14 dead, at least 50 injured in shooting at Colorado movie theater

14 dead, at least 50 injured in shooting at Colorado movie theater, police say


  1. A lone gunman burst into a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., at a midnight showing of the latest Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises,” and opened fire, killing at least 12 people and injuring at least 50, police said.

    James Holmes, 24, of North Aurora, was apprehended at the scene clad in a bullet-proof vest and riot helmet.

    Witnesses said Holmes crashed into the movie theater from an emergency exit door at the front of the auditorium, setting off a smoke bomb and then shooting off dozens of rounds from multiple firearms, police told ABC News.

    Holmes was caught by police in the parking lot of the Century 16 Movie Theaters, nine miles outside Denver, after police began receiving dozens of 911 calls at 12:39 a.m. MT. He was carrying a gas mask, rifle, and handgun, and police believe at least one other gun was left in the movie theater. Police said the suspect mentioned having explosives stored, leading them to evacuate his entire North Aurora apartment complex and search the buildings.

    Dozens of victims were taken to local hospitals, including a child as young as 6 years old.

    Witnesses said that the man stalked the aisles of the theater as panicked movie-watchers in the packed theater tried to escape.

    “The suspect throws tear gas in the air, and as the tear gas appears he started shooting,” said Lamar Lane, who was watching the midnight showing of the movie with his brother. “It was very hard to breathe. I told my brother to take cover. It took awhile. I started seeing flashes and screaming, I just saw blood and people yelling and a quick glimpse of the guy who had a gas mask on. I was pushed out. There was chaos, we started running.”

    Witnesses described the confusion as the smoke bomb filled the theater and the man opened fire.

    “We were maybe 20 or 30 minutes into the movie and all you hear, first you smell smoke, everybody thought it was fireworks or something like that, and then you just see people dropping and the gunshots are constant,” witness Christ Jones told ABC’s Denver affiliate KMGH. “I heard at least 20 to 30 rounds within that minute or two.”

    A man who talked to a couple who was inside the theater told ABC News, “They got up and they started to run through the emergency exit, and that when she turned around, she said all she saw was the guy slowly making his way up the stairs and just firing at people, just picking random people,” he said. “The gunshot continued to go on and on and then after we didn’t hear anything,” the couple told the man, “we finally got up and there was people bleeding, there was people obviously may have been actually dead or anything, and we just ran up out of there, there was chaos everywhere.”

    Witnesses and victims were taken to Gateway High School for questioning.

    There’s about 100 FBI agents on the scene assisting with the investigation, according to the local special agent in charge. Once apprehended, the gunman told authorities that there were explosives in his North Aurora residence. Investigators rushed to the apartment complex, which was quickly evacuated and is now under lockdown. A senior official who is monitoring the situation in Washington said that early guidance based on the early snapshot of this man’s background indicated that this act does not appear to be linked to radical terrorism or anything related to Islamic terrorism.

    In a statement, President Obama said, “Michelle and I are shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado. Federal and local law enforcement are still responding, and my administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time. We are committed to bringing whoever was responsible to justice, ensuring the safety of our people, and caring for those who have been wounded.”

    Investigators confirmed that explosives were found. It is unclear if they were scheduled to detonate or if it was part of a stockpile.

    Though police have said that they believe the shooter was acting alone, they checked all cars in the parking lot and cleared the area near the theater.


  2. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Absolutely horrible to wake up and see that this happened. What has happened to our society? Of course, this will bring out the anti-gunners in droves 😦

    • Go to facebook. I was going to wait before commenting. Would love to have someone in my corner.

    • Mathius™ says:

      That it will…

      Just a quick question – not trying to aggravate anyone, just want your take – but in a situation such as this, if movie goers were also armed, do you think the result would have been better/worse?

      • Well…in a normal bad situation, if the others were armed, he would be dead and less people would have died or been hit. But this is not normal in that he was wearing a vest. I’d still prefer an armed audience,and take my chances that he got picked off. But you just don’t know in a case like this.

        • Kristian says:

          I’m curious to know his reasoning behind his actions. This should be interesting at best.

          • Mathius™ says:

            We’re better off not knowing.

            As soon as we find out it was because of x, all hell will break out over x. The problem here is that he, in the end, gets what he wants: attention to his cause.

            The best thing to do in a situation like this is try it as quietly as possible and address, if possible, the root cause. Anything else creates a counter-productive media circus.

            Just making this up, let’s say his “reason” was that liberals and Hollywood are destroying America. For the next two weeks, all anyone is going to talk about is liberals/Hollywood and if (though they’ll condemn his actions) he was right. Then, next time someone like this has a gripe, he’s going to think about shooting up a theater as a way to trigger a national discussion on his cause. If we reward attention seeking behavior with attention, then it encourages others to follow a similar course of action.

            • dangit! Hate to agree with you, but we ARE better off not knowing.

              Couldn’t bring myself to read the article but your mayor Doomberg wants to know what Obama is going to do about guns. Facepalm!

              • Mathius™ says:

                What is Obama going to do?


                Not a damn thing.

                He’s not going to lift an eyebrow.

                Not right before an election.

                And especially not since any effort would be futile since Congress would never back him up.

                Plus, he doesn’t seem have ever show any real interest in restricting guns (despite his F rating from the NRA).

                But I’m sure the NRA is already gearing up for war…

              • Obama has an F from the NRA?? Interesting — he also has an F in almost every category as graded by the Brady Campaign…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Impressive, isn’t it?

                Only President Obama could pull off a feat like that!

              • Yet people are convinced of his secret plan to confiscate all guns in this country…sigh…

              • Mathius™ says:

                The fact that he hasn’t done anything is proof that he’s waiting for his second term and then plans to do it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

            • Kristian says:

              I agree 100%! But we all know this is going to turn into a media circus, too close to the elections for comfort. Every talking head in Washington is going to weigh in on this.

      • No question, better. By the reports, he opened fire, then started walking up the isle, firing at random. An armed person sitting up that isle would have returned fire, reducing the number he could shoot without fear for himself. Also, the reports say he broke in thru the fire exit, which I think would have gotten my attention, putting me on alert to a threat. If I were in the front row (not likely), I might have shot him first.

        (just to share, my liberals first reaction…(Sane gun laws, please! What will it take???))

        • Mathius™ says:

          (just to share, my liberals first reaction…(Sane gun laws, please! What will it take???))

          Care to place a bet that he has some kind of psychiatric and/or criminal history which should have disqualified him from owning a gun, but that due to instant checks and other gun-law-weakening-resistance by the NRA et al, he was still able to purchase legally?

          I’ll offer even odds.

          • Matt, have you purchased a gun recently? I’m thinking no, so you only know what others tell you. The Instant Background Check system was strongly SUPPORTED by the NRA. They are the ones that made it happen while liberal groups fought it tooth and nail. It is usually very effective on criminal backgrounds, but has nothing on medical/psych…That is because of PRIVACY laws, not gun laws. I suspect the medical records part of ObamaCare is aimed at “fixing” this. (you might consider Norway has very restrictive gun control laws and how that has worked)

            More to the point, did prohibition stop people from drinking? Have gun laws stopped criminals anywhere from getting guns? What’s the violence rate in Chicago, our most restrictive city in the US? How many of the guns used there do you think were “legally” obtained? Making something illegal affects only the law abiding, not the criminals…

            • Mathius™ says:

              Matt, have you purchased a gun recently

              Of course! I have an arsenal in my house.

              The Instant Background Check system was strongly SUPPORTED by the NRA.

              The objection, as I understand it, is that the IBC is inadequate. That is, it should be more exhaustive. Anyone who needs a gun now – right now! – is probably not someone you should be handing a gun to. Or so goes the logic. Though I’m arguing the pro-gun-control side of this right now, I’m actually sitting on the fence.

              I suspect the medical records part of ObamaCare is aimed at “fixing” this.

              Could be. I don’t think I would have an issue with psych info feeding into the gun registry..

              Chicago, our most restrictive city in the US

              I thought it was D.C.?

              How many of the guns used there do you think were “legally” obtained

              Very few.

              Making something illegal affects only the law abiding, not the criminals


              Let’s talk for a moment about something called cluster immunity. You see, vaccines don’t work 100%. In fact, MMR is 99% while flu is 86% (according to a quick Google search). That means that there are still people out there with a susceptibility to these disease. The reason there are so few cases of Measles, Mumps, or Rubella in America these days, despite the fact that at least 3mm people are vulnerable, is that the 297mm people around them don’t carry the disease due to their own immunity. Does this make sense so far? I’m getting to the point, I promise.

              So, to recap, even though you’re able to get the disease, the fact is that no one has it in order to infect you. Thus, you are protected by the immunity of others. And this, again, is called cluster immunity.

              Now, cluster immunity is severely weakened when people choose not to participate in vaccine programs. MMR is pretty universal. In fact, while people have decided (despite anything resembling evidence) that vaccines are the cause of autism, vaccination rates are in decline and Measles is on the rise. The problem, of course, is that this means that you are no longer under the umbrella of cluster immunity because there are now people out there who can infect you.

              What does all this have to do with gun control, you may rightfully ask? Well this: where do most criminals get their guns. The answer is that there are a few ways. They can be stolen (as was the case for several of my neighbors), they can be sold through gun-show loopholes, or they can be sold illegally out the back door of an otherwise legitimate dealer. If (and I’m not suggesting this, I’m just saying it for argument’s sake) we took away everyone’s guns, all of them that we could get our hands on, every rifle, every shotgun, every pistol, every target gun, every antique, all of them, and made selling guns illegal, and we shuttered all the gun and ammo manufacturers, what would happen? Well, for starters, the SOURCE of guns would dry up. There wouldn’t be any guns to steal. There wouldn’t be any legitimate dealers to sell guns out the back doors. There wouldn’t be any gun shows. Through attrition, over time, most guns used by criminals would be rounded up. Like a cluster immunity, the idea is that you couldn’t acquire a gun illegally because there wouldn’t be any guns anywhere around you for you to acquire.

              And that’s all great in theory.. but we all remember how Prohibition turned out, don’t we?

              • Common Man says:


                Wow!!! While we are at it you might as well round up all the knives, bats, clubs, hatchetts, etc, etc. Violent people will find a way.

                And please don’t promote this idea to the government as they are already on their way to doing just that…but not to make us safer, just a whole lot more easy to controll.

                And just how in the world would you propose we go about rounding up all the weapons? A manditory search of everyone’s home? Can you say Nazi state?

                How about the fact that this effort would contribute to an already piss poor unemployment rate? How many jobs do you think you would elliminate with this effort?

                What right do you or the government for that matter have in envoking something of this nature.

                Not only would this not work (without death and punishment going off the scale) but it would still not elliminate bad guys from getting weapons. And you would make about half the population criminals in the process.

                As my father use to say: “They will get my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from around them”

                Couple all of the above and add to that the cost of enforcing something of this nature and well you would suceed in finalizing a socialist regime.

                You sure know how to stir the coals on a Friday


              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Matt…Have you ever made a purchase that you planned on using IMMEDIATELY? I suppose the last car that you purchased, you wanted to spend the money and then wait a couple of weeks before you drive it… Oh and yes, Cars have been used by insane people as instruments of death…

                Come on, Really?

              • Every gun in this country can be traced to it’s origin. Within a day or so, Oswald’s gun had been traced. the only exceptions I know of are “cold pieces” smuggled in or brought in as war souvenirs. ( my uncle was once offered several thousand dollars for a Walther PPK he brought in after WW 2. by a guy he knew to be “connected”.)

                What gets me and what has always gotten me is the absolute refusal of 99% of US Attorney’s to prosecute straw purchasers and gun shops who look the other way. They know who and where they are but do nothing . If I buy a 10 guns in Georgia and run them up US 95 to NY to sell on the streets, I can be prosecuted on 70 counts of trafficking. With consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, that’s a few hundred years. If I have done it with the same dealer in Georgia, I can probably be considered for Rico. The excuses for not doing this by the way are that they are too busy, too understaffed, the targets are too small or whatever. As a great believer in community policing as supported by first Bratton and then Kelly in NY, I know that taking care of the “small guys” and small crimes is the only way you get to the big guys. Roust the dealers off the streets and pretty soon the big guys get visible.

              • Mathius™ says:


                What gets me and what has always gotten me is the absolute refusal of 99% of US Attorney’s to prosecute straw purchasers and gun shops who look the other way.

                This is a VERY good read.


                It’s long, but it (A) gave me a much better understanding of F&F and (B) adds a lot of color to what you just said.

                The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. […] Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers.


                It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn’t necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn’t mean the initial purchase had been illegal.


                Prosecutors repeatedly rebuffed Voth’s [lead ATF agent during F&F] requests. After examining one suspect’s garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn’t bought the gun for himself.

                Unemployed guys buying $10,000 tripod-mounted 50-cal sniper rifles, then ‘changing their mind’ and selling it .. and no prosecution. This is a joke.

                Maybe if certain good laws weren’t so toothless or were actually enforced, nobody would be pushing the bad laws..?

          • Common Man says:


            Of course he was crazy. Crazy as a shit house rat, but then sane people do not do this kind of stuff. And as LOF said, go into a gun store in NY and try to buy a hand gun and walk out with it. While you are waiting for the background check talk to the dealer about your distaste for various people, the government, cops, rednecks, or any other class of people or institutions and see if you get to walk out with the weapon.

            You cannot legally purchase a handgun without a background check. Remember USW discussing his experience trying to purchase a shotgun?


            • NJ requires a Firearms ID plus an individual purchase application per weapon which can take from 6 weeks to 6 months to obtain. After Virginia Tech it was realized that there was a big hole in the Instant Check, namely nut cases but as described above you can’t call a looney tune a looney tune without opening yourself up to a major, bank account draining, asset forfeiture lawsuit.

              Anyone in the human resources business who hires and fires know that no matter what anti-social behavior an employee exhibits, you cannot mention it if asked for a recommendation. I’ve squirmed on that one more than a few times.

              Released just yesterday, the Major Nadal report gave you everything you need to know about sacrificing human lives in the name of perceived “fairness”. Between him and V-Tech, you have enough to indict half the social scientists and lawyers in the country with a goodly number of law enforcement “professionals” thrown in for good measure. .

      • Common Man says:


        Not knowing all the facts it is really hard to predict what would have happened if some or all of the audience was armed. It could have been a lot worse. Witnesses say there was a smoke bomb; that is an issue with line of sight. Armed people could have shot the wrong folks in a panic.

        I assume this guy walked in and just started spraying, paying little attention to who he was shooting at. He is crazy as only crazy people do this.

        As opposed to everyone being armed, I think one trained armed individual who has experience in circumstances like this (say a USW or D13) could have minimized the damage; maybe.

        They might have taken cover and waited for the shot at the bad guy helping to minimize the number dead and wounded….but who knows.

        As you know I am a strong defendent of the right to bear arms, but I am also a strong promoter of each individual being well trained before they pack a weapon. Too many folks out there garner a CCW and strap on, practicing little and have no experience in defensive circumstances.

        Using a weapon correctly and proficantly comes with practice, just like Karate, and in both cases, those just starting out are usually over zealous and wind up getting hurt or hurting someone else.

        Unfortunately we cannot stop crazy, it is a fact of life.


        • Mathius™ says:

          Armed people could have shot the wrong folks in a panic.

          That was my point.

          I think one trained armed individual who has experience in circumstances like this (say a USW or D13) could have minimized the damage; maybe.

          I’m sure. Like a sky martial, but in a movie theater. But, of course, that’s ridiculous. You can’t post a trained soldier in every theater or public place.

          He is crazy as only crazy people do this.


          As you know I am a strong defendent of the right to bear arms, but I am also a strong promoter of each individual being well trained before they pack a weapon. Too many folks out there garner a CCW and strap on, practicing little and have no experience in defensive circumstances.

          I am not a strong defender (nor am I an opponent) of the right to bare arms. I’m not convince that the 2nd Amendment says what you think it says, but I also think that’s irrelevant to the realities of the world. The fact is that there are guns out there and that everyone needs to be realistic about it.

          In camp, many moons ago, I took riflery. Turns out I was a pretty good shot, too. But the important thing I took away was an immense respect for the danger of the things. The discipline required in handling one, and the degree to which you must be conscientious while handling them. I think no one should be allowed to own a gun without a healthy dose of this respect. You are completely right that too many people just think of them as toys. I have known several of these people (one of them, incidentally, accidentally shot himself in the leg).

          Using a weapon correctly and proficantly comes with practice, just like Karate, and in both cases, those just starting out are usually over zealous and wind up getting hurt or hurting someone else.

          Man, you should have seen me when I was just starting out in Tae Kwan Do… I was just a kid but I thought we’d be starting out with Karate Kid style moves. It was so disappointing to stand in a line and punch the air for hours. But I got good at it over time and eventually got to the good stuff. But not long, long after I gained a healthy amount of respect for my new-found capacity for harm.

          (irrelevant story tangent) Funny thing, I’m good – I’m very good – but I was in the dojo one time and we had a guest sensei. He asked if anyone would like to spar with him in front of the class. Being the highest ranked in the room at the time, I volunteered. It was amazing.. I describe it like fighting water.. you just couldn’t hit him, much as you tried. He wasn’t even fighting back, really, just deflecting everything I did and then knocking me to the floor repeatedly with my own momentum. Here I was, years of training, much younger, good health, good condition, and very quick/agile, and this older guy was.. more that beating me, he was beating me in a way that made it was clear that I was no contest. Amazing.

          Unfortunately we cannot stop crazy, it is a fact of life.

          The problem, of course, is when crazy gets a gun and 14 people die…

          • Common Man says:


            Responding to your Sensei story. Can you say Segal? The real experts don’t even need to throw a punch.

            My old Sensei, Hanshi Willie Adams out of Southfield, MI was a quiet wee of a man. About 5′ 8″ and maybe 155 lbs. At the time about 43 and an 8th degree. Rarely, if ever threw a punch, but everyone who stood across from him wound up down and out. He is a 10th degree now and in additon to his many accomplishments instructs all Detroit and Wayne county police departments.

            I am always amazed at how easy accomplished individuals like Hanshi Adams make it look, but at the same time how tranquil they all seem to be. It is like a ballet.


            • Mathius™ says:

              Ballet.. that’s a good way of putting it.

              I’d love to have another go at him. I’m sure he’d win (though maybe not since he’s probably getting up there in years), but just to try again, maybe with a little more caution and a little less youthful exuberance.

              • Common Man says:

                Hanshi Adams is now 66, and although it might take him a little more time I am sure he would still wipe the floor with my 260 lb butt.


            • My brother also trains the cops in Dearborn in ju jitsu.

          • “Armed people could have shot the wrong folks in a panic. That was my point.”

            Yes, thank you… Obama save us from what an armed person who’s not properly trained would do in such a situation. What if we let the elderly, with all their health issues own guns?

            Florida man who shot suspects during Internet cafe robbery will not face charges

            Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/florida-customer-who-shot-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery-will-not-face/#ixzz21B0c9VVo

            • Mathius™ says:

              I’m not saying it’s necessarily the case that an armed crowd would have done more harm than good.. but I think it’s at least a possibility that we have to consider if we’re going to discuss this.

          • charlieopera says:

            You can’t post a trained soldier in every theater or public place.

            Why not? Redistribute the wealth in this nation and there would be plenty of money for such things. Rather than the Walmost clan owning 42% of America’s wealth, spread it around and put people to work … same goes for all the medicare fraud, etc. … put people to work checking up on it … in most cases, all it would take is a friggin’ telephone.

            I don’t know if an armed audience would’ve prevented some of the horror but I’d sure like to think so … the problem is how does one know if they wouldn’t freeze or as has been pointed out, shoot an innocent by accident. Tough call …

            • Charlie;

              Maybe you will see this since it has been a few days, but I agree with you 100% on the armed ausience thing. Nobody knows how they would react to a circumstance of this nature unless they have been in one prior, or had significant training (like the cops and Military) to a point that it was subcounsious.

              I have had many a conversation wth all walks of people about how they would act in desperate situations and most convey they would be a John Wayne type. Interestingly those are the ones that would most likely freeze up and wind up being part of the statistics.

              That is one of the reasons that I am such an advocate for trainiing, training and more training. At least if they train, they have a better chance of acting appropriately.

              Hope you are well


  3. Canine Weapon says:
  4. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    • no one ever blames the fork

      • Mathius™ says:

        Personally, I blame the spork. Oh sure, it may not be as ubiquitous, but every time I hold one, I wind up eating 12 pounds of mashed potatoes in a single sitting.

    • Interesting! There have been recent studies trying to link teen sexual activity to the activities in movies they see. While flawed in some ways, the studies indicate a pattern of copy catting. One of the complaints critics of the study made was that they don’t even try for the same links for violence in film.

      This one can be batted around quite a ways. I would think that violence portrayed in “Saving Private Ryan” is interpreted quite differently from the average sado-masochistic slasher flick. The “Telegraph” article also brings up the torture aspects of the “Batman” franchise as well as the graphic and gratuitous violence in “good” drama movies such as
      “Man on Fire”.

      One might ask two questions, has the exposure to this very visual, artistic violence made us more likely to accept real violence since we have become more or less immune to it and, in the case of someone not screwed together too tightly, have fantasy and reality crossed over in their heads? Is it no longer a big deal to see a head blow up like one of Gunny’s watermelons? Anyone old enough ever notice that the Zapruder film of the Kennedy kill shot was always edited in the old days? Today it’s all there, my stomach still turns when you see the ejecta from the head shot. You can handle the verbal eye witness accounts from the secret Service guys but the visual of blood and brains is quite different. .

      I can’t help but wonder how a teen movie audience in 1960 would have reacted to , let’s say, “Final Destination” 1 through 5. They would, I think, have to have issued multiple barf bags on entry. Today, kids won’t come unless there is even more gore. I’ve always liked a good horror movie and still cringe over Karis being wrapped in the mummy bandage in the original “Mummy”. Or,Lugosi, flaying the flesh (off camera) from Karloff in “The Black Cat”. Most great Cinema Noir films required that you use your imagination rather than be drenched in 3-D blood.

      After three years in the Army as an ambulance Platoon leader with the 10th Mountain (not deployed) my son came home with an aversion to war movies. Even films he had liked before, even films that are classics no longer interested him. When I asked why, he gave the classic WW 2/ Korean/ Vietnam vet answer, “I know what those weapons can really do”. He is grounded, I’m not so sure about a lot of the rest.

      As an afterthought, maybe we should have extended the inquiry into what type of films CIA interrogators like before we put them into a room with a suspected bad guy. Not kidding here. We all know people we wouldn’t trust with a butter knife let alone a car battery and a positive and negative lead.

  5. Ross appeared on live coverage and told viewers, “There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well. Talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this the same Jim Holmes.”

    Stephanopoulos added, “Okay, we’ll keep looking at that.”

    ABCNews.com’s article only says:

    A San Diego woman who identified herself as James Holmes’ mother told ABC News she had awoken unaware of the shooting and had not yet been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/07/20/abc-links-colorado-mass-killer-tea-party#ixzz21AiIaCwS

  6. We live in a society that rewards theft and violence, indeed, ingrains honors upon people for doing this.

    A society that rewards violence gets more of it.
    The thief beats the honest man, but the murderer beats the thief.

    There is a direct correlation between the increase in government intrusion into the lives of people and the increase in violence – random and planned – within and from society.

    • charlieopera says:

      We live in a society that rewards theft and violence, indeed, ingrains honors upon people for doing this.

      I’ll take capitalism for $200, Alex … 🙂

      • July 20, 2012
        The Demand Mentality
        Richard Butrick

        The child has little power over its world other than by crying and making fuss to get the attention of its mother. Unable to provide for itself it must find a way to get others to provide. Nature has provided the little tykes with formidable weapons to drive adults to distraction. From turning red in the face, to gagging to banging its head against the crib, the little dears end up getting their way even when they haven’t a clue as to what it is.

        This mentality persists for some all the way into adulthood and no better examples can be found than in the leadership of the AFL-CIO. They are demanding a 2nd bill of rights. A bill of rights which presumes there is a “power structure” with unlimited means to provide for their rightful demands. Key among their perceived rights: (1) full employment (2) a living wage and (3) a healthy future. Like a child raging from his crib, the head of the AFL-CIO, Trumka, plans to harangue both the Democrats and Republicans for his Second Bill of Rights at their national conventions this summer. But why pussyfoot around? Why not go for all the marbles? The Second Bill of Rights should come right out and demand everyone has the right to be (1) healthy (2) wealthy and (3) wise. And as a corollary, (4) frogs should have wings so they don’t bump their ass.

        How do you get full employment? You demand it from mommy (“the power structure”) by pitching a fit and screaming and yelling till you drive her batty and she ponies up with the goodies. Demand and you shall get. The mythical “power structure” like the universal mommy has all the goodies including a “healthy future” and you just have to get out there and demand it.

        It is all so breathtakingly loony even the Mad Hatter would be astounded.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_demand_mentality.html#ixzz21BlCwbaV

  7. Aurora Colorado shootings. Anyone else suspect another “Manchurian Shooter”?

  8. On a lighter note, but somewhat fitting…. Just signed my self and my son up for firearms safety training last night. 2 days of classes start next weekend. Clay pigeon practice on second day. Excited!

  9. charlieopera says:

    Rush Limbaugh claims the new Batman movie is part of a left wing conspiracy … alrighty then … between him and Bachmann and Palin, et al … , do yous righties really wonder why we think the right is often batshit crazy?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I saw this the other day. I was laughing when I told my (very conservative) friend about it. I expected him to laugh along at the absurdity. Instead, he thought about it for a second and then declared that it’s probably true.


  10. Amazing how some nutcase goes nuts and it becomes some form of political nonsense. Did noone learn anything after the Arizona shooting? It’s not political, it is sickening! It proves nothing about any political ideology at all and never will. If the only people that had guns were govt employees, what do you say when a govt employee goes Postal ? Oh, that has already happened numerous times. So I guess that’s really not the answer. 🙂

  11. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-suspect-joker-cops/story?id=16822251#.UAml8_WQmfx

    Listen to the eyewitness reports-especially Christopher-he helps make it real!
    God be with these people and their loved ones.

  12. bamadad says:
  13. Bottom Line says:

    Eagan = Fire

  14. 😐

  15. Only two comments so far about the Colorado shooting until investigation has at least 24 hours…….

    1) Too bad Colorado was not an open carry state. Servicemen were in the movie at the time.

    2) It did create the most stupid question ever asked by a reporter for CNN: After learning of the arsenal that the man carried the question was: “Why would he have so many kinds of weapons? He did not even have a hunting license.” Hmmmmmm..AR15..not a hunting weapon, 2 glocks… not hunting weapons….sawed of 12 gauge riot gun…..not a hunting weapon….2 tear gas canisters….not a hunting weapon. Must be a recent graduate on public funds.

    • Col. Colorado is an open carry state. The privilege of any person to openly carry a firearm into a business come from the owner of the business. Anyone may be refused such privilege either verbally or by posted signs restricting the open carry of firearms on the premises. The hospital i worked as an armed security officer has such posted notices on all doors leading into the facilities that were public entrances, yet I personally had to disarm a man carrying a loaded double-barreld 12 gauge down the main hall of the hospital. He told us when we had him in custody he did it to see what response would occur.

    • Well, then I stand corrected……it is still being reported that Colorado is not an open carry state.

      • well, we all know how we canty trust the media to get their facts straight, or fox news either. 🙂

      • That is what I get for relying on msm. Open carry is ok anywhere in Colorado except in Denver according to what I read. But there can be local ordinances prohibiting same…..and this theater was one of those. Sorry for the mistake.

        • And equally sorry about the ordinance.

          • read Kent’s blog and posts, he say Denver and surrounding areas are very anti-2nd. What the law say and what it does are not always the same thing….

            • I fail to see what has that to do with anything? I am anti-abortion regardless of what the law says….so? The law is what we are required to live by regardless of what we think.

              And Kent may be right about how they think there, but many others throughout the state think the opposite. Again, so?

        • Denver;s municipal code was used against people just visiting the city or passing through (we have the right under law to have concealed guns in our vehicles without permit). It went to the State Supreme Court and was overturned, so Denver cant hassle us for being in their city with our firearms.

          I don’t remember the case, I’d have to look it up. But it set precedence for all municipal codes.

  16. I will say this about if people in the theater had been able to have a gun to be – possibly – able to stop the shooter.

    I spent my life with firearms, in the military and in my law enforcement/corrections career. I was trained, I maintained my skills through constant practice – both in marksmanship abilities and in tactical shooting situations. Had I been in that theater my first instinct would not have been to pull my pistol and try to cap the shooter – it would have been to get my loved ones with me to safety, along with any other people I could get to safety as well. That is what people were trying to do – get to safety. Taking on the shooter to take him out would have been my last resort action to defend my loved ones.

    I refuse to argue the debate of the 2nd amendment or gun restrictions. It is irrelevant to the incident for me at this point. Both sides have legitimate arguments.

    Instead I will offer my thoughts and prayers to all the victims and their families, and the shooter’s family. As to the shooter, I have these conflicting feelings about him and will need to consider deeper how I can look at him and what he “deserves” from society.

  17. July 20, 2012
    Quietly, a food crisis brews
    Steve McCann

    The nation is experiencing its worst drought in over half a century. Grain crops, particularly corn, are being devastated as only 31% of the domestic corn crop in is good shape versus 40% just one week ago. The same is true for soybeans as only 34% is in good shape versus 40% last week.

    As a result both commodities have hit record highs on the world futures market. For the first time in history corn exceeded $8.00 per bushel to $8.05 (one year ago–$5.50) and soybeans are at a high of $17.12 per bushel ($10.90 a year ago). It is projected by some commodities experts that these price may go up yet another 20-30%. The inflationary impact of these vital grains will be felt very soon in the nation’s grocery stores as virtually all meat and many processed foods are dependent on these commodities. This on top of an economy that is already languishing in recession levels.

    However, the government still insists that over 40% of the nation’s corn crop be diverted to ethanol and burned in our cars. When asked, the current Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, rejected calls for corn to be diverted from ethanol production to alleviate the expected shortage of grains for human and animal consumption.

    The level of loyalty to radical environmental policies apparently know no bounds as the price of corn, while a major problem for America, is devastating for many third world countries that depend on corn and soybeans for the majority of their diets. The United States accounts for one-third of all corn, soybeans and wheat traded on the international market. It was similar inflationary and food shortage problem in 2009-10 that fomented much of the Arab Spring and food riots throughout many parts of the world. Additionally China, the world’s largest importer of soybeans, is already experiencing food inflation, which will add to the slowing down of their economy and thus the global economy as the United States is stuck in an economic quagmire of its own making.

    While wheat and some other grains are in still in somewhat plentiful supply, the pressure to substitute those for corn and soybeans has caused those price to rise as well. Wheat is currently selling for $9.25 a bushel versus $5.77 a year ago). The future of the American and global economy is becoming more bleak by the day and there is an administration in Washington D.C. that doesn’t give a damn.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/quietly_a_food_crisis_brews.html#ixzz21C4ndBUb

    LOI wonders, does Obama want to cause an American version of the Arab Spring?

  18. Mathius™ says:
    • Oh the horrors!!!

    • OK, another good read, from John Lott

      Obama IRS rewriting Obamacare now that it is clear that states aren’t doing what was intended
      Congress wrote the Obamacare law to achieve a particular result, but things haven’t worked out quite as intended. In this case, Democrats wrote the law to put pressure on states to adopt the health insurance exchanges, but apparently Democrats thought that the pressure would be so great that states would have to adopt the exchanges. They never really planned for the exchanges not being set up. From the Cato Institute:

      It turns out that ObamaCare makes an essential part of its regulatory scheme—an $800 billion bailout of private health insurance companies—conditional upon state governments creating the health insurance “exchanges” envisioned in the law.

      This was no “drafting error.” During congressional consideration of the bill, its lead author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), acknowledged that he intentionally and purposefully made that bailout conditional on states implementing their own Exchanges.

      Now that it appears that as many as 30 states will not create Exchanges, the law is in peril. When states refuse to establish an Exchange, they are blocking not only that bailout, but also the $2,000 per worker tax ObamaCare imposes on employers. If enough states refuse to establish an Exchange, they can effectively force Congress to repeal much or all of the law.

      That might explain why the IRS is literally rewriting the statute. On May 24, the IRS finalized a regulation that says the law’s $800 billion insurance-industry bailout will not be conditional on states creating Exchanges. With the stroke of pen, the IRS (1) stripped states of the power Congress gave them to shield employers from that $2,000 per-worker tax, (2) imposed that illegal tax on employers whom Congress exempted, and (3) issued up to $800 billion of tax credits and direct subsidies to private health insurance companies—without any congressional authorization whatsoever. . . .

    • Did I miss it? How much of her income is she paying for this free service? Note how quickly she becomes enamored with the government taking care of her.

      There is no doubt we need changes to our healthcare system; government in charge is not the way to go.

      • Yup, you missed it: “…And lest you think that taxes are astronomical, our median income taxes each year were only slightly higher than they had been in the States…”

    • Yes, it is a good read………on what not to do.

      • Why?

        • Hey there, Buckster……….hows things today? I am not actually talking about the example of the pregnancy listed in this article….I am going much deeper than that. I do not have the reference handy (will try to find it…I copied it and stored it somewhere…suffering CRS right now….and, of course, did not file it under something as simple as Canadian Healthcare) but read a pretty scathing report on the Canadian Health system from the Canadian doctors themselves the other day in that there is a severe shortage of doctors now, not only in urban areas but in the large cities themselves and how there is a mass exodus of doctors from Canada as a result of the system. The gist of the report is also how they are actively seeking internationally trained doctors from India because their own medical school trained doctors are leaving for other countries…not only the United States but other countries as well. The Canadian Parliament is considering a draft type of system that forces Canadian trained doctors to have to practice in Canada for a specified period of time. The Canadian Parliament is drafting some provision to provide complete tuition paid medical school to not only Canadian citizens but to International Applicants as well with the caveat of staying in Canada for the years of paid medical school in medical service for the number of years of training plus four. So if Medical school training is 8 years….they must stay in the system for 12 years or repay the tuition in its entirety and they cannot enter into any private practice in Canada after completion of the service. They were saying that the medical schools are virtually empty with very few outside recruits. I can see why, of course.

          What is happening, according to this report is that the elderly are suffering the most in that normal routine surgery is taking an average of 12 to 14 months to get into a hospital unless it is life threatening. They used the example of dialysis in that a person awaiting a new kidney is not considered life threatening if artificial means can keep them going until the surgery…even if a match is found. This particular example went on to cite that the matching donor was a son that was willing to donate one of his kidneys but there was no scheduling for 14 months. In the meantime, the dad died suddenly from kidney failure. There are two reasons for this, according to the same report. (1) There is a shortage of specialized surgeons, and (2) there is a shortage of beds in the hospitals.

          Now the same report did say that there were some good provisions of the Canadian Health System in that the already healthy had great preventative services but did say that trying to cover everything was straining the system and creating huge delays. It went further to state that some areas, like Vancouver, were ok but that it was beginning to show there as well. The report cited the major reasons for the exodus is controlled salaries and overwork of the doctors that are there.

          It looks to me that while the theory may be good, the actual logistics become unwieldy. I fear the same shortage of doctors under the Obamacare. I do know that my parents, in their nineties as you know, currently under the medicare system, will lose two of their three doctors if this law is not thrown out by Congress. They will go to private practice and not accept medicaid/medicare. This will not affect my parents except financially but we can afford private care. When I lose Tricare in 2014, it will not hurt me either as financially, I will be able to afford private medical care. I worry about the logistics of the single payer system. We will see how it turns out. You may be able to force people into a single payer system but you cannot force doctors to work if they wish not to…and that may indeed be a problem. I am hearing more and more how the doctors are going to bail out.

          • Caveat….I will not use the term Obamacare in the future….that is combative. I will use the term Universal Health Care or Single Payer System.

            (Imagine a Colonel not being combative….I really need back on my DP’s)

            • I’d prefer you use ‘Obamacare’ to “Universal Health Care” or “Single Payer System” when talking about the US system as it currently stands — I’m sure we can agree that Obamacare does not provide universal care nor is Obamacare akin to a single payer system.

              I’m out — enjoy the weekend!

            • Colonel,

              I will not use the term Obamacare in the future….that is combative. I will use the term Universal Health Care or Single Payer System.

              If you think this is accurate, then you really shouldn’t comment on Health Care at all.

  19. @ Mathius…..”do yous righties really wonder why we think the right is often batshit crazy?”

    Yeah…..both sides do have their detractors……the same ones on the left that claim such movies incite violence and copy cats and, therefore, should be restricted and edited.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I will thank you, sir, to please stop confusing me with Charlie.

      However, this is laughable. Bane is a GREAT character. The movie was excellent. Limbaugh is a bloviating windbag who makes his living off seeing liberal conspiracies everywhere. The issue I have is when people take him seriously on stuff like this.

      • now THAT I will agree with you on…..not too many of my conservative friends even listed to Limbaugh nor HAnnity…..my self included.

        No one could ever confuse you with Charlie…….BOTH of you are in a class of your own.

  20. I have to pass along a sentiment I heard from the representative of the Brady Foundation I saw on MSNBC (yes I watch those “Leftie” commentators as well as the “Rightie ones on Fox).

    In speaking to the idea that if citizens had been allowed to have guns on their person in the theater and could have stopped the shooter – he said we should remember that President Reagan had many highly trained and armed agents around him but it didn’t prevent him and James Brady from getting shot. (I am paraphrasing)

    While those agents reacted in a trained manner, that is more than we can expect from citizens who are not as well trained. (I said this, not the commentator)

    • @ Plainly….you are quite correct in both statements….however, even a delayed response would have been better….but even in this case, this guy had a Kevlar style helmet, full body armor including throat and groin protector and a friggin gas mask….the only clear kill shot would have been in the goggles in a darkened theater filled with gas.

      What I wonder is that if this guy dressed like that…it would indicate to me that he was there to die….but surrendered peacefully. He could have taken out several police if he wanted to. Strange situation.

      Would it not be interesting to see if the AR15 is traceable to Fast and Furious or the glocks.

      • Would it not be interesting to see if the AR15 is traceable to Fast and Furious or the glocks.

        No, not really. I believe I heard on Fox earlier today (though I could be mistaken) they had information that the weapons we all legally purchased over the past month or so. I do know that Insta check would not have stopped him for as far as what is being told to the press, the shooter had only a traffic ticket on his record.

        I think it is irresponsible to even make a comment like this with so little information being released at this time by the authorities. You insinuate a political posture into this whole tragedy with such a remark in my humble opinion. Wasn’t it you who said something about commenting before 24 hours had passed (if not, I apologize for the mis-attribution)

        • No sir….I certainly did say that and I guess the fast and furious issue was a stretch bt it came to mind and the fingers did not stop. But I did say that but I will say that the fast and furious comment is not at all politically motivated……I am on the front lines with this. I am on the front lines with the see a gun and run issue…so I guess I am a little sensitive about what has happened here. But I stand, once again, correctly admonished on not keeping silent for the 24 hours and will do so….it does not good to actually discuss it anyway..not on here.

          • Col, I may have not stated my thought clearly and I beg your indulgence to try again?

            I did not mean to imply you made the statement with a political motivation in mind, I meant (and like said poorly) that you insinuate a political posture or skin to the incident by such a statement. I think you have sir, a soul attuned to the hardships of your fellow humans and wouldn’t use such a situation to launch a political discourse over what is seen as a black mark (Fast & Furious) against Obama and this administration.

            I just felt it gave a, as I just said, political skin to the tragedy. I would hope all sides will rise above the political and not drag this incident into the world of bitter political fights.

            I hope that this conveys my intention better. I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

            • No apology needed and no offense taken…You were correct and I was wrong. I did allow my emotion to get the better of me because this issue in Colorado is tragic. Very tragic. The issue on the border is no less tragic. We are finding guns down here that are attributable to F&F in local crimes now…..not just on the Mexican side anymore and I saw the hoopla right off the bat on CNN on how this idiot in Aurora was “probably” a Tea Party Activist. One of the things that gets to me right now, is the polarization of this country that is the worse than I have ever seen in my lifetime….and that includes the sixties when there were separate counters for blacks and riding in the back of the bus. I do not know what caused this young man to “break” and shoot up a theater but it is not because guns are readily available, it is not because of a political bent, it is not because of anything except a pretty sick person that snapped and nobody knows the why yet. This man is not a terrorist who jumps up and yells allah akbar or I hate Obama and then guns people down. He legally buys weapons and ammunition. He legally obtains full body armor. He is a scientist that makes his own chemicals and learned how to hot wire and booby trap his apartment. He dyes his hair red and says ” I am the Joker” and guns people down. All I have heard is how easy guns are to obtain and it is the NRA and the right wing that is responsible. I have heard numerous commentaries on how the theater should be sued and why were the police not there? I am hearing even today the dissection of the reasons this thing happened and what could be done to avoid this type of situation and the laws that need to be passed…..

              I allowed myself to be part of this clap trap through an emotional reaction that should have never happened. What should be focused on is the tragedy and the parents and victims. Not political grandstanding and screaming for new laws and law suits. This is what our country has become and it is as sad as the tragedy. So, kind sir, I take no offense and thank you for bringing this tired old Colonel to earth.

              • Colonel, this tired old Sergeant agrees with everything the tired old Colonel just wrote here.


              • naten53 says:

                The crazy things I have seen is when friends of mine are posting on facebook that they went to see it and people reply, “were you scared” “were the police there” or the friend that posted that they were scared to go see it now.

                Why are people not scared of getting in their car and driving the the movie theatre: Rate per 100,000: 12.4

                Accedential poisoning: 10.0

                Falls: 8.4

                Drugs: 12.2

                Suicide: 12.2 (by firearm: 6.3)

                Alcohol-induced: 8.2

                Homicide: 5.2 (by firearms: 3.6)

                Why are people not outraged over how many people are dieing in West Virginia: 1148.1 (highest state)
                Alaska sounds nice: 524.8 (lowest)

              • naten53 says:

                forgot link 2010 statistics from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

      • Yes, this guy was reportedly outfitted to the full extent…..yet in playing “what-if” I am reminded of something my father would say when I was young (and have used myself to my children) “boy, if worms had tommyguns birds wouldn’t mess with them.”

        As in the Gabby Giffords shootin (or any other tragic shooting we could use), we can never truly know if any “what-if” we come up with would have changed anything.

    • Plainly, D13

      First Plainly, I strongly disagree with the Reagan/Aurora comparison. One .22 surprise attack that ends in seconds vs what, rifles, shotgun, pistols and teargas to get things started. Trained agents could not stop him from firing several shots. They did stop him in a very short period of time, again, seconds. There were no trained agents or anything except sheep (willing or unwilling, sheepdogs muzzled) laid out like ducks. They all lacked the ability and training to respond. Some might have had the ability, but were denied any chance due to where they were sitting and how the attack was done.

      What’s that line, it’s not the size of the dog in a fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog?

      If people have a fighting chance, they fight. Some will fight with no chance.

      “this guy had a Kevlar style helmet, full body armor including throat and groin protector and a friggin gas mask….the only clear kill shot would have been in the goggles in a darkened theater filled with gas.”

      An armed citizen in the third row could have started shooting, center mass, no effect. Some would empty their guns like that, others would shift their aim to the gas mask, or arms…….. The point really comes down to going from no hope to some hope. Damn it all, what does it take to show there is a human spirit, where some will step forward into any breach to protect others? On 9/11, how many ran into two burning buildings? To say, they “might” shoot an innocent or be a greater danger or simply not be able to stop the shooter, like with Hinkley….
      So their answer is to simply lie down and accept whatever the evil persons wants to inflict? If the secret service can’t protect the president, you should lay down whenever someone points a gun at you?

      I don’t see that, I obtained my CCW permit because the media hyped their stories on pedofile predators. Over their ( not my) dead bodies. I have self-tested myself on police qualifications at 460. Not that great a score, but I also know officers that struggle to pass the 400 requirement. And that is supposed to be where we find comfort and security? This guy was arrested by the police, IN THE PARKING LOT. For myself, and my wife and two children, we would much rather trust anyone who feels able and willing to carry a gun to act when an attack happens, than to the police to catch them after we are shot.

      I also want to state, to me, this is not about this one event. There have been too many mass shootings. There are too many shootings, period. Government may be PART of the solution, but will never be the solution. Government did not create the phone, the personal computer or the internet. Government will not protect YOU, as an individual. That leaves me believing YOU can best decide how to protect yourself. Did you learn how to operate the new phones and computers? If you can operate today’s cutting edge technology, why can’t you opperate a gun that’s been around over five hundred years? Is it because the same people that can’t fix our education system, our budget, welfare, prison, immigration, etc, keep telling you, YOU can’t do this? Maybe it’s them that can’t..You can! They can’t.

      • LOI,

        I personally – legally – carry a handgun everywhere I can do so in my state. I said what I did to compare the average citizens training and ability in a highly stressful tactical consideration. Even a well trained individual would have stood a reasonably good chance of hitting an innocent just because of all those fleeing. It is their actions you can’t control – period.

        I also dislike this “what-if” game that – as usual – gets trotted out with every mass shooting. None of us can say what we would have been able to accomplish – even you – because it is all theory. We can’t test it. The situation is over, it can’t be recreated as it happened just for us to “prove” our theories.

        Read above the comment I made about “what-if’s”. I did clearly say that my first instinct would be to protect my loved ones, and standing up and capping away at this shooter would not be what I did first to try and save them.

        I know what I believe the government can and can’t do. I don’t by any measure suggest that only our government can save us etc…., I have argued before in that regard on this very site. But at the same time, I know that humans grouped together will NEVER in my opinion be able to exist without some government.

        • charlieopera says:

          Plainly, you remain the most reasonable and sound voice on this site. I mean that.

          • Thank you for the compliment Charlie. 🙂 I am not sure how many would agree with you though.

            Hey, let me give you a chuckle for the day. About 3-4 weeks ago my wife (who is currently in Nicaragua on a humanitarian medical mission) and I were discussing the upcoming election and she decided that she will vote for Obama (and she is more to the right on the spectrum than I am) and urges me to do the same. 🙂

            • Nooooo. You told us about your troubles, Plainly. Hurry! Get her checked out too. Start with psychiatrists! 🙂

              • She is no more insane than you – you both believe that the “right” Man in the Big Chair will make your lives better.

              • Leave me alone BF. I’ve only recently become insane, cut me some slack. 🙂

              • lol Anita. No, no head shrinker (hmmm….maybe we could get one here on SUFA? I’m pretty sure he or she would have plenty to do. 🙂 ). She is a big girl and can make her own decisions.

                BF, my wife is under no more delusions about what the person in the Big Chair can and can’t do than you are under in your world. Frankly, the stance you took on the coercion discussion struck me as being the most inane and ludicrous of any position you have ever taken. So, your comment to Anita about her and my wife’s insanity is without merit.

              • Plainly,

                Re: Coercion

                Well, enter the fray but understand that I already know my position on this matter is Right. … and that’s the point.

                You, like most, believe Human Rights make you laugh, love and you win all the time. If you can’t laugh, it is annoying, or you lose … you believe it can’t be a Right.

                You have a highly distorted understanding of Rights and Civil behavior, thus get utterly confused when certain situations present themselves.

                In trying to resolve that confusion, you begin to redefine concepts and your terms, believing it was a definition problem, not a confusion of Righteous Action.

                After you make a mess of concepts and terms – your confusion compounds as that mess begins to manifest even worse abuses of Rights … but this time, those application of “Rights” that you like.

                So you try to undo the mess by making it even more worse …. until you’re so wrapped up in the concept warp you don’t know up from down.

                You turn into Charlie.

                Enough of the like of you that turn into Charlie, civilization collapses.

              • Plainly

                In answering his Emperor’s plea to help stop the decay of the Empire, Confucius respond, “To halt the collapse of a society, first and foremost, words must have meaning.”

              • *clap, clap, clap^ good for you BF, you KNOW you’re right – hence discussion of the subject is useless to you. I am in no mood for one of your long drawn out convoluted arguments. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. PERIOD. I have no desire to waste my efforts in talking to a wall (you being the wall).

                Go explain your position to your wife, if you haven’t already.

              • Plainly,

                My argument is simple and thus not convoluted; I have clearly defined and rigorous definitions and concepts.

                The problem: you cannot claim the same.

                You demand society must always return you a gain. When it does not, you believe it is a breach of your Rights.

                You believe this, because your concept of “Rights” is faulty.

                Should you apply your concept of “Rights” beyond yourself, it fails.
                Your concept cannot be exercised by others, because to do so will breach your Rights.

                So, you get angry.
                You demand that your Rights must always produce a win, yet, your demand of this guarantees total loss.

              • Oh, and PS:
                Mrs. Flag does agree with me on this matter.
                The correct answer is to find another job, and inform others about such an employer, and let human action take its course.

        • Plainly, I think my big beef is with the what if game. None of us know how we will react except those who have been shot at, usually military. A 20 plus yr state tropper told me he had never been shot at or had to shoot anyone. A good record to have, I think.

          And to give credit when due, Charlie may be right about you, even if he is a mook.

        • Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. You are basically right “buck fever” does take over and holding point of aim with the adrenaline rush and your heart pumping is never easy. This 71 year old, in the video got it right the other day.

          I always open “The American Rifleman” every month to the armed citizen page. Have been doing that since ’64 when I first subscribed and have been repeatedly amazed by how many people will get it right when the chips are down. This is a discussion I’d love to have with people like the Colonel who have seen the elephant. Having only used a gun once (unloaded no less but they didn’t know) to stop a mugging, when does the jumpiness subside and the calmness set in?

  21. charlieopera says:

    The best thing from Texas BESIDES the Colonel? Stevie Ray …

    Penn State: Too Big To Fail II … Nazi Boy Scouts … KnicksINsanity … Bachmann insanity … Rough Riders stuff …

  22. I ran across this video last night and thought it might offer something interesting to the topic.

    Quick setup – Lloyd Irvin is a highly successful martial artist, MMA coach, trainer and also runs several other highly successful businesses. For fans of MMA – he is the coach of several big name stars such as Dominick Cruz and Brandon Vera. As a student of brazilian jiu jitsu I train under one of Master Lloyd’s black belts. Master Lloyd has trained for decades in a variety of martial arts and tactical self defense.

    A few years back Irvin was the victim of a home invasion – he was at home with his wife, son and one of his fighters (Vera) when two gunmen entered his home. The gunmen had been on an extensive crime spree in the Maryland, DC and NOVA area and already murdered other victims. If there was anyone prepared to handle a home invasion it was him – from purely a self defense perspective. What I found interesting was his description of his “adrenaline dump” at the start of things – and how it left him paralyzed from acting. I believe the nuance here was that because of circumstance, the gunman he turned things on was not going to kill him/them at the moment that Irvin acted. Had any number of things been different perhaps Irvin would have been shot and/or all of them. Maybe they were all moments from being shot – we’ll never know.

    Fast forward to around 17:50 to hear the relevant parts.

    It makes me think/wonder – we have a lot of gun owners that express confidence that at the moment of terror in places such as Aurora, they would have pulled a gun had they had one and taken care of business. But – and this is a big BUT – do we really know if everything would actually kick into place in the moment of crisis? I’m sure Irvin thought he’d be ok – years of training however could not have prepared him for “freezing” (although to his credit him mental training saved him and things played out to his favor).

    This isn’t my argument for gun control – just throwing this out there and wondering if the resident gun owners here would consider this possible if they have never been in a life/death situation before where they had to shoot (e.g. if they’ve never been in combat/war).

    Interested in what folks have to say.


    • Ray, great video! Nothing you or he said do I disagree with(except all my bicycle training has mentally prepared me for any situation). Training helps, but you never know how you will react until you face a real life situation. That cop a couple years ago that shot a handcuffed kid in the back, it wasn’t training or lack of that caused it…The 71 year old man in the video I posted, I don’t know what or how he prepared himself. Not sure I agree with how he reacted, but the results are what count. I think Flag commented on if his daughter was lost, he had told her to rely on hte kindness of random strangers. I would like to borrow that and say I would rely on the comptence of random strangers.

  23. Forward into this post:


    I do not care about the job, BF.

    Then quit, and the problem is solved.

    I care about abuse of power.

    Oh, you actually do care.
    Make up your mind.

    A single laborer does not have equivalent power to a single employer.


    The laborer has 100% control over his own labor – what more power are you demanding that he does not have???

    This was evidenced by the fact that labor conditions in early industrial America required unions to change them.


    Labor conditions had radically improved long before there were unions. You are using terrible revisionist history, old friend.

    You refuse to apply economics to economic questions, and end up lost.

    Labor is an economic good, like apples.
    IF there are too many apples in a market, the price of those apples falls.

    When there are too few, the price of those apples rise.

    The price of labor in the early industrial age was low as there were millions of starving farm workers – there were a lot of apples.

    But the choice was to sell the apple at a low price, or let the apple rot unsold. Which choice do you make, as an apple grower? Obviously, sell at a low price.

    The choice is to sell your labor at a low price or starve. What choice do you make, as a laborer. Obviously, sell at a low price.

    As the industrial revolution began to improve prosperity by producing more and more goods, cheaper and cheaper, there was a need from more labor.

    As the apple supply becomes consumed, there are less apples – the price rises.

    As the prosperity expanded, the demand for labor increased – the price of labor rises.

    Now, a sidebar. When government interferes with the marketplace, distortions in that market appear, and equally, bypasses of that distortion appear.

    In labor, the income tax is such a distortion. Increasing salary is taxed disproportionately.
    So to avoid that distortion, employers change the method of trade from merely salary into things called “benefits” – which tend to avoid taxation.

    So work conditions “improve”, health benefits, retirement, paid days off, etc. are all the consequence of avoiding some sort of tax.

    Thus, improved labor conditions comes from two impetus – one, a method of alternative “salary” payments and two, workers have more choices of where to work.

    This is the reason the work conditions got better – and not the unions

    The emergence of the unions was a consequence of better working conditions and the realization that, in fact, labor was scarce.

    So, Jon, you have your cause/effect backwards.

    • charlieopera says:

      You refuse to apply economics to economic questions, and end up lost.

      Yes, Jon, you’ll have to smoke some strong weed and enter the universe of BF … a.k.a. psycoville …

      • To no surprise, Charlie, in the face of fact, abandons reason and goes insane.

        • charlieopera says:

          i’ll take my insanity over your long, never ending, boring worldview everytime, my man (or woman, we really don’t know what you are, do we)?

  24. 😉

  25. The first unions appears in 1870 in Britain and America

    A study about Industrial Wales

    The average farm hand wage changed very little from 1700 to 1850 – less then 10% in 150 years.

    But in North Wales, where the factories and coal mines are, the wage increased over 75% between 1780 and 1850.

    Another indicator:
    In the 1750s, Watt (inventor of the steam engine, and the source of the start of the Industrial Revolution) received a salary of 35 British pounds per year.

    By comparison, a British army surgeon in the 1770s earned around 73 pounds per year.

    In 1830, engineer Robert Stephenson was named Chief Engineer of the British Railway System. For this role, he received a salary ranging between 1,500 and 2,000 British pounds per year.

    Here is a data file of wages from 1209 to 1914 (among other things)

    1750 wages for farmer, craft worker, builder – British pounds per year
    10.7 / 20 / 12

    1850 wages for same
    18 / 44 / 29

    So don’t waste my time claiming “unions” were the cause of improving working conditions.

    History of Unions

    What accounts for the appearance of these associations? They cannot be traced to particular oppression of workers at that time. On the contrary, most workers were better off in 1800 than they had been in 1780. It is significant also that unions did not appear at first among the most exploited groups —- the cotton-mill workers, and home workers on piece rates —-but among skilled tradesmen such as the printers, carpenters, and shoemakers.

    In the United States, as in most other industrial countries, the relatively skilled and prosperous workers organized first. The first unions in Great Britain, for example, consisted of building and printing trades workers, who were followed shortly afterward by unions of tailors and wool combers. In Sweden, the first union was formed by the printers, next by the carpenters, and next by the skilled metal-trades workers.

    Neither can the rise of unionism be traced to the introduction of machine production. None of the industries organized during the period 1790 to 1830 had been significantly affected by machine methods. An important stimulus to union organization in some industries however, was the broadening of the domestic market for manufactures, which resulted from the improvement of transportation facilities.

  26. President Obama’s initiative to let Bush-era tax breaks for those making more than $250,000 expire will lead to fewer jobs, lower wages and a smaller economy, according to a new study.

    According to the report released by Ernst and Young, a lapse of the tax breaks will mean in 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%. These rates will discourage savings and reduce investment, according to the study, which was prepared on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the S Corporation Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    According to the report, if the president’s tax proposal goes into effect the economic output in the “long-run” will fall by 1.3% — or $200 billion, and employment will decrease by 0.5% — or 710,000 jobs.

    “This study shows that raising taxes next year will have a devastating impact on small businesses, including community banks,” ICBA President and CEO Cam Fine said in a statement.

    “Many community banks and other small businesses are organized as Subchapter S corporations, which would face a nearly 10 percent tax hike—limiting growth and threatening our nation’s economy.”

    In addition, the study says capital stock and investment would fall by 1.4% and 2.4% respectively in the long-run. Finally, real after-tax wages will decrease by 1.8%, which reflects a decline in workers’ living standards, the study reports.

    “While House Republicans are focused on jobs, the President and Congressional Democrats continue to play politics with the issue of expiring taxes at the year’s end,” Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) said in a statement. “Dividing the nation based on class envy may be effective politics, but it doesn’t address our nation’s most pressing problem – jobs.”

    Mike Brey, owner and president of Brey Corp. t/a Hobby Works (R) in Laurel, Md., said the Ernst and Yound report left him frustrated and that he feels the NFIB in particular has offered more criticism than solutions for the economic recovery as of late. Brey is a member of the Small Business Majority business council.

    “This report reflects the partisan bickering going on in Congress now, and ignores one obvious fact—this whole ‘fiscal cliff’ thing Congress put in place is only there because they couldn’t get the job done last year or the year before,” Brey said.

    President Obama’s tax proposal will not impact the vast majority of small business owners, Brey said, because they often make less than $250,000 annually. Many businesses that are growing and making more than that are simply reinvesting their cash back into the business, and can write off many of their investments and purchases, he said.

    “You are not affected by the consequences of this anyway, because you are putting your money back into the business,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine these [economic] declines wouldn’t be offset by rising consumer sentiment and excitement that Congress would be actually doing something to help the economy.”

  27. Amid all the calls for greater and more gun control in the aftermath of the Colorado tragedy I thought that I would add this:

    At least 11 people died Sunday and another 12 were injured after a pickup truck loaded with passengers left the highway and crashed into trees in rural South Texas, authorities said.

    State troopers and Goliad County sheriff’s investigators were investigating what prompted the single-vehicle crash and did not immediately know the names and ages of the victims. Gerald Bryant, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, told The Associated Press they were various ages and that he personally saw two young children among the dead at the scene.

    “This is the most people I’ve seen in any passenger vehicle, and I’ve been an officer for 38 years,” Bryant said, referring to the chaotic scene.

    The white 2000 Ford F-250 pickup was heading north on U.S. 59 on Sunday evening when it traveled off the right side of the highway near the unincorporated community of Berclair in Goliad County and struck two large trees, Bryant said. The 23 people were loaded inside both the truck’s cab and bed.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/10-dead-after-truck-carrying-at-least-22-crashes-in-texas-authorities-say/#ixzz21Rpo0BqD

    D13 demands that we outlaw all F 250 pick up trucks. Just look at the carnage this truck did. They are a menace and something should be done.

    (Yes, this is a political statement)

    Good morning, Buck-meister……I am sending you some complimentary 105 + weather your way. I do not wish to be greedy.

    • The great danger of the “Batman” shooting is that the still-deluded folks among us will believe that more government power and more gun control will solve the problem. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn’t even wait for the bodies in Aurora, Colorado to cool before he began his usual braying for gun control. Well, if guns are the problem, perhaps Mayor Bloomberg could lead by example and disband the armed NYPD security detail that protects him 24-7. Perhaps someone should remind him what armed NYPD men did to Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima. Or remind him about the Happy Land Social Club fire, in which 87 people were killed not by a gun, but by $5 worth of gasoline, or the Oklahoma City Bombing, in which 168 people were killed by diesel fuel and fertilizer, or the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 by box-cutters and airplanes.

      The numerous journalists who think that we need to enact “sensible gun laws” like “other countries” should be reminded that mass shootings have occurred in Germany, Norway, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, even after gun control laws far stricter than those in the U.S. were enacted.

      Anyone who thinks that only the government should have guns, or that government officials wouldn’t possibly commit acts of evil with guns, ought to familiarize himself with the following: Katyn Forest, Holodomor, NKVD, Khmer Rouge, Cultural Revolution, Tianenmen Square, Dujail, Babi Yar, Nanking, Waco, and Srebrenica.

      The lesson of the “Batman” shooting is this: where there is a large sheep herd, the wolves will always thrive.

      Do we want to be sheep, or not?

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/where_there_are_sheep_wolves_will_always_thrive.html#ixzz21Rs2ydsD

      • LOI: “The numerous journalists who think that we need to enact “sensible gun laws” like “other countries” should be reminded that mass shootings have occurred in Germany, Norway, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, even after gun control laws far stricter than those in the U.S. were enacted.”

        I don’t have all the details here, so bear with me — my impression (and this is only an unsupported impression) is that the US has a far greater incidence of such attacks than other countries. Do you know if this is true? Assuming this is true for a second, no one is arguing that sensible gun laws will put an end to these incidences, but I’m willing to bet they would reduce the number of such incidences.

        Colonel: “I am sending you some complimentary 105 + weather your way. I do not wish to be greedy.”

        Why would you do such a thing to me!?? What did I ever do to you??

        • @Buck……nothing sir, you have done nothing to offend me at all. You are my friend……friends share things with other friends….and since we have an abundance of this lovely weather…..I am sharing. Isn’t this nice? Just to prove that I can play well with others.

          Now…..Buck…..you used the term “sensible” and government in the same dialogue….as a counselor, I really thought you knew better than this. Perhaps you need more coffee this morning? ( I have never understood something….why does anyone drink hot coffee or hot anything in the summer? ) There is no such thing as a sensible anything coming out of government. However, allow me to interject something here as it pertains to guns…..like like pickups and like cars….any utensil in the hands of the untrained and evil are dangerous. A gun is a utensil….an overloaded pick up that will end up killing more that the Colorado incident is just as dangerous……I do not know the answers…..but I think I will research the shooting deaths and vehicle deaths in the United States and see what I come up with….I do not know but I will take a quick look.

          Further, when it turns winter, please do not feel you have to reciprocate and send cold weather here. We have plenty….(remember, when it gets below 80 it is cold) so…we have that as well. Besides, we are getting plenty of you transplanted New Yorkers here and they are all complaining of the hot weather….and it ain’t even August yet….

          • Well then, I greatly appreciate your offer of generosity in sharing the heat wave, but please, for the sake of our continued friendship, keep it and enjoy it. If you still feel the need to share the heat wave with me, then I will be forced to reciprocate and share with you a cold snap or two in the coming months. Please do not read this as some sort of threat; as you say, friendship means sharing and reciprocation of good deeds out of mutual respect for one another. I would be remiss if I did not follow suit.

            Now, on to guns and sensible gun control laws. I was watching Morning Joe this morning and Wes Moore made a pretty good point. He is a pretty big 2d Amendment kind of guy; he supports the right to own guns and owns several himself. That being said, you would probably argue that he is no friend of the 2d Amendment because he also understands the need for sensible limits. But, back to his point — there is easy and clear justification for anyone to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting, sport, etc. But what is the justification for an AK-47?

            I understand where you are coming from about guns being merely a tool, a utensil, and there is some truth to that comment that I can agree with. But surely even you, a Texan cowboy gun-slinging retired Colonel, and I, a New York (let’s just forget the fact I am currently residing in that expanse of space to the left of NYC…) progressive-minded lawyer, that there can be some sensible gun control laws in place that could help hinder or limit such horrific tragedies from occurring in the future. Or maybe I do just need another cup of coffee this morning…

            • The feds have been super successful at controlling drugs, maybe they can transfer some of that knowledge to guns?

            • See? I knew you were sensible…even for a progressive space loving liberal west of NYC….

              What is the need for an AK 47? None…..I have one…as I said before I took it off a young lad that tried to poke me with the pointy end. It is on my wall in what I call my war room, with all my shadow boxes of memorabilia from my warrior years abroad. I also have a fully automatic M 16….an AR 15 semi auto, a World War II fully automatic BAR, and an M1 Gerand, and an M1 and M2 Carbine along with various shotguns, deer rifles, and a small plethora of pistolas.

              There is a great point that I will grant you that assault rifles are very rarely used for hunting animals. I do not even fire my assault weapons…they are war memorabilia and collector items….I also have an extensive collection of pepper boxes and 1800 vintage weapons along with swords, sabres, knives…etc. (Note: Do not break into my home) So, from a collectors standpoint, I have no problem with owning assault weaponry. This lad in Colorado had a shotgun as well and glock 40 cal pistols…..all capable of multiple rounds. Every shotgun that I hunt with will chamber five rounds except for the double barrel 4-10. Every single long gun (rifle to you) that I have will chamber at least five rounds…except my black powder sharps .50.

              Now….in order to have fully automatic weaponry, I have a Federal Firearms permit.

              But….semi automatic automatic weapons will fire as fast as you could pull a trigger. I could get behind some form of control concerning magazines….there is no target practice where anyone needs a drum 200 round magazine. But a 16 round clip….well, I can’t find an argument against that. I can load and fire three 5 round clips within 2.5 seconds of the same time you can empty a 16 round magazine. I don’t know the answer myself.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “But what is the justification for an AK-47? ”

              BECAUSE I want one and I have a RIGHT to own one if I choose.

        • Buck, sorry I was posting just as you posted. Does the John Lott below answer you on US vs foreign gun deaths?

          • It definitely provides some more insight, but I don’t like how it lumps all of Europe as a comparison to the US. I’d like to see (which I’m sure is readily available) something along the lines of a chart of mass shootings by country.

            • I can agree on that but some things just don’t translate. Japan should be included and S. Korea, but not N. Korea, China or the Middle East. Our cultures are too different. The funny thing you find, Americans are just more violent than, Australians, British, French, Canadians, etc…take our guns, we’ll use knives, clubs & chairs at a higher rate. You also have to look at much that is published with skepticism. Or believe Iran on how loving and kind they are to their people…Sure, they have nearly no gun violence…..

  28. Think Tough Gun Laws Keep Europeans Safe? Think Again…

    By John Lott

    Published June 10, 2010


    It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

    Multiple victim public shootings were assumed to be an American thing for it is here the guns are, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. So it is in the United States, too — all the multiple victim public shootings (where more than three people have been killed) have taken place where civilians are not allowed to have a gun.

    Look at recent history. Where have the worst K-12 school shootings occurred? It has not been in the U.S. but Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth worst shooting was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 killed. The fifth worst school related murder spree, with 11 murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

    With three of the worst five attacks, Germany may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control. Even by European standards, Germany has some of the strictest gun control laws. Indeed, these laws are far stricter than existing gun control in the U.S., or for that matter, the restrictions currently being discussed in the United States.

    Though not quite as tight as U.K. regulations, Germany has strict licensing and registration requirements. German licenses are only valid for three years and to obtain a gun license people must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness as well as convince authorities that they have a necessity for a gun. This comes on top of requirements against mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violence or aggressive tendencies, and felony convictions.

    The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed:

    – Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
    – Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
    – Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
    – Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
    – Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
    – Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
    – Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
    – Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
    – Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
    – Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
    – Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
    Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
    – Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
    – Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
    – Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
    Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
    – Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year’s Eve.
    – Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/#ixzz21RuGD2Gc

    (LOI note’s, he left out Virgina Tech,32 murdered, 17 shot but survived)

    • naten53 says:

      left out virginia tech to make a point about “Where have the worst K-12 school shootings occurred”

    • Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said no law could
      have prevented suspect James Holmes from carrying
      out the act of terror that rocked an Aurora movie
      theater early Friday morning and left 12 dead.

      “This person, if there were no assault weapons
      available, if there were no this or no that, this
      guy’s going to find something. Right? He’s going
      to know how to create a bomb. Who knows where his
      mind would have gone. Clearly a very intelligent
      individual however twisted. That’s the problem,
      this is a human issue in some profound way,”
      Hickenlooper said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

      “The people around him had no idea that this was
      something he was capable of,” said Hickenlooper.

      “How do you prevent this?” Hickenlooper asked
      host Candy Crowley.” “How do we preserve our
      freedoms…and all those things that define this
      country, and yet try to prevent something like
      this [from] happening? Let me tell you, there’s no easy answer. There isn’t.”

      The governor described the suspect as a “deeply
      troubled, twisted, delusional person.”

      “I am speechless,” he said. “I can’t conceive of
      a motive. In a funny way, this guy is a
      terrorist, right? For whatever twisted reasons
      that we can barely even imagine, he wanted to
      create terror. He wanted to put fear in people’s lives.”

      • @ T Ray…he is correct….just like you cannot stop a terrorist or anyone who has a mindset to kill…guns made it easy….but…this guy had bomb making skills as well. How lucky was that woman who did not enter his apartment to complain about the music….This guy was out to cause damage….period. Nothing, no weapons ban, no ammunition…nothing could have stopped him.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        This was NOT a terrorist nor is this “terrorism”. Such terms are used to describe acts by those who are trying to use fear to get the public to force specific “political” actions.


        We should question the motives of anyone linking the acts of insane people to “terrorism”.

        • Agreed JAC…I was using it as an example/

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Colonel, I was not aiming at you as much as the pundits I have seen throwing this term around the past two days.

            Makes one wonder what their motivation truly is, or whether they are simply IGNORANT.

        • And the top o’ the mornin’ to everyone! It will be, hmmmm, only 96 here today. It got up to 106 over the weekend….

          @ JAC- I agree. This guy was not a terrorist, and in my opinion based on what evidence there is so far, he is not insane either. And please don’t anyone hit me with the line “no sane person could possibly do that”. He knew exactly what he was doing and tragically carried it out quite well, except that his trip-wired apartment didn’t kill anyone. Thank God that lady didn’t open the door, and that the police were smarter than he was when it came to disarming the explosives inside.

          @ D13- I also agree that nothing, not any gun laws nor weapons bans, would have stopped him. He would have found a way. Though maybe an armed movie patron could have cut it short and saved some lives…..

          @ Buck- the justification for an AK-47? Isn’t the 2nd amendment all the justification we need for owning any firearm? I get that they are not used for hunting or sport shooting……all you accomplish with a ban is give the black market another for-profit item not to mention keeping it out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

          I wish someone like D13 had had a glock (or his weapon of choice) at that theater in Aurora when Holmes showed up….


          • “I wish someone like D13 had had a glock (or his weapon of choice) at that theater in Aurora when Holmes showed up…”

            Why — so that the good Colonel (and I do not doubt the Colonel’s aim) could possibly risk only adding to the havoc and harm? Not to mention that, despite the 2d Amendment and CO being an open carry state, the movie theater in question had its own policy restricting guns on the premises.

            Re: owning an AK-47 and the 2d Amendment. I’m very torn on this as I do recognize the right to own firearms, but I don’t believe this right to be absolute. I’m also hesitant on any reading of the 2d Amendment that completely erases the term ‘militia’. As I’ve said before — there can be sensible restrictions/gun control laws while still safeguarding your right to own firearms.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              And herein lies the problem with both the Progressive and the Lawyer thinking process. And of course when you mix the two it is deadly.

              “I’m very torn on this as I do recognize the right to own firearms, but I don’t believe this right to be absolute.”

              IF it is a RIGHT then it is ABSOLUTE, Period. No equivocation or justification is required.

              • Mathius™ says:


                So your stance is that you should allowed, absolutely and without restriction, to own ANY firearm and to carry such anywhere at any time?

                The problem, as I see it, is that this amendment, even forgetting that there’s a part in there about militias, refers to ‘arms’ at a time when that meant single shot muskets which took minutes to reload. The Founders did not – could not – conceive of a day in which something like Aurora was possible. It seems overly simplistic to me to consider that anything in a 200+ year old document should be considered without any historical context.

                Beyond this, ‘arms’ could mean, for example, biological or nuclear arms. Do you believe that your ‘right’ to bare arms extends to owning your own nuke? If there is no equivocation permitted, then it must follow that there are no limits to the type or extent of the arms you may own. Nor, for that matter, may anyone place any conditions on your ownership of them, such that no one may require, for example, that you know how to handle your nuke or that you be sane before you purchase. Obviously, this is an extreme case, but I’d be interested in your take on this.

    • That list leaves out the 77 massacred in Norway a year ago yesterday….but I don’t know if that happened in a gun-free zone like your other examples. It does fit with in stats of multiple murders in Western Europe, though.


  29. Deaths to injury by Firearms vs Deaths to Injury by vehicle. (Note: This figures are all inclusive. Accidental, alcohol related, etc.)

    Texas: 10.40 vs 16.80 per 100k
    New York: 5.10 vs 8.10 per 100k
    California: 9.10 vs 12.20 per 100k
    North Dakota: 6.70 vs 17.90 per 100k
    Maryland: 12.10 vs 12.90 per 100k

    And then we look at Washington DC….home of the most restrictive gun laws in the US.

    Washington DC: 20.60 vs 6.80 per 100k

    And the conclusion is? Washington DC is the ONLY area with the exception of Alaska, where the gun deaths out numbered vehicles and it is the most restrictive in gun laws…………Go figure.

    So to extrapolate…..is the argument going to be that there are more vehicles than guns? And is that argument relevant?

    Well let’s see….In Dallas, there are 1.5 cars per registered homeowner and 2.4 guns per registered homeowner. In Fort Worth, there are 1.9 cars per registered homeowner and 3.6 guns per registered homeowner. ( I probably skew that number in Fort Worth since I have over 25 weapons of various kinds but have never been asked. AND……in Texas, you do not have to register guns. It is estimated that there are over 10 million guns in Texas alone.)

    Did a little research on Alaska….most gun deaths are a result of accidental hunting deaths. I really find that remarkable since that is hunting country. But that is what I found.

    • naten53 says:

      Currious that the firearm deaths are so high vs. what I posted above, must include homicide, accidential, and suicide.

      Also, give DC some credit, they don’t have the highways or road systems to get as many high speed crashes as the states.

      • Nate…..yes…those figures were all inclusive…and they were 2010 numbers.

        • In addition, the numbers on DC are startling to the fact that even in my State where the guns are estimated at 10-20 million…………DC still has the highest number of all states.

          • Mathius™ says:

            (err.. Colonel… you know DC isn’t a state, right? I hope you haven’t been listening to Obama’s talk about the 57 states..)

            • naten53 says:

              state of confusion

            • Eerrrrr Mathius………….Iused the term “area” on purpose, sir…so as not to use the word State as it pertained to DC……..I used the word highest in all States to show that DC….the area of DC…was higher than all the states…except Alaska….

              AND……….the amount of vehicle deaths in the area of DC has nothing to do with the higher gun rates….WHICH I point out are the highest…and it is the most restrictive that I have found in gun laws.

    • Mathius™ says:


      Texas: 10.40 vs 16.80 per 100k
      New York: 5.10 vs 8.10 per 100k

      Interesting that gun toting Texas is more than double liberal New York in both categories.. especially considering the amount of jay-walking we do..

      Washington DC: 20.60 vs 6.80 per 100k

      And the conclusion is? Washington DC is the ONLY area with the exception of Alaska, where the gun deaths out numbered vehicles and it is the most restrictive in gun laws…………Go figure.

      OBJECTION! Nobody drives much in DC (and with the traffic, you couldn’t up past 20mph anyway). This clearly skews the results. If people drove in DC, this would probably be 20.6 vs 40-ish.

      Did a little research on Alaska….most gun deaths are a result of accidental hunting deaths.


      Oops, sorry colonel! I though you were a caribou..


      And while you’re talking about avoidable deaths, how does inadequate preventative medical care stack up?

      Per our friends at the CDC, in 2009, the top 5 killers in the US were:
      1: Heart disease: 599,413
      2: Cancer: 567,628
      3: Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
      4: Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
      5: Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021

      Assuming automotive and gun deaths (deaths, not just injuries) comprised the lion’s share of #5, it pales in comparison to #1 and #2. Heart disease and cancer, which can be managed or avoided entirely with proper medication and early detection, MASSIVELY outnumber gun deaths or car accidents.

      Consider that 9/11 cost 3k lives. These two items reflect 9/11 equivalent death tolls every day. Yet we spent trillions on “security” and the War on “Terrism”.. how does this make sense?

      Seems to me that, tragic as Aurora and Columbine and Fort Hood and Virginia Tech, they are a drop in the bucket. Much like the irrational fear of ‘terrism,’ it’s the randomness and the flashy-ness of the crime which grabs our attention and distracts us from the real threats. Because cancer and heat disease, when they aren’t affecting you personally, are too mundane to grab headlines. And, as always, our leaders stoke the fires for a battle, eager to win their political points. Meanwhile, as always, the real danger is ignored.


  30. Just A Citizen says:


    My dear, per your comment: “Thought we’ve been through this before. A treaty cannot override the Constitution if it is in direct conflict with it,”

    Not sure where you think this is supported. Please look to Justice Roberts rationalization of Obama Care if you think the Constitution is safe from override by a Treaty.

    Sorry to start my first day back on such a sour note.

    • Mornin JAC…now I beg your pardon 🙂 …I was going by memory with my comment but with further research I may be right. Yay me!

      Specifically, a treaty cannot override the Second Amendment nor any of the other
      principles encased within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The
      following excerpt from Article VI of the United States Constitution, is very clear in stating:
      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
      Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
      Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
      Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or
      Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added]
      Read that sentence carefully! Many people do not understand that any law being made
      must not conflict with the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Under THIS
      Constitution, our laws and treaties are acceptable only if they conform to the intent and
      purpose of what has been written in this master document. No law is acceptable if it
      conflicts with or alters the original text. THIS Constitution, and not the opposing United
      Nations Charter, is the supreme law of this country. In these times, however, evil laws and
      treaties have been written and designed to work against those previously established laws,
      which were supposed to prevent tyranny from happening.
      No foreign country nor organization (such as the United Nations) has the power to alter,
      override, supersede, revoke, rescind or block the fundamental principles or the primary
      directives laid down within these precious documents: The Bill of Rights and the U.S.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If the US Senate approves a TREATY it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND.

        If said Treaty is in contradiction to any part of the Constitution then it could wind up in the Supreme Court. The Justices will make the final decision on its “constitutionality”.

        How do you feel today that they would rule against the President AND the US Senate?

        I suggest you read the statement you provided and look to the placement of the “semi colons”.

        • Are you speaking to me in that tone of voice?

          Now that I carefully read that paragraph..it contradicts itself. Now I don’t know what to think. When we had this discussion before I actually emailed Judge Napolitano for his comments..never heard back. not that I expected to…

          • Mom voice-Anita just used her mom voice and I could actually hear it 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The wording of the Constitution does not contradict itself. However, the wording of whomever posted the comments is seriously flawed.

            For example, the Bill of Rights is no more sacred than any other part of the document. It is after all PART of the document, being amendments to the same.

            The HONEST TRUTH is that NOTHING in the Constitution is sacred or safe from those who wish to overturn its restrictions. Especially not in light of the SCOTUS rulings, and subsequent left wing teaching in our Universities, over the past hundred years.

            By the way, Good Morning. I hope your day is filled with sun and fun.

            • Say there JAC…….you doing ok today.Missed you.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Good morning Sir. Yes, doing quite well. Although I am VERY road weary at the moment.

                I was able to read up on SUFA from time to time but not able to respond much. Seems ya’ll been having a lot of fun without me.

                Got in a few rounds of swat and follow along the way. I have suddenly discovered the proper use of a driver and that has ruined my mid to short game. I now find myself in between clubs most of the time. Guess I will have to practice at different distances now. In the end I hope this is a good thing as I would very much like to break 80 before I get much less flexible.

                Hope all is well in the land of Texas. I suggest you don’t travel to the northwest this week. Woke to low 50 degrees this morning. Highs expected in the 70’s all week. Feels COLD after spending three weeks in the 90’s. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

                Best to you and yours.

        • Mathius™ says:

          How do you feel today that they would rule against the President AND the US Senate?

          Depends on the conflict. If we signed onto a treaty which, for example, required that we quarter UN soldiers in our houses (3rd Amendment!), this might very well wind up in court, but I don’t think the court would rule in favor of a direct conflict like this.

          However.. if there’s some wiggle room..

    • What would you expect in Texas where we have speed limits to 80 mph…..and we measure distance in time and not miles.

      As to your comments on the leading killer in the United States…..I agree with you in that it is over looked.

      I would get on board with Universal Health Care for Heart Disease Screening and Cancer and nothing else.

  31. D13 commented on the violence in DC above. One thing Liberals refuse to talk about, gun control was first used against blacks and allow their continued oppression in the US. Are DC & Chicago not part of that same tactic, disarming the poor masses and punishing them on the rare instances they do defend themselves. Chicago’s SCOTUS case was over a man shooting an intruder in his home….


  32. LOI re: eye dominance test…yessir! started flipping through the book, that’s one of the first things covered. Right eyed here 😉

    • Have you had instruction yet? If the instructor doesn’t check that first, get another instructor. Oh, and how about some credit, I was right, JAC said so, or he said maybe I wasn’t totally wrong? Which would mean I was at least partly, a little, right???

      The Mexican maid asked for a pay increase.

      The wife was very upset about this and decided to talk to her about the raise.

      She asked: “Now Maria, why do you want a pay increase?”

      Maria: “Well, Señora, there are tree reasons why I wanna increaze.”

      “The first is that I iron better than you.”

      Wife: “Who said you iron better than me?”

      Maria: “Jor huzban he say so.”

      Wife: “Oh yeah?”

      Maria: “The second reason eez that I am a better cook than you.”

      Wife: “Nonsense, who said you were a better cook than me?”

      Maria: “Jor hozban did.”

      Wife increasingly agitated: “Oh he did did he???”

      Maria: “The third reason is that I am better at sex than you in the bed.”

      Wife, really boiling now and through gritted teeth. “And did my husband say that as well?”

      Maria: “No Señora…….” “The gardener did.”

      Wife: “So how much do you want?”

      • oooooooowwwwww!!!

      • I surely don’t WANT you or JAC to be right but you probably are. Wish Judge Nap would have shown some love and emailed me back!

        Classes start this Saturday, thanks for the tip.

        • Well, we know it can’t be true, because I first heard it on FOX…. It is a little scary that Reid has the power to stop a vote, and that could be all she wrote…for now. I think the backlash would be such that the Dem’s would loose near everything for nothing. Repug’s would end up controlling house, senate & WH with majorities enough to overturn everything.

          Glad the tip was useful. A tennis ball and dry-firing is a very useful training exercise, toss it up with an un-loaded firearm, squeeze trigger.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    In the past I have pointed out that many supposedly “Conservative” platitudes and their rhetoric is actually founded in the PROGRESSIVE agenda and their tactics.

    That is not the focus of the following article but you will see the connections between the modern Conservatives rhetoric about immigration and where it originated. By the way, most of our overtly Patriotic fervor is linked to the Progressive movement as well. It FEEDS the GOVT. Happy reading:


  34. I feel so much better, Ft. Hood wasn’t the government, or any government officials fault.
    I can now kick back, safe and secure knowing Janet Napolitano has it all under control.

    No government officials should be penalized for their inaction while they watched an online al-Qaida organizer persuade U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to murder twelve of his fellow soldiers at Foot Hood in 2009, says the final report of an independent panel.

    “Although we are critical of certain actions and omissions, we do not regard any of those actions to be misconduct that would warrant administrative or disciplinary action,” said the third-last paragraph on the 150-page report, titled “Final Report of the William H. Webster Commission.”

    “Some missteps occurred because there was no stated policy or binding directive in place that would have required different actions … [but] absent formal policy guidance on the assignment and resolution of Routine leads, the delay cannot be said to involve misconduct,” said the paragraph.

    The report was overseen by William Webster, who headed the FBI from 1978 to 1987.

    The report was distributed July 20 with the announcement that Republican Rep. Frank Wolfe will hold a August 1 committee hearing on the report. The witness will include an FBI official, Mark Giuliano, who is the executive assistant director of the FBI’s National Security Branch.

    The report says Hasan yelled the Islamic war-cry — “Allahu akbar!” which means “Allah is supreme” — as he shot his fellow Americans in Fort Hood.

    On his business card, Hasan described himself as a “soldier of Allah,” who is the Muslim god.

    In place of Islamic texts, the report blames Hasan’s self-described religious motivation on a non-religious psychological process of “violent radicalization.”

    On page seven, the report declares that “most terrorists are psychologically normal as individuals, and do not fit a medical diagnostic category.” However, the report argues that “radicalization occurs when followers submit to the collective identity and leaders identify a shared enemy as a target for violent behavior.”

    The report did not treat Islamic radicalization as a subset of radicalization amid the many jihadi attacks on U.S. civilians and soldiers, but instead lumped it under a very broad category of “radicalization.”

    “Radicalization — whether based on religious, political, social, or other causes — challenges the capability and capacity of the FBI and other members of the U.S. Intelligence Community to identify, collect, analyze, and act on accurate intelligence in time to detect and deter those who would commit violence,” says the report.

    To combat “radicalization,” the report urges the FBI to increase information sharing, buy better computers and better protect suspects’ privacy.

    After dismissing Islamic religious motivations, the report quotes Hasan’s letters about Islamic edicts to the American-born al-Qaida organizer, Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/20/report-downplays-islamic-role-in-fort-hood-jihadi-attack/#ixzz21So3CXHp

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    In light of all the discussions about gun violence I thought ya’ll would find the following of interest.


  36. Just A Citizen says:



    So your stance is that you should allowed, absolutely and without restriction, to own ANY firearm and to carry such anywhere at any time?”

    Own Any? YES!

    Carry anywhere? NO! That is up to the owner of the property which I am occupying.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Fair enough.

      So, your crazy neighbor, who wears tinfoil hats to keep the aliens out of his brain*, has a rich uncle who dies and leaves him $1 billion in inheritance. He then takes this money to Russia and purchases a thermonuclear warhead.

      He has not, yet, made any threatening statements to you – he just wants it for when the aliens make their move.

      So you’re going to sit in your home and insist that you have no right to interfere?

      *Much like Black Flag, though he isn’t trying to keep the aliens out – he’s more concerned about government satellites. Protection form alien mind rays is just an added bonus.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I would simply tell him that the Alien Mother ship is located in NY with satellites in NJ.

        I will offer to pay for him and his thermonuclear device to move closer to the mother ship.

        Clear and Present Danger, Mathius. Clear and Present Danger. Does it exist or doesn’t it?

        • Mathius™ says:

          C&P… well now… who gets to decide this?

          Is it just a question of when you feel really, really uncomfortable? Because he hasn’t said he’s going to detonate it or threatened you directly. And, since the aliens haven’t shown up, there’s no imminent threat of detonation…

          If you consider that there’s a clear and present threat because he believes in aliens, why is your opinion of his mental status overriding to his own opinion if he thinks he’s rational and that YOU are the crazy one for failing to prepare?

          I don’t see any reading of this scenario under which it isn’t a question of your own personal opinions and/or comfort that somehow magically combine to give you a right to interfere with another man’s property. C&P is a loophole you and others have carved out as an escape hatch in your otherwise black and white worldview. You have no RIGHT to interfere under any circumstances whatsoever, period, unless or until he actually physically harms you. Your perceived right to defense under C&P does not exist because you are acting based on imperfect information and on your own OPINIONS rather than anything concrete. In JAC-land, if your neighbor buys his nuke and won’t voluntarily move, if you feel threatened, you should move. Otherwise, you’re interfering with HIS RIGHT to bare arms (which you contend is unlimited) because you’re too lazy to move and because you feel uncomfortable.

          What if I “feel threatened” by the colonel’s collection of guns? I mean, he’s nuts enough to practice rifle drills in the buff on his front lawn at 4:30 in the morning. I think he’s dangerous to me since he’s obviously a few fries short of a happy meal. Hey, it’s my opinion, right? I see it as a clear and present danger, so I can break into his house (avoiding all the traps) and steal his guns for my own protection, right?

          • Sure……..Come on down and break in. I am a waiting….and besides…you are just pissed that I moved the naked Cowboy Cheerleaders to the other side of the house….that’s all….my rifle drills are out of sight….but you already knew that. I can move them back to the front lawn with the right incentive, though.

            Besides, what were you doing up at 430 in the morning anyway looking at my front lawn….or was it the drum and bugle corps that was keeping you awake….with your new child and missus…I dismissed the drum and bugle corp…I am, after all, a good neighbor….but the offer still stands….if you can penetrate the Colonel’s Bunker……you can have any or all of the guns you can carry.

            • Oh…thank you for referring to my weapons as a collection because that is what it is….it is NOT a cache…..I never keep my cache next to my collection……Sigh….have you learned nothing from the pirate, who has remained quiet…but what the hell….a life time supply of grog and wenches and pretty sailing weather and letter of Marque…….

    • Welcome back JAC, should have posted earlier…

      • Mathius™ says:

        Here’s a more fitting song to honor JAC’s return:

        • Matt,

          You’s a funny guy. I watched a segment on FOX this AM, where they had an “expert” talking about what could have been done. The expert said having a Joker tattoo and a gun tattoo would be reason enough to question him and check his mental state. They didn’t mention pirate or raptor tat’s, so not sure if you’re OK or not….Buck, keep an eye on him for us…

          • Mathius™ says:

            There definitely is something to be said about the mental status of anyone with that particular combination of tattoos.. that said, I don’t think that it alone would be sufficient grounds to investigate / question the guy.

            But then, we all knew Faux News was a waste of airwaves.

            • Sure it is Matt, there’s no law against asking questions, be it a cop or your nosy neighbor. What and how you answer may be grounds for other questions by other individuals. The problem is that now no one really trusts the government, including local LEO’s. You local guy might be Ok, but would he report to others how much ammo you have stored? They don’t know about your trap shooting club, that wasn’t part of the fed. questionaire. Kinda sad and scary, anything can be made to look suspicious.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Occam’s Point of the Day.

    The Second Amendment’s protection of our Right to bear arms has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

    Anytime some dipstick politician or pundit brings this up you should shove this little fact down their collectivist throats.

    Oh dear, has my mellow mood already turned sour?

    Thinking, thinking, thinking…………NOPE.

    • But it DOES have something to do with militias…

      • Mathius™ says:

        Naw.. the Founding Father’s just threw that in there because it sounded good. They clearly meant for it to be ignored after they went to the trouble of including it in the most important document any of them would ever create.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck and Mathius

          Of course it means something. But ABSOLUTELY NOT what you lefties like to claim it means.

          It is NOT a restriction nor a caveat of any kind on the Right to own AND bear arms.

          It is in fact a codification of our right and need to maintain a citizen’s MILITIA.

          And of course, there has never been an Amendment overriding the State’s need to maintain a militia in order to protect their freedom.

          • Ah, so are you saying that it is the STATE’s need for a militia and therefore NOT an individual right?? Couldn’t it also be said then that the STATE’s need for a militia is now maintained by the national guard?


            • Just A Citizen says:


              NO! It is an individual Right and that Right must be protected in order for the State to ALSO man the militia needed to protect its sovereignty. It is NOT a condition upon the individual Right. But a Right that allows the State to protect itself.


              NO! Congress has no authority to override the State’s right/authority to maintain a MILITIA. That authority has never been eliminated by Amendment. The Federal attempt to side step the Militia with the National Guard is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Put a simpler way.

              If A then B. If you eliminate B then A still stands. A is the Right to own and use weapons.

            • State’s need
              County’s need
              Town’s need
              Neighborhood’s need
              Any group of citizens that feels the need to arm themselves and band together against a common threat. Be that threat Indians, British or other, including those other governments.
              Militia meant all men, able and willing to arm themselves.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m much more interested in why YOUR interpretation of this is necessarily correct while Buck’s and mine is incorrect?

            My take: even back in ye olden tymes, the Founders considered this to be a hot button issue. As such, they hemmed and hawed and settled on an phrasing that could be all things to all people so that they could get the ratification they needed. They knew, full well, how to be crystal clear when they wanted to be. They didn’t WANT to be clear. They wanted to get the darned thing signed and were willing to kick the can down the road on a few issues if need be.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Because MY interpretation fits the historical record up until the Progressive legislatures/city councils and courts start trying to control everyone. This absurd linkage to militias was invented by the “left leaning” legal academics. You will not find it in the founding documents.

              Your “interpretation” is ridiculous given the debates over the Constitution and the context of having just fought a War against Britain. One grievance of which was the Crowns attempt to confiscate weapons from the colonists.

              They were very clear. You just don’t want to believe it because you speak a different form of English than they did and that helps you rationalize some version that fits your belief system.

              Just like the silly argument that certain provisions, like the Right to bare arms, don’t apply because the document was written when muskets were the main weapon. WHEN it was written is irrelevant to its purpose and controls over Govt.

              If you want it changed then pursue AMENDMENT, not obfuscation of the intent or meaning of plain words.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              To add to my point about you error in interpretation of what was intended.

              The amendments called the Bill of Rights were passed AFTER the Constitution was ratified. The amendments were promised but not yet passed. They were not just cobbled together to get public approval. They were taken from the various STATE Constitutions, all of which had received considerable thought and debate in their construction.

              The DEBATE of the time was NOT over gun ownership or use. It WAS over a STANDING ARMY and the threat it posed to State Sovereignty and individual liberty. It was in this context that the mention of “militia” was linked to the Individual Right to Bare Arms.

              As I said to Buck, First A and then B. B is dependent upon A but A (Right to Bare Arms) stands alone.

              There can be no other rational interpretation of what was meant by the wording used.

              • JAC,
                Do you realize that one version of the 2nd amendment was passed by the Congress, while a different version was ratified by the States? Maybe that’s a loop hole that would nullify the 2nd amendment? 😉

                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.

                As you said, the founders we afraid of a standing army. Seems to me they just wanted to force the people to bear that burden for them…

                Since we now have a standing army, that seems to be pretty capable of maintaining “the security of a free State”, isn’t the 2nd amendment now a moot point?

                Many people seem to think “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is necessary to defend against the tyranny of the State (including you: and controls over Govt.). But that wasn’t the founders intention. They wanted the people to bear arms so the people could be called upon to defend the State.

                There’s also that little word “regulated”. Did the founders feel the government should regulate those who had arms?

                Wouldn’t “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” include things besides guns? Like explosives? Which are heavily regulated. Why isn’t the NRA all up-in-arms about that? A few well placed, booby-trapped sticks of dynamite around my house would sure make me feel “safer”…

              • Todd: “Do you realize that one version of the 2nd amendment was passed by the Congress, while a different version was ratified by the States?”

                Very interesting…didn’t know that. Do you have a link to the different texts by any chance?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BEARS do NOT have arms. They have FOUR LEGS with a PAW on the end of each.

              • JAC,
                I’m sitting here expressing my 2nd amendment right to Bare Arms, and I don’t even have a gun near by. So it’s not really about guns, is it? 😉

  38. What say all a’yous on Penn State sanctions? They went further than I thought they would. The only area lacking was leaving some of the old staff there, although there’s a good enough argument to let it go (so long as it doesn’t include McPunkry–hopefully, he’ll hide under his couch the rest of his life).

    Everything else was fine and dandy by me … even the symbolic vacating of wins since 1998 (that was particularly smart, I thought and I hadn’t even considered it myself).

    I have bare arms … but I’ll be getting a new tattoo shortly …:)

    • I was a little curious about not being allowed to be in bowl games-is this a normal part of the punishment for Colleges? not that this is a normal type of violation.

      Seems to be more of a punishment on the players-but sports isn’t something I normally pay much attention too.

      • VH,
        If you’re one of the top 100-200 high school senior football players, you’re probably “fairly” competitive and you want to play in bowl games.

        Post-season play (bowl games for college football) are the goal of every program. It’s why they play the regular season. It’s what coaches and schools brag about to recruit players, get fans and alumni excited. It’s the “measuring stick” for every program.

        The post-season ban decimates a program. No “stars” will want to play at Penn State. Four years from now, after the post-season ban expires, they’ll have to start all over rebuilding the program.

        This was part of the sanctions. It limits the impact on the players, but further hurts Penn State because most of their best players will leave:

        Any entering, returning football student athlete can transfer immediately. Presuming academic requirements are met, these potential transfers can play immediately.

    • Charlie,

      Have you read the Freeh Report? I have. There is no direct evidence in the report linking Paterno to a cover up. They reference two emails written by others that mention Paterno. One “Coach” is asking for a resolution of the case. This would be a normal request. The second mentions that they have discussed the situation with Paterno and the plan is for Sandusky to seek help. There are no details of what was discussed. We do not know if Joe was part of the planning or if he was just informed that this is what will happen. So on this very sketchy and incomplete information, Joe’s long career is being trashed.

      Both the family and ex-president Spanier have issued statements that the Freeh report is incomplete and full of errors. The family was not interviewed. Spanier was. Spanier claims he was never told that the situation was sexual in nature but that it was inappropriate horsing around in the shower. We will never find out what exactly Joe knew.

      I do not know your experience in matters such as this. However, when accusations of sexual harassment in the work place occur, the discussions all go behind closed doors. Any attorney will advise you to keep the information close and limited to a need to know basis. There is substantial concern for the rights of the accuser and for the rights of the accused and significant fear of law suits flying in all directions. In Joe’s case, I would say that he was too close to Sandusky to be part of the investigation and he did the right thing by kicking it upstairs.

      Think about it some. If a close colleague of yours betrayed your friendship and confidence as Sandusky did, and you knew the facts to be true, would you want that person anywhere near you or your work place? I cannot imagine that Joe would tolerate such a betrayal.

      The bottom line here is all the facts are not out yet. What we have is a major rush to judgement just like in the Trayvon Martin case. Let the system work.

      As it stands now, if Joe and others are proven to have taken appropriate actions based upon the facts that they knew, how do they get their reputations back? Will the NCAA give back the money? Will the recredit Joe and PSU with the wins? In the meantime, current players and others will be hurt. How do they get back their lost opportunities?

      If it proves out that Joe and others did cover up for Sandusky, then the actions taken are appropriate. However, until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt, does it serve the purpose of justice to hurt more people?

      Also, Charlie, did you read about Wolfe’s report on the Ft. Hood shooting. People died but no one is responsible even though the knew about his communications with an extremist. There is a drastic difference in the level of punishment here including individuals who had nothing to do with the Sandusky scandal.

      • T-Ray,

        So you feel you have a better grasp of the facts than the former FBI Director who spent 8 months investigating?

        Think about this “some.”

        According to the report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up an “action plan” that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind about the plan “after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe. ” Instead, Curley proposed to offer Sandusky “professional help.”

        In an email, Spanier agreed with that course of action but noted “the only downside for us is if the message isn’t (heard) and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

        They were going to report Sandusky – until they talked to Joe about it. And the only “downside” is they might get caught.

        I guess more kids being sexually abused by Sandusky isn’t a downside to them…

        • Would you want to be convicted by that statement without benefit of defense? From that statement, tell me exactly what Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Joe knew to be fact. Reading between the lines does not count.

          If there was a cover up, then let it come out properly and then deal with it. Until then stop rushing to judgement based on emotion.

          Punish the guilty. Don’t punish the innocent just to get some emotional relief.

          • T-Ray,
            The action – and inactions – of the Penn State officials, including Paterno, are reprehensible. They allowed Sandusky to continue sexually abusing children.

            From that statement, tell me exactly what Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Joe knew to be fact.

            They knew Sandusky should be reported to the state Department of Public Welfare, and at the very least he needed professional help. But they chose to do neither and allow the sexual abuse to continue.

            Until then stop rushing to judgement based on emotion.

            Don’t punish the innocent just to get some emotional relief.

            You say don’t rush to judgment, and then you declare them “innocent”.

            I don’t care about their reputations. Penn State and Paterno were supposed to stand for integrity both on and off the field. That was an obvious shame
            – they trashed their own reputations – no help from anyone else needed.

            I find their actions – and your defense of them – disgusting.

      • So on this very sketchy and incomplete information, Joe’s long career is being trashed.

        T-Ray, you have to be one loyal MF’er to think for a second Paterno didn’t know what was going on. Did YOU read the Tiponey article, where a vice president of student affairs was threatened for having the gaul to question Paterno? Or is she lying too.

        I was a joe pa fan … not anymore. He made a HUGE mistake in covering up. I have no doubt at all about his involvement. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, my friend …

    • USWeapon says:

      Not gonna bite… you are not rational on the subject 🙂

    • Charlie,
      I agree – the sanctions are tough but appropriate. The vacating of wins hadn’t occurred to me either, but it “changes” the record books. Penn State and Joe Paterno will no longer be listed at the top.

      • I have no dog in this fight but will weigh in… I think it’s political BS.
        Paterno reported the matter and co-operated with police. No question he could have done more, but I would hold the school administration and board of directors responsible.
        Did they win those games? Did this have anything to do with that? They and he earned those wins and deserve the credit. And they have/are paying for it, their reputations tainted for life. Not much of a “legacy” now.

        Sanctions and fines, OK hit them hard. I still think the administration, the president, etc. are most responsible and should be getting the attention. Move the presidents office into that damned shower for a few years…..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        So WHY should an “institution” be penalized? Why isn’t the penalty of “individuals” enough?

        Vacating wins is a penalty to those who played in those games who had nothing to do with the Sandusky matter.

        This is so darn typical of what is wrong with our thinking these days.

        And I think the NCAA is stepping beyond its bounds here but politics forces the Univ. to say OKIEDOKIE. What a bunch of crap.

      • July 24, 2012
        The NCAA Got It Wrong
        Richard Kline

        The horror of the Jerry Sandusky crimes committed against young boys is almost too much to believe. But Sandusky is off to prison where he will experience a living hell for however much longer he lives. Joe Paterno’s legacy is now one of shame and disgust.

        But, the recent NCAA sanctions levied upon Penn State are punishing the wrong people. The Administrative people in the Penn State management chain are the guilty ones and they will be prosecuted and sued and vilified for the rest of their lives.


        The Penn State fans did not participate in this cover up;
        The current Penn State coach did not participate in the cover up;
        The current Penn State football players did not have anything to do with the cover up;
        The men and women who are on the “small” intercollegiate sports (e.g., swimming, soccer, volleyball, wrestling, and countless other sports) and who depend upon Penn State football revenues for their program’s survival did not participate in the cover up.

        It seems like the NCAA wanted to “hang a scalp” to show their power and disgust. So they went in a scalped everyone, instead of taking an intelligent approach to penalizing the guilty.

        This sounds like government run amuck.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_ncaa_got_it_wrong.html#ixzz21Z9LI9M0

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The NCAA needs to go the way of the Dodo.

          • charlieopera says:

            I always figured some of yous for closet Too Big To Fail Fans …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Only in your world would the desire to eliminate a Govt protected monopoly be considered support for too big to fail.

  39. Plainly,

    Meant to ask before-but have been busy the last few days. What was your wife’s reasoning, being on the right spectrum, to vote for Obama?

  40. Buck says:
    July 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm • Edit

    “I wish someone like D13 had had a glock (or his weapon of choice) at that theater in Aurora when Holmes showed up…”

    “Why — so that the good Colonel (and I do not doubt the Colonel’s aim) could possibly risk only adding to the havoc and harm? ”

    Sorry, but I just don’t get the logic here, you object to anyone trying to stop a heavily armed madman intent on killing as many people as possible? Somehow it’s better to let him shoot until he runs out of ammo? If a police officer were sitting in the crowd, would you allow them to shoot back?

    • No — I object to statements that indicate an armed individual within the theater would necessarily have been successful in stopping the shooter or limiting the number of victims. There is always the very real possibility that that individual would cause even more panic or harm.

      • Well Buck, you never know. Someone armed might have made things worse, but I can’t see how. If I’m sitting in the front row and someone starts shooting, intending to kill as many as he can, someone behind me trying to shoot him does pose a risk to me, but I think someone actively trying to shoot me is the biggest risk. The one behind does NOT want to shoot me and will try to the best of their ability to only shoot the bad guy. And maybe they do shoot me by accident, do they then get a clear shot at the bad guy and stop him after only 10-20 are shot, instead of 70? And the funny thing, there have been mass shootings that were not reported as mass shootings, because they were stopped, by armed citizens, before a massive number were killed….


        • Yes, it has happened in the past and I’m sure will happen in the future. But this talk about Joe Schmo the Hero is not based in reality. It depends very much on the situation and circumstances at play — here there was a darkened theater, smoke, people scrambling over one another to get out of the way. Not to mention how Joe Schmo acts when actually faced in the scenario. Despite years of training (which most individuals owning a gun do not have) he could freeze up in fear/panic himself; then him having a gun means absolutely nothing.

          • 1. “Yes, it has happened in the past and I’m sure will happen in the future.”
            2. “But this talk about Joe Schmo the Hero is not based in reality.”
            Do you read what you say? It has happened, but that’s not reality? It’s not about anyone being a “hero”, it’s refusing to be a victim. There is no knowing how Joe will react, is true to some extent. But there is certainty in what the bad guy will do/did, and how can anybody make that worse? Unless some idiot is supposed to carry gasoline in since they won’t allow him to carry a gun, any armed good samaritan is more likely to save some lives.

            “Despite years of training he could freeze up in fear/panic himself.” And if he freezes up, he’s just another victim. You meant he might panic and shoot blindly thru the crowd, at him? Maybe. How many times has that happened? I have shown documented cases where an armed citizen reacted preventing mass shootings. That is reality. That is documented evidence that armed self-defense is effective. Can you present any evidence that your fictional wondering about what could go wrong has more credibility? How can what might happen count more than what has happened? Can I sue the guy that cut’s me off every other day for an accident that I’m sure will happen? Better yet, bar him from driving…

            • (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive. Just because it has happened in the past does not mean that this is the formula to proceed with in every single case going forward. Statements along the lines of ‘oh, if only someone else had a gun’ are grossly misinformed about reality.

              You need to look at the specific circumstances in those situations where someone with a gun was able to stop the shooter. Look at what happened in Arizona — there were other poeple with a gun present, but they didn’t stop him. If I’m not mistaken, he was stopped when someone tackled him while he was reloading. Correct?

              • Buck, prove your case, you know, like a lawyer would have to do in court? I have presented evidence, you have prevented supposition. You case is built solely on what MAY happen, mine on what has happened.

                Arizona, I can agree with your account of events. How does this make your case? How does any failure to stop something translate into a possible or as the media portray, a likely mishap? Who did the armed citizen injure? What was his panicked reaction?

              • There you go again Buck..voting present. You won’t even take a stand when your own life is in jeopardy. I’d much rather take my chances and have LOI shoot me than have the Joker shoot me .Put yourself and Mrs. Wala in the theatre. I bet a million if you were in there you’d beg LOI to shoot. Just say it.

              • “I’d much rather take my chances and have LOI shoot me than have the Joker shoot me”

                That’s a very interesting choice you are making here Anita!

                Look – I’m not saying that having someone in the theater armed could not have stopped the shooter and limited the number of victims. All I’m saying is that this statement (“if only someone had a gun…”) is absolutely meaningless and downright foolish. No one knows what would have (or could have) happened. But I think it misses the mark to claim that in every case an armed bystander would have been able to heroically stand up, shoot the shooter and put an end to the entire tragic incident. It just isn’t the case. LOI, you point to an example where a bystander was able to stop the shooter; I point to an example where, despite there being numerous armed bystanders, a gun did not ultimately stop the shooter. Is there an example where an armed bystander wound up harming another innocent? I’m sure there are such examples but I don’t have the time to find them at the moment. Anyone else here have the time today?

              • “Look at what happened in Arizona — there were other people with a gun present, but they didn’t stop him. If I’m not mistaken, he was stopped when someone tackled him while he was reloading.”

                Yes he was reloading but he dropped the loaded clip and that allowed him to be tackled after he had been hit in the head with a chair. There are NO reports of any persons in the crowd armed other than the shooter. An armed man named Joe Zamudio was in a drug store and came to the scene after the shooter was disarmed and almost drew his gun when he saw another man holding the shooters gun but he hesitated because he did not know if that person was the shooter. He in fact first tackled the gun holder but released him when others told him the gun holder was not the shooter. Zamudio then assisted with holding the real shooter down. By Zamudio’s own admission he has never had any professional training with firearms but yet he made some very quick decisions that turned out to be correct.

              • True, his quick decisions turned out to be correct, but he himself admits that he was very lucky.

              • You can Google “The Armed Citizen” The American Rifleman.

                It will give you a good idea of what has happened in the past. It’s been a monthly feature in the magazine as long as I can remember. As I have said, I am amazed at just how well people handle themselves in such situations. When you read things like that or actually investigate the end results of the first “shall issue” carry law in Florida, you develop a lot more faith in your neighbors.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Here it comes………wait for it……………….wait for it…………….

            Buck is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on this.

            Anything beyond what actually happened is nothing but speculation.

            • I knew you had some common sense in you JAC!

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Unfortunately my sense is not very common at all.

                Yours was a LOGICAL argument. Thus REASON must prevail. Truth is true, and reality is real. Black and White, NO GRAY. 🙂

              • Plenty of gray JAC, always plenty of gray. Its what makes the world go round.

              • Buck. Set aside all speculation. I’m asking you to say whether you’d rather have LOI in the theatre, armed, than to be a sitting duck. The answer is either LOI or SITTING DUCK, no other.

              • I don’t know how good of a shot LOI is. Not to mention, given the actual circumstances and situation at the moment, I seriously doubt that having someone armed would have helped. I can easily see how, at least in this case, it could have made matters worse.

              • Present..again. Or sitting duck.

              • Depends. Am I in any way positioned between the gunman and LOI? Are there other armed bystanders who may open fire as well once LOI starts shooting, thinking that he is an accomplice? So many variables at work here…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Gunman enters, begins shooting.

                LOI, JAC, and Anita, who all happen to be in the same theater together, immediately open fire and kill the gunman.

                During their shooting, SK, who was sitting in the front row due to his near blindness hears shots from all around and turns to shoot at the people shooting in his direction. He has a shotgun and is now firing into the crowd in the direction of LOI et al.

                D13, off to the side, loses his left ear to a stray bullet. Like an enraged bull, he opens fire on anyone he sees with a gun, which includes LOI, JAC, Anita, and SK. D13, who is wielding a 50 cal minigun is trying to avoid bystanders. However, when he hits LOI, the bullets continue right through him into the crowd. JAC, gallantly, dives in front of Anita, but sadly his body is no more bullet proof than LOI’s.

                USW, up in the balcony sees someone firing into the crowd and picks off D13 with his sniper rifle – head shot. SK, seeing that there is another gunman in the balcony, throws a fragmentation grenade. The balcony collapses, killing Wep and sealing off the only exits.

                Buck continues to sit in the middle, oblivious and eating popcorn, enjoying the movie.

                SK is now standing at the front of the body strewn room waiving his shotgun and screaming incoherently. The crowd, in a panic, rushes him thinking that he’s the attacker. As SK is torn apart by the crowd, a second grenade is knocked loose from his hand and goes off, destroying a load-bearing wall.

                The entire theater complex is destroyed. Survivors spill into the streets. Each of whom has more arms than brains. They begin shooting at each other, not knowing who is friend and who is foe. As the cops arrive on the scene, someone accidentally shoots one – Plainly Spoken – and he goes down. The cops call in the riot squad and begin attacking the armed movie goes. The movie goers, uncertain why they are being attack, and suspecting that the UN may be responsible, choose to stand their ground, firing back at the police and riot teams.

                The national guard is called in, but uncertain why the police are attacking civilians, split 50-50 on each side of the fight. Finally, the President gives the order for an air strike, leveling the entire town. There are no survivors.


                No, thank you, I’d rather not have LOI in the theater with me.

              • Another pointless “argument by fiction” fallacy of Mathius.

                Had there been citizens with a gun, the death toll would probably have been less.

                Either the gunman would have been disabled, or would have run away.

                See Anita’s video of Senior Citizen vs Two Hoods as a real example.

                Mathius has no example for his fiction story.

              • 🙄 Did you read Sk’s article? I didn’t read a single story where those being attacked freaked out. You’re dead without fight. 🙄

              • Anita,

                Thanks for the vote of confidence. A couple of people that know me expressed similar feelings. But that proves nothing. Nor would it matter if I were in the military or a LEO, unless I had been in a situation where I had been shot at, and responded as I had been trained. Doesn’t matter how good/bad a shot I am either. Myself, I would rather have you or anyone that felt they could/should be armed and behind me, and trust in their reactions.

              • To me, it’s a no brainer. I don’t get the fence sitting approach. In other situations,like everyday life, they want to help the underdogs. When their life is on the line, they’re on the fence. SMH

            • JAC,

              “Buck is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on this. Anything beyond what actually happened is nothing but speculation.”

              Ahem, Buck is maybe half right. Anyone, including me saying what might have been is speculation. Buck’s whole argument is 100% speculation. He and liberals want to use that as an excuse to justify restricting firearm ownership and use. He/they can present no evidence of law abiding citizens having any negative effect on mass shootings. He/they ignore crime in impoverished area’s and the effect their policies are having on the poor. He/they ignore the mass shootings that were stopped by armed citizens. While I am speculating that an armed citizen might have saved some lives, I have actual instances to link that comparison to….

  41. Just A Citizen says:


    Re; your response to the 2nd amendment.

    I am unaware of a difference in wording in the amendment passed and that ratified. However, given other history on such matters, the 13th for example, I doubt it is a loophole allowing nullification.

    The Framers did not “just” want to force the people to bear the burden of arming the militia. Some States did have such requirements and Washington proposed it for the Federal as well. However, the reasons were about protecting the sanctity of the militia itself, the right of citizens to have weapons, and the right of the States to defend themselves against ALL intruders and threats. And YES, that included the FEDERAL ARMY as well as OTHER STATES. The record is pretty clear on this it seems to me.

    Now here is a Key Error in the arguments against this amendment: “Since we now have a standing army, that seems to be pretty capable of maintaining “the security of a free State”, isn’t the 2nd amendment now a moot point?” The document created a Standing Army AND still outlined the need to maintain the militia AND the right to bear arms. Second, the “STATE” is NOT the Federal Govt nor the USA. It is the individual State’s that formed the Federal Govt. So NO, the amendment is NOT MOOT.

    If it were, there wouldn’t be so much effort to change its meaning now would there.

    “Many people seem to think “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is necessary to defend against the tyranny of the State (including you: and controls over Govt.). But that wasn’t the founders intention. They wanted the people to bear arms so the people could be called upon to defend the State.” Defending the State against a tyrannical FEDERAL govt was in fact one of the “reasons” given in the debates for assuring the Militia was kept under State control. So your argument is false as a stand alone explanation. As I said above, there were several issues wrapped up in this. You also confuse States with State as the Federal. Their reference to State or States was not about the FEDERAL but always about the individual States. That was the entire notion of a “Republic”. They formed a nation of “united States” NOT a Single Nation separate from those States that created it.

    “There’s also that little word “regulated”. Did the founders feel the government should regulate those who had arms?” Absolutely NOT. They wanted the Federal to regulate the MILITIA so that when called up to Federal Service they would have adequate training and compatible “arms”. You know, all the same length sleeves.

    “Wouldn’t “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” include things besides guns? Like explosives? Which are heavily regulated. Why isn’t the NRA all up-in-arms about that? A few well placed, booby-trapped sticks of dynamite around my house would sure make me feel “safer”…” YES, it would and in fact it did. Remember that private citizens provided ARTILLERY to the Revolution and other military engagements. Dynamite was privately owned until the “Progressive Govts” decided the Govt should have control over its use. Same for “Black Powder”.

    As for the NRA, I have no idea why they don’t make waves about it. Perhaps it is water long under the bridge so they have decided to make their stand where they are today.

  42. As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the police (1,527 vs. 606).

    It appears George Washington had it right, when he said “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

    What about concealed carry? Statistics from the recent past show states that passed concealed carry reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5% and robbery by 3%. Florida, which passed concealed carry in 1987, saw its higher than average homicide rate drop 52% during the following 15 years after passage, to below the national average. And no, concealed carry does not result in chaos, as the average Floridian is more likely to be attacked by an alligator than by a concealed carry holder.

    As a matter of fact, the US. Dept. of Justice, in its (admittedly dated) publication, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, Research Report July, 1985,” stated that 60% of felons they surveyed agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun”; 74% agreed with the statement “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime”; and finally, 57% of felons agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into police.”


    But what about other countries? I’m glad you asked!

    For England, as the article Barbarians Within the Gates, Part III, Schwarz Report, Oct. 2011, p. 5 noted, “The UK’s ban on handguns in 1997 “did not stop actual crimes committed with handguns. Those crimes rose nearly 40% according to a 2001 study by King’s College London’s Centre for Defense Studies, and doubled by a decade later, according to government statistics reported in the London Telegraph in October 2009.” Just for good measure, England has a 10 year sentence for possession of “any knife with a blade more than three inches long” (I literally have no idea if this includes butterknives!). No word yet if England has banned running with scissors or people using pencils with sharp points.

    Across the English Channel, Holland’s draconian gun laws certainly haven’t helped—witness the recent report , entitled 7 Killed 15 Wounded in Dutch Mall, while the Nazi guns laws against Jewish firearm owners 60 years ago, as Stephen Halbrook has written, “played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime.” This is one reason for the Second Amendment, which declares: “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.” This right, reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny, was not recognized in the German Reich—and led to disaster.

  43. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is a summary of the dispute over the wording in the second amendment. From wiki:

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

    As passed by the Congress:

    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.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    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.[8]

    The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

    I also found some other references with claims that the change in punctuation somehow changes the “meaning” of the amendment. Given my reading of various writings of the times, and the debates surrounding ratification I do NOT see how the meaning changes.

    This appears once again to be a controversy “created” by modern language because it fits a desire to obfuscate the document’s intent and purpose.

    • Thanks for the info JAC. I’ll agree that this is almost definitely not enough to launch a case to nullify the amendment for improper ratification, I don’t agree that this is necessarily a controversy created by modern language and us evil progressives. A change in punctuation can easily change the plain meaning of a statement. Does it in this case? I’ll leave that to the language experts out there to make their case.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I will agree that punctuation can change meaning. However, to use modern punctuation rules to evaluate writings of the 1700’s won’t work. When reading works of that time you find all kinds of punctuation and capitalization. It seems there were no hardened “rules” or at least rules that were “generally” known.

        So in this it is the modern language that allows the controversy to be created. So WHO creates the controversy? WHO is it that suggests this punctuation changes the meaning and thus makes an individual right contingent upon a Federal policy regarding the militia?

        If it is not the Progressives then WHO?

        • I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of a language/grammar scholar who specializes in late 18th century American English punctuation…

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Perhaps if SUFA is suffering from insomnia we could bring one in as guest speaker…………. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Just picked up on a point you made that deserves a cautionary response.

        We should NOT defer our judgment to the authority of so called experts. I realize we should not exclude nor ignore them either. But it is dangerous to create a false “authority” over the title of “expert”.

        Especially in matters of communication, language, politics, and philosophy. After all, WHO gets to decide who is an expert and who is not?

        • No, we shouldn’t take what an ‘expert’ says wholesale. But we most certainly should give proper consideration to an expert’s testimony on a matter within his expertise.

  44. Interesting O’Reilly comments last night in his opening remarks. He came down squarely for the 2nd amendment and for the right of self defense. However, what he is for is notification to the FBI when “heavy” weapons are sold. As an indication of what that was, he mentioned an AK-47. Later in the same commentary he stated that it was not right that people could purchase and possess a “machine gun” or even a “bazooka” without anyone finding out.

    So, as they used to say in the olden days, “God save us from our friends”. Even folks who profess belief in the 2nd amendment do not have the faintest clue of what is legal and what is illegal out there. I can understand O’Reilly, who is a busy man, not being up on the 1933 or 1968 Federal Firearms Acts but not having someone on staff who could Google the damn things sort of ruins his credibility.

    Another reason to more or less ignore what any pundits, left or right out there say until you have had the chance to vet the statements yourself. To paraphrase Reagan, “believe nothing, verify everything”.

    • Later in the same commentary he stated that it was not right that people could purchase and possess a “machine gun” or even a “bazooka” without anyone finding out.

      Good thing for the gun control crowd that this is already in place. Federal Class III weapons permit for automatic firearms or barrels less then 16″ is already in effect. Background check and fingerprints by local police department mandatory. (all other sales get the instant background check, the one that USWeapon failed)

      Good thing the government is protecting us from all the military gun collectors like our good colonel here.

      Like most NRA supporters say, “There is already enough gun control laws.”

  45. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is some interesting reading. For those who wish to learn more about the various views of today, make sure you read the comments as well.


    Test Time: From all you have read here at SUFA how many can identify some fallacy or bad theory presented in the article or arguments?

  46. Good lord. (Apologize if someone already posted – don’t have time at the moment to catch up)


  47. Just A Citizen says:


    Education Alert: A chance for those at SUFA to LEARN more details about the economic theory of “free markets” ala, Black Flag. Six weeks but a small cost in dollars. Lets see if those who are the most critical have the brass to take the course.


  48. Just A Citizen says:

    If you would like to see an example of CRAP REPORTING by our NEW AGE MEDIA here is an example. Although to be fair, KOS is simply repeating the CRAPPY REPORTING of the Huffington Post on the same topic. I made my comments at Huff Po on the matter, for those with inquiring minds.

    My conclusion? The Republican legislation WOULD create jobs. The data and commentary included in the report states this is true. The debate is really over how many, what type, when, etc, etc,. And of course the “quality of life” as the one “expert” noted.

    Anyway, here you go:


  49. I strongly think spending is the problem and we are taxed too damned much, but I think I would favor some taxes being imposed on all these political groups…..


  50. It has started.

    James Holmes Massacre

    First Lawsuit
    James Holmes mug shotOne of the victims in the James Holmes mass murder spree has lawyered up and plans to file a lawsuit … because he feels the theater dropped the ball in a very fatal way.

    Torrence Brown, Jr. was in Century 16 Theater when Holmes let loose. One of Brown’s best friends, A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and died. Brown, who was not physically injured, claims to now suffer from extreme trauma.

    Brown has hired attorney Donald Karpel to rep him. Karpel tells TMZ … he is targeting 3 defendants.

    1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It’s widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

    2. Holmes’ doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications — prescribed by one or more doctors — at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

    3. Warner Bros. Karpel says “Dark Knight Rises” was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today


    Emergency door in the front?

    • Mathius™ says:

      1. In a case like this you sue everyone. If you sue only some people, they point at the person you didn’t sue and blame him. Then, when you go to trial you lose. Even if someone only has a cursory involvement, you make them a co-defendant.

      2. In a case like this, you sue the interests with money. Even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely you’ll win a penny by going after Warner Bros, they have deep pockets and might be willing to settle. This is legalized extortion. And even if they don’t settle, there’s still the chance (however remote) that you might win.

      3. “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today” … here’s a thought.. how about the person who was so interested in that rampant violence that they paid 8 buck and showed up at a theater in the middle of the night rather than wait a few hours? Maybe someone should take some responsibility for giving the money to people in exchange for creating something you were so impossibly anxious to consume? Huh? Huh? HUH?!

  51. Just A Citizen says:


    I do believe that “fence sitting” and “hair splitting” are first year courses in law school!

    😉 😉

    • It’s frustrating. I know one damn thing…When it goes down, Buck better shoot! Otherwise he’ll never hear the end of it from me. 😉

    • Not quite JAC – hair splitting is a 2d year course.

  52. Thelma Taormina, Houston Homeowner, Pulls Gun on a Utility Worker Installing Smart Meters
    By Graham Wood

    A Houston homeowner had been trying to keep her electric company from installing a “smart meter” at her house. So when a company worker showed up to put the new, digital meter into place, she pulled out the big guns — literally.

    Thelma Taormina said that the utility worker tried to force her out of the way so that he could install the smart meter on her property, so she pulled out a handgun, Houston’s KHOU 11 News reported.

    “He just kept pushing me away,” Taormina, 55, told the station. “He saw it,” she said of the weapon, “and went back the other way.”

    Thelma Taormina smart meter gunTaormina is licensed to carry a weapon, KHOU said. She has placed a sign on her fence (pictured at left) warning electric workers not to install a smart meter at her home.

    She doesn’t want the smart meter installed because it transmits electric usage wirelessly to the company, which she views as an invasion of privacy.

    “Our constitution allows us not to have that kind of intrusion on our personal privacy,” Taormina told KHOU. “They’ll be able to tell if you are running your computer, air conditioner, whatever it is.”

    “I am very upset with it,” her husband, Nick Taormina, added.

    CenterPoint Energy, which has installed more than 2 million smart meters in the Houston area, said that it is considering legal action against Thelma Taormina over the incident.

    “We are deeply troubled by anyone who would pull a gun on another person performing their job,” a CenterPoint spokesperson told KHOU. “CenterPoint will be taking additional steps — including court actions — because what happened is dangerous, illegal and unwarranted.”

    The Public Utilities Commission of Texas, however, is considering letting homeowners remove the smart meters from their property.

    The Taorminas have formed “We the People,” a group calling for public hearings with the aim of changing the policy of installing smart meters on energy customers’ properties.

    • This is a simple solution.

      You don’t want our smart meters and we don’t want you as a customer. end of story.

      • Plainlyspoken,
        That was my thought too – if you don’t like the service being provided, then find a different service provider!

        “Our constitution allows us not to have that kind of intrusion on our personal privacy,” Taormina told KHOU. “They’ll be able to tell if you are running your computer, air conditioner, whatever it is.”

        The constitution forbids electric companies from charging you for electricity? I guess I missed that part…

        And they can’t tell what’s running, just how much electricity you’re using…and she better be careful, cause if she’s using that ‘puter to access the internet, Google is probably tracking her every move…

        The Public Utilities Commission of Texas, however, is considering letting homeowners remove the smart meters from their property.

        Geez – I didn’t know people in Texas were this stupid.

        Although this might work out Ok, because if a “homeowner removes the smart meters from their property”:
        1. They won’t have electrical service anymore
        2. There’s a good chance they’ll be electrocuted by the live wires (I’m sure that wonderful Texas Healthcare will take care of them…)

        So go for it!! Just stock up on candles and kerosene lamps first! And enjoy doing laundry by hand, cooking over a wood fire, no hot water, no air conditioning, no ‘puter, and best of all – no FOX NEWS to stoke these “tinfoil hat” crazy conspiracy theories…

        If I was in-charge of CenterPoint Energy, I wouldn’t consider legal action, I’d cut off her service. See how she likes that – and how long it’ll take her to pay to have the service reconnected – with a Smart Meter.

        This is what happens when “certain politicians” make being stupid popular. Another fine application of 2nd amendment rights used to stop the tyranny of…modern society. So exactly how many decades do you guys “want to take our country back”?

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Todd, no need of tin foil hats here. My whole house is lined with foil lined insulation (celotex type). Even cell phones can’t work without going near a window. I am very safe here ! LOL

        • Todd,

          Is it Ok for the “utility worker tried to force her out of the way”? He gets to push here around on her property? Utilities are a strange mix of the private/government model. The government gives them protection from competition and allows them to provide services to the people. There are restrictions imposed to prevent the private company from taking advantage of it’s customers, that are not allowed any other choices. For CenterPoint to mandate everyone must switch to smartmeters, they may have had to obtain permission. If they did so, they would have to act as directed by the government. There are legal ways they could have acted, pushing a homeowner around is not one of those ways.

          “There’s a good chance they’ll be electrocuted by the live wires”
          Don’t know much about meters, do you? No wires, just contacts. Plugs in like a big extension cord, nothing to it. You could be electrocuted by the contacts that are a couple inches inside the box, if you stuck you hand or something in the box, but there is no reason to do so pulling or installing a meter. if you have a generator & it’s not wired to bypass the utility feed, you NEED to pull the meter before firing up your generator. (killing you main breaker should do the same thing with less hassel)

          • Mathius™ says:

            Is it Ok for the “utility worker tried to force her out of the way”?

            I don’t buy this for a second. I’ve never met a utility worker who was so concerned about doing their job that they’d attack someone in order to do it.

            Hell, when I have 2 inches of snow on the ground, they won’t even walk up my driveway to read the meter, they just use the estimate and true it up the next time. If – IF – the installer tried to force her out of the way, then that is an issue entirely separate to the issue of the new meters. That would be a criminal act completely outside of the scope of his employment. That’s a crime independent of company or the meter-replacement program – I assure you it’s not CenterPoint’s policy to attack customers.

            As for trespass et cetera, I have zero doubt that the electric company has a right of access and/or modification to the meter. No doubt whatsoever. It’s why they can come onto my property without my permission. Now, I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure this means that they can also come onto my property AGAINST my permission. As to a question of any physical interaction, I cannot say, but if I am blocking their access, then I am the one who is in the wrong. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have a right to touch me (I sincerely doubt it does), but this is little different than a neighbor wandering onto your property and refusing to allow you access.

            This is called an easement, and is very standard – for legal purposes, imagine that the electric company co-owns the ground between the street and the meter and owns the meter outright. So when I prevent them from changing the meter, I am actually interfering with their rights, not protecting my own. And when I threaten them with a gun, it is me who is committing a crime by denying them something they have a right to – not ‘defending my home.’ This is called a trespass upon an easement.

            Utilities are a strange mix of the private/government model.

            Now, before we get all huffy about the electric company gestapo being granted rights to your land against your permission by government fiat blah blah blah blah blah, let’s all take a deep breath. Before you bought your home, it had this easement. The easement was put in place when electrical lines were first installed. They weren’t foisted on the then-home-owner by government fiat, he willingly signed a document which granted the electric company access as a condition of being able to sign up for the power – if he refused, he went without electricity.

            So, when you bought the house, the seller had already given this right away (if it helps, think of it as a severable and distinct right such as mineral rights – if I sell my mineral rights to one person and my house to another, the new homeowner can’t then claim the mineral rights since those weren’t part of the bargain, and he cannot stop the mineral rights owner from accessing his minerals). Your previous homeowner couldn’t sell you the absolute right to the land because he no longer owned absolute rights to the land. Instead, he sold you the partial rights (ie, full ownership minus easements). And when you signed your closing docs, these are spelled out (probably in the title docs). I should add, even if they weren’t spelled out, it wouldn’t necessarily negate them – you can’t buy something from someone who doesn’t own it. (If you disagree with that previous sentence, I have a bridge to sell you).

            • “Is it Ok for the “utility worker tried to force her out of the way”?

              I don’t buy this for a second. I’ve never met a utility worker who was so concerned about doing their job that they’d attack someone in order to do it.”

              Then why is she not under arrest? Could be just his word against her word, no way to prove either’s guilt.

              “I have zero doubt that the electric company has a right of access and/or modification to the meter.” I would agree, but if a homeowner refuses access to their property for any reason, there are legal ways to settle the dispute. A worker pushing her aside is not legal. It may be that her actions are also illegal. I can see the utility company sending her a 30 day shut-off notice and see how things play out. I also wonder if CenterPoint is doing this legally, that they have their commissions approval to require their customers to switch.If my utility try’s to force smartmeters on me, I will oppose it with every legal means.

              • I’m still not following this phobia of smartmeters…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Could be just his word against her word, no way to prove either’s guilt. Yes, but her word doesn’t seem realistic. I just can’t imagine a (sane) utility worker trying to physically force a homeowner to let him install a meter on their house. 99.999% of the time, he’d just shrug, walk away, and let the company send (as you suggest) a shut off notice. Now, it may well be that the guy was nut or having a bad day or things just escalated out of control.. but that’s not company policy and shouldn’t be held against the company unless it was lackadaisical about assaulting customers.

                Then why is she not under arrest Because it’s not in the company’s interest to have their paying customers arrested. Both from a PR perspective and from the loss of a customer perspective.

                if a homeowner refuses access to their property for any reason, there are legal ways to settle the dispute Agreed. But there’re a lot of holes in the lady’s story. The most plausible scenario in my mind has the woman at fault. I just can’t see it the other way. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but it just doesn’t sound right, you know?

                I also wonder if CenterPoint is doing this legally, that they have their commissions approval to require their customers to switch. Customers may not have any say in the matter. I know that when I moved into my house, the meter was broken. For 11 months, I has a $15 electric bill (thought nothing of it). Then one day, a brand new shiny box showed up and the next month, my bill was several hundred dollars (to make up for the time in which it was broken). I think the electric company owns the box (lock, stock, and barrel), and they can do anything they want as regards to it regardless of your desires (I would have much rather kept the broken one, but it didn’t matter what I wanted – nor should it have mattered).

                If my utility try’s to force smartmeters on me, I will oppose it with every legal means. Why? Out of some sense of paranoia that they may try to control your thermostat or regulate the time of day when you’re allowed to run your well-pump? Those are intrusions into your private life.. you don’t own the information about your power use. The societal benefit of smart meters is huge, including more efficient production and transmission of power. This, in the end, means cheaper power for you, and less waste for everyone. It also means that a meter reader doesn’t have to drive to every house, walk onto your property, which also means cheaper power. It’s win-win all the way around.

              • Not sure that the power co owns all meters. when I got power at the lake I had to purchase and install (electrician did it) my own meter to the tune of $1200.

              • Mathius™ says:

                when I got power at the lake I had to purchase and install (electrician did it) my own meter to the tune of $1200.

                Probably varies by power company / municipality / state / etc.

                Regardless, I can’t imagine they don’t have a right to access / repair / evaluate / etc. Even if it’s YOUR meter, they’re going to want to be able to make sure, for example, that you’re not tampering with it.

              • It’s not a phobia against smartmeters, it is a simple decision based on research and knowledge, a smartmeter will offer me no savings or advantage. It could cost me, if the power company decides to use the information they gather to force me to modify my usage/behavior. Not much time to comment, I am wiring a complex electrical device. And for what’s it’s worth, I was once asked to teach a college electrical class. I declined.


      • naten53 says:

        If the worker touched the homeowner as claimed, he is lucky he didn’t get shot.

        However, the utility company has options.

        A – Turn off electricity
        B – Install smart meter off homeowners property (on pole of nearest transformer)

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I am still waiting for the big RF (radio frquency) lawsuits to arrive. RF is known to be harmful to your health at high enough power levels. (don’t look down the beam of a microwave transmitting antenna for example). Studies continue to attempt to connect brain cancer with cell phone use. If a connection can ever be proven, it could prove costly. Everyday we all have electromagnetic RF from all over the world going right through our bodies. Big powerful tv transmitters in every city just frying liberal brains to mush (just kiddin), but then who really knows? I doubt we need tin foil hats, but how about a helmet while outdoors in case of stray meteors that refract RF………… I am just trying to be open minded here 🙂

      • But your mind is already open to all the RF!!

        There is not much wrong with smart meters if they are just a labor saving device the transmits usage information back to the power company remotely. The only caveat is that they must be accurate which many early ones installed here in CA weren’t. The problem arises when the progs start pushing to control your thermostat or to turn on and off appliances in the house. There was an attempt here in CA to do such. Rather than increase the supply and distribution of power, the eco-fascist thought it better to just control us.

  53. The ancient Chinese practice of lingchi, the “Death of a Thousand Cuts,” best describes the manner in which the Obama administration has systematically whittled away most immigration enforcement since taking office. Over time, the rule of law has been shredded not by a single act, but by many small cuts.

    A review of President Obama’s record reveals a jaw-dropping steady and stealthy dismantling of virtually every tool and resource used to identify and remove deportable aliens.

    Out with the Old — Gut What Works

    Immediately after taking office, the Obama administration replaced effective worksite enforcement that targeted both employers and illegal workers with meaningless paper audits and modest fines. Meanwhile, the administration refused to consider making E-Verify mandatory for all employers, even resisting efforts to permanently reauthorize it, despite hundreds of thousands of businesses voluntarily using the program.

    Failing to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable was an early, yet clear signal that the Obama administration intended to derail all enforcement.

    The administration focused their sights next on programs that helped local law enforcement identify illegal aliens. Both the 287(g) and the Secure Communities agreements were rewritten to emphasize that only criminal aliens would be processed. A “don’t-ask, don’t-tell” policy took effect for all other illegal aliens.

    In with the New — Rewrite the Rules

    In 2011, Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director, John Morton, issued a series of internal directives instructing agency staff to focus their efforts exclusively on removing illegal aliens with criminal records. The administration would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for all others. The new priorities – still in place – imply that immigration violations, in and of themselves, are inconsequential.

    Squash Resistance — Sue the States

    With local programs such as 287(g) and Secure Communities weakened and federal authority (to not enforce the law) broadened by way of the new internal memos, the administration had consolidated the power it needed to initiate backdoor amnesty without interference. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) became the instrument of intimidation. States that enacted their own bills requiring local police to identify illegal aliens and turn them over to federal custody, felt the blows one after the other. The DOJ sued Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah.

    Distract and Deceive

    To distract attention from his actions, Obama told Americans that the border was secure and that that deportations were up.

    Both were deceptions.

    In official documents, DHS stated that only 44% of the border was under operational control. And while deportations had, in fact risen slightly, the increase had nothing to do with expanding enforcement by the Obama administration. A “pipeline” of deportable cases was filled by vigorous enforcement during the last two years of the Bush administration. Those cases carried forward and Obama took credit in his first two years. Moreover, while deportations for violent criminal aliens had risen, all other deportations were down indicating that the Obama administration felt it could pick and choose which laws to enforce.

    The Final Blow

    From the beginning, President Obama knew that the public would reject amnesty legislation. However, he also knew he stood a good chance of getting it done through a strategy of piecemeal efforts, provided no one noticed.

    With an election looming and special interests demanding grandiose and immediate action, in June President Obama declared unilaterally that he was using executive power to implement the DREAM Act for an untold number illegal alien “kids” who were brought here through “no fault of their own.”

    During his DREAM Act speech, Obama failed to mention that his new edict allowed illegal aliens up to the age of 30 to qualify.

    Then, in an interview shortly thereafter with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, DHS Secretary Napolitano admitted that parents of illegal aliens applying for deferred action – illegal alien adults who most certainly did knowingly break the law – will not be subject to immigration enforcement. As she said, “we have it internally set up.”

    With that announcement, amnesty for illegal aliens tripled.

    So much for Obama’s argument he was giving amnesty just to “kids” who were “brought here through no fault of their own.”

    Obama’s Death of a Thousand Cuts has virtually gutted our country’s immigration enforcement apparatus, but the record is clear and the public must hold this president accountable. Congress has an urgent mandate to begin the work of restoring credibility to our immigration system by stopping the cuts, healing the wounds, and reinstating the rule of law.

    FAIR’s new report detailing President Obama’s dismal immigration enforcement policy record can found at http://www.fairus.org

  54. For sure…

    • Mathius™ says:


      • George Jefferson: I don’t want no daughter-in-law who’s a zebra.
        Louise Jefferson: Why not? I’m sure she won’t mind a father-in-law who’s a jackass.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Truth be told, that was never one of the shows I watched.. sure I saw an episode here and there, but ehh.. not really my type, I guess

          Still, that’s an excellent exchange you just posted! Aaron Sorkin couldn’t have any done better.

  55. Smile LOI…watch your back, Matt’s right behind you.

    Concealed weapons save lives
    The evidence is clear: Massacres are stopped by legally armed citizens
    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161#ixzz21e9wK73o

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    A GOOD summary of where “communism/socialism/fascism” are destined to end up.

    “………………..the anarchy the villains try to create in the Batman trilogy in no way resembles the anarcho-capitalist society envisioned by many libertarians. The chaos sought by these villains more closely resembles the inevitable chaos of anarcho-communism in a failed state, where harmony never occurred and the proletarians can neither plan effectively nor produce nor cooperate — thus they resort to looting and fighting over dwindling resources.”

    • charlieopera says:

      where harmony never occurred and the proletarians can neither plan effectively nor produce nor cooperate — thus they resort to looting and fighting over dwindling resources.”

      as opposed to having those dwindling resources tossed to them like crumbs …

      Something tells me the proleteariat will more than figure it out, JAC …

      • Mathius™ says:

        “They needed only rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose, they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning.”

        5 Mathius Points for the right answer – no cheating allowed.

      • Unfortunately Charlie you are wrong. Two things could happen, First, we could have a repeat of 1776 where these really great experienced practical men get together and try to do something new and right right or you could have the Russian or French revolution with the intellectuals running the show. My vote for most likely would be the latter. History would seem to bear me out.

        • Mathius™ says:

          You don’t think Jefferson et al were “intellectuals”?

          • If you will, they were “practical” men who had experience in the real world and made a living in that world. Matt, I daresay that you and I are intellectuals also but we are able to support ourselves by supplying a very real service to others. That, perhaps is the difference.

            I had an uncle who was perhaps the smartest of the bunch. He read and could discuss everything, raised a family, took care of a severely handicapped child who died early, served 10 years in the military and then went to an “aggie” college on the GI Bill. While his field was engineering, he mostly identified himself as a gentleman farmer. That, is an intellectual who is practical.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Reminds me of my brother…

      Absolutely the day care should be sued into oblivion and the people on duty charged with criminal negligence.

      A kid like this.. see the way he looks around first to make sure he’s clear? This isn’t a hot-blooded outburst. This is a calculated decision to inflict harm. This is juvenile psychopathy (and who knows what else). There really isn’t too much you can do for him, but he needs to be removed from the presence of other children who can’t defend themselves. Extensive therapy would be a good start, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to work.

      As for the parents who knew he “He bad. He fight kids”.. they’re responsible too. This, as we’ve discussed before, is something I know a little bit about. A parent/guardian does not have the right to turn a blind eye to the fact that their child is a danger to others. I get it – I really do – you love your child and don’t want to believe that he is what he is, you want to believe he’s good and normal. But the fact is that he’s not. And this should never be ignored – it denies them the possibility of early intervention and it denies others the safety from harm to which they should be entitled.

      That was painful to watch.. especially now as a (new) parent…

      • This one must be fun in school. Question is, what do we do with him? You have a sociopath child on meds. Probably, best thing would be institutionalizing little Hannibal before he grows up, moves to the Bronx and starts shooting four year olds.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Truth is that there isn’t a good answer.

          You could lock him away in a straight jacked and padded cell for the rest of his life but that isn’t particularly humane. Especially given that some children can grow out of this. (Diagnostic stats on these types of conditions are sparse, so it’s hard to say exactly how many).

          There have been special schools set up for kids like this, but more than one of them have had to be closed after the children essentially formed gangs and became a threat to each other and/or the teachers. They’re good at organizing when it suits their interests, and that can be very problematic when it runs contrary to the interests of those in authority. In the case of my brother, he was placed at one point into a group study in an isolation lab in UCLA with a number of other similar children. Being (presumably) the smartest and most ruthless, he selected a weaker kid, made him the pariah, and had all the other kids ruthlessly taking turns tormenting him. The study was cancelled prematurely.

          Your best bet is early detection and early intervention. Even though it won’t necessarily ever be natural to kids like this to recognize other human beings as human (as opposed to objects), it can be drilled into them. They can learn to emulate proper societal behavior even if they may never actually internalize it. My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that this has a strong genetic component and may someday be something we can screen for. Until then, however, this is a particularly difficult thing to watch for. There are a number of factors which make a early and proper diagnosis extremely difficult:
          -psychopathy / sociopathy are highly stigmatized. Nobody wants to admit that they have this – it’s not like diabetes where nobody judges you. If you admit that your child is a psychopath, other parents will avoid you like the plague. This leads to parental denial.
          -Warning signs are impulsivity, hostility, ego-centricity, narcissism, etc. All young children exhibit these traits in spades, so it’s difficult to peg what’s normal and what’s abnormal. It’s not like they bleed from their eyes or anything else that’s an obvious and clear sing that they need medical attention.
          -by the time it’s clear and undeniable that there is a problem, it’s often late / more difficult to treat.
          -Children like this quickly learn to hide their behavior. If they are punished for hurting their sibling, for example, they might make sure that they aren’t caught, that they don’t leave bruises, and that their sibling is too scared of repercussions to tell on them. This leads to my personal favorite version of denial: the constant assurances that the child has ‘changed’ or that he’s ‘better’ when he has, in fact, gotten worse and more dangerous.. it’s a way of sweeping it under the rug.

          But, in the end, eliminating parental denial is the real answer. Parents know – they KNOW – when they have a kid who is like this. They’ve seen the signs and know that their kid has a problem. But they don’t WANT to believe (“I did not see because I did not wish to see” – 5 points for the reference). I think if the stigma were lessened or removed, this would go a long way toward helping. It’s a mental disorder, little different from autism, OCD, or any other – it’s not the kid’s fault and it’s not necessarily the parent’s fault, but society doesn’t really view it that way.

          • If you have never seen the film, “The Bad Seed” please do, it was perhaps the first time light was ever shined on that type of behavior in a child. I’m sorry to hear that you had to deal with this type of problem, it is a real killer. From a psychological standpoint, I wonder if behavior modification isn’t the only way to go. I’m sure you can medicate them into a Zombie like state but, if caught early enough, programming might have a chance. God, what a mess. This is one of those things that you can look to when you think you have it tough and realize that your problems are really quite minor.

  57. Can I slap her?

  58. V.H., down here please.

    First my apologies for taking so long to answer. It seems my wife contracted a case of dysentery in the last couple of days befpre leav ing to come back home. She’s kinda miserable and I’ve given my time to her needs.

    To answer your question on why she has decided to support Obama (and I hope I recall the discussion we had clearly so I do her justice).

    While there is no President of any flavor that doesn’t have a down side, she has decided for herself that Obama hasn’t been as bad as she felt he would be. While she has serious concerns about the healthcare law, there are aspects she supports – such as the mandate. As an ER/Trauma RN, working on her masters to become a Nurse Practitioner, she has many patients that come through the ER that don’t have insurance for one reason or another. She clearly believes that the only way hospitals and medical providers can slow the cost increases (she does not believe that you will have any kind of cost reductions) is through insuring as many members of society as possible. Those on Medicare and Medicaid do face increasing reduction in what will be paid for. Its a balancing act. Its not perfect and will need modifications – like so many laws shoved through Congress.

    She doesn’t believe that Romney (or anyone else, including Obama) can do any better with the economy than is already happening, yet she finds Romney touting his business skills to be nothing more than political maneuvering. She finds him to be too slick for his own good and she also feels that his administration will be pointed at undoing what has been done and bringing the country back to the Bush years.

    She’d prefer at this point in time to stay with the known and not have the turmoil of a retreat to the past administration.

    I am sure she told more reasoning, but honestly that is all I can recall at the moment.

    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my question -Hope your wife feels better quickly 🙂

%d bloggers like this: