

                I invite you to come with me and find a way to organize society that doesn’t involve an organization that possesses the self-claimed right to use force or threaten to use force against the non-violent.

                I believe that society can be organized and have structure and function perfectly well without such an entity in our midst.

                Come along if you will, we welcome healthy skepticism!

                • No such society is feasible, but you’re of course welcome to try…

                  Just tell me when and where to go and I’ll stop by for a visit.

                  Then, assuming I survive the trip, I’ll return to my city with running water, clean air, sanitation, police, fire dept, paved roads, gun control, etc.

                  Then we can sign back on here (assuming you have electricity and internet in your utopia) and discuss the relative merits.

                  • No such society is feasible, but you’re of course welcome to try…
                    Why is not feasible?
                    500 years ago, it wasn’t ‘feasible’ to have a religion that didn’t require a Pope.
                    400 years ago, the concept of ‘nation’ did not exist. Today, it is the single dominating geopolitical structure.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion, that if Libs think it’s wrong, then they must be right, they don’t like something, change it to suit them. We want to keep our freedom, they don’t want us too. We want the right to bear arms, then don’t want us to have it. We want to keep the word God in our freedom of speech, they want to take it out. Whatever the conservatives want, the libs don’t. Maybe I should say the far left wing extremist.

    Sorry if there are any here, I don’t mean any disrespect, just get tired of hearing the same old rhetoric all the time. If the left wingers have their way, we won’t have any say about anything. Just fed up with the whole lot of them. I’m tired of them trying to take control of our lives and every aspect of it, and if we don’t do something about it now, then we may never succeed.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I would have to take exception to that Judy. I can take your same conclusion and just flip it around — as a liberal, I have become convinced that if Repubs think it’s wrong, then they must be right and it should be changed to suit them (or, in certain situations, should act to maintain the status quo in order to suit their beliefs). I have come to this conclusion time and time again when it comes to gay marriage (can’t have that, must reinforce the right of only heterosexuals to marry); sex education (can’t have that, must teach abstinence only); health care reform (can’t have that, need to permit the insurance companies to continue to act in their own best interests), sensible gun restriction laws (see the NRA platform on this one), etc.

      I don’t mean any disrepect by this either, and I am not offended by your conclusions, as they are undoubtedly shaped by your own beliefs. But understand that your same conclusions are shared by many on the left. Neither side is correct. We live in a society with people who will disagree with some of our most heartfelt views on the role of government. We need to reach consensus where we can.

      On the gun issue: I’ll give you that the argument ‘no gun rights whatsoever, take away all rights to gun ownership’ is far far left and I personally don’t know anyone that has that extreme view. But likewise, the argument ‘no gun control laws whatsoever’ is equally extremist. To me, that consensus is some extent of gun restrictions (e.g., background checks and waiting periods for starters, closing certain loopholes, etc.) Surely you can agree to that and if not, why?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Buck The Wala said – “On the gun issue: I’ll give you that the argument ‘no gun rights whatsoever, take away all rights to gun ownership’ is far far left and I personally don’t know anyone that has that extreme view.”

        “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” – Janet Reno.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          That may well in fact be Janet Reno’s goal. That doesn’t make it the left’s goal.

          Interesting quote though, haven’t come across it before. Was that said while Reno was serving as AG?

          • Bottom Line says:

            I’m not sure if she was AG when she said it. I’ve just seen it a few times on the net. I wasn’t trying to make an arguement really, I was just ponting out that there are indeed lefties that have this agenda. And from what I can tell, they’re not in short supply.

            What was Ruby Ridge and Wacco REALLY about?

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Buck

        Okay, I can agree with you that it’s both sides. But that is just my thinking and the way I see it.

        As for gay marriage, guess what Buck, I’m all for it. Why should they be deprived of the same happiness as straight people. Who am I to judge how people live their life. I don’t judge the way people live because I do not want to be judged the way I live. That’s their life and if they choose to be gay, straight, or what ever, it’s not my place to tell them no. It doesn’t bother me if gay people want to get married, or have a civil union, or what ever you want to call it, and I’ll tell you why. My own brother was gay, and took a lot of crap for it too by a lot of mean people. Didn’t bother me what so ever because that was the life he chose, and I wasn’t going to condone him for it. My parents were fine with it, didn’t have any problems with it. Nobody in our family had any problems with it, not even his straight friends. But, unfortunately, my brother died in 1992 from a massive heart attack at the age of 40.

        As for sex education, I think it should be taught, but it should be taught first at home by the parents/parent. But, I think it should not be taught to kindergartners or anywhere in elementary school, for I don’t think most of the kids are ready for it. Hell, let them be kids first, most kids I don’t think are even interested in sex at such an early age. I say, wait until at least middle school before they teach sex ed to where they can at least comprehend what is being told to them. Yes, I know there are a lot of kids who start at a much earlier age now, but look at the way it’s being thrown out there at them too.

        So, you see Buck I’m not one of those who think that gays shouldnt be allowed to get married, it’s not my place or business to say no. I’m not one of those who think that sex ed shouldn’t be taught in our schools, but wait for an appropriate age first. That should be strictly up to the parents if they want their kids to be taught about sex at such an early age. But, I think it should be taught first in the home.

        My own mother never taught me a thing about sex, I learned from my older sister, and by my own experience. I was 13 when I had sex the first time. My mother was never taught or talked to by her own mother, she was told that it was a wife’s duty to please her husband. . My dad told me at one time, he was lucky they had us 3 kids because she didn’t like it.

        So, there you have it, my thoughts on this matter, and I’m glad to have had this chance to chat with you and look forward to more.

        Hope your day is going well.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          My day is going well – work is keeping me busy and I’m just waiting to be able to clock out. Hopefully yours is as well.

          I didn’t mean to imply that you personally held any of those views – just stating the general republican talking points and how many liberals may view those positions.

          Look at the two of us – forging agreements on the important issues of the day (the need to reach consensus)! Now if we could only figure out what that consensus should be…

          Also, I’m sorry to hear about your brother and the problems he unfortunately faced during his life.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Yes, my day is going rather good, thank you. I didn’t take it that way, so don’t worry. I was just stating what I see and hear and how tired I get from hearing it all the time, and yes, from both sides. It gets to a point you don’t want to listen anymore about it.

            Thank you for your comments about my brother too, I really appreciate it. Yes, he took a lot of heat about it, but you have to realize too, that back then even before he told us, there wasn’t a lot of talk about gay people. It’s like they had a disease or something, or they were evil for being gay and people I guess just didn’t understand their way of life and didn’t want to talk about, or they wanted to keep it under the rug.

            I think there are a lot of people here who agree with certain issues and it doesn’t matter what side they are on either. I, myself have been in a few rounds with some on here, but I just got to the point to leave it where we could agree to disagree. But then it depended on what the subject was at the time too.

            Hope the rest of your day is a good one. By the way Buck, if I haven’t told you, welcome to the club. I don’t recall seeing you on here before and thought I would let you know. Look forward to future chats with you.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Thanks for the welcome – Mathius brought me on; seems he needed some assistance from another liberal to back him up on some points. I was happy to oblige.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I like Mathius, gone a couple rounds with him on the abortion issue, but he seems to hold his own pretty good.

                I try to keep up, but not always speak, sometimes just read along for the day. There again, depends on the topic of the day, not unless someone changes the subject.

                Every once in a while I like to throw in some different things. Have to lighten things up once in a while, wouldn’t you agree?

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    My son sent me this a little while ago, and please, it’s not intended to make anyone here mad, or to offend anyone. Just wanted to share this with you all.


    For those that don’t know about history … Here is a condensed

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic
    hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and
    would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention
    of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to
    the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were
    the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1 . Liberals, and
    2. Conservatives.

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the
    beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were
    invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them
    to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages
    were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at
    night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known
    as the Conservative movement..

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to
    live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing
    the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the
    Liberal movement.

    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those
    became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the
    domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the
    concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
    conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest,
    most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by
    the jackass.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most
    prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like
    their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal
    fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have
    higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal
    injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists
    are liberals.. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it
    wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

    Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat
    red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game
    hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical
    doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members
    of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively.
    Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work
    for a living…

    Liberals produce little or nothing… They like to govern the
    producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe
    Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the
    liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America .
    They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying
    to get more for nothing.

    Here ends today’s lesson in world history:

    It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to
    angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

    A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute
    truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true
    believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

    And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.

  23. Common Man says:


    Please show me where in the Consititution you and those that believe as you two do have the right to impose your wishes upon me, and at the same time violate my rights by imposing that which you feel is correct.

    I don’t tell you that you have to own/wear a gun, or what to wear, where to work or how to raise your children.

    Although the Constitution provides ‘written’ guidelines and rules, it is not an all encompassing document for freemen. I am entitled to inalienable rights as a free born individual. One of those inalienable rights is to ensure I protect myself and loved ones. Because there are evil people living among us, some of which carry illegally obtained weapons, I carry a weapon everywhere.

    Thank God I have not found myself in a situation where I was forced to use it, and I pray I never am. However, as a freeman with inalienable rights I choose to ensure me and those I love are not made victims of crime. Carrying a weapon greatly decreases the chances of me and mine of becoming victims .

    You have every right, as a freeman, to not carry a weapon, and even to express your belief that no one should, but you do not have the right to take away my rights to ensure your ideaology’s.

    BTW: Every state in the union has laws on the books that prevent convicted criminals from legally purchasing handguns. They are a lot like the laws that prevent people from buying illegal drugs, robbing banks, raping women, stealing cars, etc., however none of these laws prevent these transgressions from occuring each and every day.

    Here is a senerio to consider: If an armed USW or D13 was present at Ft. Hood, or any other like event do you believe the same number of people would have died? I think the number would have been less.

    BTW/P.S. Given the Major’s criminal record, or lack thereof, no laws were broken by either the selling of or the purchasing of those weapons used at Ft. Hood. Additional laws (other than a total ban of weapon sales) would not have prevented this tragedy.

    You cannot take that which is not yours to take and still claim you live in a ‘free’ society.


  24. Common Man says:


    I have now posted twice on todays article and both times I get the following:


    This is an automated message sent by the subscription service.

    You requested to subscribe to ‘Yet Another Excuse to Attack the 2nd Amendment’ on ‘Stand Up For America’. If you confirm this subscription you will receive further emails when anyone comments on this page.

    To confirm this subscription click this link:

    Read the original blog post:

    If you did not request this action please disregard this message. You can block further messages by clicking on ‘Manage your subscriptions’ and changing your settings. | Thanks for flying with WordPress!

    Manage your subscriptions by clicking on this link:

    The problem I am having is that the link to agree to suscribe does not do anything.



    • CM… I have to say that I know absolutely nothing about this! I will look into it this evening when I get home and attempt to figure it out. Rest assured that you have done nothing that would make me censor you!


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        John – same thing happened to me – very early today I posted, checked the box and then came back a few mins later to do another reply – noticed the checkbox was ‘unchecked’ which I thought was weird. I bounced over to my email and noticed the same emails as CM. So – followed the link and logged in with my phillykravist account which I rarely use. Then I get pissed when I post to Peter and it pulls over phillykravist. So – I logged out – can back in – checked checkbox as me and, whoila – I started receiving replies – I still check the box every time I post.

  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I don’t have a problem with what anyone thinks or what anyone believes… I only have a problem when you try to force me to think what you think and believe what you believe! I don’t have a problem with anything that you do, provided what you are doing is no imposition upon me.

    If everyone could adopt that as their mantra, that would be a good start.

    • If only you could force them to adopt that mantra…….

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Oh quit Mathius, I agree with Peter in what he said. Don’t force me to believe in your way, and I won’t force you to believe in mine, it’s that simple.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ah but Mathius, why WOULD I force anyone to adopt that mantra? That would be contrary to the core idea behind the concept to begin with, no?

        I cannot help it if you believe that the only way to get people to behave is to force them to behave. If you continue to believe that, then you are doomed to lead a life where people are constantly forcing YOU to behave. If you enjoy that, fine. I can’t help it if some people are social masochists.

  26. Bottom Line says:

    Just a thought…

    If welfare recipients are “entitled” to a cell phone and 70 mins. of talk time….

    Then I should be “entitled” to a free AR-15.

    It’s not an inalienable right to own a cell.

  27. Hi ya’ll!

    After reading all the posts today, thought I’d chime in some issues I have with some of the thoughts out there. I won’t mention names, you can respond if you like.

    Why the hell would I won’t gun control, of anykind! Let’s see, I lve in a city with the 3rd most shootings per capita in the U.S., so it behooves me to be armed and remain vigilant (the dogs help out as well). I’ve heard the argument, “well, just move!” OK, and everyone like me can move too, then the damn criminals can just take over the cities, because the cops can’t stop them, and haven’t been able to in my lifetime, so in my mind that’s a rather stupid repsonse that required no thought whatsoever. So what’s the next answer? Take the guns from the law abiding citizens and have the same stupid results? Oh, it would just be bloodier that way, so how is that going to work?

    The whole gun control contingent out there do not think, probably can’t think, and never will be able to think (this is not towards anyone here, mainly the radicals). Somehow, someway, these people need to be presented with these words, and see if they, or anyone can come up with a response that wouldn’t be a waste of time hearing. Their whole thinking process is flawed to the hilt, and I say this “you can medicate the mentally ill, but you cannot fix stupid”

    There’s my rant for today!

    PEACE to all!


    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey G, glad to have some insight from you finally.

      Of course, I’ll have to disagree (but I’m sure you saw that coming) — “the whole gun control contingent out there do not think, probably can’t think, and never will be able to think” – probably very true with the extreme viewpoint to ban all guns, but you gotta admit, there needs to be some sensible gun control laws, no?

      • Hi Buck!

        There are already numerous laws on the books, many of which are extreme in my opinion. The gun ban in D.C that was recently struck down, just how did D.c get to be one of the most dangerous cities to live in when the ban was in effect? Chicago, with there gun ban, that has worked wonders at stopping violent crime there, hasn’t it?

        I know the old points given by the gun control advocates, the problem is, were there has been those extreme bans and laws, it hasn’t worked, but infact made crime worse. where else would you like to go, above and beyond, where our laws are?


        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hey G, just wanted to say Hi, and hope your day has been going good for you.


        • Come on G-Man.

          We just haven’t gone big enough yet. Guns are like CO2, it takes a global govt to fix the problem.

          Can’t believe you missed such an easy answer.

          Bet your chucklin now….go ahead admit it.

      • Buck:

        Lets start with the premise of NO.

        Now start from there and explain what “reasonable” or in your case “sensible” looks like.

        While your in that mode can you please explain to me exactly what it is that gun registration is supposed to solve?

        I await your answer with bated breath.

        • Hi JAC and Judy!

          Yes JAC, I am giggling and waiting as you are for Buck’s response.

          Judy, the day was good so far, still alittle hectic here, but maintaining OK. I’m still gonna send an E to ya!



          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Glad to hear that your day is good so far, and sorry to hear a little hectic, hope it gets better for you.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          JAC, I wish I had time to answer your question right now but will have to post something later tonight or tomorrow. Its quitting time. Keep waiting with bated breath…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          JAC, I wanted to quickly reply to you but have been having computer problems and have lost my post twice now. Here is a VERY brief outline of what I had written, as I am sick of dealing with this computer:

          1) We recognize restrictions and limitations on every other right, so why is the 2d Amendment so absolute? (i.e., 1st Amendment freedom of speech has restrictions, as does freedom of press; there are circumstances where individuals can be compelled to testify against themselves despite 5th Amendment)

          2) What is wrong with permits, background checks and waiting periods prior to gun ownership? I understand blanket bans have been ineffective where instituted, but what about background checks to help avoid criminals from having guns? yes, I understand many criminals will still obtain these weapons illegally, but why make it so easy for them?

          3) We live in a society where people have different interpretations of the Constitution. These differing views are all valid. What is necessary then is to reach consensus. I am suggesting that consensus can lie in reasonable gun restrictions?

          Sorry for the short reply – just frustrated with the computer. Maybe we can continue this tomorrow?


          • Buck:

            Thanks for making such an effort.

            Perhaps we can take it up again on Open Mic night.

            By the way, consensus is a cop out. It requires surrender by one or more sides.

            Resolution of conflict requires negotiations which result in “consent” of those at the table. Consent is reached when all parties win something.

            There is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution. But the modern view of what that is has been distorted by court rulings and Congressional action that undermined the real meaning.

            Until we discuss again I would like you to think about this. Would you be comfortable living under a govt that is NOT controlled by a Constitution?

            Until then, I see it is late out your way so get some rest.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Morning JAC – not sure if you’ll take a look at this thread today, but I’d be happy to continue it a bit on open mic night.

              I don’t see consensus as a cop out at all – I would not be happy living in a country that swings 100% to the right; as I am sure you would not be happy living in a country that swings 100% to the left. There are tons of very important issues that do no have easy answers. The best way, in my mind, to govern this country is to bring people together, listen to differing ideas and views, and forge some agreement on the issues.

              Also, I have to take exception with your view that there is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution. Undoubtedly you mean your view. Is my interpretation less valid than yours? We’ll continue this another time!

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “We live in a society where people have different interpretations of the Constitution. These differing views are all valid.”

            This premise is false, therefore, anything argued using this premise is also false.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      G – I assume this is what you wanted me to respond to. It seems your issue is more practical than theoretical/philosophical.

      So I understand this – you do not advocate gun control as you perceive it to limit the ability of you and others to defend yourself against criminals who shoot first and ask questions later.

      The answer is simple. Outlawing handguns may be irrelevant. Yes – I get it – the criminals could care less what instrument of crime is all of a sudden illegal to have/own. They aren’t going to turn their guns in.

      So – just outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition immediately. If I have no ammo to fire then who gives a shit about the gun? They’ll go the way of the Betamax (and soon the VHS).

      Now – you may worry about that interim period of ammo supplies dwindling down. How many of the shooters in your city do you suppose stockpile ammo? Do they stockpile ammo they way you may? I’d suggest they are not as smart as you. We’ll wade through the gray period where ammo becomes more and more scarce until it eventually disappears.

      On a side note – in Krav we are taught that it is far easier to disarm someone with a gun than a knife. Just sayin’

      • Ray,

        Not worried about the interim under your scenario. But let me ask you how a single parent will be able to defend him/herself and family against multiple intruders with simple crowbars? Your premise gets lost in the fact that ammo can be imported for the black market, can be reloaded by someone willing to make good money ect as well. Your chioce of outlawing ammo, still infringes on my right to defend myself and my family, because your choice of law would only apply to the law abiding citizens, not the criminals!

        While you may be taught that it is easier to disarm someone with a gun versus a knife, I have found it much easier to shoot the dumb bastard from a distance. Disarmed and never to repeat the stupid actions that got him killed.



  28. Sorry for changing subject back to health care but just saw this and felt you should all see as well.

    Pay close attention to what the Congresswoman says near the middle about finally sending a Bill to the President. It reveals the TRUE MOTIVE behind this legislation.

    Her comments about Republicans and women was also interesting. Ladies??????

    • The Congresswomen did not make blonds look good in that interview, wonder why?


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hey JAC

      I won’t even go into the abortion issue here, I think a lot of you here know where I stand on that. But, let me say this, if you’re stupid enough to get pregnant, and expect government to pay for your abortion, then, please keep your legs closed, I will not help pay for one for you. I am 100% against abortion, and I don’t know if there are any exceptions, maybe I’m just closing my mind to that, I don’t know, but I really wish that people would understand what a baby goes through during an abortion, it’s not pretty.

      As for the GOP not having enough women their house, so what, and I don’t believe for a minute because of that, we women will vote democrat, I don’t vote party, I vote for who I think will be the best person to get the job done. I vote for a person who has the same values and beliefs I do, not because of the party I may belong to. Sorry, but she’s full of it.

      Those are my thoughts on these issues. Anybody who wants to argue with me about the abortion issue, I would rather they don’t because of how strongly I feel about it.

      • Judy:

        I understand your view of abortion but let me ask you this.

        What about the victims of rape or incest (which is rape anyway) or the situation where the mothers life is in danger if the pregnancy continues?

        By the way, the purpose of my bringing this forward was the comment about making health care a right, not the abortion issue.

        I found her argument on this point to be empty of substance. Just more lefty politicial rhetoric. That along with linking the barely passed bill to the “democrats winning the two contested House races by supporting the Health Care Reform as drafted”. Yeah,,,,right!!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          JAC, I Just have a hard time thinking of why they have to kill the baby because of it, it didn’t do anything wrong but get conceived, and yes I know that incest could probably lead to problems and all. But what about that gal who was held captive for 20 years by her own father, and ended up having what 2, 3 kids by him.

          As for if the womans life is in danger, there again I have a problem, sorry, why can’t they do everything possible to try and save both lives? I think that should be left up to the woman and what she wants to do. How many stories have you read where the woman decides to go through with it knowing she could die giving birth or going through the pregnancy, and then to have the baby and she survives. I think it’s an iffy situation, I don’t know because I haven’t been in that situation myself, but I do know what it’s like to lose them. I lost 2 babies , one in the 4th month and one in the 5th month, and to see what they looked like, already developed, sorry, I just get a loss for words when it comes to abortions, it’s a very touchy subject with me JAC.

          • Judy:

            I understand and knew from your past comments where and why you stood. Noticed that you said it should be up to the woman on the medical issue.

            I will not push this one any more.

            For now.
            Sleep well

    • Bottom Line says:

      Did I catch that right? I think I just heard her say that they…

      “are gonna make healthcare a right and not a privelege.”

      Sigh —-

      • That would be correct!


      • BL, Actually, what’s being said has nothing to do with healthcare. Under law, hospitals can’t deny treatment to those in need anyway (I work at one). This is all a bunch of BS, nothing more than a power grab. It is, in my opinion, unConstitutional as well. This is for tomorrow though, so I’ll stop here.


      • Bottom Line:

        You are the winner my friend. That has been the goal all along. Once a right in the nature of “positive rights” (remember who talked openly about that?) is established then the govt “must” take action to make sure said right is achieved.

        Once the current bill is passed it will establish a “norm” in society that comprises said right.

        Its going to get very interesting the next few months.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          What gripes my butt is, it’s just fine and dandy for everybody, but them. I just don’t understand how they’re exempt from it, sorry, maybe it’s my being blond might have something to do with not understanding it.

          And what about all these doctors who claim they’ll leave their practice of this bill goes through, then what. Kind of wonder what this will do to my son who will be going into med school here in about a year, and if he’ll be able to practice where he wants, which is to be an ER doctor.

    • Hi JAC, Yes, I caught that “…health care if finally a right, not a privilege” crap.

      My response to her comments on Republican women….repulse… this:

      • Kathy:

        How could you? I’m turning to stone, ahhhhh I’mmmmmmm turninggggggggggggg to stonnnnnnnnnne.

        OK antidote taken. But now I’m going to have nightmares.

  29. Ray Hawkins says:

    Judy – sounds like Harry Reid’s challenger is doing herself no favors:

    • Last I heard, it was against the LAW to try and blow someone up. It is also against the LAW to have explosives without a license. Those laws are working real good aren’t they? Only people like us abide by the LAW, so why take our only defense mechanism and make more LAWs to take that away from us?


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Ray

      To be perfectly honest, I don’t know that much about her, only heard of her recently when her name popped up. We’ve only been here since 1990, so until just recently this is the first I’ve heard of her. And you’re right about what she’s doing to herself, not going to make any points that way.

  30. Exhausting Day – probably post more later


    So you hold that you have the right to keep and bear any type of arms?


    You hold that you should be lawfully able to own everything from a potato launcher to M1A1 to a predator drone to an ICBM?

    Why not?

    The government has this stuff, so why not me?

    They are certainly far worse at using violence then me.

    Besides, if I can afford building a $5 million tank, why not? If I could afford that protection, and feel I needed it – why should I be denied it? The government still ‘out guns’ me right?

    And if I had the $5 billion to invest in a nuke program, why not?

    • Bottom Line says:

      BF and Mathius,

      FYI, You can indeed legally own a tank, fighter jet, ICBM, ect…. You just have to have a permit and gov. approval. But it IS legal.

  31. Judy Sabatini says:

    Okay, here are my true thoughts about what the government.

    They are so confused about things, they don’t even know what they’re doing.

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    Why would these people sign something when most, if not all didn’t read the darn thing? Talking about the health care bill here. And just how can they put millions of people in jail and fine them $250,000 if they don’t get health insurance, or is this just a scare tactic on their part?

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    A friend sent this to me. Thought I’d share.

    Senior Health Care Solution

    So you’re a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?
    Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.
    Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need!
    New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.
    And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner,you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.

    What a country!

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    Time to call it a night folks.

    Have a great night and see you all here tomorrow.

    Good Night


  35. Mathius and all

    We survived inflation in the 80’s, we’ll do it again. And even if it’s bad, very bad, hyperinflation, it can’t be much worse than Germany, Russia, or Argentina and, last time I checked, they’re still all on the map.

    I want to clear up a serious misconception about inflation, high inflation and hyperinflation.

    Russia did not have hyper-inflation. They had high inflation. The ruble is still with us. Their currency survived.

    Germany Weimer Republic had yperinflation.

    Their economy was highly rural (85% of the people lived outside of the cities). They were able to survive by eating the food they grew, burning the wood on their farms for heat, and using animals to plow the fields.

    The city folk traded their heirlooms and grand pianos for bread and eggs.

    The farmers won big. The city slickers lost big.

    The USA is highly urban (95% in the cities). You depend wholly on the billions of discrete transactions that occur daily that deliver the needs of your life to you door. Any interruption in that flow will be horrific.

    You cannot barter your Nike sneakers in New York to a farmer in Idaho for his potatoes.

    Hyperinflation destroys the currency, and with it all price calculation. Without price calculation, no one is able to buy or sell. Without being able to buy or sell, commerce stops. Commerce stops, so does the trucks and the trains – they cannot buy fuel. When the trucks stop, you die.

    If you live in a city, you will die.

    Millions will die.

    You will die, Matt.

    If you live on a farm, you will be overrun.

    Millions will die.

    No highly industrialized nation has ever faced hyperinflation. None would survive.

    It would the equivalent of a nuclear war.

    • Hi BF!

      I’m always worried about this darn inflation stuff, but well perpared in any event. I think your comment about living on a farm and being overrun might be alittle premature, City folk can’t handle the country, at least not those that would choose to act violently, they would perish quickly. By the time they could get to many rural destinations, they would be exhausted and sickly. We will survive my pirate friend!


      • 75% of the US lives in the city.
        98% of the US lives within 25 miles of a city or in a city.

        2% of the US lives rural.

        6 million vs 300 million.

        You do not have enough bullets.

        • Yes sir, but your saying that th 75% living in cities would unite? Not likely, half would be dead in weeks, before any movement outside the city, by the time anyone could actually move from their safe havens, they would be too weak to present a strong fight, much less be organized. Those outside would move further out, organize, and be ready. Your overestimating the city folk, those that have country blood will move quickly out, the remaining will perish, your desires of the flag you wave will come true.


          • I have no desire to claim victory at the cost of millions of lives.

            It would be a disaster I could not imagine.

            I would probably die, as would my family.

            Fortunately, I believe the cartel of Elite would die too. They will not let it happen.

            They would destroy government first, before they died from it.

            • I don’t have any desire for this to happen as well. But the Elite seem set on just such a day. Since I have been in communication with you, you have said to prepare, and that is good advice, hopefully, you listened to yourself and did so!

              I don’t think it will just happen one day, but over the course of months maybe, but bad times are coming, your smart, am I wrong?


              • Yes, perpare – but who can plan for a nuke war?

                • A nuke war is an instant of time. While the results may appear the same, the timeframe is much longer. You know that, this will not be the equivilent of a Hiroshima, at least not timeframe wise, plenty of time to prepare and turn your clock on!


                • You can plan for anything you see coming. The problem is with the stuff that blindsides you. You should be more concerned about the things you never think about than the obvious culprits. You know a nuke war could happen, so does everyone else. So people work to prevent one – they may or may not succeed, but you wouldn’t be much more likely to be able to stop one. So why worry? Stock up on canned food in your fallout shelter (line it with your gold bars), and move on with your life.

                  Worry about that drunk driver who’s going to t-bone your car at 85 mph on your way home from work next Tuesday. Worry about the meteorite with your name on it. Worry about that small clump of fat in your left ventricle or that dark spot on your skin.

                  And with those happy thoughts, I’m off to bed. To all, good night, and good luck.

            • My, aren’t you just a ray of sunshine.

              We, here at the Elders of Zion and at WALNUT, would surely overthrow the government we’ve put in place in the United States long before we allowed it to collapse catastrophically. Of course we have ample preparation in the Mammoth Caves just in case…

              Plans have been drawn up, but we hope not to need to implement them. We do so had freedom..

              • We have to understand the consequences that are well within the power of government to cause.

                The People do not create money. The FED does. When the FED stops – and they will – the government can nationalize them, and continue to print money.

                If the People are not aware of the danger of nationalizing the banking cartel (one great, but self-serving, evil being seized by a greater, careless, evil) they will not protest.

                I do not think the People will protest, for most people hate banks more than government.

                Yet, government will utterly destroy the People.

                Maybe G-man is right.

                • This is one time that I hope I’m wrong.
                  Wish I felt like I was wrong, it would make me feel better.


      • Bottom Line says:

        G-Man said – “We will survive my pirate friend!”

        BL – Count me in on survival. When the sh*t hits the fan, I’ll be in the middle of nowhere surrounded by woodlands, cornfields, deer, lakes, and good folks. I will survive. Oh, I failed to mention a small arsenal too. lol

  36. Where are my posts?

  37. Cyndi and all, yesterday we talked about people’s ignorance. Found this article today and it sums it up pretty well.

    The Results of Our Ignorance
    November 9, 2009 by Bob Livingston

    Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, education or awareness.

    There are many people today who know little or nothing about the U.S. Constitution. There are many who know little or nothing of U.S. history, let alone world history. There are many who know little or nothing about central banks, and how they are used to steal our wealth.

    There are many who buy into the glossed-over news of the day. There are many who take at face value the words of the elected class, the pundits and main stream media talking heads and printed headlines.

    There are many who buy into the party line of their preferred political party. There are many who blindly believe the various political parties have a platform on which they base their actions and agendas and are committed to following through on those policies. There are many who believe the president, senator or representative they elected has in their hearts the best interests of the people they supposedly serve.

    There are many who are ignorant.

    It’s not all their fault—particularly the younger generations. Their education system has been corrupted by 1960s radicalism—the same radicalism that has infected our government.

    Public education has become a sad joke. Its downward slide accelerated with the passage of “No Child Left Behind.” None are left behind because none are allowed to get ahead. The intelligent children are left languishing and fending for themselves while extra resources are devoted to those unable to keep up.

    In speaking with a seventh grader recently I asked what he had been studying in his U.S. history class. Well, we spent about 20 minutes on World War II, then several class periods on how the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics, was the reply.

    In class they watched Miracle, the 2004 movie about the team and its victory.

    How backward is that? Twenty minutes spent learning about a six-year war spawned from the feckless, irresponsible and dastardly policies of the elected and ruling classes that resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 62 million and 79 million people worldwide. Several class periods on a three-hour hockey game that gave Americans a temporarily thrilling victory over a Cold War foe at the tail end of four moribund years of Jimmy Carterism.

    Even the seventh grader was perplexed by his teacher’s decision.

    Also glossed over in his class was more than 230 years of American history.

    Is it any wonder there is so much ignorance?

    Lack of understanding of the founding of our great country has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of the origins of the Federal Reserve—and other government attempts to establish a central bank—has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of the causes of Great Depression and the misguided (deliberately or unintentionally) attempts to head it off, and how government policies affected the country’s financial health for years has led us to where we are now. Lack of understanding of how a president’s policies can affect a country has led us to where we are now.

    Where are we now? In an economic pit of our own making—suffering the aftereffects of a Fed-created bubble that spurred individuals and businesses to borrow and spend like there was no tomorrow. Now there may not be one.

    Where are we now? Exacerbating the problem by dumping money out of helicopters in an attempt to stop it—at least that’s what the elected class tells us they’re trying to do. It’s a policy enacted by a supposed conservative, George W. Bush, and perpetuated on a grander scale by Barack Obama.

    Where are we now? Watching as the elected class finds more ways to spend more money and steal the wealth of the individuals through massive tax hikes under the guise of healthcare reform.

    Where are we now? Waiting for the other shoe to drop in the form of Cap and Trade, which amounts to more taxes and more spending.

    Where are we now? Enduring the Obama presidency, which equals Jimmy Carter to the second power.

    Sadly, many are ready to go full steam ahead with such policies.

    Never mind that the elected class isn’t even considering whether such things are Constitutional. Forcing Americans to buy a product—health insurance—is okay with the elected class.

    Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer said it’s permissible under the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told the press the president wasn’t even considering whether it was constitutional and no one had brought it up.

    Don’t think the elected class is ignorant. They’re not. They know exactly what they’re doing—stealing your wealth and your liberty.

    Never mind whether it’s Constitutional, says the elected class. We know what’s best for you.

    Never mind whether it’s Constitutional, it’s free, say the ignorant.

    Our healthcare system is in terrible shape, we need to have competition, says the elected class. Government can do it better than the free market can.

    Yeah. With the compassion of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the efficiency of the Post Office.

    Where are we now… really? Many are sitting in front of the television watching Simon Cowell or anxiously awaiting the result of who is getting kicked off the island next or watching some stars in a dance contest.

    Some are waking up. The Tea Parties demonstrate that.

    But too many are ignorant. And apparently they’re ready to accept anything as long as it’s “free.”

    After all: ignorance is bliss and free is good.

    • Wow. He sums it up pretty well, I’d say. Good find Kathy.

      I’m beginning to think that humans don’t want to be people, they want to be someone’s pet. They want to be taken care of rather than fend for themselves. My dear friend sent me an email today. She met a man who lives in Germany. She asked him if he’d ever consider living in America. His answer was no, because he likes the social programs of Germany. I believe he’s an engineer of some kind. How pathetic.

  38. Then they come in a flurry…. geez…;)

  39. Matt

    Gold prices is a reflection of the trust in fiat currency.

    The more trust, the lower the price of gold. People would rather have the paper and what it can buy (or invest) than metal.

    When people stop trusting the ability of paper to earn an income or buy things, they start buying gold.

    An ever increasing price of gold is the ever-decreasing trust in currency.

    When the currency loses all trust – it is destroyed. See my posts above about what happens then.

%d bloggers like this: