Ban the Bat!

Years ago I had this thought about gun bans and what would come next.  Guns are a tool.  They can be used as a weapon but it’s their use that defines them.  People have been killed by the most innocent of objects, such as feather pillows.  My thought is that after all guns are banned, what would replace them as the tool or object easiest to find and use for attacking or defending, for violence?  I think it would be a baseball bat.  So after guns, swords & knives are banned, there will be a call to ban bats.  I would call this the “Louisville Slugger” law.  It would restrict the use and carrying of bats and any objects similar in design that could be used for violence.  Truck drivers carry a small bat (a thumper) to check tire pressure.  It has also seen a lot of use against human heads.  For some reason, dark & isolated loading docks, truck stops, etc. seem to be a good place to rob someone thieves believe will have hundreds of dollars cash on them.  (gonna be tough on truck drivers after this law passes, but there’s always those pillows…kill ’em with kindness?)

Some will say this is a ridiculous stance to take, no one is calling for a bat ban.  But how silly is it when you see other “Western” countries banning swords and bulletproof vests. (1) What is the reasoning there?  How many people have been attacked by a bulletproof vest?  Forced reliance on government for protection.  Wanna bet you can be arrested for wearing a football helmet?  And where guns are banned, knives seem to be the first choice as a substitute.(2)

Myself, I look for wisdom where I can find it.  I may not “like” a person or more to point, a position they have taken on some issue.   I recall Barkley saying some things I did not agree with, but his comment on this tragic event is spot on!

“There’s never a reason to hit a woman, touch a woman, or obviously kill a woman,” Barkley tells USA TODAY Sports. 

“I hope people don’t (overemphasize) the gun situation. I’m very sensitive to domestic violence because I have a daughter (23-year-old Christiana), and that’s just one thing that I cannot accept in any shape or form whatsoever. It’s just a crazy situation. 

“I don’t get into the gun stuff. Some guys have guns who go hunting. Where do we stop (the gun control) at? I’m not a hunter, but we can’t say people can’t have guns. … Let’s not make this thing about guns. Let’s make this about mistreating women. That’s unacceptable.” . . .(3)

I think the principal of personal rights is important.  The right to self defense is not granted by government, but a natural right that no one should ever surrender.  Building on this principal, I have the right to own and “bear” weapons suitable to my needs to defend myself, my family and property.  Right now that includes various firearms.  If I feel a mob attack or zombies are in my future, a flame thrower might be put in inventory.  (note to homeland security, I have no such delusions that I am threatened by mobs or zombies, so no flamethrowers on order at this time)  Were I in a war zone, say Israel, grenades would be a defensive weapon I would consider owning.

I do not think this is wide open, that anyone should be allowed to obtain any & all weapons they desire, such as nuclear or other WMD’s.  But for out lefty naysayers.  Banning guns is supposed to be to protect society as a whole.  What if instead it results in more violence?(4)  Also interesting is how we look at violent crime.  Some 36,000 people are killed by firearms each year (number has been dropping).  Violence is increasing, from 4.9 to 5.8 million instances of violence.(5)  Using logic, not a knee-jerk emotional response might be helpful.  Had this latest school shooter not had a gun, would it have prevented him from doing violence?  Did he have a car he could have driven thru a crowded hallway?  Gasoline?  The tools are there, Pandora’s Box has long been opened.  You cannot stop a tool from being used for evil by banning tools.

(1)http://www.itwillpass.com/law_stupid_law_swords_banned.shtml

(2)http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

(3)http://news.cincinnati.com/usatoday/article/1749025

(4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

(5)http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/newtown-conn-school-district-had-recently-installed-new-safety-protocols/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Wonderful 🙂 Aquit Zimmerman 😦

    • Another brainless newscaster just said the AR-15 .223, is the most powerful rifle in America. What a flaming moron. Why do they let the ignorant continue to brainwash the masses? 🙄

  2. Have you wondered why, in such a target rich environment as a suburban shopping mall two weeks before Christmas, the shooter at the Clackamas Town Center only managed to kill two people before dousing his own lights? Part of the reason was a dodgy gun. But as is being reported by kgw.com, part was also due to the fact that, gun-free zone or not, Jacob Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli who was armed and has a concealed carry permit.

    KGW’s text report, which mostly tracks the on the scene reporter’s verbiage, follows. I’ll address the video’s studio introduction after that (bolds are mine throughout the rest of this post):

    Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

    “I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, ‘are you serious?,'” he said.

    The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

    “He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”

    The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

    “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.

    Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

    “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

    Note that apparently no other shots were fired after the shooter allegedly became aware of Meli. If that’s the case, Meli’s armed presence arguably saved an untold number of lives.

    That makes the studio introduction of the segment extremely odd, or worse:

    Now to an untold story on the shooting at Clackamas Town Center. We now know there was another armed man in the mall that day: a shopper, who had the shooter in his gunsight but never pulled the trigger. The Night Team’s Mike Benner is live outside the mall, and Mike, the big question for many tonight would be “Why didn’t he shoot?”

    That’s a strange introduction for a situation where you know that the answer is that Meli didn’t want to hurt an innocent person, and that no one else was killed or injured (except the shooter, who killed himself) as a result of Meli’s decision not to fire.

    I would also not discount the notion that the shooter decided to end his life when he realized that the alternative might be getting shot himself and surviving to spend the rest of his life behind bars or mental institutions.

    Saturday afternoon, Eugene Volokh cited four examples of “shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter.” Those situations end up forcing the press to report the facts.

    The story above clearly didn’t. A Google News search on Nick Meli’s full name in quotes at 11:00 a.m. ET returned no other story.

    Earlier this week, a group of Democratic Party politicians in Oregon co-sponsored “a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons.” It appears that the legislation would, if enacted, have banned Meli from carrying his Glock (disclosed in the video coverage, but not the text). Mall shoppers who survived that day, their families, and the public should be asking the dimwitted dozen how much worse the death toll might have been on December 11 if Meli had instead been unarmed — if they only knew the story the press won’t tell.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/16/virtually-unreported-ccw-holder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d#ixzz2FJmFkV00

  3. Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense.

    The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable.

    And so the evidence has to be internally denied.

    ~ Arthur Miller

  4. LOI,

    Re: Nukes

    So, your principles of self-defense are whimsical and contradictory – you ban those weapons that you do not like, but condemn those who ban those weapons that they don’t like, but that you want.

    It is because you have whimsical application of principles is the reason why the “lefties” are so successful in taking things away from you.

    You are their ally because that is what you do, too.

    • “you have whimsical application of principles”

      Sorry my contradictions upset your sense of logic and order. I also will sometimes press the elevator call button multiple times. I know it being lit means it’s being called and will get there when it will & all the pressing has no affect. But it makes me feel better doing something (sometimes just annoying logic freaks like you)LOL

      Can you make a case for ownership of a nuclear weapon as a defensive weapon? I see it as offensive only, wipe out who you fear first. I do not see us living in a world where any individual has a need to kill thousands for their self protection. (OK, that Syrian President has that need, is that who’s behalf you will argue?)

      • Of course I can!

        Nuclear armed delusional maniacs have a thousand of them…. why can’t free men guard against these mental cases and have their own?

        If deterrence works between States, it probably would work between individuals vs. Statism.

        But is that your principle? It’s not about freedom, is it?
        You mouth the “2nd Amendment” that its about freedom… but the first test, you demand “proof of defense” .

        You have defined your principle to be “you have to prove your need of defense” before you get to defend yourself.

        …. as I said, you are the best ally of the Leftist, because that is what they demand of you, too – prove your need – and, guess what?

        You always fail, because they come up with some cock and bull story that you really don’t need that at all….
        …just like you came up with a story about nukes.

        That’s the thing, LOI.
        If you pervert your principles “over here”, you have no principles when it counts “right here”, either.

  5. These shootings tend to take place within the confines of institutions and other large organizations.

    Government schools and universities, corporate businesses, churches, shopping malls, among other systems reflect what Leopold Kohr called the “size theory of social misery.”

    Perhaps, drawing upon work done in the study of “chaos,” it could be said that large organizations are “attractors” for violent activity; that we ought to be focusing our attentions on reducing the size of our social systems.

  6. from my last link in this article without a reference number

    Dear Members of our Sandy Hook Family,

    Our district will be implementing a security system in all elementary schools as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure student safety. As usual, exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification.

    Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m. Any student arriving after that time must be walked into the building and signed in at the office. Before that time our regular drop-off procedures will be in place. I encourage all parents to have their children come to school and return home on the bus and to remain in school for the entire school day. The beginning and ending of our school day are also important instructional times and therefore we want all our students to reap the benefits of full participation in our program.

    We need your help and cooperation for our system to work effectively. Our office staff is handling multiple tasks. Though they will work diligently to help you into the building as quickly as possible, there may be a short delay until someone can view you on the handset and allow you to come in electronically. There are times during the day when office personnel are on the telephone, addressing student concerns, or in the copy room; there are other times when only one person is in the front office. Please help our staff by identifying yourself and provide your child’s name.

    Keep in mind we will be following our district guidelines which may need revision once we test the system.

    Please know your involvement continues to be critical to our school’s effectiveness and your child’s success. We continue to encourage and value your presence in our classrooms and are counting on your cooperation with the implementation of this safety initiative.

    Sincerely,

    Mrs. Hochsprung

  7. No serious person is calling for banning all guns, so this entire line of attack is absurd.

    And on the issue of guns versus people killing people — of course people kill and the guns are the tool. But they sure make it a heck of a lot easier to kill a larger number!

    • See LOI?

      Your own principle used against you by the Lefty.

      Now you will go all blubbery, make bold pronouncements of “Rights” and “Freedom” – and not have a clue that you already blew your own foot off.

      Buck laughs at you, LOI.

      • I would never laugh at LOI — at least not until I get my booze 🙂

      • Charlie, is that you? Oh, Flagster….sorry, expected Charlie using what someone else posted to attack is his MO. Well, they say imitation is the highest form of flattery, so you just complimented Charlie! LOL See, this is clueless me having a laugh at your expense. Humans are not always “logical”. Logic does not always work. It’s a good guideline and should be used for the most part, but rejected when it does not pass the common sense sniff test. (sniff, sniff, phew Flag, take a breath mint)

        • So freedom is merely a guideline, huh?

          Buck loves when you say that.

          And there’s your problem (and a lot of others, too)

          Your principles are mutable – feeble, whimsical and void.

          And *shock* your freedoms become mutable, feeble, whimsical and voided too.

          Evil lives in contradictions, LOI, and you certainly profess a lot of contradictions

          • Total freedom is a contradiction. Can your neighbor pluck a grape from your vine when it grows across the fence? When he “plucks” the first one, suddenly a dozen are on “his” side. And the trash pile you burned “ruined” their was that was drying outside on the line.
            There is black and white in the world, there is also gray. Insisting gray does not exist is a fallacy. So no, that’s not my problem. My problem is much worse. Here, let me share:

            • Nonsense.

              Again, you dictate freedom by proof or example, not by principle.

              If you had a cohesive principle, your grape issues would not be an issue.

              But because your concept of freedom is based on demonstration instead of principle, every new case is bizarre to you.

            • Remember, LOI, that your failure to understand principles is why the likes of Buck are so successful in removing your rights and freedom.

              Your admission to whim provides Buck all the ammo he needs to undermine any argument about your rights. If you hold them to be merely a whim, his job is already done.

              You did all the work for him.

            • You might see gray in the application of your principles to certain situations, but there should be no gray in your principles themselves.

        • It must be Christmas, compliments abound (even if they’re by mistake)! Drinks/food on me, LOI … anytime 🙂

    • Buck,
      “No serious person is calling for banning all guns, so this entire line of attack is absurd.”
      I will “prove” you to be wrong on this statement, then make fun of lawyers in general. First, this may not be a “serious” person, but he does have his own national TV show. That is a serious “voice”!

      Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”

      “The Ed Show” host wasn’t done his attack on gun rights. “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he claimed. And after that, he told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.” That last bit is surely a surprise to both gun owners and Congress which didn’t include handguns in its previous assault weapons ban.

      Ultimately, Schultz talked of changing the Constitution to one person on Twitter. “We are the Constitution and we as a people can change whatever we want. Get ready Dude !” he wrote.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation#ixzz2FJzdrh9a

      • Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new legislation this week. Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and several others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.

        “I think we could be at a tipping point … where we might get something done,” Senator Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

      • Supporting an assault rifle ban is not the same thing has supporting a ban on ALL guns. So you failed twice — one, he is not serious person as you yourself admit, and two, he is not supporting a total gun ban.

        That Schultz believes a Glock is somehow the same as an assault rifle is besides the point.

    • Buck, I think Sen. Feinstein qualifies as a “serious person”. She has let slip once that her intention is a total gun ban and confiscation.

      in the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a “reauthorization” of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS “60 Minutes”: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it.”

      “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” Those are the only words gun owners should ever need to remember. Never has the anti-gun agenda been stated more succinctly or more honestly. Now Feinstein is back trying to keep alive the ban inflicted on law-abiding Americans. Joined by comrades such as Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., she introduced S1034, “Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003.” It makes the Clinton gun ban permanent and also bans the importation of large-capacity magazines.

      Certainly Feinstein’s bill is less “ambitious” than McCarthy’s and undoubtedly will be portrayed as a “reasonable,” and “common-sense” alternative by firearm-phobic editorial writers. The truth, of course, lies elsewhere, as Schumer confessed to the Los Angeles Times: “We know if we push it too far, we’ll have no bill.” Translation: “Don’t threaten Mr. and Mrs. America too much.” Don’t remind them that the semi-automatic firearms they own for self-defense, hunting and target shooting function identically to those “assault weapons” you want to ban.

      Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php#ixzz2FK69NxQF

      • Fair enough — Feinstein would qualify to me as a serious person.

        But I stand by the statement that a total gun ban is absurd and *almost* no one is arguing for such a ban and it’d never happen in today’s political climate.

        • Does not change the reality, many “serious” people intend to ban every firearm they can get made into law. If “assault weapons” get a vote, expect it to include the AR-15 as well as most .22’s. (one such ban listed them and was voted down) They also have included semi-auto shotguns such as the Remington 1100. Possibly the most popular firearm for duck hunting. Serious people are looking how to ban ALL firearms. This does not mean I think they can, just being accurate in saying they are trying! And remember, Australia’s gun ban included crossbows.

    • Buck;

      Each and every time a horrible event such as this occurs certain individuasl and groups scream for more restrictions to the individual right of self presevation. It solves nothing. It does not bring back the dead, nor does it provide those who lost any solace.

      You want certain weapons banned and/or outlawed, but as a lawyer you of all folks should realize that laws don’t stop criminals; they just provide a guideline and process for dealing with those that get caught breaking such a law. That and fund the courts and the courts representatives.

      And it does not matter if the government is only calling for a partial, restricted or complete ban on anything, it will not prevent insane people from doing insane acts.

      I chose to protect and defend me and mine how I see fit, if only because I do not believe a government, police force or court system to be capable of doing it effectively for me.

      Those who chose to trust others or institutions to provide for thier well being also chose to live with a higher level of risk.

      CM

  8. http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure

    Isn’t it interesting under Obama, embassy security funds get cut, school security funds get cut, everything but his freaking “green energy” & entitlement spending get cut….. I think this is a valid example of his priorities!

    • Shouldn’t you be cheering his spending cuts? I thought that was what you had wanted…

      • Buck,

        You know how the game is played!

        Government, in demanding more thievery, threatens to cut what everyone, including you, pretend its primary purpose is – security and protection – so to force people into agreeing to pour more money into stuff government really likes doing – enfeebling the masses with social “services” and handouts.

        *Gasp* government would NEVER cut back doing that!!

      • I want small government, not no government. I want to experiment to see how small it can possibly be and the US thrive. I might cheer these cuts IF we were ALLOWED more choices in our education. Our school has one full time police officer. We also have two separate campuses, so one is always “unprotected”. I think the campus cop mandate is idiotic! A serious attacker will simply make him/her the first victim. Great strategy, supply the knife killer a gun with a “visible deterrent”. The campus cop is to make us feel safe, not to actually insure safety.

        You avoided any position on his spending cuts to school security. Given that he has increased spending, why are our schools less secure? Does he not care about other peoples children? Too young to vote for him maybe?

        • LOI,

          That experiment already ran. 1789, remember.
          It lasted just two years.

          The problem, LOI, is you pretend that violence solves non-violent problems – but “you” would only use this violence to solve the really tough non-violent problems.

          But “tough” is merely an opinion.

          You may work a little longer before you pull your club and goons than, say, Buck, who goes for the club and goons sooner.

          But you both love the club and goons.

          So you mumble and blubber about Buck using the club and goons “this way”, but you are not different. You merely use the club and goons differently.

  9. Buck beat me to the punch – but it is certainly absurd to think that the same violence could be perpetrated with a baseball bat or some other tool. Guns are the most efficient way for most people to kill large numbers of other people in a short amount of time – and clearly the most preferred tool for many years.

    • Nonsense.

      Bombs are.

      • That’s why government demands exclusive right to them…..

      • @Black Flag – you are incorrect sir – “for most people” – when Walmart starts selling bombs or we see more “bomb shows” with regularity then I will believe you.

        • Unnecessary.

          Unlike guns, which require high tensile strength steel to withstand the pressure, bombs are easier to self-manufacture (see Iraq).

          Guns require much manufacturing, hence, are made and sold.

          A plastic bottle, gasoline, rag and a match…. hardly worthy of a Walmart isle.

          • Sorry – facts aren’t on your side – the overwhelming majority of mass killings similar to the situation that prompted this thread had nothing to do with bombs.

            • ….because you merely frame the dialogue to be stuck within a certain tool.

              It is your framing of the issue that is the issue – you believe you can justify the destruction of self-defense, one tool at a time.

              • @ Black Flag – I believe nothing of the sort – you’re extending an absurd hypothetical that has no basis in history or fact. And no I don’t believe in the destruction of self-defense, one tool at a time. I spend copious amounts of my own time and money in improving my own self-defense. I’m also aware enough to realize that in most all conflicts gun vs. no gun means gun wins. I’m also aware enough to realize that most all 5 year old kids are incapable of self-defense as it relates to the CT shooting.

              • Ray,

                @ Black Flag – I believe nothing of the sort – you’re extending an absurd hypothetical that has no basis in history or fact.

                Uh?
                You think it is hypothetical and there is no history nor fact that manics use bombs to kill people?
                Are you delusional?

      • I, can make an argument that had the principle, or one of the office administrators been armed with a handgun, and trained the shooter might not have made it to the classroom. Hence, we should call for a law that mandates all school principles and administrators be armed to guard against evil acts.

        We should also mandate that all public schools be structurely designed to repel or stall attacks of this kind. Each public school should have an armed police person on the grounds during normal school hours. Each parent and family member should be registered with the school and educational system in each state. All doors and windows should be reinforced steel or bullet proof glass. In short, make sure the schools are as secure from outside intruders much like prisions.

        My arguments are as sound in priniciple and logic as yours to ban assualt weapons or magizine capacity.

        CM

        • Or one can make the argument that no guns should be banned at all. Until such a day as the 2nd amendment is repealed (read: Never) then any and all guns should be legal. The argument could then be extended to say that the manufacture and import of ammunition should be illegal. You could then own all the guns you want (“bear arms”) – you just cannot own any ammunition.

    • Firearms are a “force multiplier”. A bullet is pre-packaged force. Compare that force to a sword thrust. One hundred sword thrusts is hard, tiring work and must be done up close. Then think about horsepower and how it is a multiplier over human power. Knights beat foot soldiers on a regular basis. The automobile is a force multiplier. How common are they? Could they be used in mass killings? Ever watched “The Gauntlet”? A Greyhound bus is unstoppable when Clint Eastwood drives past an entire police dept…..

      Poison gas was used on the Tokyo subway attack? Sad reality, there are worse things than firearms that can be used.

      • But they aren’t used with any regularity whatsoever – even though things in greater supply and easier access than guns.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The million dollar question is whether these “other” tools would replace guns if we seriously tried to “eliminate” these types of guns.

          Point Second: The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow Citizens to defend themselves against the Govt, or other Govts’. So banning semi-auto weapons all together is directly impeding our right to self defense, in this context.

          People seem to ignore this part when arguing that AR’s are not necessary to self defense. That and of course large scale rioting.

          • Much as “we” have grown into a society that takes little to no responsibility fiscally we are also an extremely violent society. I have no reason to believe we will ever become more fiscally responsible or less violent.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Ray

              I would say we seem to be trending towards just what you describe.

              It seems we were more “civilized” and more “fiscally responsible” in our past than we are today.

              Makes one wonder what it is that has changed us.

              Hope all is well and happy in the Hawkins Home.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    I wanted to make what comment about the latest shooting. That is the media reporting on the “rumored Autism” and then the flurry of comments on blogs about this factor.

    First of all, Autism does not cause this kind of behavior. Not that such a thing couldn’t happen with an Autistic person but I would speculate it to be far more rare than the general population.

    Here is another slate piece on the Asperger’s part of the Autism issue. I can say that from my experience, Not on the Asperger’s side, that firing a gun would cause the kid to stop. The sounds would have caused him to curl up and scream, not keep shooting.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/asperger_s_and_newtown_school_shooting_autistic_does_not_mean_violent.html?wpisrc=most_viral

    Along these lines, I know of two examples where an Autistic person was confronted by police, because someone thought them dangerous, and when ordered to drop the knife or to get on the ground, the person FROZE and started yelling. They couldn’t handle the cops screaming at them, the lights, the sounds, etc, etc. So they Simply FROZE and yelled. The Cops KILLED them with GUNS.

    Now I have seen commentary linking our need to fund more programs, and others to “institutionalize” people with Autism to prevent these kinds of things.

    Add this to the BAN GUNS frenzy and you see the result of irresponsible media reporting, combined with out instant and constant political propaganda machine.

    It is getting harder to simply relax or recognize that some things are awful but impossible to stop. Instead we are whipped into a frenzy and goaded to DO SOMETHING.

    Short RANT on politicians and the media: I HATE them with a passion now that they felt it necessary to interrupt a Sunday Night classic, 49r’s vs. Patriots, to force us to listen to the Shrink of State. Thank God for remote controls. It only took 30 seconds to find a Home Improvement show until the craziness had passed.

    Short ASIDE: Damn Patriots. They could have put the Seahawks in position for first place by simply handling the kick off coverage. On the other hand, that Nevada kid sure handled the pressure pretty good.

  11. Been away for a few days and just getting caught up. Confused on a couple things. Hasn’t our government previously and continuing today to arm terrorists? Haven’t we, through programs like Fast & Furious, walked guns to drug cartels that have in turn been used on our own citizens? Aren’t we today using drones that often kill innocent children? And yet, the talk of Bloomberg and implied by O during his teary speech, is to disarm US citizens. What’s up with that?

    • Kathy, That is the shear stupidity of Liberal thinking. First, if they ban all guns, who is going to be dumb enough to try to collect them? Second, criminals don’t care about laws anyway. I have ideas on how to stop these kinds of mass murders from happening, but the Liberals will cry the the sky will fall.

      Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Collecting them won’t be a real problem.

        Law abiding Citizens will not shoot the cops who come to the door for their semi-auto rifles. And the few who do will be written off as MILITIA NUT JOBS.

        • Most cops in my neck of the woods will NOT attempt to collect guns if the Feds pass a law. What now?

          • There would be a lot the wouldn’t do it, myself included. But there would probably be enough to try and do it. Most people need that paycheck, and will sell out if it keeps their families fed, we are no different. But I also see the possibility of there being enough of us refusing that it would make confiscation impossible, after all most cops are very conservative and pro gun.

        • JAC;

          That is an interesting senerio you paint. First for something of this nature to occur we would first have to see a total collapse of any and all Constitutional Law. Not something you and I are likely to be alive for.

          We would pretty much be a Gastopo nation.

          I think prior to that you would see a huge build up of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies; and I do mean huge. The man power to undertake such an endeavor would require a great deal time and effort. There would be a great deal of resistance, and I suspect a great deal of resistance from the police in carrying out this effort; if for no other reason than fear of being shot.

          Plus, how are they going to know which houses to look in? There would be a lot of up-front work. It is not likely that they would only send a single patrol officer.

          BTW: That day comes and I am headed to the woods

          Hope you are well my friend and looking forward to great times with the family during the Christmas break.

          CM

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Traditional Fascist Progressive strategy. EXPLOIT a crisis to further your actual agenda whenever possible.

      • JAC … you see any similarities in the traditional fascist progressive strategy of exploiting a crisis to further an actual goal with what happened on 9-11 and the two wars we engaged in afterward?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          Yes, they are the same people doing the same thing.

          Don’t for a minute think that Fascist Progressives are limited to the Dem Party.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Since someone brought up the Clackamas, Oregon mall shooting I wanted to add something on that as well.

    In every one of these large shootings we have found the shooter to have exhibited “signs” that something was wrong. That perhaps with intervention it could have been prevented. You all know the stories.

    But the Oregon situation is quite different and thus freaky. All evidence so far indicates this kid was NORMAL and well liked and extremely friendly and outgoing. Right up until about a week before he went off the deep end. One week. That was it, and those signs were only that something had changed. No indications of violence or a desire to commit violence.

    Still NO MOTIVE reported by officials. In fact they report they are at a loss.

    It made we think about one of GMan’s conspiracies. 🙂 You know, the one where they “flip a switch” to set some guy off, for some covert reason. Bwahahahahaaha.

    • It made we think about one of GMan’s conspiracies. You know, the one where they “flip a switch” to set some guy off, for some covert reason.

      That at least would explain Gman’s behavior…Bwahahahahaaha

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    SPECULATIVE THOUGHT OF THE DAY

    I think if we BANNED violent video games and gun violence on TV and in the movies, we would see a dramatic decrease in gun violence. Without having to ban a single weapon type.

    So why are we discussing ways to “tailor”, “tinker”, “adjust” or “modernize” the Second Amendment but not the First Amendment?

    • Just A Citizen says:
    • I can attest that when my 3.5 year old watches violence on TV he almost immediately acts this out. Hence why the remote remains largely hidden and the Spiderman videos are under lock and key.

    • Then ban Hollywood and we’d all be better off.

    • JAC;

      Oh, Oh, Oh! (with raised hand) I know…pick me….

      The media would raise a huge stink, because they wouldn’t be allowed to broadcast any and all propoganda they wished.

      I should get a big gold star for the right answer!

      Hope you are well and looking forward to a wonderful Christmas and most prosperous New Year. Deer season has been poor. Weather has been a huge factor. No snow to date and the counties I have my prime hunting land have seen a huge deer kill as a result of EHD. The DNR reports that they have over 5000 recorded cases, but suspect that it is as high as 3-4 times more across the lower Mid-MIchigan area. Only a few big Bucks sighted and nobody in my clan has even gotten a shot at anything bigger than a 2 year old 8 point.

      Do have one big management buck in the freezer, but hoping for snow and cold weather to stir them up a bit.

      CM

      • Just A Citizen says:

        CM

        Disease in the deer herds is a bitch. They do cycle, so things will return, but it can be years. Hope you get a few more good hunting days in before its over.

        We celebrated Christmas this past weekend as it was the only one where our older kids could get here. They are both now employed and work the day before and after Christmas.

        It was a great weekend which ended last night with Hurricane Force winds and driving rain.

        Somebody east of here is in for some ass deep to a giraffe snow, if this hits some cold air.

        Best to you and yours.

        JAC

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      I think that if gun and rifle familiarization, safe handling, training, and SHOOTING was a required class for all students age 10-17, we would see a big decrease in gun violence.

  14. Media Dismisses Fact that Show of Force Stopped CT School Shooter

    by John Nolte 17 Dec 2012, 5:07 AM PDT 106 post a comment
    This morning on “Morning Joe,” Pete Williams reported that the Connecticut elementary school shooter ended his rampage and killed himself upon the arrival of the police:

    Only when he saw and heard the police running down the hall toward him did this end, when the police say he used one of the handguns to shoot himself; ending this killing spree.

    According to this media reports, then, what apparently stopped this awful massacre was a show of force — was the shooter knowing the police were coming.

    So where’s the media discussion on what might have actually stopped this shooting before over two dozen were murdered, and that was brave individuals trained in the use of firearms on their way to confront the killer.

    Everyone knows, including madmen, that they have at least five minutes to do whatever they want before police arrive. So…

    What if we had the equivalent of air marshals in schools?

    What if willing teachers were trained and armed in schools?

    What if we treated schools like we do airplanes and advertised the hell out of the fact that there’s a very good chance someone’s in the building who is trained and armed?

    One could argue that if this were the case, not only could these madmen be stopped sooner but that it might also work as a deterrent.

    But all we hear the media talking about this morning is restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Moreover, the media’s also making it sound as though guns are the problem when they might really be the solution.

    Why don’t we treat schools like we do airplanes?

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/17/Media-Dismisses-Fact-That-Show-of-Force-Stopped-Shooter

  15. Interesting how, after a tragedy like this, so many people want to enact some kneejerk ban on ……pick something. Banning anything would be silly and solve nothing. How do you stop one man with a gun in a school hallway? When you can find a solution to that question, then enact it, will these types of things stop happening and/or result in far less casualties.

    @Ray and JAC, Merry Christmas to you and your families 🙂

  16. Ray Hawkins says:
    December 17, 2012 at 11:16 am • Edit

    Buck beat me to the punch – but it is certainly absurd to think that the same violence could be perpetrated with a baseball bat or some other tool.

    Not really my point. In Australia they banned guns & crossbows. Later they added a ban on swords and I think there was talk on sticks/bats. Where do the ban’s stop? Pity the poor fool who know martial arts and defends himself against an attacker. When they ban the bat’s, they will have to lock you up too, Mr. MMA…LOL

  17. Bloomberg: “I don’t know what a gun would have done”
    posted at 1:27 pm on December 17, 2012 by KatiePavlich

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert’s comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, “There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements…..I don’t know what the gun would have done.”

    With this logic, I’m sure Bloomberg feels the same way about his armed body guards; that the guns they carry to protect him “do nothing.”

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/17/bloomberg-i-dont-know-what-a-gun-would-have-done/

    • “There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements…..I don’t know what the gun would have done.”

      Not picking on you, V.H. This is me being very reasonable here (I think) … while ignoring Gman’s name calling once again.:)

      Don’t have much time today and I’ve read some of the posts thus far. I don’t think anyone has the answers to the type of violence we saw in CT or anywhere else, but I also don’t think arming everyone is the answer. I’m not a huge fan of Bloomberg, but I don’t think his answer was all that foolish. Nobody knows what would have happened if the printicpal (or anyone else at the CT school) were armed. Any number of scenarios might’ve taken place, including killing the killer before he exacted maximum damage, but a number of other bad scenarios were just as likely (she was killed early on and thus her gun did no one any good; her gun was taken by a child one day and some other tragic accident occurred, etc.).

      Leap frogging from the ban on assault weapons to the banning of a bat seems like a weak plea to emotions (if I do say so myself). We live in a society, like it or not, that is held together by government. You can state all the anti-government scenarios and anecdotes you want, but the FACT remains we live in a society held together by government. I don’t see the nexus between banning assault weapons and the ultimate loss of liberty (and please don’t quote the Nazi regime’s demand to forfeit all weapons once they came to power–this is not Nazi Germany, nor is it about to become Nazi Germany). If you believe there is the danger of that type of transformation, I’d suggest you join a militia already, because the numbers of more reasonable (there’s that word again) people aren’t fearful of that happening.

      Place an armed guard in each school and maybe he/she is the first target of an assailant. Maybe. I have no idea. I don’t think this tragedy would’ve been averted by an armed guard (either the assailant would’ve chosen another venue or who knows what would have happened, but someone so determined to kill probably would’ve succeeded somewhere). You put enough guns out there and bad things will happen. Now, Gman likes to point to how people are the ones that kill, not the guns. Well, it’s a good reasonable logical argument, except for the fact that PEOPLE are the ones who will be in possession of the guns (criminal and non-criminal alike). If you don’t see the proliferation of weapons as being dangerous, you might be ignoring the fallibility of humans to screw up.

      Who knows if it’s video games or asperger’s or some mental disease we know nothing about … I don’t. Neither do any of you. Nor do any of you or myself know that arming the populace with guns (to include teachers, security guards, etc.) will curtail these kinds of episodes. The question then becomes why is it so important for anyone to have an assault rifle? To fight off the government should it desire to turn Nazi, etc.? If so, you’ll want to start looking into WMD while you’re at it, because if your argument is “the criminals have them” … well …

      My philosophy (personally) at home when my kids were young was no guns, no accidents. I know of many people who were very responsible with their weapons and didn’t have to take the same option I chose to take. That said, none of them felt compelled to own an assault rifle (or if they did, I certainly didn’t know about it and they never discussed it). And none of them to my knowledge was ever involved in tragic accidents.

      So, I don’t know. I don’t see the point in civilians having assault rifles, but I also know they are way too available to lunatics and criminals who choose to use them … I just don’t see how arming everyone with Bushwackers solves the problem. Maybe I’m wrong … but maybe some of you are too.

      • Charlie;

        I said I would not engage. However, you make some very valid points:

        – You are right – noboy knows why crazy people at this level do what they do, and I will add that the science of psychology is still relatively unknown.
        – We should not arm everyone – too many stupid people in the world. (That does not dismiss my ideal that as a free man or woman you have a natural right to bear arms) We especially should not arm those that don’t want to be armed.
        – You are right that people do not know how they would react in a situation like this, or any other horrific event resulting in death or the threat of death. Police and soldiers are trained, but both will tell you that regardless of the training you really don’t know what you will do until you experience it. How people have lived thier lives, thier personality, weapons training and the type of event can factor in, but when it boils down to an actual event taking place it is a crap shoot. (I will tell you that I believe my chances of survival are better when threatened if I am armed verses unarmed). Another importand factor is that soldiers (expecially combat soldiers) practice over and over again and again live fire senerios in order to ‘condition’ themselves to act a certain way. I assume Police also practice, but I fear not nealy as much.

        (And although I am an advocate that free men and women should be able to purchase and possess whatever weapon they want, I disagree with most of them garnering CCW’s unless they undergo a number of training classes on using those weapons.)
        – You are also correct about the bad guys finding another way. 911 is an example, so was the Oklahoma bombing.
        -Your neighbors may have just choosen not to tell you about their weapons. I don’t broadcast my cache.
        – My children new where the guns were (most were locked up) and not only did they respect them, neither my wife nor I ever had any concerns about our children wrongly accessing them.

        A point of education: Although the majority of my guns, labeled by the government as an “Assault Weapon” look nothing like an AR-15, they do still fall into the same category. That is because the govenment lables, or wants too, any weapon that can fire a round each time the trigger is pulled without having to manually rechamber the next round (semi-automatic) as an assault weapon. That would include my shotguns used for bird hunting, my Glock model 22, and a number of others used for hunting.

        CM

    • VH;

      Another example of an agenda minded political moron sticking his foot in his mouth. Even though he has no sense of reality, he still figures he is well qualified to speak out about anything at any time. I mean hell, he IS the Mayor of NY city and that (at least from a New Yorker’s perspective) makes him way smarter than an average Joe.

      CM

  18. Maybe we should just ban stupidity. That would certainly take care of SUFA.

    But on the plus side, LOI did manage to spell all three words in the title of this article correctly. Caulk one up for the Arkansas School system!!

  19. Nice to know information. In 2012, there have been 88 deaths attributed to mass shootings. Over 80% of that was gang related events. In retrospect, deer (yes the cute fury ones) on average, kill 200 people each year. Disclaimer, from the radio, I would have to find a link, no time at the moment.

    Hi Charlie, How’s my favorite eye-talian doing today?

    • Based on that information, seems to me that we need to start arming the deer for self protection…

      • Your name is Buck., as in male deer, watch your back! 🙂

      • Buckster, this is deer killing people, not the other way around.

        • My apologies…severe lack of coffee….

          But you do go hunting as you often admit. Shouldn’t the deer be armed to at least give them a sporting chance?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            If they can carry guns then more power to em’!

            • Buck;

              Given their radar like ears, motion detecting sight and a nose that detects even the slightest odd sent, Deer are well suted to avoid being harvested. Although I must admit giving them tusks, claws and/or canines would make it more thrilling; especially if you gave them the attitude of a Griz.

              CM

          • LOL I’m going to assume that you have never hunted deer 🙂 With that said, deer are far smarter than people give them credit for. I hunt open land, not the fenced in farms on TV. It’s much more work than it is easy, and deer are amazingly smart when it comes to there surroundings. Yes, I usually harvest several deer each year (3 so far this year) but many, many hunters go home without even firing a shot. I am teaching my 2 young cousins (they thought it was easy too). It’s fun to watch them learn, that it’s not easy at all, and, when you do harvest one, it’s alot of work. The best part is being in the woods, where it’s peaceful and just wonderful eye candy. The killing is just a very small part of hunting, you should go out with someone someday and see for yourself! 🙂

  20. I’m confused this fine morning, G. Do we ban mass shooting or dear? 🙂

    All is well … waiting on the wife to give me orders … it will be tough rolling off the couch, though … saw a wonderful FRENCH movie this morning … suggested it to Kathy up above … I think you might even like it. Maybe ….:)

    • Banning mass shooting would be nice. Common Man and myself seem to think on the same lines in some areas. I think we should allow teachers and other school employees to be trained and carry concealed if they choose. This can be advertised as a deterent, similar to how Isreal does it. I believe that this would end these mass school shootings. INHO, these killers are cowards first and would not take on an armed group. I also think that a good deterence is far better than any ban, and could prove to be completely non-violent. Just a thought 🙂

      • I’ve also thought that way, G. You could be right about the teachers, but I’m still leaning towards banning assault weapons.

        • Charlie, why should any law abiding citizen be denied his/her own assault rifle because some nutcase stole one and killed with it. Law abiding citizens should never be denied anything because of the actions of a nut. Simply put, nuts will be nuts and do stupid things. Whether they use an assault rifle, a shotgun, a pistol or explosives, the only true way to stop them is to be armed. Good people with guns means that society will be polite, which is very true where I live. I realize that my idea may not be the best, so I’m willing to listen to what others suggest. 🙂

        • Charlie,

          They want to include Glocks as Assault weapons. This would include Glock-like pistols. What would you allow teachers to carry to protect their students?

          • Law abiding citizens should never be denied anything because of the actions of a nut

            I agree, G. My feeling has nothing to do with the nuts. Like you say, they will always find a way to kill. I just don’t understand why anyone “needs” an assault rifle. I don’t get that.

            LOI: I don’t know enough about gun and how they’re modified, etc., to have a say. My assumption, since it seems to have been a weapon of choice, is they at least ban the bushwacker … that’s a weapon I don’t understand why anyone would want outside of a major assault (although I did read where it can be used to hunt). It just seems over the top to me, but I’m not an afficianado of guns per se.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              In my experience the NEED for these types of guns among most who own them is a lot like a persons NEED to own a 56 Chevy, or a classic Wooden Chris Craft, or some other item that they enjoy.

              There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in this country who simply love shooting guns at targets for RECREATION. There are others who own them to protect themselves and family. This includes protection from major riots or mob violence.

              There is nothing special about an “Assault Rifle”, except its design and the “mind set” established in the public by the media propaganda. It is no different than any other semi automatic weapon. The caliber is fairly small compared to more effective hunting rifles. But the caliber is good for small game and varmints, like coyotes.

              What baffles me is the common refrain from the gun control crowd that starts much like your question. They do not understand why someone would “need” such a gun. This leads to “they don’t need it” and then to “it should be banned”. That owning it is a protected Right is of no concern. And they do not see that this same train of thought can be used to rationalize “taking” anything from them that they “like”, “need” or “want”.

              Once you open the door to the beast, you cannot control what he does when inside.

              • If, as you say, people want the things and are careful with them, I guess I see your point. But should that also apply to fully automatic weapons, grenades, flame throwers, etc. That’s not me being sarcastic. Just asking.

              • @Charlie

                Address the actual actions. If someone owns a fully automatic weapon and handles it responsibly, then what’s the problem? Banning ownership of something based on what someone might do with it is akin to arresting someone for murder because you think they might kill someone some day ala Minority Report.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometime after reading crap like this, and the associated comments, I think we should just withdraw and let them have their way.

    They would have nobody to blame when the house of cards came tumbling down and Keynes would be buried in the ash heap of history, once and for all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?hp&_r=1&

    Then the American blood in me starts to bubble and I want to fight, fight and fight some more.

    Futile or not, somebody has to defend REASON and LIBERTY. This ass-clown certainly isn’t going to.

    • And then you read the idolizing comments and you realize how common economic ignorance is.

      • Of course the other side of the coin is they may be right … or half right … and that would make you wrong … or half wrong … too much to contemplate?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          Not at all. I contemplate the chance of my being wrong every day. I am not afraid to add knowledge or further my search for truth. So in this case I would say they have zero chance of being right. And when it comes this topic there is no “half-right”.

          Yes, Krugman is but one theory of several. However, his theory has been proven wrong for a century now. His claims otherwise are built on FALLACY. Such as his creating a bogeyman for this particular article.

          He never tells the rest of the story, such as WHY the Govt is paying low interest or WHY having a specific debt to gdp number is supposedly “sustainable”. Even though the total debt continues to climb.

          He twists facts and outright lies, such as claiming that the payroll tax holiday contributed to the deficit, while last week he was among those arguing that Soc Sec does not contribute to the deficit.

          Yet the worshipers line up and genuflect to him on a daily basis.

          • I’m liberal and I don’t genuflect for him. I saw him look pretty silly on Morning Joe (Shmoe for use Levin fans) when he insisted the attacks in Benghazi were the result of the video. Not that I know for sure, but I felt (still do), Benghazi was the height of incompetence no matter what happened.

    • JAC, Since you mentioned “conspiracy theories”, I guess I can tell you the newest one. THe CT is that the puppet masters actually tell us what they are going to do, before they do it. With that said, I have been getting lots of info on some sort of cyber attack on banks, namely, JP Morgan. The goal is to close as much down as possible for as long as possible. The Globalists want control of the internet. This may be how they get it. Do you see the danger in this event?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        I do think that the ELITE broadcast their intentions. As do other groups who want to make a global or national name for themselves.

        Even Mr. Obama was straight about his intentions. People simple didn’t believe the words he spoke.

        So in this sense I don’t see true “conspiracies” as much as some. Just evil people who are arrogant enough to think they can rule others.

        There is no doubt that successful cyber attacks on the financial system, or on several national defense systems would cause a global effort to “CONTROL” the internet.

        And YES, I see the danger.

        • IF this was to occur, I would suggest that noone be near the inner cities. When the IBT cards don’t work, all hell could break loose. 10 states had this happen for about 6 hours not long ago, so they have tested it. This, if it occurs, is what I call the Zombie Apocolypse. Keep your eyes open!

  22. Hill ate some bad at State’s mess hall,
    she puked and fainted and had a great fall.
    So now her brain is all a mess,
    No way can she Benghazi confess.
    “O” great one is covered and clean from the fray,
    For always it is the Chicago way.

    (bored during conference call…….)

  23. A simple question. If the Feds were to ban all guns, I mean total gun control in the US, how many would also agree to banning the Secret Service protection for govt. officials?

    • I don’t think you have anything to worry about regarding the banning of guns across the board … it’s too big a business and pols are just creaming in their pants over the ability to look concerned. Based on how Obama (or any Republican President) delivers on their promises, guns sales will probably go up before the end of the year and continue going up after.

      Not that that’s a good thing …

      • I agree Charlie 🙂 A total ban and confiscation would be the start of a Civil War. There are way too many gun owners who won’t ever give up the guns to the government, because they know what comes next. Historically, it’s a proven method of total tyranny. I don’t see the criminals in the District being quite that dumb just yet.

        Gun sales have been through the roof for years now. Obama is the best gun salesman ever! 🙂 Now, keep in mind, I don’t have assault style guns, but I would like one in the future. Although I want one in a high powered caliber, like a .308. As an avid shooter, it would be fun to target shoot. As I would expect you to ask, do I need one? Not really. It’s more of desire than need today. That may change, depending on how the government acts. Time will tell.

  24. Charlie,

    “Don’t have much time today and I’ve read some of the posts thus far. I don’t think anyone has the answers to the type of violence we saw in CT or anywhere else, but I also don’t think arming everyone is the answer. I’m not a huge fan of Bloomberg, but I don’t think his answer was all that foolish. Nobody knows what would have happened if the printicpal (or anyone else at the CT school) were armed. Any number of scenarios might’ve taken place, including killing the killer before he exacted maximum damage, but a number of other bad scenarios were just as likely (she was killed early on and thus her gun did no one any good; her gun was taken by a child one day and some other tragic accident occurred, etc.). “

    I agree, no one has the perfect answer-all these situations are different. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of everyone just being able to walk into a school with a gun. But I also think schools should not be totally gun free areas. As far as Bloomberg’s comment- My arguing that an assault weapon isn’t anymore dangerous than a simple handgun would be stupid. And claiming a gun in the right hands wouldn’t make a difference is stupid too. Sure, we don’t know what would happen in every situation but we arm people all the time to protect the public-police officers, military, security guards-I don’t see where arming teachers or others, if they are trained would be any different or bring with it any more risks. A policeman with a gun can go batcrap crazy and kill people too-but we still risk it.

    “Leap frogging from the ban on assault weapons to the banning of a bat seems like a weak plea to emotions (if I do say so myself). We live in a society, like it or not, that is held together by government. You can state all the anti-government scenarios and anecdotes you want, but the FACT remains we live in a society held together by government. I don’t see the nexus between banning assault weapons and the ultimate loss of liberty (and please don’t quote the Nazi regime’s demand to forfeit all weapons once they came to power–this is not Nazi Germany, nor is it about to become Nazi Germany). If you believe there is the danger of that type of transformation, I’d suggest you join a militia already, because the numbers of more reasonable (there’s that word again) people aren’t fearful of that happening.”

    I don’t think it is a plea to emotions-I think it is a warning about how things progress from “we only want to do this” and once that is accomplished, “they just want to do this other Little thing” , etc. etc. etc.. Until ????????????
    I’m not anti-government nor an anarchist-but government can and does overstep. As far as the nazi regime comments-I wonder if the reason you are so confident we are not there and won’t go there-is due to the fact that we have fought to keep our basic rights to bear arms and free speech etc. mostly intact. If we hadn’t would we be closer to a dictatorship now?
    :

    “Place an armed guard in each school and maybe he/she is the first target of an assailant. Maybe. I have no idea. I don’t think this tragedy would’ve been averted by an armed guard (either the assailant would’ve chosen another venue or who knows what would have happened, but someone so determined to kill probably would’ve succeeded somewhere). You put enough guns out there and bad things will happen. Now, Gman likes to point to how people are the ones that kill, not the guns. Well, it’s a good reasonable logical argument, except for the fact that PEOPLE are the ones who will be in possession of the guns (criminal and non-criminal alike). If you don’t see the proliferation of weapons as being dangerous, you might be ignoring the fallibility of humans to screw up. “

    Don’t know what the perfect plan would be-every situation would be different-but the point is not to leave the good guys with no defense at all. Currently the argument seems to be -No protection vs. protection. Instead of what kind of protection.

    “Who knows if it’s video games or asperger’s or some mental disease we know nothing about … I don’t. Neither do any of you. Nor do any of you or myself know that arming the populace with guns (to include teachers, security guards, etc.) will curtail these kinds of episodes. The question then becomes why is it so important for anyone to have an assault rifle? To fight off the government should it desire to turn Nazi, etc.? If so, you’ll want to start looking into WMD while you’re at it, because if your argument is “the criminals have them” … well …
    My philosophy (personally) at home when my kids were young was no guns, no accidents. I know of many people who were very responsible with their weapons and didn’t have to take the same option I chose to take. That said, none of them felt compelled to own an assault rifle (or if they did, I certainly didn’t know about it and they never discussed it). And none of them to my knowledge was ever involved in tragic accidents.
    So, I don’t know. I don’t see the point in civilians having assault rifles, but I also know they are way too available to lunatics and criminals who choose to use them … I just don’t see how arming everyone with Bushwackers solves the problem. Maybe I’m wrong … but maybe some of you are too.

    I don’t know that it matters in the long run-why people kill-the fact that they do is all that really matters in the discussion of gun rights. As far as assault weapons in particular-First question-what qualifies as an assault weapon? I agree with what many others have posted. I think people will be surprised what qualifies if the Dems. Manage to pass this law.
    And I think Kathy make a very valid point. Here we sit-our Country is currently supplying these weapons to foreign Countries because the people allowed their governments to take them away from them. Now they are being killed by their own government. We ain’t special-all the people of the world are just humans with different cultures-we aren’t immune from the same thing eventually happening to us.

    And Yea, I know, I might be wrong, I worry about it sometimes but all I can do is go with what I believe is right and hope.

    • Sorry, that didn’t post the way I typed it-hope it isn’t to hard to read. Don’t know how to do all that fancy stuff.

      • No problem. Fair enough across the board. it’s just a tough, tough situation what happened in CT. I think I addressed the types of assault weapons in another response; basically, because I’m not gun proficient, I’d say get rid of the bushwacker for now (seems to have been the weapon of choice in many of the mass killings).

        • Charlie, Do you really think that banning one type of gun will do any good? I think we can both agree it will do no good at all. What I find interesting is how other needless deaths are routinely ignored. Guns don’t kill people, it is said. Yet just under 10 K were killed by guns in 2010 (actually they were killed by people with guns). In retrospect, in 2011, there were 32,367 deaths in the US as a result of another inanimate object. Using the Guns kill ideology, it can be easily said that ______ kills 3x as many people as guns and we should ban them too! Care to guess what ______ is?

          • In addition, accidental drownings kill about 3500+ people a year, many of them children. This is quite a huge number versus those children killed by mass murderers, not the either are good. But where’s the outrage to ban water? Or swimming pools?

            Obviously, I could go on and on. Thankfully, the fraud known as global warming hasn’t killed any kids, or some would want to ban the sun! Yea, I know, rediculous, but so is all the rest of the BAN this and BAN that crap. Reality says, people kill. And people die. the various reasons cannot be changed politically. History has proven that.

            • I saw the other day where dems. were saying we must get rid of assault weapons because our Country is the only Country that has mass murder. I guess they ignore the mass murder committed by other governments against their own people-like Syria, etc. etc.

              • V.H.

                Yep, and Ray Hawkings of course forgets about this

                The 2011 Norway attacks were two sequential lone wolf terrorist attacks against the government, the civilian population and a Workers’ Youth League (AUF)-run summer camp in Norway on 22 July 2011, claiming a total of 77 lives.

                The first was a car bomb explosion<.b< in Oslo within Regjeringskvartalet, the executive government quarter of Norway, at 15:25:22 (CEST).[1] The bomb was made from a mixture of fertiliser and fuel oil[11][12] and placed in the back of a car.[13] The car was placed in front of the office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and other government buildings.[14] The explosion killed eight people and injured at least 209 people, twelve of them seriously.

                Ray doesn’t believe people make bombs and blow them up

              • I guess Buck and Ray need to ban fuel and fertilzer

              • The Dems are a forgetfull bunch when it suits them 😆 THe problem, is they simply lie, now openly. I say, Democrats should be banned. They have killed far more people than any mass murderer. While we are banning things, lets ban the Republicans too, they are just as bad. Maybe banning the whole Federal government would work too! After all, they need us far more than we need them.

                This , of course will not happen anytime soon, so it’s best if we just call them what they are, CRIMINALS!

  25. Republican House Speaker John Boehner wants to raise your taxes by a trillion dollars.

    To all those really funny and bizzare SUFA members who thought a Rep. prez would save you…. this is what he would have done to you.

    Yep, voting makes a huge difference! (ROLLEYES)

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    Apparently you haven’t tried to buy a large quantity of fertilizer lately.

    The FED’s get notified if you buy to much at once or to much over a certain time.

    Farmers are checked out for their commercial volumes.

  27. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    Guns sales are booming again. It seems alot of folks are buying the AR-15 and the ammo (.223). One thing is for sure, Obama is the best gun salesman ever!

    Saw another headline that said ” Shooting Sparks Gun Control Debate”. Why is there a debate? There will not be any gun control in the U.S.. Why do people feel the need to talk about something that will likely never happen in our lifetime. Waste of time if you ask me.

    Saw more Union slugs in Michigan chanting on the news last night. Do they understand that they are protesting freedom of choice? Doubt it, to them this is all about control and money. Workers freedom be damned, the unions want their money!

    Did all my Christmas shopping online 🙂 Saved enough money to buy a trail cam. Life is good today.

    Peace!

  28. Until U.S. Understands Police Limitations, Some Will Put Faith in Gun Control
    We cops know the truth, but we rarely explain it to civilians or politicians.

    by
    Mike McDaniel
    December 17, 2012 – 8:23 am

    Newtown, Connecticut: twenty children and seven adults are dead at the hands of a madman. Across the nation, police officers are shaking with frustration.

    They rage because the facts of the attack — which will continue to develop for many days — are already all too familiar. They think, over and over again, what they might ever do to respond to an active shooter in a school, yet they know there is very little they can do. As in this vile crime, all they’ll be likely to do is to coordinate medical care for the wounded and to deal with the crime scene surrounding the shooter, who in almost every case will have shot himself long before the police could lay gun sights on him.

    What can be done to prevent this kind of wanton murder? Security measures such as locks, reinforced doors, security cameras, hardened glass, and a variety of other devices and procedures are useful but ultimately cannot stop a determined attacker armed with tools no more complex and high-tech than a hammer and crowbar.

    They can only delay him, and only for a matter of seconds. Run-and-hide policies and drills are useful, but do nothing to deter or stop an active shooter.

    There is one thing that can immediately stop an active shooter, and which, if handled properly, may even serve as a deterrent. Unlike most governmental initiatives, it will cost little or nothing, and is undeniably effective. However, until the public understands the reality facing the police — the people they look to for the protection of themselves and their children — that single most effective solution is impossible.

    Active duty officers usually cannot tell the whole truth to the public; they’d lose their jobs.

    Police administrators won’t tell the whole truth to the public; they have to please the politicians that hired them.

    Since I’m no longer serving as a police officer, I can tell the truth — the whole truth — and it’s not encouraging. Remember, above all, this foremost truth: No one is responsible for your personal safety and that of those you love but you.

    The Police Want To Help You, but They Don’t Have To Help You

    Have no doubt: Police officers love to catch bad guys in the act. They particularly love to catch bad guys who would harm children. Virtually nothing pegs their righteous takedown meter faster than stopping a school shooter, hopefully with blindingly fast and effective overwhelming violence, and before the shooter can harm a single child.

    But every competent officer knows the chance of that happening is on the order of being hit by a meteor: virtually nonexistent.

    They also know they have no obligation whatever to protect or help any individual, and they cannot be successfully sued for failing to provide such protection. It sounds outrageous, but it’s rational and necessary.

    If municipalities and individual officers could be sued for failure to keep each citizen from harm, how could any city afford a police force? Who would become a police officer knowing every dime they ever made would be spent fending off lawsuits for matters about which they had no knowledge?

    Police officers won’t refuse to respond to active shooters in schools. However, that is cold comfort to them and to any parent aware of the facts.

    There Are A Lot Of Bad Guys Out There

    Most Americans would be stunned to learn how few police officers are patrolling the streets of their communities at any time of the day or night.

    Police agencies are always undermanned and staff their shifts accordingly, with the largest number of officers when they are most needed, commonly the evening and midnight shifts, and particularly Friday and Saturday nights.

    The day shift, the shift coinciding with school hours, is virtually always the most sparsely staffed.

    This means that when an active shooter invades a school, there will be very few officers available, fewer than at any other time of the day.

    Unfortunately, more and more states and cities are in deep financial trouble, and many have been laying off police officers — or simply not replacing those who retire or leave for other reasons — for years. The San Bernardino, CA city attorney recently took the previously unimaginable step of telling citizens to “Go home, lock your doors, and load your guns,” so desperate has the crime problem become there and so hard-pressed the police force.

    Things will be unlikely to improve — anywhere — in the foreseeable future.

    The Police Are Less Ready Than You Think

    The police did learn from Columbine (April 20, 1999). In those days, active shooters were handled with the belief that time was on the side of the police. Officers were taught never to enter a school, to contain and control the situation, and to call in SWAT. Negotiations would be established, and the kinds of responses commonly portrayed on TV and in the movies would unfold.

    Unfortunately, that response model cost lives.

    While the police at Columbine waited for hours to enter, people who might have been saved bled out, and the shooters — as is almost always the case — killed themselves long before the first SWAT officer entered the building.

    Since that day, the police response model has evolved to require the first officers on the scene to immediately enter the school and to seek out and assault any shooters. Unfortunately, not every police agency has adopted this model, and the quality and quantity of training in the necessary tactics and skills are far from standardized and effective.

    Most Americans would be equally stunned to learn that a great many police officers are not good shots.

    Many fire their duty handguns only for yearly qualifications on courses of fire with generous passing scores. A great many citizens are far more capable with firearms, and due to military training — most police officers are no longer veterans — and other specialized training widely available to civilians, more tactically adept.

    Firearm training and standards vary wildly from agency to agency.

    Time Is Not On The Side Of The Good Guys

    Response times for emergencies vary enormously from place to place. In some rural or semi-rural areas, emergency response is measured in hours. Even in towns or cities, a five-minute response — from the moment an officer receives the radio call until he arrives in a school parking lot — would be amazingly fast.

    Consider, however, that a radio call likely would not have been made until someone at the school realized what was happening and made a call, a call that will take precious seconds — even minutes — to make and to be understood. By the time a radio signal flashes out, a shooter could easily have been shooting for five minutes or more.

    And even when that first officer arrives in the parking lot, he will likely not have clear directions. Few police officers have so much as been inside every school in their jurisdiction; fewer know them well. Even if that first officer can hear continuing gunfire, unless by chance he happens to enter the school near the shooter it will take additional minutes to find and stop the shooter. Unless the shooter stops him first.

    Every minute is an eternity in a school attack. Every minute costs lives. All competent police officers know this; it’s one of their greatest frustrations. They know that in virtually every imaginable scenario, the real issue is how many will die before they are in a position to do anything.

    They also know that if the modern history of school shootings is any guide, the shooter will virtually always have killed himself long before they arrive.

    In virtually every American school shooting, the police have had no role in stopping the shooter.

    Feel-Good Measures Harm, Not Help

    The police are by and large practical people. They do their best to do what works, because anything else can cost lives. They know that gun-free school zones are actually “victim disarmament zones,” areas killers can attack with the assurance no one will be able to resist them. They know people planning the mass murder of children will not be deterred by any law restricting guns.

    They also know guns aren’t the only means of causing harm, as was the case recently in Casper, WY, where a teacher was murdered by his son, who fired an arrow into his head and ultimately killed him by stabbing him with a knife. A knife the son then used to kill himself.

    The Single Most Effective Solution

    In a free society, nothing can stop the deranged from committing crimes. Everything the Connecticut killer did is already as illegal as human beings can make it, which means little to one planning to take his own life.

    Additional laws, particularly those disarming the innocent and law-abiding, accomplish nothing. What I’m about to relate, rank and file police officers — the men and women who have to charge into danger — broadly support. Their bosses, by and large, do not.

    Because seconds matter in school attacks, only the arming of school staff by means of concealed handguns can possibly deter attacks and save lives.

    Millions of Americans, including teachers, already have concealed carry permits issued by the states and form a ready pool of the qualified.

    The deterrent effect of concealed carry in schools can be considerable. Any potential attacker, knowing that a given school district allows concealed carry but takes pains to keep the identities and numbers of teachers on a given campus carrying handguns secret, is conferring the benefit of deterrence on every school in that district.

    Police officers know criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the police.

    Only armed and capable school staff, ready to respond to an armed attack when and where it occurs, can possibly save lives – perhaps, even stop an attack before it begins. Even an armed teacher in another hallway when the first shot rings out will be able to stop an attacker far sooner than any police officer still minutes from even receiving a radio call.

    “We’ve got to do something!” Indeed we do. And now you know what the police know, and the source of their frustration. It’s time to do the only thing that works against deadly school attacks. All else is wishful thinking.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/until-u-s-understands-police-limitations-some-will-put-faith-in-gun-control/?singlepage=true

    • Very Good Post V.H. 🙂 I happen to agree with the Author.

      • Been reading-the guy mentioned run and hide-I’m sure that getting the children out of sight is a good thing-but from my reading about Conn. shootings-in the rooms that the shooter actually entered-the grouping together of the children just made all of them an easier target. I read one article, one child survived by playing dead among the bodies of her 14 shot schoolmates. Ran out of the school after he left the room covered with blood from head to toe. This is truly too horrible to really comprehend. And to think that maybe, Just Maybe-a few armed teachers could have stopped this makes me crazy.

  29. When guns are banned, the evil sicko’s will resort to this 😆 http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2012/12/man-tries-to-drown-wife-in-dog-bowl-after-fight-over-frozen-pizza/

    Yes, it’s the dreaded dog bowl, the next generation of mass murder weapons. Where’s PETA when you need them 🙂

  30. It seems that blame is a common theme. What or who do we BLAME for this tragedy. Obviously, a mentally ill person who went on a rampage is where the blame lies. Many say, this could have been avoided if……. The if’s are many. The gun control crowd thinks it’s guns that are the problem and should be tightly controlled. I say Hogwash. I have proposed that teachers get trained and carry concealed and advertise it. This can be done, but the teacher, under current law, can’t use it to protect herself or the children. Why, you ask? Because of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. When it comes to self defense, it says ” Self-defenseAlthough the GFSZA allows a citizen to discharge a firearm on private property,[14] it prohibits discharge on public property in the Gun Free Zones by anyone except on-duty law enforcement and school security.[14] A carry permit never exempts an individual from the GFSZA discharge restrictions, even in the State that physically issued it.[14]

    I will go out on a limb and say this: Liberal thinking and laws will get more people killed. Any law that restricts the right of self defense should be outlawed. The government, based on the GFSZA should be sued for failing to protect the people in the zone.

    I am still trying to keep an open mind, any comments or thoughts?

    • I only have a question-Private Property-how is that legally defined-it seems to me there are a lot of private property business’s that don’t allow guns-I’m thinking that is based on State or Federal law-is it not.

  31. While the Police are spending all kinds of money to get answers about the shooter, an unusual coincidence has come up. Lokk at this picture from the latest Batman movie. http://www.imgbox.de/users/Deckard666/Sonstiges/The_Dark_Knight_Rises___Sandy_Hook_1.jpg

  32. Another man’s opinion-Pro’s-Con’s? I’m thinking it might be cost prohibited-as heartless as it sounds-reality raises it’s nasty head. I think taser’s might be a good idea-but I don’t know at what range they work or how quickly they fire. they certainly would be better than nothing.

    Preventing School Massacres

    By Jed Babbin on 12.17.12 @ 6:11AM

    Are there ways to defend the defenseless?

    It’s three days since the horrific Newtown, Connecticut school massacre, and talking about it isn’t getting any easier. Like every event on the list of mass murders it joins, the Newtown murder spree has evoked another round of debate on gun control. But like the shootings at Columbine high school, the Aurora movie theater, and recently at an Oregon shopping mall, the Newtown massacre hasn’t resulted in anyone talking about what else we can do to stop these things from happening or, at a minimum, reduce the bloodshed.

    Politicians and media are preoccupied with the idea that gun control is the only answer to these murders and that nothing else is worth discussion. But the inconvenient facts include that the Oregon mall shooter used a stolen weapon. Adam Lanza, the Newtown murderer, used weapons stolen from his mother who had them legally and registered them under Connecticut law. He reportedly shot his way into a locked school. The time and political energy that’s being wasted on gun control could be put to better use. That’s our job, so let’s get to it.

    There are two ways to prevent or at least reduce the number of deaths in mass murders by gun. In the 1960s and early 1970s, our society made the decision to essentially prohibit the mentally ill from being committed involuntarily. All of the killers — from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Newtown — were insane. We need to change the way we deal with the mentally ill who are dangerous to society.

    Psychiatrists have a professional duty to define clearly the criteria by which those with dangerous mental illnesses can be identified. States have the duty to change their laws and lock these people up for as long as they are dangerous. As a Wall Street Journal editorial asked Saturday, “Specifically, what protections from people in the grip of uncontrolled mental illness or evil derangement is the broader society entitled to?” The answer is, a lot more than we are getting.

    The second way to deal with these murder sprees is to look at where they occur and craft a strategic response. Killers attack children in school and people in shopping malls because they are defenseless.

    Schools are a tougher problem than shopping malls. They shouldn’t be armed camps, and though many have “school resource officers” who function like the shopping mall rent-a-cops, our children are essentially undefended. Teachers are unarmed — and should remain so — but more importantly they are also untrained. They’re not aware of what they should do, and when the school is “in lockdown”: they only know to huddle in a corner with the kids. Which only makes a denser target for what the police call an “active shooter.”

    If you post an armed guard in every school, they’ll be the first targets of the killers. Why buy or steal a gun when you may be able to overcome the inadequately trained guard and take his weapon? States don’t want to spend enough money to post a SWAT-trained cop at every school or hire well-trained guards. Even if they were we’d be back to the armed camp idea. So what’s the answer?

    The practical solution is to provide school teachers and personnel with the training and the assets necessary to protecting the children — defending them — for the minutes it takes for police to respond to a call about a shooting in progress.

    My friend Dale McClellan is the president of a company called Special Tactical Services. A former SEAL, McClellan has devoted his life to thinking through problems like this and crafting solutions. His company trains elite military and police units on the skills and tactics needed to use all sorts of lethal and non-lethal weapons in all sorts of situations, including the “active shooter” school situation. He called me Friday night about the Newtown shootings.

    Dale has kids the age of some who were killed. He’s outraged, and properly so, that we can’t rely on school personnel to defend our kids for even a minute. He has a plan to deal with these situations that could save countless lives.

    “The first part of the problem,” McClellan said, “is that teachers and school administrators aren’t trained. They need to have training beginning with situational awareness.” That means understanding their surroundings, what signals indicate a potential problem and how to properly react in those situations. “The whole idea is to have the teachers and principals do what’s necessary to buy time — it may be two minutes or twenty — for the cops to arrive and deal with the active shooter.”

    So what should they do, and how should they be equipped? McClellan said, “There’s a lot they can do. First and foremost, school rooms could have ballistic doors with magnetic locks which would prevent most shooters from getting into the rooms.”

    When there’s a shooter roaming the school the teachers can do more than sit in a corner with their children and wait for the police. “The next thing schools should have — in every classroom — are what we call ballistic blankets. They’re made of Kevlar or other ballistic material and can stop most handgun rounds and most high velocity fragmentation rounds. Why not have the teachers get the kids into a corner and cover them with ballistic blankets? Sure, it’d be scary. But if you have fire drills kids get used to, they can get used to proper lockdown drills. Kids would learn to cooperate and communicate, and that’s another condition of buying the time you need to protect the kids until the police roll in.”

    “I’m not in favor of arming teachers with guns,” McClellan added. “It would probably cause more problems than keeping them unarmed.”

    Is there anything more the teachers and school administrators can do? “Sure,” McClellan told me. “But it’s a big bite you have to chew carefully. It requires training and education and of course the money to install the equipment, but is there really any cost you wouldn’t spend to secure your child’s safety? For example: provide the teachers and school administrators with controlled access to a non-lethal means to defend themselves and the children under their care. The school, properly secured during lockdown combined with a controlled access system to these capabilities, would possess a significant deterrent and, moreover, provide a last resort tool to mitigate the threat if the innocent adults were cornered with no escape available.

    “So if you’re trained to aim and fire the TASER, and if you’re confronted with a shooter like the Newtown principal and some teachers were, if you can get to the TASER you may be able to stop the incident right there.”

    So is that it? “That’s as far as we can go now. If we had trained teachers, ballistic doors with mag locks, ballistic blankets to protect the kids and maybe even some TASERs, the teachers could make schools a much tougher target and a lot of kids’ lives might be saved.”

    Newtown school principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach confronted shooter Adam Lanza, and were killed trying to stop him. Had they a TASER, perhaps the killing would have ended, and without their lives being taken. Twenty-seven year old teacher Victoria Soto gave her life standing between Lanza and her students. What if she had had a TASER and the training to use it?

    McClellan said, “Those ideas are aimed at minimizing expense and the disruption to the teachers’ jobs. If you want to spend a lot more money you can do more. Build ‘safe rooms,’ hire highly-trained unarmed tactical officers to patrol schools. There’s always more to do. But I don’t want my kids scared to go to school. Schools need to teach in an atmosphere that’s most conducive to education but still provides better security for our children.”

    There’s so much common sense crammed into McClellan’s plan, it’ll probably not get the attention it deserves. It does deserve serious consideration, and action, by every school district in the nation.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/preventing-school-massacres

    • Oh, one more thing- how we should handle the mentally ill discussion is making me very nervous. Seems much to based on someones “opinion” than the person actually doing something which would make taking his freedom away from him okay.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        Me as well, as I pointed out yesterday. This is taking a turn I really don’t want to see.

        As for this comment by the author: “All of the killers — from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Newtown — were insane. ”

        What is the basis for such a comment? His opinion? The theory that only an insane person could kill another?

        Autism is NOT insanity. Neither are many other cognitive disorders. They are also not mental retardation.

        People also forget that the reason we stopped putting people in the looney bin without their permission is because it was being used against innocent and harmless people. It was becoming easy for the State to simply declare an undesirable as “crazy” and have them locked up.

        And of course, there is the matter of how we are going to pay for increasing the number of institutions if we start trying to lock up everyone who doesn’t seem “normal”.

        • Money is always a problem. But I still think we do need more help for the mentally unstable or drug addicted in our society. So many kids need help when they are young-help their parents just can’t afford -not after they have committed a crime. I just think most of the help should be parent sanctioned with proof the child is unstable or voluntary, or court ordered if a crime has been committed. If they received help early maybe they wouldn’t end up in jail. We have a prison system which is overrun-some of those people belong in a medical facility-not jail. Some of the money that goes to prisons-I would think could go to institutions instead.

          • Maybe more people need to start asking why we are having so many mentally ill people. Why did autism cases explode in numbers? Why are so many older folks basically losing their minds?

            Many people point at all the vaccinations kids get. I’m not so sure of that. Some point to flouride in the water. Maybe. Some point to GMO foods. Maybe. Maybe it’s all of them combined! I do not feel that these problems are just a natural part of evolution, do you? Maybe if we stopped giving people meds that warn of turning people into nuts.

            Here’s is a question! Choose one, your 7 year old child is in her public classroom. You have two choices , today’s Liberal choice, with the teacher unarmed and that being advertised, or the teacher is carrying concealed (as are other teachers) and this is advertised. Which teacher would you trust the safety of your child the most?

            Smile! It’s a great day 🙂

            • Check the number of shrinks in the ’60’s and now. You will see one huge growth industry there. We manufacture very little in this country today excerpt BS college degrees. To keep the folks employed we hire them as shrinks. To keep their jobs they have to do something. The something they do is hang labels around peoples necks. Sure there is Autism and certainly there is autism spectrum disorder. One wonders if the same number of shrinks that exist today existed 50 years ago if the numbers on Autism and associated disorders would not be just as high as they are today. One could say the same about 100 years ago.

              My eldest son, the successful government lawyer, has always shown disturbing signs. he was a big picker at all sorts of things as a child. He obsessed over colors and certain toys. He did repetitive behavior, he spoke out of turn and was famous for getting up during class and touring the room not to mention looking at the teachers plan book. Now, how did I, the almost shrink handle this? Well, maybe not literally but I did upon occasion deliver a good swift kick to his ass and say in a loud and alarming voice, STOP THAT!

              Honestly, if we look at people we knew growing up and even ourselves, we can usually find something that a label could be hung on today. I sure as hell know I would fit that category. Too many resources are being wasted on kids who will either outgrow their “tic” or who should be given a kick in the ass to get their attention and that leaves very little for those who have serious problems. .

  33. Pretty scary article here … wonder how many of you agree with how many points:
    http://gawker.com/5969134/tea-party-nation-lack-of-god-george-zimmerman-to-blame-for-sandy-hook-shooting

    • Strange people are coming out of the woodwork, LOL. Me thinks they should be ignored 🙂

      • I just read the original letter-don’t be so quick to denounce the whole thing. I actually agree that the “everything is okay” mentality is a bad thing. I agree that liberal beliefs/secular ideas are being pushed while our Judeo/Christian values are being outlawed. There is more that I agree with and disagree with but I’ll need to read it again to voice them.

        What I really didn’t like about the letter-is that it was obviously written with a good deal of emotional anger attached. This is never a good way to state your case-using Zimmerman’s name to inflame, when all they were saying is if an armed man had been at the front door-those children probably wouldn’t of died was stupid and makes people discount all their arguments.

        • Your correct V. Once a writer says something stupid, all of his words become useless. I was reading an article on HuffPo about the need for more gun control. While his argument was weak, it was well written. then he started about Climate Change and the seas rising ect, and that ended the intelligence of the writer. At that point, I viewed him as a fool and stopped reading. I do agree that Christain values are basically under attack, and that’s one reason why I make it a point to wish everyone I see “Merry Christmas”. I love the response, a big smile and a return Merry Christmas. Christian values are alive and well, people need to speak up and stop fearing the lunatic left 🙂

          • The problem G-is it is hard to find an article or anything else that doesn’t say something stupid. This one started with saying Obama and the dems. basically don’t care if children die-that is wayyyy out of line IMO-but we all are gonna have to try to get past the stupidity and try to understand the meat of all these articles. If we are ever gonna be able to agree on anything.

            • It is hard to find a good article. This recent event, to me anyway, should be a death sentence to Liberal ideology. The Liberal media whores are saying things that actually bring guns to life, as if the guns did the killing. THey got their wish when schools were made “No Gun Zones”. It failed! Now they want to ban assault weapons and whatever, but Columbine happened during the last ban, again, Liberal failure. I posted above about mass killings that were averted. That, my dear, is a viable answer. It is, because we are a nation that is armed, the ONLY answer to stopping nuts from mass murdering people. If you have another idea, I’m open to all feasable ideas that do not deny the rights of the people. 🙂

  34. Friend of mine cleared this up for me. GREAT, GREAT writer, by the way … an an anarchist (but not the BF kind).

    His FB post: So, I’ve been seeing this one go around, and I have to point out how stupid it is. Automatic weapons have been all but illegal since the National Firearms Act of 1934. That’s just a fact. You can look it up anywhere, even find it on Wikipedia.

    Here’s another fact: assault rifles have also been illegal since 1934. Because an assault rifle is, by definition, capable of automatic fire.

    What civilians can purchase with any kind of ease are semi-automatic clones. And all semi-automatic means is that if you pull the trigger once, then a bullet comes out, and the next one is chambered awaiting another trigger pull. This makes it pretty much like, well, every other gun on the planet (excepting bolt-action or lever-action rifles and the like, where you have to manually chamber the next round).

    These are only comparable to real assault rifles in that they look like them. They are cosmetic clones. They have nothing like the capability of those actual battlefield weapons folks keep going on about. I don’t own one, and tend to think they’re rather silly, but it’d be nice if folks on both sides took thirty seconds to research what it is THEY’RE SCREAMING ABOUT.

    He also had pictures of legal vs. illegal weapons and now that I understand the difference (and why LOI mentioned that the laws wanted to ban Glocks as well as the rifle), I’m backing off the ban nonsense. His last para (bolded above) did it for me.

    • What about working towards restricting (or banning) high-capacity magazines? I’d be curious to know where both you and your friend fall on this.

      • Why? Who gets to decide what “high” means? Once again, why should law abiding citizens be punished for the actions of a nutcase and the laws of Liberals?

      • Okay, those of you-that are knowledgeable about weapons-how long does it take to change out a magazine.
        The gun we own-it takes a couple seconds at most.

        • Changing magazines is a rather quick action. Banning high capacity mags will accomplish nothing. The problem is, far too many people who know nothing about guns and how they operate think they have any answers. Clueless is clueless. Have you heard one politician or any Liberal thinking person admit that making schools a no gun zone was a huge mistake that may have just cost 20 kids their lives?

      • High capacity mags. I’d say ban them. I’m thinking he’d say the same, but I don’t know.

        • Care to ask him? I appreciate his thoughts on banning assault weapons. Would be interested to hear his views on high capacity magazines. In fact, invite him to SUFA! He doesn’t sound as crazy as the other anarchists that frequent this site! 🙂

          • I suspect he’s way too busy to come here … and he was pretty turned off by something I relayed to him here once before. He’s a Chomsky and Churchill supporter so … I doubt he’d want to engage. I’ll ask him about the magazines, etc.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      charlie

      What I don’t understand is why it took your friend to clear this up for you.

      We have discussed this very difference here at SUFA many times.

      Now lets focus on semi-automatics. If we ban them, then we have to address the normal hunting shotguns which are semi-automatics.

      And Buck’s question about magazine size could apply to the shotguns as well, if they are clip fed.

      • Hmmm, Jac, I’ve been reading here a long time and I don’t miss very many of the conversations. And I have never heard or understood anyone to mean that assault weapons were already banned. Actually I read they used to be banned and the ban was lifted some where. I guess I just misunderstood-but I thought everyone was saying they were just extending the definition of assault weapons to include semi-automatics.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          On a couple occasions, perhaps more, some of us have explained that Assault Rifle is a term used to describe military grade weapons capable of AUTOMATIC fire. That the weapons banned by Clinton then later reversed were semi-automatics that simply looked like the Military Grade AR.

          Just like a BB gun or water gun designed to look like an Assault Rifle. So while that legislation used the term Assault Weapons it was not really banning AR’s with automatic firing capability. Those have been and remain illegal. It was just the “look alikes”.

          The anti-gun crowd and media simply won’t stop using the phrase “Assault Rifle”. It makes for a nice propaganda tool. It uses the word “assault” to describe the weapons purpose, in their minds.

          The strange thing about this debate over semi-auto and large magazines is that it amounts to a confession that SOME KILLING is somehow acceptable. Notice that the commentary centers around how easy to kill so many, or that without an AR they can’t kill so many so fast.

          Which the corollary is, they can kill fewer just as fast, or they can kill just as many but it takes longer.

          This shows the emotional nature of the debate, rather than rational and logical debate.

      • JAC … I don’t remember engaging in one … if I did, I don’t remember. I don’t always participate so, I can’t tell you why. But is it really that important? I’m sure I won’t agree with your stance on the high capacity magazines, etc., so …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          Perhaps you didn’t participate. But it has been discussed before.

          As for magazines, what difference whether 10 rounds or 20?

          Changing a clip takes a second or two at the most. All while people are huddled together.

          We need to be asking the bigger questions. Why are young men going crazy and deciding to make a grand statement by killing as many as they can before killing themselves?

          Then and only then can we address the question of whether banning or constraining guns will make a difference.

          Because if a young man is committed to mass murder and suicide, he will get the job done somehow.

          • We need to be asking the bigger questions. Why are young men going crazy and deciding to make a grand statement by killing as many as they can before killing themselves?

            I have to agree … but are you willing to let the government fund the research?

            As for the reloading, it seems silly to me (not a gun enthusiast) to have a magazine with large capacity. I don’t have a problem with banning large capacity magazines.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              I don’t think we need some big or even little govt study.

              I expect we have plenty of experts in various areas with some ideas that could be shared with the rest of us.

              I expect we know the answers, but simply don’t want to hear them.

              • JAC wins the internet.! Your last sentence says it all. 😉

              • And if you’re wrong? Do you at least concede the possibility? Or does rational thinking preclude that possibility (as it so often seems to do for BF)? Not being sarcastic here, legitimate question. Is it possible you’re wrong?

              • JAc, Until the people understand that government can’t protect them, and government quits pretending they can, all the studies in the world will be useless. 😉

            • I am OK with banning them too, as soon as the government is also banned from having them. In my opinion, private citizens should be allow to arm in a similar fashion to the government they want to protect themselves from in an extreme situation. I know that it is considered “Wingie” to believe you may need protection from your government, but I submit to you that the citizens of Syria, Egypt, Iran, Russia, N. Korea and other countries don’t consider it so crazy an idea. What makes us any different? Because our government is “better”?

    • That’s ok, Charlie.

      From your first day here, I have always known you select your information not based on reason or fact, but solely based on the messenger who tells you.

      That is why you are all messed up – you do not evaluate the content – you believe solely based on whether you like the fellow or not.

      He could be lying his tongue off, but if you like him, you think he is telling the truth and you embrace it.

      So until you hear the same words repeated from someone else you like, the truth, fact and reason cannot penetrate your thinking.

      • BF, why don’t you take a break for a day? One day. I’ll buy you a drink. I’ll do my best not to prove you foolish again (it’ll be hard) but I’ll do my best. What say?

        Now, V.H. pay attention to this, please?

        • And on that day, I’ll happily return the favor.

          • Fair enough. Now, I was starting to repost something in response to your assertion about me (from my first day) so now I’ll remove the name calling and here it is: Look at the last few days of my comments and how often I rail against “anecdotes” mr. rationalizer … then point to an instance (from my first day here) where I used an anecdote to attempt to prove anything (my blinded with a blindfold pirate friend). In fact, I distinctly remember getting into it with USW over his use of an anecdote about Joe Paterno (proving once again, you’re not only WRONG about my use of “somebody I like telling me something” … you’re pointing in the WRONG DIRECTION). This is not an attack on USW, by the way, (or you) just one more (and close to the last) time I’ll point out how foolish you sometimes are in most (if not all) of your assumptions/claims and generalizations about pretty much everything.

            • 1) I rarely, if ever, use anecdotes. They are never proof. They explain a proof, but cannot replace it.
              2) Joe who?
              3) I use reason from a principle. I always provide a principle (or if you missed it, will supply it). From that principle I use reason and logic. The conclusion that derive from that reasoning from a principle is a reasoned conclusion. You may not like it, I may not like it – but it is the conclusion and it is a truth. Truth is not measured in “like or dislike”. It is measured solely by reason.

              Now, you can dismiss my principle – fine. Use your own then, and see what concludes.

              But most do not like that, because the truth is the truth, and they do not like the conclusions their principles display. They run from it, deny it, dance around it and ignore it.

              But you can ignore the truth.
              But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring the truth.

              This is why Buck never provides a principle. He is afraid to demonstrate his contradiction of actions and proclamations to what his principle says they should be.

              He wants to “steal”, but does not want others to “steal” from him.

              Hopefully, ol’foe/friend, you’ll offer your principles up too one day.

              Then we will see the real Charlie.

              • Without getting too far into it (I leave in a few minutes).

                You made a bold generalization (attacking me for using anecdotes), then responded to my request to point to one with a defense of yourself regarding same.

                To which I answer: Huh? 🙂

              • Sorry Charlie, what are you asking.

                Point to a defense (me defending something) of me doing the same….

                Example, please – if you may?

    • This is a very hopeful sign for you. You are capable of learning new things. Give me a holler some day and I’ll take you to the range up on Route 23. I’ll even spring for the ammo.

      • Oh, Stephen, I hope to hell that wasn’t directed at me.

        🙂

        • I’m sure it was. But we all know you can’t teach old dogs new tricks 😆 You could use some time on the firing range though, if nothing else your ears will ring for a day or two 🙂

        • Sure, why not? The feel of that .45 bucking in your hands or the .357 or the magnificent .380 pocket pistol. Fire the M-1 Garand at 100 yds. and feel what those GI’s did in WW 2. See how fast you can get off eight shots and actually hit something (or not) . Then try the German Mod. 98 counterpart or the 7.7 MM Japanese Arisaka.

          Then there is the .45 Colt Single Action Army. The classic American cowboy gun. and the Mod. 92 Winchester in .38-40 which demonstrates that a lever action is just as fast as a semi-auto with the right cartridge. Then, the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield carbine, single shot used by the US Cavalry at the Little Big Horn against Indians armed with repeating Winchesters. You will have fun and something to write about.

          We always wear ear protection and I am a certified instructor.

  35. Thanks for the information-wish everyone would come to this conclusion-so we could get to the business of actually figuring out what we Will do to protect our children and everyone else in all these gun free zones.

    It does make one wonder WHY those in power, who should be well aware of what all these laws actually say- Insist on pushing a ban on “assault weapons” if they are really talking about almost all guns? Rather sad, we are wasting time talking about bans when our children are being killed. Could it be-their intent is to actually do-what eveyone insists will never happen here?

    • V.H. Make no mistake that government wants to ban all guns. That’s the only thing between freedom and tyranny. The history and reason for the 2nd Amendment is very clear on this.

      Protect our kids, elliminate gun free zones and make conceal carry part of the job place (all job places)

      • Here is what happens when you start talking about gun control. Those of us who love guns and can afford it start buting them all up. Especially those that will be included in any “ban”.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/gun-sales-surge-after-connecticut-massacre/

        The idiocy of making more “Gun Control Laws” is plain and needs no more discussion. Instead our govenment needs to try enforcing what we already have, and put more money into getting a handle on all these psycos and mentally ill people who are able to GET guns to begin with.

        As far as Newtown goes, I don’t believe any mental health rule or any gun control law could have stopped it from happening. That guy just slid through the cracks, unless everything I have heard is a lie.

        Just a sad and horrific event all around.

    • When I worked at the Middle School in my town, I always carried a case in with me. It had my medicines in it and various other things. It also held a pistol. I would have been fired instantly and also taken to jail if anyone had found it, but since I had it in my office there was no chance of that.

      And I carried it just in case something like Newtown happened. It may have been overly cautious and maybe even silly to some, but nothing like that was going to happen in my school as long as I was there and breathing. Made ME feel better anyway.

  36. @ Charlie, Are you near Avenel NJ. ?

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie, V.H., et al.

    A little more on this use of the terms assault rifle and assault weapons. Not that the latter is the group used in the legislation to which V.H. was referring above. This is the group that the ban expired on in 2004. From wikipedia:

    Definition

    The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally “storm rifle”, as in “to storm a position”). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today’s modern assault rifles.

    The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

    It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
    It must be capable of selective fire;
    It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
    Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
    And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

    Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

    The term “assault rifle” is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

    The US Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.”[7]
    Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

    In United States politics and law, an assault weapon is a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

    a folding or telescoping stock
    a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
    a bayonet mount
    a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
    a grenade launcher

    The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[8]

    • Well the 1994 FAWB was a worthless law that had no effect, as well as the Brady Bill Law. They are so hopped up to pass these laws because of the understandably horrific crime in Newtown.

      But, even if passed, they will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER.

    • I wonder why they specifically included bayonet lugs….I don’t remember a lot of incidents of people fixing bayonets and charging towards people like the were on the plain at Lexington and Concord.

  38. Why doesn’t the MSM ever mention THESE episodes? Could they be just a speck biased???

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/18/mass-murder-prevented-by-offduty-cop-n1469380

    These are episodes where the shooter was taken down by citizens. Funny how you NEVER here about them on the news. Well, I guess because “If It Bleeds, It Leads”.

  39. Enough doom and gloom..time for some fun:

  40. AH, Th eLiberal mind is so confused 🙄

    Breaking from Newsmax.com

    Brady Group: Gohmert Gun Idea ‘Insane’

    A Republican congressman’s suggestion that teachers and principals be armed following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., is “insane,” says the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    “There are 40 people behind me who would love to respond to that,” Brady president Dan Gross said at a press conference, according to Politico. “It’s insane . . . Think about what that’s saying. It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns.”
    Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, said Sunday that if the school’s principal had been armed, she might have been able to prevent some or all of the carnage that happened Friday.

    “I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office locked up and so when she heard gunshots . . . she takes his head off before he can hurt those kids,” Gohmert said.

    Disagreeing that more guns would solve the problem, Gross said that more weapons would only make scenes like the one at Sandy Hook worse, turning a massacre into a firefight with the potential to injure or kill even more people.

    “I would hope the representative is held responsible for irresponsible statements like that,” Gross said.

    © 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

    So, in this Liberal’s mind, letting 26 people die is a better choice than fighting back. He, and people who think like him, are why innocent people get killed enmass. A cowards thinking letting a coward kill. No Gun Zones are magnets for these kinds of cowards. The claim is that they are insane, but, based on the weapon of choice, one should wonder if there is more to the story than mental illness. These events are planned, and the weapons being available is no accident.

  41. EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap

    By Jana Winter

    Published December 18, 2012

    NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

    Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims’ families worship.

    “From what I’ve been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,” Flashman told FoxNews.com. “Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

    A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza’s anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

    “He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry.”

    – Joshua Flashman, Newtown resident familiar with Lanza family

    Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told FoxNews.com such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

    Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza’s victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.

    Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

    “Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed,” Flashman said. “I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore.”

    The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit’s end.

    A separate neighborhood source also told FoxNews.com that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

    SEND TIPS TO NEWSMANAGER@FOXNEWS.COM

    Multiple sources told FoxNews.com Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, and unspecified mental and emotional problems.

    Adam Lanza has also been described by those who knew him as highly intelligent, and a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University told The Associated Press he took college classes there when he was 16, earning a 3.26 grade point average and excelling at a computer course.

    Alan Diaz, 20, who was friends with Adam Lanza at Newtown High School, said the Lanza he knew was ill-at-ease socially, but not a monster.

    “He was a wicked smart kid,” Diaz told FoxNews.com by email. “When I first met him, he wouldn’t even look at you when you tried to talk to him. Over the year I knew him, he became used to me and my other friends, he eventually could have full conversations with us.

    “I’ve heard him laugh, he has even comforted me once in a hard time I had,” Diaz said. “A big part of me wishes I never dropped contact with him after he left high school, felt like I could have done something.”

    Flashman said nobody will completely understand why Adam did what he did.

    “No one can explain Adam Lanza besides God and Adam Lanza, and I don’t even think Adam Lanza could explain Adam Lanza, to be honest with you.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FS2YUjPY

  42. THis is a good example of government tyranny, of which we the people should not have to tolerate. May the 2nd Amendment stay strong! http://www.prisonplanet.com/martial-law-in-one-city-the-case-of-paragould-arkansas.html

  43. Lawmakers and educators in Texas say the way to guard against school shootings like last Friday’s at a Connecticut elementary school is to make sure teachers can shoot back.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/stop-school-shootings-by-letting-teachers-fire-back-say-texas-officials/#ixzz2FS8sf33u

    Ahhhhhh…….you gotta love it.

    @ Buck…..it seems to me, that ANY weapon that is used against another is an assault weapon. Whether a baseball bat or knife or bomb or rocks……..to name a weapon as an “assault” weapon because it can hold a clip of 30 rounds….is, well…..absurd. Deer rifles hold 5 and 7 rounds in a magazine or clip….shotguns can hold 5 rounds. Anyway, you gotta love Texas……arm the teachers and teach them to shoot….do not disarm the public.

    • I saw that and remain unconvinced.

      Forget the terminology used (‘assault…’), and forget about any arguments seeking to ban guns of any sort for a minute. I propose the following:

      1) Enforce existing laws re gun purchases
      2) Review existing laws and close any loopholes
      3) Look into restrictions on high capacity magazines
      4) Impose restrictions (or some type of reporting mechanism) on purchases of a high number of bullets

      What say you? Thoughts?

      • Yo, Buckster…..(sitting in Wichita Kansas going through a flying Safety course and it is cold)….

        Ok…..(1). Enforce existing laws……cool. (But it would not have stopped this last case)…(2.) Review existing laws and closing loopholes….sorta cool. I would not eliminate private sales…(for example, if I wish to sell you a weapon, I should be able to and I am not responsible to run a criminal background check as a private individual)..(3.)High capacity magazines……I am open to discussion and you would have to define high capacity. There are hundreds of weapons that do not fit the category of “assault weapons” that use magazines. Is high capacity a 30 round magazine? Is a 12 round magazine high capacity? I am a deer and elk hunter. …I carry high caliber weapons..a 300 Weatherby, a .270 Winchester, a .245 Remington…..each of these have magazines or attachments that can carry up to 9 rounds…bolt action….(4). Bullets……nah. that shows nothing. I reload all the time…..hundreds of rounds. I shoot on a consistent basis…..probably 100-200 rounds per week. None of my weapons are registered because it was not required and is not required….I take that back,,,the only registered weapon is a Walther .308 that I registered for my conceal carry license. However, I do not want an agency coming to check me to ask what I am doing ordering 20 cans of powder, 400 round cases and shell casings for reloading…..and the number of bullets does nothing. One can buy I box of bullets every 2 or three days….50 to 100 rounds at a time.

        Those are my thoughts.

  44. French psychiatrist sentenced after patient commits murder
    ReutersReuters – 5 hours ago

    MARSEILLES, France (Reuters) – A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

    A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a “grave error” by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.

    Gaillard hacked to death 80-year-old Germain Trabuc with an axe in March 2004 in Gap, in the Alps region of southeastern France, 20 days after fleeing a consultation with Canarelli at Marseilles’s Edouard Toulouse hospital.

    Canarelli was handed a one-year prison sentence and ordered to pay 8,500 euros to the victim’s children, in the first case of its kind in France. Defense lawyers said the ruling would have serious repercussions for treatment of the mentally ill.

    “If a psychiatrist lives in fear of being sentenced, it will have very real consequences and probably lead to harsher treatment of patients,” said Canarelli’s lawyer, Sylvain Pontier.

    The court said Canarelli should have requested Gaillard be placed in a specialized medical unit or referred him to another medical team, as one of her colleagues suggested. Her stubborn refusal had equated to a form of “blindness”, the court president Fabrice Castoldi said.

    Gaillard had already been forcibly committed to a secure hospital on several occasions for a series of increasingly dangerous incidents.

    The victim’s son, Michel Trabuc, said he hoped the case would set a legal precedent.

    “There’s no such thing as zero risk, but I hope this will move psychiatry forward and, above all, that it will never happen again,” he said.

    Gaillard was not held responsible for his actions and was freed under medical supervision.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psychiatrist-sentenced-patient-commits-murder-192855747.html

    Wow-Do I have a bunch of unanswered questions!

    • Don’t bothering questioning the French V.H., that is hardcore Liberalism at it’s best. Kinda like the Italians convicting scientists for NOT predicting a deadly earthquake. All of this should be a huge eye opener to anyone who thinks that Liberals are remotely sane. Charlie should start rethinking his love of the French as well, 😆

    • I like it! When the recent Boy Scout child abuse story hit, we checked on a late ’70’s incident that happened in our troop. The perp is still in the town since in the ’70’s and ’80’s child molesters could still, according to the shrinks, be treated successfully. The BSA has all documents on file in this case. About five years after the incidents the perp tried to get back into scouting by presenting a letter from his Psychiatrist saying he should be allowed back in because he was “90% cured and the rest was under control because of the drugs he was taking”. Of course, the Scouts said no. But it is interesting to think of the places like school where they may have said yes and more crimes were committed.

      If a shrink knew he would be held accountable for crimes committed by a patient or by a criminally insane person that he adjudged was now “normal” I think you would see a lot fewer dangerous nut cases walking around out there, pushing people in front of subway trains, killing, raping and eating their neighbors and shooting up libraries, malls, schools or postal facilities.

      If Mom was considering sending junior to a facility it probably meant he was seeing someone for evaluation. We know the VA tech shooter was.

  45. I believe that Liberals are a very “blissfull” bunch of people. Why do we let them in politics? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bloomberg-making-sense-the-nra-would-defend-your-right-to-own-a-nuclear-cannon/

    HAHAHA The voice of Democrats at his finest 😆

  46. LOI,

    Swung by the liquor store tonight.

    You are a true gentlemen, true to his word, and went above and beyond for our friendly wager. I will be toasting to you and yours this New Years Eve. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday!

    –Buck

    PS – if you ever find yourself in NYC, you best let me know.

  47. @ Buck, My input on your questions.

    #1 Didn’t know existing laws were not being enforced, why is this an issue?
    #2 There are too many laws now that confuse the average person. End “No Gun Zones”
    #3 This is a non-issue, made up by the media and the political morons in DC. This tragedy would not have changed without the so called high capacity mags, This is just silly Bullshit.
    #4 This proves you know very little abiout guns and people that shoot. I buy in bulk to save money. Most who shoot alot do the same. THese sicko’s don’t buy close to what many of us would buy in one purchase. This has nothing to do with “stopping mass murder”

    I did hear this, what say you: For all people on Psychtropic drugs for mental issues, ban gun ownership and possession, ban driving and car ownership and deny the right to vote until mentally capable and drug free.

    • To respond:

      1) you and others often argue that we don’t need new laws but to enforce those already on the books (and repeal those that make no sense or are doing more harm than good). I agree.

      2) see #1 above. Clearly we will disagree on what to keep vs repeal but it starts with a review of all current laws and would necessitate closing clear loopholes.

      3) I completely disagree. The higher the magazine capacity, the higher the possible kill count. Will this end all mass shootings? No, but it could conceivably reduce the number killed.

      4) fair point, and why I added ‘or some form of reporting requirement’. Someone who out of nowhere orders a large number of bullets may pose a threat…or may not. But I do agree that we should tread carefully here.

      5) you raise a very good point re those with mental health disorders and much more needs to be done in this area with respect to gun ownership. I believe this is an area where current law needs to be better enforced (and probably expanded), and there needs to be much better communication and cooperation amongst the Feds, states and localities.

      • A Fair response 🙂 I have been trying hard to understand what many are thinking when they propose things about issues that they have no knowledge (politicians). Feinstein is a perfect example.

        It has been proven, that when concealed carry laws have been enacted, crime dropped dramitically. The FBI has come out and said that as gun ownership grows, crime is decreasing, especially violent crime. No gun zones are an invite to disaster, as has been proven, and should go away. Let’s take the Isreali method and put it in action.

        I suggest we find out why we have so many psych problems, especially in our young men who are committing these crimes. We sell billions of dollars on drugs to treat, but never seem to find the causes and/or cures. I believe that govt is responsible for much of this, but I lay more blame on Big Pharma. I don’t profess to have the answer here, but something is very wrong.

        Gun control/bans do not work. Much like outlawing drugs, it would lead to much bigger problems. Mexico bans guns, all of them, you see how well thats working for them. Let the law abiding citizens carry concealed everywhere they go. That will lower crime and end the invitations that gun free zones offer.

        Getting tired, so I will write more tomorrow. I like a good debate and think this could head in that direction 🙂

        • “It has been proven, that when concealed carry laws have been enacted, crime dropped dramitically…No gun zones are an invite to disaster, as has been proven…”

          No such thing has been proven. There are plenty of studies on both sides of the issue ‘proving’ their side is correct. Last study I read was a critique awhile back of the main studies purporting to demonstrate that concealed carry reduces crime. Distorted data; too many variables; etc. etc. etc.

          Also on the issue of gun free zones, where do you stand on private property rights? Many businesses do not permit guns on the premises. Do you believe the gov’t should have the authority to override these decisions because you perceive there is safety in numbers (of guns)? I imagine not, but just want to make sure of your intent when you say “Let the law abiding citizens carry concealed everywhere they go”.

          On the issue of psych problems and Big Pharma, I see a conspiracy theory brewing…

          • I am responsible for my own safety at all times. If a private property owner wishes to not allow guns/whatever on his property and I feel that I am not adequately safe/protected there, it is my responsibility to *not go there*.

            Trying to punish people for the actions of others is ridiculous.

  48. LOI,
    Maybe you should be more worried about local officials in Arkansas than the Feds:

    http://www.paragoulddailypress.com/articles/2012/12/15/top_story/doc50cbbb312e241511092932.txt

  49. A common thread here is that private ownership of guns – the 2nd amendment – is what stops government oppression and keeps us free in this county. But is that really true? Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

    The changes in this country over the past two centuries have been legislative, many times spurred on my citizen protests (1st amendment), but never by threat of physical force (2nd amendment).

    • Todd, Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

      http://bwcentral.org/2012/12/the-largest-massacres-in-the-world-happened-after-gun-control-was-established/

      I don’t recall guns being used to change legislation, nor should they ever be used for that. Deterence!

      • Gman,
        That doesn’t address my question:

        Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

        And to clarify, I was talking about the 2nd amendment in the USA.

        In the cases in your link, confiscating all guns made the massacres easier, but is there any evidence the massacres wouldn’t have occurred anyway?

        • Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

          Yes. The founding of this country is a great example of this.

          If you would like more examples, I offer Syria, Egypt, etc…

          • USWeapon,

            The founding of this country is a great example of this.

            Except that the founding of this country occurred before the 2nd Amendment…

            If you would like more examples, I offer Syria, Egypt, etc…

            Do citizens in Syria and Egypt have a Constitutional Right to Bear Arms?

            But your examples make me think USWeapon (in spite of Peter’s opinion to the contrary). If the Founding Fathers, and the Syrian and Egyptian people, are able to raise up to stop government oppression without the 2nd Amendment, maybe we don’t really need it?

            Were the Founding Fathers and the Syrian and Egyptian people that much tougher than us? Do we need the government to grant us the right to bear arms so we can protect ourselves against government oppression? Seems kinda like circular logic to me…

            What do you think?

            Would you like to withdraw your examples? 😉

            PS – I was one comment away from filling up the “Recent Comments”. Now I have to post – like 8 more times!! Thanks A LOT! 😉

            PPS – note to JAC – no hidden meanings or VEILED INSULTS here!!!! 😉

            • Except that the founding of this country occurred before the 2nd Amendment…

              true, but that doesn’t change the fact that guns effectively did stop govt oppression. And this was the very reason that the second amendment was added.

              Do citizens in Syria and Egypt have a Constitutional Right to Bear Arms?

              No but they should.

              But your examples make me think USWeapon (in spite of Peter’s opinion to the contrary). If the Founding Fathers, and the Syrian and Egyptian people, are able to raise up to stop government oppression without the 2nd Amendment, maybe we don’t really need it?

              Perhaps if they had the second amendment in Syria and Egypt, there wouldn’t be 40,000 dead Syrians. If we didn’t have the 2nd amendment, government would have disarmed most of this country long ago. We would be in far worse shape than we are now.

              Were the Founding Fathers and the Syrian and Egyptian people that much tougher than us? Do we need the government to grant us the right to bear arms so we can protect ourselves against government oppression? Seems kinda like circular logic to me…

              What do you think?

              It isn’t about toughness. The toughest men still fall to superior firepower. But there is one fundamental flaw in your argument. The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant power, it only recognizes it.

              Would you like to withdraw your examples?

              Nope. I think they are good ones 🙂

              • true, but that doesn’t change the fact that guns effectively did stop govt oppression.

                Yes, but without the 2nd amendment. That’s my point.

                Perhaps if they had the second amendment in Syria and Egypt, there wouldn’t be 40,000 dead Syrians.

                Or maybe if they had a democracy that respects the rule of law?

                If we didn’t have the 2nd amendment, government would have disarmed most of this country long ago. We would be in far worse shape than we are now.

                Just speculation. Nothing supports this.

                The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant power, it only recognizes it.

                Then why do you need it?

          • Hold on a minute … circular logic in fact … guns used to found the country also included obliterating a culture that was already here and doing fine without us. The same guns used to found the country were used to destroy a culture already in place …

            But remember… it isn’t guns that do the killing … it’s the people … 🙂

            • I understand your point and it is a valid point. But it isn’t relevant to the answer to Todd’s question. The question was whether there was a time when guns were used to stop government oppression. In fact, your example proves the point. The indians didn’t have guns to stop the US government from oppressing them, and the result was they were obliterated.

    • Todd – you can’t prove a negative. Saying that having an armed citizenry has never helped keep an oppressive government at bay is like covering yourself in bug spray and then claiming you obviously didn’t need it in the first place because no bugs came near you!

      That said, the only explicit example I know of is the Japanese not even bothering to draw up an invasion plan because or the whole armed citizenry thing (rifle behind every blade of grass, etc).

      • DKII,
        I agree it’s hard to prove, but there are many other factors that could be an influence. The fact that we’re all immigrants who came here for a reason, the general prosperity, or the form of government that the founding fathers set up.

        For the most part, there’s never been a need to stop government oppression – because it doesn’t exist.

  50. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    @Buck, Continuing our discussion, how do you think stronger gun control laws would affect the violent crime rate in the U.S.? Considering Chicago has the toughest gun control laws, is this how you want the rest of the nation to look like? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-19/gun-control-shadows-obama-from-chicago-to-white-house

  51. Buck, This is funny 🙂 On the issue of psych problems and Big Pharma, I see a conspiracy theory brewing… No, to long a subject for a debate, more like an article. But we do have problems with an overmedicated society, IMHO.

    I respect private property. If one says, no guns on my property, that is fine. If he invites the public to conduct business on his property, but denies concealed carry, he then is responsible for the safety of his visitors. Just my opinion, but the property would be liable if someone was killed by an armed criminal.

    Statistic, always an issue, especially when it involves the liberal media. I’ll stick with FBI statistics, and they say crime went down. Look at Kanasaw GA, for a great example. On the opposite side, as I posted above, look at Chicago.

    What would you like to see happen and what results do you feel would be accomplished?

    • So in your opinion the property owner should be held liable because a deranged criminal decided to come onto the premises and shoot people? Interesting…

      As I said above, I’d like to see a real review of all existing laws, closing loopholes, and expanding communication between the feds and states. I’d also like to see some research in terms of banning or restricting high capacity magazines. I don’t know enough about particular laws currently on the books (or guns in general) to put forth a more detailed approach than this at the time.

  52. No gun zones are an invite to disaster, as has been proven…”

    Buck says: No such thing has been proven.

    Buck the school and the theater in Colorado were no gun zones. What more proof do you need?

    • By that logic the fact that I haven’t been killed (or even injured) in a gun free zone proves that such zones work.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        In this case it is your logic that is flawed.

        Start with the goal, which I admit has never been clearly stated.

        The goal of a “gun free zone” is to PREVENT ANY such event from happening. It has failed at doing this, therefore it does not work.

        Now if the goal is that it will “REDUCE such events” then your argument might hold. But I bet that is not what the “officials” told the public was the goal when they instated these zones.

      • There was an interesting link the other day. Pointed out that since the semi-auto ban was imposed in Australia there have been no repeats of the mass shooting which led to the ban. Now there is logic for you! I wonder if I would be considered a party pooper if I asked how many mass shootings of that type took place BEFORE the semi-auto ban?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      There is also a flaw in your arguments regarding conceal carry and having armed people around a public place. And this as well goes to the goal. Is it to STOP or to simply REDUCE.

      The recent Oregon mall shooting counters your argument if stopping is the goal.

      Conceal Carry is legal and well known here. And we have armed security in the malls. But the knowledge of these facts did not stop the kid from deliberately targeting the mall.

      I think we need to recognize that these mass murder suicides involve many motives and a disconnect in rational thinking. If their goal is to make a big splash going out, the presence of other armed people may just play into their desire to pick that target.

      If their goal is to simply get revenge on some group, then it might deter them.

      But it seems that most of these are murder suicides, which mean they are really just SUICIDES at the core. Why they decide to include others in their death pact may affect how they would react to knowing a place is armed against them, or it may not.

  53. Buck, You are so funny 🙂 By my logic, when nuts decide to commit mass murder, they pick a place with the least resistance (gun free zones). When they choose places that are not “gun free zones”, mass killings have, in numerous occasions been stopped. Fortunately for all of us, there aren’t nuts wanting to commit mass murder in every city and near every gun free zone, which lays your logic in the “doesn’t fit reality” bin

  54. Re: property owners. So in your opinion the property owner should be held liable because a deranged criminal decided to come onto the premises and shoot people? Interesting…

    That isn’t quite what I said, and of course you know that 🙂 I said, clearly, that if a property owner makes his property a “no gun zone” , he accepts responsibility for the protection of his visitor/patrons. With that responsibility also comes liability if the property owner fails to protect someone, who otherwise would have protected him/herself, if not for the decision of the property owner.

    Your desire are not unreasonable, but I must ask, do any of your desires and subsequent changes affect criminals?

    • Depends. Are we only looking at hardened criminals who will get the gun and kill no matter what? Or are we looking to stop the individual with obvious psychological problems going on a killing spree?

      But I can’t see holding the property owner liable for the acts of a criminal or whacko. That just makes no sense to me.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Is not a business owner liable for patron safety relative to other factors, such as fire?

        • Only if the fire is caused by their negligence or other reckless behavior. Not permitting guns on the premises is not negligent nor reckless on the part of a business owner.

  55. Depends. What are your desires when it comes to gun control? THis is certainly a big discussion, but what do you think can be done, as far as new laws, to prevent these types of mass shootings?

    When the landowner chooses to accept the responsibility for patrons, as I have said. If a property owner doesn’t make his property a no gun zone, he/she holds NO liablity. Quite simple actually. 🙂

  56. “1) you and others often argue that we don’t need new laws but to enforce those already on the books (and repeal those that make no sense or are doing more harm than good). I agree.”

    The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It?
    Revisiting the comically incompetent law which President Obama wishes to reinstate.

    by
    Bob Owens

    Bio
    December 19, 2012 – 12:00 am
    Email
    Print
    Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size

    (President Barack Obama announced Tuesday that he is “actively supporting” a proposal to reinstate a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” In addition, he supports a ban on the sale of firearms from one person to another without federal involvement which gun-control groups have dubbed a “gun show loophole,” and a ban on standard-capacity magazines for rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Instead, he would impose an arbitrarily determined ten-round limit to magazines.

    California Democrat Dianne Feinstein — who carried a concealed weapons permit while calling for disarming American citizens — is once again promising to introduce an “assault weapons” ban in the U.S. Senate. New York Senator Chuck Schumer also hoped to push for the ban.

    Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen doubts the effectiveness of such “knee jerk” decisions, and columnist Charles Krauthammer noted that the last attempt had “no appreciable influence on gun violence or the lethality of individual attacks.”

    Which camp is right?

    The following article is a reposting of a July 6, 2011 two-part article detailing the dramatic failure of the assault weapons ban.)

    —————————–

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, February 26, 2009:

    As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

    The fabled “assault weapons ban.”

    Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).

    To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.

    That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.

    The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” – a term that was created by the law itself – if it had two or more of the following features:

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine

    It was a law passed by lawmakers who desired to “do something,” but who didn’t have the expertise or intelligence to pass a law with any real meaning or measurable impact. It resulted in a 10-year timeframe where this …

    … was an “assault weapon,” but this …

    … was not.

    These rifles are identical in every regard except that the rifle on the top has a small bit of metal under the front sight to which a bayonet could attach, and a small vented tube on the end of the barrel that redirects unburned gases.

    Both are AR-15-pattern rifles that came off the same assembly line, fire the exact same ammunition, and use the same magazines.

    The former was criminalized for ultimately absurd reasons, so that lawmakers could claim they were doing something about gun violence. Both were legal to sell, buy, and possess during the life of the ban.

    The story was the same for almost every weapon impacted by the law. The offending cosmetics were removed, and the same weapon was sold under a different model number for the duration of the ban — while the “pre-ban” versions became items of interest and demand merely because of the additional features.

    Instead of having having an impact on the reduction of gun crime, the “assault weapon ban” instead became a near-comical example of the law of unintended consequences. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, demand for the firearms that became the subject of the ban was relatively light. The public’s interest was piqued, and sales skyrocketed, directly as a result of the law. These firearms had almost no statistical representation in crimes (which the National Institute of Justice admitted two years later), and interest in them grew both before the ban and after it was enacted. One of the unintended consequences of the law was that these firearms that had had a small role at the fringes of the marketplace were suddenly desired by millions.

    The assault weapons ban didn’t reduce the number of military-style semi-automatic firearms. It greatly increased their numbers, their public acceptance, and had the effect of mainstreaming them, “pre-ban” rifles and cosmetically de-enhanced “post-ban” rifles alike. Thanks to the “ban,” AR-15 pattern rifles are now among the most popular rifles in America, and have been mainstreamed even among the change-resistant hunting fraternity as “modern sporting rifles.”

    So if the ten-year ban period did not see a substantial reduction in gun crimes committed with the kind of firearms banned, and the expiration of the law in 2004 did not result in a massive upswing in violence even after these firearms achieved mainstream popularity and acceptance, why would the Obama administration be so strongly in favor of advocating for a renewal of the ban?

    That is something we hope to resolve in Part 2.

    ————————————-

    The Washington Post, May 23, 2011:

    On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control: “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

    “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    In every practical respect, the firearms-related provisions of the “assault weapons ban” were an objective failure. But absurd restrictions on firearms weren’t the only part of that legislation that passed only to succumb to an outcome quite different than it’s anti-gun progenitors had in mind.

    Along with creating the term “assault weapon,” this Clinton-era law also created the similarly arbitrary term “high-capacity magazine.”

    A detachable magazine is a container that holds cartridges for a given firearm, and the number of cartridges typically varied with the size and the purpose of the weapon at hand and the size of the cartridge it fired. Small turn-of-the-century handguns typically carried magazines of just 6-7 cartridges. The standard magazine capacity of many pistols that became popular in the 1980s was 15 rounds or more. The standard capacity of military grade rifles and carbines was 20-30 rounds. As time progressed, firearm designers were finding ways to put a larger number of cartridges in the magazines of their weapons.

    When legislators decided that the “assault weapons ban” should also include a restriction on the number of cartridges that any given magazine could hold, they declared that any magazine that held a greater amount of cartridges was a “high capacity” magazine. It didn’t matter to them that many of the firearms in question had as their standard capacity magazines with round counts from 13-30 rounds or more, or that some of these firearms had had such a capacity since before the congressmen and congresswomen writing the law were born.

    Congress arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was “enough” for American citizens, and included provisions that once the law went into effect, any magazine manufactured after the date the law went into effect that had more than ten rounds would be illegal for anything other than law enforcement use.

    Like the firearms provisions of the bill, these magazine provisions also had unintended consequences.

    As it turns out, firearms magazines are both typically very robust and reliable in design, and incredibly easy to mass manufacture. Once made, they last indefinitely.

    Between the time Congress started signaling that they would create a magazine capacity restriction and the implementation of the law, factories worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week churning out millions of nothing but high-capacity magazines, which were stockpiled by manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers in massive warehouses.

    As a result, “high capacity magazines” for most common firearms were freely available throughout the life of the ban. As e-commerce came into early maturity during this time period, many high-capacity magazines were more available than they had been before the ban was signed into law.

    How?

    Congress had neglected to make the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines illegal, and only outlawed the manufacture of new magazines.

    The law had another unforeseen result. As companies looked to introduce new models of pistols, they determined that if they were going to be forced to make pistols limited to a magazine capacity of just 10 rounds, it would be advantageous for them to make these new pistols as small as possible for the concealed carry market. The Glock 26 and Kahr K9 were introduced the following year, and were among the first of a new breed of powerful, ultra-concealable handguns known as “subcompacts.” Similar designs from other companies quickly followed.

    Objectively, based purely on the numbers, the assault weapons ban increased both the number of and public acceptance of semi-automatic, military-style rifles, and created a new class of powerful, concealable handguns.

    Put another way, the assault weapons ban not only put more guns into the market, it encouraged the development of smaller, more powerful, semi-automatic firearms.

    Why, then, would the Obama administration want to reintroduce the ban?

    Rest assured, if the administration could find broad support for a reinstatement of the expired ban, it would do everything in its power to fix the mistakes of the past.

    Instead of banning a list of guns by name or arbitrary cosmetic features or banning just the manufacture of magazines, they would attempt to model their ban on some of the more restrictive state bans, such as those in California, Maryland, and New York, which would no doubt result in more unintended (and sometimes unbearably cute) consequences.

    Attempting to impose such a restrictive and prohibitionist law is far harder today in a nation where judicial interpretations favoring individual gun rights are ascendant. It would take a dramatic and drastic turn of events to undermine the growing gun rights movement and to generate the sort of popular support for more national gun control laws.

    Such firearms would have to be used, repeatedly and with great affect, to generate massive levels of violence and the media furor needed to revive a flagging gun control movement. It would almost take a massive covert operation delivering thousands of weapons to violent felons to make this even potentially viable.

    Luckily, we all know that can’t happen here.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/assault-weapons-ban/?singlepage=true

  57. THis is very interesting!

    Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers will not enforce gun confiscation orders

    Mike Adams
    Natural News
    December 19th, 2012

    In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions:

    #1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation?

    #2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?)

    #3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings?

    I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff’s deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity.

    Here are their answers.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-cops-detectives-fbi-agents-u-s-soldiers-tell-natural-news-they-will-not-enforce-gun-confiscation-orders.html

    • Okay the guy said some stuff I can’t agree with, the UN part especially, I think was a really big leap, at least right now. The future who knows. But I think the rest of it was Todd’s answer to this question:

      “A common thread here is that private ownership of guns – the 2nd amendment – is what stops government oppression and keeps us free in this county. But is that really true? ”

      I think the 2nd Amendment is important almost more because of the mentality it promotes in our people. Obviously with the weapons the government controls we don’t have any hope of out gunning them. But that same government will never be sure that the police or the military will side with them-as long as that mentality of we are free, we have the right to bear arms, and to speak our minds stays alive.

      • One additional note-I think one of the main reasons people on the right, anyway, are getting angry, scared, uncomfortable-pick a word to describe it. Is that we are starting to feel that we aren’t able to do those things without being worried about being unfairly punished.

        That feeling brings out the fight in me, makes me angry-because by damn I HAVE THE RIGHT to do these things. See– that mentality.

        • VH,
          What exactly are these things you have a right to do that the government is going to punish you for?

          This sounds more like paranoia than reality. Maybe you’ve been reading too many of the right-wing conspiracy theories – like Obama is going to confiscate all guns…

          • Paranoid- hmmmm- Nope, don’t think so! As far as what, through the power of the government, the media, and all the organizations, anything the liberals currently in power disagree with. And Obama is only a part of the problem. It is the progressive ideas that he backs which make me nervous. They don’t seem aimed at correcting past wrongs, they seem aimed at creating new wrongs-just in the opposite direction. Religious freedom-don’t need that at least not anywhere near the public square. Discrimination against anyone except certain chosen minorities-Aokay It really is like we are two different cultures and I’m not sure our ideas, outside of a really free environment, which we don’t have and aren’t gonna have, can co-exist. The idea that eventually my neighbor might truly become my enemy makes me nervous. Anyone who isn’t nervous, on either side, I think is missing the monumental changes that are occurring right now. Changes I’m not at all sure people will just agree to accept. So irrational fear-I don’t think so. And the anger and hate-I can see and hear in people -it should scare everyone.

      • VH,
        I agree the UN part is ridiculous on so many levels.

        But I don’t see anything in there that answers my question:

        Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

        • Well, I suppose the only documented actual use of guns to stop government oppression in this Country-I would say the Civil War-whether or not it stopped the oppression, depends on ones opinion. And even that was more of government against government.

          But I will repeat, IMHO, it is a right that one hopes, the mere knowledge that we have them and the mentality of freedom to fight, will make actual raising of arms not necessary.

          • VH,
            The Civil War is mixed bag. Who was oppressing who? Fed’s oppressing the South? The South oppressing slaves? Who stopped what oppression?

    • Gman,
      The problem with this is these are loaded questions with no basis in reality, and his “sample” of LEO is small and obviously shares his view of Obama and Democrats in general.

  58. December 19, 2012
    American Peasantry
    By Tom Trinko

    For there to be a king there must be peasants. Peasants aren’t defined by their wealth but by their belief that others should rule them.

    Generally speaking peasants believe as they do either because they have been taught since birth that the King is better than they are or because without the King they feel they would not survive in a dangerous world. While America was founded by the antithesis of peasants, liberals have been working to reestablish the peasant class because liberals view themselves as the modern nobility; wiser, kinder, more knowing than the folk in flyover country and obligated by their superiority to rule over others. We see this when Obama
    complains about having to deal with Congress, even a Congress run by his own party, or when Obama says he’s envious of how the Chinese leader rules China.

    The DNA of Americans is such that any attempt to produce a peasant class by convincing folks that liberals are superior to the average Joe or Jane is doomed to failure. As a result, liberals have taken the second path — frighten the people to the extent that they feel the government is the only source of safety. The liberal social experiment began with Obama’s icon FDR. Like Obama, FDR inherited a very bad economy, and like Obama FDR made the situation worse through poorly-formulated government plans. But both men realized that the more that people depended on the government for their daily bread, the more power the government could wield.

    A bad economy worked in both FDR and Obama’s favor because it put fear into Americans; sufficient fear that they would turn to government largess as a seemingly safe haven in a time of economic despair. Any candidate who tried to point out that welfare only works until you run out of other people’s money stands little chance of getting the votes of people convinced that lavish government spending is their only chance to survive.

    The reelection of Obama is not surprising. FDR was reelected even though the U.S. economy didn’t recover until, and because of, WWII. Even FDR’s support of England — which was very unpopular in the days before Pearl Harbor — couldn’t get FDR thrown out of office. In the same way, Obama’s continued support for the war in Afghanistan and the Gitmo detention facility didn’t adversely impact Obama’s reelection.

    What kept both men in office was the fear of Americans who believed that without the massive government spending on welfare, jobs programs and so on that Obama and FDR supported, they would starve.

    Prior to FDR, taking care of the poor was an exercise for private charities. And even in the depths of the Depression, only a tiny number of people died due to poverty. But FDR started the process of making it acceptable for people to live on the government dole without being ashamed, a change that was crucial to making a new class of American peasants.

    The momentum picked up under LBJ, whose “Great Society” made it acceptable to spend one’s whole life on welfare while having a series of illegitimate children; destroying the black family in the process. While one may argue that LBJ didn’t intend to create a peasant class, by the 1970’s it was obvious that the “Great Society” was creating an underclass wedded to multi-generational welfare.

    Yet liberals fought tooth and nail to avoid reforming welfare. Bill Clinton only agreed to welfare reform when it became clear he wouldn’t get reelected if he didn’t. Obama gutted welfare reform in order to return as many Americans to economic dependency as he could. He was rejuvenating the peasant class.

    Having succeeded in making living off their neighbors through massive government transfers of wealth socially acceptable, the next step liberals took to create the new peasant class was to convince Americans that without government intervention the average person would be exploited and even killed by the private sector, the environment, or their neighbors.

    How often do we see the liberal culture and the government blame companies for every ill of society? Guns kill people; letting killers out of jail doesn’t kill people. We need the government to keep people from having guns or we will all be killed. Corporations rip everyone off and exploit their workers. Without the government corporations would make us all slaves while selling us carcinogenic food and destroying the environment. We need a massive government to avoid death by global warming. We need a massive government to prevent pharmaceutical companies from selling dangerous products. If you’re black whites are out to kill you, and only the government can save you. If you’re a union member, conservatives want to reintroduce slavery — only the government can save you. If you’re Hispanic, conservatives want to exploit you and only the government can protect you.

    It is not by accident that liberals unleash an unending stream of scare stories in which the only way to avoid a messy, early, and unpleasant demise is by giving the government more control over your life. Even people who don’t need the government to pay for their housing and food can be convinced that government should be all-powerful in order to protect the average American from rapacious corporations and the unending list of new and more horrifying dangers lurking around every corner.

    A third aspect of the liberal plan was their changes to immigration laws that made it easier for people from countries where they had learned that rights flow from the government not from God to enter this country. Liberals support illegals because illegals are in a precarious situation and massive government, so long as it views illegals as its friends, is seen as a protector.

    Liberal efforts to break up the family — so successful with Black Americans in the 1960s and 1970s — are based on the need to eliminate a familial support structure. While Hillary believes we need a village to raise a child, she’s thinking in terms of government not in terms of extended families. If you have no family to turn to allowing the government to control your life in return for security becomes a more credible option.

    Finally liberals have worked to make America a land of people, not of laws. The original intent of the Constitution was that it should apply to all people equally and that it should be based on the will of the voters. Liberals have subverted both of those concepts in ways that make people more comfortable with the creeping autocracy of the government. Hate crimes, for example, are a way to allow favored minorities, usually members of the new peasant class, to receive more protection under the law. A crime against a member of a protected group can be prosecuted twice, with the perp facing a harsher penalty. Similar discrimination against Blacks is illegal, as it should be, but discriminating against whites and Asians is in fact enshrined in current law.

    Additionally, the law has been taken out of the hands of the people’s representatives via the obscene concept of judicial activism. The Supreme Court is no longer a court; instead it is a collective monarchy which feels comfortable with remaking the law as it sees fit rather than interpreting the law in light of the intentions of the elected people who passed the law. From Miranda to Roe v. Wade to the latest ruling on ObamaCare, Americans under 50 years of age have grown up seeing that the Supreme Court can turn the legal system on its head with a single opinion. Congress is nothing unless the Supreme Court approves and the Constitution is a living document that the Court can reshape at will based on the latest liberal trends.

    Liberals are not advocating a monarchy — that pesky American DNA again — because they have learned that elections are fine as long as the peasant class is large enough. Once a sufficiently large percentage of the population believes that they need to bow to the government in order to survive, no politician who advocates self-reliance and independence can hope to win.

    The new peasant class feels comfortable with taking money from their neighbors via the government, with allowing government to control their lives — for their own good, of course — with the courts having super legislative power, and with a government based on people, not on laws. They feel that way because they believe the alternative is literally fatal.

    Many of those who voted for Obama did so more out of ignorance than because they belong to the new peasant class but because they were affected, if not controlled, by their fear of what would happen if they had to live without the government being there. For a young single woman in a culture that allows men use to women and then dump the woman and her children it’s not irrational to turn to the government to provide the support that used to come from families and husbands especially if you come from a broken family yourself. Over time many of these people will fall into the peasant class especially as the economy worsens.

    A nation cannot exist half peasant and half free because eventually the free will not be able to support the peasants. When that happens societal chaos that often results in dictatorships and far more blatant oppression than even Obama advocates is likely to occur.

    The challenge America faces is how to turn the peasant class back into the independent people they can be. If we don’t succeed in the near term it will happen in the long term with the collapse of our economy. We can see the future in Europe; the Europe of today and of the 1930s where economic collapse lead to Fascism and the Holocaust.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/american_peasantry.html#ixzz2FVs0vWXw

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Since Mathius has decided to hide under his blanket, and Buck and Todd are pretty busy during the day I will make one objection.

      As is often the case with otherwise good thinking the author strays by using stereo types or label without defining them. The culprit this time is the use of the word:

      LIBERAL

      Who are these “Liberals” who wish to destroy the family or who have “intentionally” worked to destroy the Black American?

      While I know some personally who do think like this, I bet all people who consider themselves “liberal” would not condone such policies. And many more who would not agree but don’t realize they indirectly support them by supporting certain Progressive policies.

      One other point…………….FASCISM existed prior to the 1930’s, in both the USA and Europe. Its growth had nothing to do with the economic crash or the hyperinflation of Germany. The latter was how the Nazis were able to rest control from the Socialists under the guise of fighting the Communists. While the Nazis are considered a form of Fascism they were not the first form of this political/economic system.

      • Okay, he didn’t use qualifiers. And some of his language has the effect of making many people who disagree with him stop listening. It is a problem, which both sides need to realize hurts their chances of changing anyone’s minds. None the less-it is true of most articles I read, no matter who writes them. Sometimes I go to the trouble of pointing things out -sometimes I don’t.

        But the majority of the article I agree with and think makes many very good points.

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” For there to be a king there must be peasants. Peasants aren’t defined by their wealth but by their belief that others should rule them.

      Generally speaking peasants believe as they do either because they have been taught since birth that the King is better than they are or because without the King they feel they would not survive in a dangerous world. While America was founded by the antithesis of peasants, liberals have been working to reestablish the peasant class because liberals view themselves as the modern nobility; wiser, kinder, more knowing than the folk in flyover country and obligated by their superiority to rule over others. We see this when Obama complains about having to deal with Congress, even a Congress run by his own party, or when Obama says he’s envious of how the Chinese leader rules China. ”

      What I think is so interesting about this, is that millions/billions of people are what is considered to be of noble blood. many ‘peasants’ ARE royalty, lol.

      One of the things I have been researching a bit recently is bloodlines. There is a great deal of information out there. When you put it all together, it draws a rather interesting picture.

      A lot of the blood ended up in the US from north/central Europe. When you trace it all back far enough, you end up with lines mixing and going through Israel and ancient Egypt all that way back to ancient Sumeria and who knows where else.

      If you research enough ancient and/or religious texts, legends,myths etc, you will begin to see a lot of commonality among them. One correlation in particular that I find interesting is the book of Genesis vs. Sumerian writings. Everything I have researched seems to suggest that we are a hybrid species.

      There has been a lot of effort with respect to genetic research to try and track mutations and markers to discern migrations throughout history. One of the things they have found is that there are certain unique genetic traits associated with RH- blood that cannot be found anywhere else on Earth. Thus far, as I understand it, it has been traced back to four females in the Basque region of Spain and France.

      When you look further into what is RH- blood, you can see a number of bizarre characteristics. For example the way it affects pregnancy with fetus rejection issues, or certain health issues, …and what about all the people grouping up on blogs to discuss strange things like disrupting electronic devices, inherent knowledge, etc…?

      My best guess is that we are a hybrid of about two or three species, with about 2+ billion of us having something else coming out of the basque region…among other places, this blood spread and went through the royal houses of of north/central Europe and apparently everywhere else…much of it to the US.

      Check this out;

      Get on Google Earth and look at the aerial view of Versailles. See the owl and the Basin de’ Neptune and Bassin de Mirrior and Basin d’ Apollon?

      Notice there are paths and monuments and obelisks everywhere. If you care to take the time to start drawing a bunch of lines, you will see that they correspond to other points and paths, etc all over the world. It kinda looks like a family tree if you ask me.

      Notice that many of the corresponding US cities have a Fleur de’ lis in their symbolism, as well as French names as they were predominately settled by French people.

      We’re all related somehow. It would be interesting to see what we are all made of, our DNA and origin.

      It’s all connected somehow, in one way or another.

      • Black Flag® says:

        True.
        Simply math proof.

        You have 2 parents, who have 2 parents each, who have 2 parents each, and so one.
        2 parents
        4 grand parents
        8 great grand parents
        16 great great grand parents…

        30 generations later, you have
        1 billion great-great-great (27 more times) grandparents.

        30 Generations…. or about 750 years…(25 years a generation) -1262

        The population of the entire world was less than a billion in 1262.

        This means that everyone alive today is related, somehow, to everyone alive today (within your own race, at a minimum)

        • Bottom Line says:

          Yep.

          …gets real big real fast…

          I went digging into my genealogy and basically got lost in the exponential nature of it. Digging, and more digging, cross referencing, scrolling out big pieces of paper, writing dates, etc…

          I have been reading a great deal of history this year, and have learned so much…having more questions than answers.

          Bloodline conspiracy theories are fun reading too. I am still trying to figure what happened to the lost dauphin as well as a few other discrepancies surrounding circumstances involving reputable people.

          Consider how much blue blood got loose, and how many illegitimate bloodlines of kings past are out there. Apply some mixing through generations and your stated math above, and viola’ …a huge population of blue bloods…whatever a blue blood actually is…

          It kinda renders the concept of divine right to rule as laughable nonsense.

          It’s the little things that get me to wondering though. For example, I remember reading somewhere that King Louis XVI used to hang out in in his country club, while there, he would receive lessons of sorts to learn how to get too drunk, swear, dress and act as a commoner. He didn’t like his boys wearing royal sissy clothes either.

          Kinda makes ya wonder why …not that eccentric royals is hard to imagine, but is just curious.

  59. So who wants a gun ban that would have left this girl defenseless?

    http://newsok.com/durant-girl-12-talks-about-shooting-home-intruder/article/3720428

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    An HONEST answer from a modern lefty. A response to me pointing out that supporting the proposition that we take money from well off people to pay for the social security and medicare of others is in principle nothing but condoning theft.

    Darksilverstreak
    yes, I do. You can word it however you’d like to, in order for it to sound nasty, but I do condone and WANT a society where everyone is taken care of to a degree. You can call it whatever you want, but no man is an island, and greed is no excuse for allowing your fellow man to suffer, even if it is his “fault”. You’re position is so close-minded and reflective of a brash world view. At least I am willing to look at it and see that the rhetoric of America is not the America we live in. I’m sorry that you don’t see how the connectedness, but until you do, we will keep having these problems. Self-reliance is a messaging term that means GREED.

    Note how self-reliance is considered a “messaging term” meaning greed. Now think back to statements made here a week or two ago by both Todd and Charlie about how simple statements actually meant something else. The discussion on a statement being factual and absurd was one example. Tagging the statement as absurd required assigning hidden meaning or interpretations to the “fact” that were not included.

    I believe this is part of the reason the Left and Right, or Liberal and Conservative, have so much trouble communicating. We actually do live in different worlds.

    • Good lord.

    • That communication gap needs to be plugged before any problems can get settled. Otherwise we’ll just continue to spin our wheels like we have been for years.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Anita,

      That communication gap is an intentional product of our educational system and our “media”. Don’t expect it to be “plugged” any time soon.

    • JAC,

      Note how self-reliance is considered a “messaging term” meaning greed. Now think back to statements made here a week or two ago by both Todd and Charlie about how simple statements actually meant something else. The discussion on a statement being factual and absurd was one example. Tagging the statement as absurd required assigning hidden meaning or interpretations to the “fact” that were not included.

      So you don’t think that a statement can have a hidden meaning?

      But just 3 hours later you accuse Darksilverstreak of a VEILED INSULT TO MY INTELLIGENCE:

      And, we disagree on the point that we DO owe for our successes. I simply do not care about those who object to realities of the highly complex elements of our economic system. THIS OF COURSE IS THE VEILED INSULT TO MY INTELLIGENCE, I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND, I AM NOT ENLIGHTENED.

      Is it just me, or are you saying that Darksilverstreak’s comment contained a hidden meaning that you consider a VEILED INSULT?

      What’s the difference between a hidden meaning and a VEILED INSULT?

      I believe this is part of the reason the Left and Right, or Liberal and Conservative, have so much trouble communicating. We actually do live in different worlds.

      Yes, it’s called reality vs right-wing-Ayn-Rand-ideology.

      PS – Self-reliance is a messaging term that means GREED – I like that – I’ll have to remember that one – Thanks! 😉

      PPS – If you really think a message can’t have a hidden meaning, I guess I’ve been a little too subtle here at SUFA…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Yes, a phrase or message can have a hidden meaning. But that requires deliberate construction of said phrase or message for that purpose. And of course a target audience that understands the message.

        In this situation, and the one I mentioned on SUFA, it was simply a person, of the left in this case, claiming there is a hidden meaning, or in fact an entirely different meaning than the plain words would indicate.

        Self reliance = Greed for example. Those who support the concept of self-reliance do not push this as some code to their followers that GREED is good. There is no hidden meaning to the audience. But this fella thinks it means greed. Not that it has a hidden meaning but that in HIS MIND it means something completely different than what is actually being said. Kind of makes me wonder what he thinks the word “responsibility” might really mean.

        As for veiled insult, that is reference to a more polite or subtle version as opposed to the in your face type I get often at Huff Po. His intended insult was not hidden. It was simply subtle. And I must have not been off base because this person apologized later, claiming he was talking about a group and not me in particular. We ended the discussion agreeing to disagree while wishing each other a Merry Christmas.

        Ayn Rand was real. Her philosophy is real and includes concepts and principles that are hundreds of years old. So your claim that her philosophy is opposed to reality is simply ridiculous.

        I would say that using that retort shows a lack of thinking by the accuser. If one cannot explain why her philosophy is wrong then relying on “it isn’t reality” seems to be the default argument.

        • JAC,
          The statement was something like “The white man didn’t start slavery, but the white man was the first to end it.”

          The hidden meanings or VEILED INSULTS is that somehow, after centuries of slavery, we should give the white praise because some of them forced others to end it. And even after it “officially” end, many white men did everything they could to continue to oppress the former slaves and their descendants. Not really praise-worthy.

          I’d say it’s pretty obvious there’s a deliberate construction of said phrase or message for that purpose and of course a target audience that understands the message.

          Self reliance = Greed for example. Those who support the concept of self-reliance do not push this as some code to their followers that GREED is good. There is no hidden meaning to the audience.

          That’s only your opinion. I see plenty of people pushing that message, who are nowhere near as Self reliant as they say they are, using it as an excuse to not help others.

          There’s no real difference between hidden meanings, veiled insults, or subtle insults. They’re all a way of conveying a message without actually saying it. It gives you “deniability” if someone calls you out on it.

          And the fact remains that you see hidden meanings or veiled or subtle insults when you feel they’re aimed at you, but not when they’re aimed at others.

          Yes, Ayn Rand was real and so is her philosophy. But the way she portrayed it in her books is not based on reality. She painted a picture of an extreme version that contained plenty of hidden meanings and veiled and subtle insults aimed at the “non-productive” – the workers who are nothing but tools to be exploited by her “heroes”. This attitude is now in full display by the “right” who talk about the “makers” and the “takers”.

          It’s the epitome of “class warfare”.

          That’s why her philosophy is wrong and isn’t based on reality.

    • Talk about misrepresentations … Holy Baloney, Batman!

      When you REMOVE a factual statement from the context it is used, it is FACT. It becomes an absurd fact when you put it back into context (the argument was over the defense of white men article wherein it was stated something to the effect, “it is also true that white men ended slavery.”

      The statement removed from the context is factual. It is also factual if you ignore the context it was written (as a defense of white men in general). Considering the fact white men were mostly responsible for slavery in the southern states, claiming they ended slavery (without getting into those who fought a war to maintain slavery) … it’s just an absurd statement to claim “white men ended slavery” … there were plenty who died to maintain slavery.

      Some white men were responsible for ending slavery … just as some were responsible for maintaining it …

      • Black Flag® says:

        Some white men were responsible for ending slavery … just as some were responsible for maintaining it …

        What happened to old Charlie?
        Did he hit his head on something?
        Has he been stole by aliens and this is an imposter?

        Where did this display of argumentative reasoning come from?
        Where was it over the last two years??

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting new survey on religious groups. Notice the headline and how the actual data gives you a different perspective. Damn media maggots. Ooops, sorry for letting my thinking get on paper.

    Also………Hey Black Flag…………I thought you said the Christians were far outnumbered. Looks to me like the Christians should strike now while they still have the numbers in their favor.

    OK, something went wrong. I’ll have to go get the link again. Back in a jiff.

    • Just A Citizen says:
    • White House buckling on HHS mandate?
      posted at 1:01 pm on December 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

      An appeals court reinstated lawsuits from Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College against the HHS contraception mandate, overruling district courts that had ruled the lawsuits as “premature.” The recognition of the DC Circuit of the immediate threat to religious liberty would have been a big, albeit temporary victory for The Becket Fund, which represents the plaintiffs in these cases. However, as TBF explained in its press release and may have been overlooked otherwise, the court forced the Obama administration into conceding that the HHS mandate will be substantially reworked in the near future, emphases mine:

      Today, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate. Last summer, two lower courts had dismissed the Colleges’ cases as premature. Today, the appellate court reinstated those cases, and ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom. The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013.

      The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups. Second, the government promised it would publish a proposed new rule “in the first quarter of 2013” and would finalize it by next August. The administration made both concessions under intense questioning by the appellate judges. The court deemed the concessions a “binding commitment” and has retained jurisdiction over the case to ensure the government follows through.

      “This is a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious non-profits challenging the mandate,” said Duncan. “The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word.”

      While the government had previously announced plans to create a new rule, it has not yet taken the steps necessary to make that promise legally binding. Lower courts dismissed the colleges’ cases while the government contemplated a new rule, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the cases should stay alive while it scrutinizes whether the government will meet its promised deadlines. The court acted quickly, issuing Tuesday’s order just days after hearing lengthy arguments.

      First, it’s interesting that the White House hasn’t announced a review of its HHS contraception mandate outside of court. As far as is publicly known, the Obama administration considered its “accommodation” in the spring of this year as its final word, and had every intention of enforcing it. Until now, the suggestion that the rule was under review was an argument intended to delay judicial scrutiny of the administration’s attempt to impose its own definition of “worship” via bureaucratic decree.

      This decision forces an end to that strategy. The “intense questioning” forced the administration to make what the appellate court considers a binding submission, and now has to produce a revamped rule that won’t infringe on religious liberty. It’s worth pointing out at this juncture that the Obama administration insisted that its “accommodation” didn’t infringe on religious liberty, so this concession gives the strong impression that the White House’s legal team is admitting that it in fact does infringe on the freedom of religious expression.

      Now that the administration’s legal team has admitted that much and committed to a change in March, perhaps we can speed it up so that the Little Sisters of the Poor don’t have to flee the country:

      A religious order of nuns is concerned about its future presence in the United States because of Obamacare’s impact on its charitable operations. The Little Sisters of the Poor told The Daily Caller that it may not qualify for a long-term exemption from Obamacare’s healthcare mandate. The law requires the order to provide government-approved health insurance to its 300 sisters who tend to the elderly in 30 U.S. cities.

      The exception is needed, said Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, the Little Sisters’ communications director, because Catholic teaching opposes contraception and medical treatments that cause sterility or can cause abortions.

      President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul law requires employers to include those services in qualifying health care plans they provide for their employees. Failure to comply will bring hefty fines — even for religious orders whose members have taken vows of poverty.

      “[I]t could be a serious threat to our mission in the U.S.,” Constance told TheDC, “because we would never be able to afford to pay the fines involved. We have difficulty making ends meet just on a regular basis; we have no extra funding that would cover these fines.”

      When the government requires a religious order to provide free contraception coverage to celibate nuns, we’ve gone beyond political satire and into the bureaucratic deep weeds.

      http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/19/white-house-buckling-on-hhs-mandate/

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Followup discussion with same person I posted earlier. Sorry but Huff Po cut off both discussions due to length. At this point I was responding to the notion that Soc Sec was somehow a retirement system and that is was “deserved”, combined with his view that he “owed” others due to his business success. My comments beginning is a response to why using Govt Force to enforce charity is corrosive to civilization itself. He had claimed that Govt enforced programs are necessary for civilization.

    “Dark

    It becomes corrosive when you use govt to force it on others. It corrodes directly and indirectly because once you open that door for idea #1 there is somebody with idea #2.

    Now lets deal with Soc Sec. If it were set up as Individual Retirement Accounts and we had to contribute enough to actually support ourselves then it might work.

    Its initial and current construct won’t work. It will eventually cause somebody to use Govt force to take from one person and give to another. This works as long as those being forced to give don’t get upset. But eventually the takers get greedy also. That has been the history of such things. No just my opinion.

    However, my view of SS today is that WE as a people made a promise. We need to make sure that promise is kept to those who need it now and who have no time to adjust to a different system.

    You and I did not accomplish our lives alone. But we do not owe others anything due to that success. It was accomplished by VOLUNTARY trade between individuals. Those trades, whether money or labor, stood on their own. NOTE: THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE OFTEN QUOTED ATTACK BY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT THAT “WE ARE NOT AN ISLAND”. THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST USED QUOTE BY THE LEFT, FOLLOWED BY HITLER.

    If you want to help good people that are down and out then feel free to do so. I do and I expect you do as well.

    I am simply saying do not use Govt to enforce your charity on others. When we stop forcing others to comply we get a more” civilization.

    Darksilverstreak on Dec 19, 2012 at 14:13:00
    “I could make a case against each point you’ve made, but instead, I think I’ll simply comment on what seems to be behind the commentary- you simply don’t want to give anything to anyone else. You’ve stated as much somewhat more clearly with : “This works as long as those being forced to give don’t get upset.” NOTE: SEE HOW MY WORDS ARE TWISTED TO MEAN I DON’T WANT TO GIVE TO ANYONE, DESPITE DIRECTLY STATING I DO GIVE TO OTHERS ALREADY, VOLUNTARILY.

    Just because a person is upset doesn’t mean that they must be placated inherently. You are seeing it as being forced, I am seeing it as the price for civilization. TO WHICH MY LAST RESPONSE WAS “SO YOU CONDONE AND SUPPORT GOVT THEFT TO SUPPORT CIVILIZATION?”

    And, we disagree on the point that we DO owe for our successes. I simply do not care about those who object to realities of the highly complex elements of our economic system. THIS OF COURSE IS THE VEILED INSULT TO MY INTELLIGENCE, I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND, I AM NOT ENLIGHTENED.

    Wealth can only exist when a CRAPLOAD of people don’t have wealth- capitalism is a pyramid, with massive forces keeping people where they are, with little beyond rhetoric to placate them. Hence, why we OWE it to them to make sure they have dignity later in life. CHARLIE STELLA SHOULD BE PROUD OF THIS GUY. AT THIS POINT I WONDERED WHETHER THIS WAS CHARLIE.

    We can argue about the $ amount tied to that, but your scenario is rooted in ideology rather than reality. THE AGE OLD FALLACY THAT SOMEHOW REALITY AND IDEOLOGY ARE INCOMPATIBLE. HE WAS AHEAD WITH “I SIMPLY DISAGREE”.

    Sure it would be great for everyone to take care of themselves and boot straps and what not. Most people do not have the mental or physical capacity to do so, or they may simply not want to. Why should they be punished for choosing to not work as hard as you or I? why do we fetishize productivity to the level we do….where one’s dignity and” SORRY BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE END WAS, HP CUT IT OFF. BUT I THINK THIS IS ENOUGH TO GET THE IDEA. QUITE BAFFLING FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME. I SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. IT DOES NOT COMPUTE.

    WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE THOSE WHO ARE “UNWILLING” TO WORK OR WHO “CHOOSE” NOT TO WORK AS HARD AS WE DO.

    HERE I MUST GIVE CREDIT TO OUR RESIDENT LEFTIES. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHARLIE I THINK THEY WOULD FIND THIS THINKING A LITTLE OFF AS WELL.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      Just tell this clown that if you have to use FORCE in order to get Peter to give something to Paul because Paul is “in need”, then BY DEFINITION IT IS NOT CHARITY. Charity is WILLINGLY giving to others who are more needy BY YOUR OWN VOLITION.

      Using FORCE to EXTRACT WEALTH from Peter to give it to Paul who is “in need” is merely THEFT, also BY DEFINITION.

      “Leftists” seem to believe that the vast majority of people are UNWILLING to FREELY give of their wealth to support the needy, so they feel MORALLY OBLIGATED to STEAL FROM YOU in order to “support the needy”.

      Of course, they completely ignore the FACT that you WILLINGLY GIVE TO CHARITY IN SPITE OF AND IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN ROBBED FOR SUPPOSEDLY THE SAME PURPOSE!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Peter

        Good to see you around my Indy friend. Got to be happy with the Colts this year.

        He already accepted that premise Peter. He said he did not care if it was theft as it was necessary to hold civilization together. That we OWE the less fortunate a “life of dignity” when they get old.

        There is no rational or logical argument against this Peter. In fact I have ended the discussion and done so on a very civil note. At least the guy was respectful and in the end apologized for misrepresenting my personal view on charity. Instead he just assigned it to the “rest of the group” to which I belong. 🙂

        By the way, his last comment was WE ARE NOT FREE, and we GIVE UP FREEDOM IN ORDER TO BE CIVILIZED.

        This is the mind set that Ayn Rand dealt with in her Rational Egoism or Rational Self-Interest. This fellow has either never seen these arguments or has simply rejected them as “not reality”.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC,

          In many ways, when it comes to Freedom, reality is what we make it.

          If enough people UNDERSTAND freedom and desire to be free, then the people will have freedom. If too many people believe that being a slave to the government is the safe way to go, then we will be enslaved to the government.

          Sadly, the government makes slavery a fairly attractive option these days… one can be a pretty comfortable slave in this country right now. Instead of forcing the slaves to work and produce, the government forces the current slaves to be as close to completely unproductive as possible, and PAYS THEM for non-productivity. In fact, the more of a net DRAIN a person is on the economy and society, the more rewards they get from the government.

          The poor unfortunate fellow that you were debating does not realize that by giving up freedom you DO NOT GET CIVILITY, YOU GET TYRANNY. Too bad he is so benighted.

  63. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The sad fact is, for at least 50 years now, the trend in “education” has been to STOP TEACHING KIDS HOW TO THINK, and to ONLY teach them WHAT TO THINK. This is the sole, true reason for us losing our freedom and our rights.

    If you do not know how to think, and only know how to listen to what other people tell you to think, you lack the capability to even reason out basic human rights such as the right to bear arms and the right to protect yourself and your family.

    Many of the people here debating “gun control” show this distinct lack of ability to think for themselves and reason out natural rights for themselves. It is clear they only know “what to think” and either forgot, or were never taught “how to think”. This goes for a LOT of people on EITHER SIDE of this issue by the way, so DO NOT make the mistake that I am “picking on” one particular “side” or the other.

    • Hey, how did YOU GUYS get to pick Luck and do so well out of the gate? We lose just about every year and wind up with garbage.

      As to this: The sad fact is, for at least 50 years now, the trend in “education” has been to STOP TEACHING KIDS HOW TO THINK, and to ONLY teach them WHAT TO THINK. This is the sole, true reason for us losing our freedom and our rights.

      Can you provide some proof other than your opinion?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And WE got Wilson…..long after your Bills drafted several guys.

        Bwahahahahaha…

        Of course we could have had Kellen Moore as well but let the Lions get him.

      • Charlie,

        Can you provide some proof other than your opinion?

        My thought exactly.

        Although, SUFA might offer some evidence of this for a certain group of people… 😉

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Charlie,

        All you need for “proof” is to examine how the vast majority of people behave (and it doesn’t matter whether they are “Republican” or “Democrat”). Most people FIRMLY BELIEVE in one particular position on almost every issue, and when you challenge them with logic, they do NOT attempt to refute you or to defend their own position logically, they merely ATTACK you.

        They are INCAPABLE of logically defending their position, because THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TAUGHT HOW TO DO SO!

        I, myself, was incredibly lucky. I went to one of the most liberal of Liberal Arts Colleges in the country, but the professors there believed that teaching their students HOW to think was more important than teaching them WHAT to think, so I learned logic, reason, and critical thinking skills. As a result, my position on many issues has changed over time as I let go of my prejudices and allow myself to critically evaluate things rather than cling to a knee-jerk position that I cannot logically defend.

        For example, I used to be against “gay marriage”. Part of me STILL doesn’t like the idea. However; over time I came to realize that 2 people (regardless of the sex of either person) getting married to each other cannot in any way create an imposition upon me other than perhaps “offending my sensibilities”. That being the case, I see no reason why they should not be free to get married.

        Talk to any “right-winger” that is totally against gay marriage, and you WILL NOT get a logical defense of their position (in the vast majority of cases anyway) but instead you will get ideological dogma, and you will probably get called names or threatened if you try to refute their position logically.

        The same goes for the whole “AGW-hysteria” thing. If you try to logically refute the central tenets of the AGW belief system, you will RARELY get a logical scientific refutation. Instead, you will get labeled “unscientific” or “denier”. I find it funny that the skeptics who are using logic and data to defend their own position are getting called unscientific deniers by the AGW believers, who cannot use logic and critical thinking to defend their own position but instead have to resort to straw-men and ad hominem attacks.

        Pick any side of any issue, and you find pretty much the same thing. People who have been taught WHAT to think, but not HOW to think.

        • Peter,

          I, myself, was incredibly lucky. I went to one of the most liberal of Liberal Arts Colleges in the country, but the professors there believed that teaching their students HOW to think was more important than teaching them WHAT to think, so I learned logic, reason, and critical thinking skills. As a result, my position on many issues has changed over time as I let go of my prejudices and allow myself to critically evaluate things rather than cling to a knee-jerk position that I cannot logically defend.

          Doesn’t this contradict your previous comment? A Liberal Arts College taught you critical thinking skills. Why do you think they don’t so that for others?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        My friend Randy has a son in middle school. In his “social studies” class they were given a piece of paper for homework which listed several “problems” that many people had. These were listed down the left side of the page.

        Down the right side of the page was a list of government agencies. The instructions for the assignment were to match up the “problem” with the appropriate government agency which would “solve” the problem for you.

        For example, if you didn’t have enough money for food, you would go to the welfare office.

        If you were were having problems with your family, you would go to social services, etc.

        Randy’s son took the homework home, and Randy helped him work on it.

        He provided the following answers:

        If you are hungry – go to a local food pantry or private charity.
        If you are having family problems – go to your priest, pastor, rabbi, etc.

        Randy and his son discussed every single question and for each question came up with a PRIVATE, NON-GOVERNMENTAL way to “solve” each and every problem, and provided those as the answers rather than “matching the appropriate government agency to the problem”.

        Randy’s son LEARNED SOMETHING; namely that their are plenty of other ways BESIDES GOVERNMENT to help solve your problems.

        However, he was given an F on the assignment for “not following instructions”.

        THAT is how our kids are being taught these days….

  64. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Why is it that when a government commits mass murder, many people find it laudable, yet when an individual commits mass murder those same people call it “crazy”. IMHO, mass murder is crazy no matter who is committing it….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Oh my indeed. I didn’t see a space shuttle.

      I saw some stick man with a very strange hat, holding a spear and standing on a heart.

      Maybe I do have mental issues……………. 🙂 :). Couldn’t even see a simple joke in front of me.

      If that is his signature I think it is quite strange. Not the vertical thing, just the signature itself.

    • I believe his signature is a symbol of the man himself.

    • I wanna know what VH saw!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Don’t make her tell. I don’t want to change my view of her… 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        I almost forgot.

        Your ol’ Sparty Cousins put on a good show the other day. I was glad to see it.

        This years crop of QB’s may be even better than Morino, Kelly, Elway, et al.

        Now if my guy Moore could just get a chance to show his stuff. Maybe next year.

        • I missed the Redskins game 😦 The Lions might as well put Moore in there, Stafford hasn’t seemed to get the job done. It’s always close but no cigar with them!

  65. Well it’s about time. Call his bluff. And if he ain’t bluffin’, then let HIM push us over the cliff! I have heard all I want want to hear of him mouthing off about “Compromise”, when he shows no sign of actually, well, COMPROMISING!!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/19/talks-to-avert-fiscal-crisis-sour/

  66. JAC says: gman

    There is also a flaw in your arguments regarding conceal carry and having armed people around a public place. And this as well goes to the goal. Is it to STOP or to simply REDUCE.

    The recent Oregon mall shooting counters your argument if stopping is the goal.

    Conceal Carry is legal and well known here. And we have armed security in the malls. But the knowledge of these facts did not stop the kid from deliberately targeting the mall.

    I think we need to recognize that these mass murder suicides involve many motives and a disconnect in rational thinking. If their goal is to make a big splash going out, the presence of other armed people may just play into their desire to pick that target.

    If their goal is to simply get revenge on some group, then it might deter them.

    But it seems that most of these are murder suicides, which mean they are really just SUICIDES at the core. Why they decide to include others in their death pact may affect how they would react to knowing a place is armed against them, or it may not.

    In response, I don’t believe anything can stop a whackball from attempting a mass murder/suicide, short of blind luck or previous knowledge and reporting. I also don’t pprofess to understand their thinking. What I will say is I’d rather have an armed society to ppossibly limit the number of victims. I’m guessing that you are unaware of this story, from your recent mall shooting:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-citizen-not-police-prevented-massacre-in-oregon.html

    I’ll take an armed response by citizens over unfettered murder anyday.

    Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      I was aware of that story. I used it for that reason. It did not STOP this guy from picking the mall or shooting people.

      It prevented further deaths, but did not prevent death all together.

      This guy seems to have wanted to commit suicide, so he picked a very public place. His knowledge that people would be carrying guns there did not stop him from picking the mall.

      I do find it very interesting here. For a State that is so far left wing they certainly like their conceal carry permits. The odd thing is that in Montana we had the same relaxed laws. The difference was that in Montana you could see guns hanging on people’s hip our hanging out of their jackets.

      Here you see NOTHING. But you know they are there, hidden and being carried by who knows.

      But I feel far more nervous here than in Montana. Perhaps it is because there I could size up the person with the gun. Kind of evaluate them as to their “fitness”. Here I don’t know which one of the babbling, tattooed goof balls might be packing. Or is it the well dressed young lady in the corner of the train scowling at everybody?

      Of course they must think the same of me, because I certainly to garner the stares when moving about the city. I just can’t figure why I stick out so much. 🙂

  67. Then there is this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/numerous-school-massacres-stopped-by-gun-owners-who-wielded-their-weapons-in-defense-of-children.html

    Too bad most people who taught gun control are blind to these realities.

  68. Just A Citizen says:

    I need some HELP finding something on SUFA.

    Someone posted a video a while back of an accountant going over the Federal Budget and showing how it is impossible to balance with cuts or tax hikes.

    Can you repost it or direct me to where it is located. I haven’t been able to find via search and can’t remember who linked it or where.

    Thanks.

  69. @ Charlie, Note the following: .Request NotificationsHold at FedEx LocationObtain Proof of Delivery More actions
    Add Notes..StatusMultiple statuses – view details .
    Travel History Help Hide Date/Time Activity Location
    – 12/19/2012 – Wednesday
    1:57 pm Delivery exception AVENEL, NJ
    Customer not available or business closed
    8:05 am On FedEx vehicle for delivery AVENEL, NJ
    – 12/18/2012 – Tuesday
    1:19 pm Delivery exception AVENEL, NJ
    Customer not available or business closed
    7:57 am On FedEx vehicle for delivery AVENEL, NJ
    5:07 am At local FedEx facility AVENEL, NJ
    1:19 am Left FedEx origin facility DAYTON, NJ
    – 12/17/2012 – Monday
    7:54 pm Arrived at FedEx location DAYTON, NJ
    4:49 pm Picked up DAYTON, NJ
    – 12/14/2012 – Friday
    7:49 pm Shipment information sent to FedEx
    Tracking number 948350915082730
    Reference $AW
    Weight 3 lbs
    Total pieces 1
    Packaging Package
    Service FedEx Home Delivery
    Door tag number DT751882425121, DT752059527031
    Signature services Adult signature required
    Invoice number 17155
    Special handling section Adult Signature Required

    Call Fed Ex and make arrangements to get your package, don’t worry, it won’t explode 😆

  70. Things that make me wonder: What the hell are these people thinking? http://www.prisonplanet.com/reuters-calls-for-obama-to-act-as-dictator-to-ban-guns.html

    Now, to be honest, I could give a rats ass what Obama says. He can sign Executive orders till his fingers bleed, it means nothing to me. Know why? Because he can’t make laws. He can only sign or send back laws passed by Congress. It may be time to fully boycott these liberal media rags! What say you? 🙂

  71. @ JAC, I’ll take “preventing further deaths” over what the gun control kooks want. At least the law abiding citizens have a fighting chance. Banning this or that, or absolute gun control only weakens the law abiding populace, not the criminals. Are Liberals that ignorant that they can’t fathom this?

    As far as conceal carry goes, I don’t really pay attention to what others are looking like. I carry everywhere I go, even “no gun zones”. I don’t go into govt buildings armed though. I have no need to go in schools, so that’s not a problem.

    Peace 🙂

  72. I found a good article to help Todd to better understand some things :

    Todd says:
    December 19, 2012 at 2:31 am
    A common thread here is that private ownership of guns – the 2nd amendment – is what stops government oppression and keeps us free in this county. But is that really true? Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

    The changes in this country over the past two centuries have been legislative, many times spurred on my citizen protests (1st amendment), but never by threat of physical force (2nd amendment
    Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper believe the Second Amendment should be removed from the Bill of Rights and replaced with legislation “that makes sense for today’s world, not the world that existed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and certainly the Bill of Rights.”

    Mr. Stamper’s comment underscores widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its philosophical underpinnings.

    At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, it was generally accepted that an individual had a right to protect himself, his family and property. “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can,” said Patrick Henry.

    The Second Amendment was not created for that purpose or to establish a right to hunt – it was established as a bulwark against government tyranny.

    “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed — unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms,” wrote James Madison.

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

    But in today’s domesticated and metrosexualized world, the idea that citizens may have to protect themselves against government tyranny is almost completely lost.

    Mr. Stamper’s illogical argument about firearms made during an interview with AOL-Huffington Post is simply more evidence that the principles behind the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are almost completely lost.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-seattle-police-chief-demands-repeal-of-second-amendment.html

    Todd, you caught me off guard with this question, maybe I thought you would be more knowledgeable on the subject. This is a good explaination for you Todd, I’m sure you can understand it and hope that it answers your questions 🙂

    • Gman,
      That doesn’t address my question:

      Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?

      The founding fathers may have included the 2nd amendment to allow citizens to protect themselves against tyranny in government, but have citizens ever used these 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves against tyranny in government?

      Gman, I thought you would be more knowledgeable on the subject of the English Language and would be able to understand and answer this simple question. But you seem more interested in changing the subject. Why is that?

  73. Many times I have heard that the 2nd amendment is outdated and for that matter only applied to the arms of the times. After all, who among the founders could imagine that little black rifle Eugene Stoner designed in the 1950’s or, even for that matter, cartridge firearms capable of being loaded ten times in a minute such as the venerable trap door Springfield.

    Well, if the Chief has a point, and I am sure many think he does, then the simple retort is……Freedom of speech and the press only applies to the printed page and public speaking (without amplification) Since the founders could not have, for a minute imagined radio, telephony, television, telegraph, motion pictures, computers, internet, then obviously those things are not covered by the first amendment.

    That, ladies and gentlemen is what is referred to as tit for tat!

  74. @Todd,

    You ask, “Have guns ever been used to stop government oppression?”

    The answer is yes, everyday of our life. Each day, law abiding citizens carry weapons for protection, buy ans sell them, go to

    firing ranges to perfect their marksmanship skills, reload ammo, and during the legal hunting seasons, take to the woods in

    search of wild game. Today, with around 80 million “legal” gun owners, the deterence that comes with an armed society is what

    guarentees we all wake up with our natural and guarenteed rights still intact. While this isn’t a direct use against the

    government attacking the people (as I’m sure you will demand that rediculous example), deterence is in fact a USE.

    Todd, you then ask, “In the cases in your link, confiscating all guns made the massacres easier, but is there any evidence the

    massacres wouldn’t have occurred anyway?”

    I gave you 56 million reasons what gun control has led to. I will let you answer your own question !

    gmanfortruth says:
    December 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Hi Ya’ll

    Despite the warm weather, I managed to harvest another big doe this morning. It’s been a hard year due to weather being way

    to warm, but we keep trying.

    Charlie, who cares about slavery. It’s over and had nothing to do with us. I wish I could understand why you keep bringing it up

    Todd says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:39 am
    Gman,
    Because those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

    Todd, in case you can’t figure this out, just replace slavery with gun control, and you have answered your own question.

    Have a great day!

      • T-Ray,
        Good example – but the acting in that clip was pretty hokey!!

        But most of the arguments for the 2nd amendment revolve around an oppressive federal government. And many here talk about the local government being the place to focus our efforts – not fight oppression. Just an interesting contradiction.

    • Gman;

      The weather here in Michigan has been anything but ideal for harvesting those pesky ‘corn rats’, but do have one management buck in freezer. The rain has been the biggest deterent and the wind doesn’t seem to want to stop. Today with the storm coming we are hoping for some snow, but they are still calling for gusts up to 40. I don’t like setting in tree stands in 40 MPH winds.

      Do have grilled backstraps planned for Christmas Eve dinner along with some country ham and all the trimmings.

      My hunting buddy and I got introduced to a local crop farmer that wants to talk to us about assisting him with controling the deer population. Seems those critters have been hitting his orchards and produce fields pretty hard. So, if we get that set up we will have about 500 achers to patrol next year.

      Hope you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and prosperous New Year.

      CM

    • Gman,
      It’s really the guns that stop government oppression? Or is it the form of government that the founding fathers set up that stops government oppression?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        The form of Govt obviously does not stop it, well it has not stopped it. I do believe it SLOWED it.

        However, the form of Govt (Constitutional Republic) does provide us a peaceful means of reversing oppression and making it ever harder.

        But that would require about 75% of us to be on the same page.

        So in the end, who is going to win in this situation, the Govt or the Citizens?

        • JAC,
          You say it has not stopped it, but then you say it could stop it.

          If it can stop it, than all we have to do it use the Constitutional Republic to stop it. If we don’t, it’s our own fault.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            EXACTLY!

            Although it is really the Constitution part not the Republic part.

            If we do use it then the next question becomes what if the Govt ignores our efforts.

            This has happened in the States on various initiatives. But to my knowledge has not happened at the Federal Level. Well, lets take that back. Many simply ignored prohibition.

            • JAC,

              Although it is really the Constitution part not the Republic part.

              Fine. I was trying to use your term to be clear…nit pick much?? 😉

              If we do use it then the next question becomes what if the Govt ignores our efforts.

              Well, I guess then we really would have government oppression – or “in your other words”….tyranny… 😉

              But let’s not make assumptions about what would happen, ok? 😉

              This has happened in the States on various initiatives. But to my knowledge has not happened at the Federal Level. Well, lets take that back. Many simply ignored prohibition.

              Not sure what we’re taking back?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I was taking back the comment that we had never just ignored a Fed effort to oppress us.

                But in the end, we forced a change and killed the amendment with another one.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                Sorry, must not be focused. It was taking back that the Feds had ignored the PEOPLE. Like many States have done.

                The Feds ignored the public’s opposition to prohibition. They have also ignored the People’s desire to legalize medical marijuana. So there are two examples of the Fed Govt ignoring the Public efforts to pass initiatives.

                Now in fairness, the people did not try to pass a Constitutional Amendment and then have that ignored. In this day and age, I wonder how the Fed Govt would react to such a thing.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                I know you put up the smiley face but my nit picking was aimed at me, not you. I used the term and you repeated it. I was just clarifying which part of that was the REAL important part.

  75. It must be OK, in the left wing circles and media, for kids to be killed by gang bangers in Chicago. Strange, this ahs been going on for quite awhile and hardly a peep, yet a white guy freaks out and it’s the end of the world. I wish the lefties could at least be consistant. http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/chicago-446-school-age-children-shot-so-far-this-year-with-strongest-gun-laws-in-country-media-silent/

  76. HARROLD, Texas — In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don’t give much thought to safety at the community’s lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.

    In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff’s office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.

    “We don’t have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution,” Superintendent David Thweatt said. “A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master’s degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teachers-armed-guns-texas-school-article-1.1224257#ixzz2Fc6lGOLW

  77. All;

    Lot’s planned with family and hunting the rest of this year, so most likely won’t spend much time here next week. As such I want to wish everyone a blessed Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate. May it be filled with joy and only happy memories.

    Eat, drink, and be merry!!!

    May the creator keep everyone safe

    CM

  78. @CM, Thank You for your kind words and I would like to extend a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

    Good luck with helping the farmer, me and Pops are lucky to have the same priviledges here. The weather has stunk for hunting, tomorrow, we have a storm coming that may dump 6 to 12 inches of snow on us. That will make for a white Christmas 🙂 Three weeks of bow hunting thereafter to keep me busy in the woods, hopefully, snowy woods 🙂

    During the rifle season, I saw three yearlings for every adult deer. Not many deer harvested means lots more to go around. Maybe with some snow, I can throw on my ghillie suit ant do some good stilstalking.

    Peace and God Bless!

  79. Some interesting happenings here in Pennsylvania. Yesterday, the Butler County Sheriffs office had a line of 300 to 500 people outside it’s doors in the morning. This line continued throughout the day, with waits as long as 4 hours reported. Reason: Residents wanted conceal carry applications. This has also been reported in other counties in the area.

    My trip to get new tires today took me to Dunham Sporting Goods while waiting. The AR 15 Bushmasters were completely sold out and they were taking orders. As of this afternoon around 1 pm, they had over 150 rainchecks issued. As far as ammo for it, also sold out and on back order. This is a common theme at most gun stores in this area.. I’m glad all my needs are met 🙂

  80. Todd, Since you have so many questions, this may help

    SECOND AMENDMENT FOR DUMMIES & TYRANTS

    King Barry the Waster, has his latest “gun ban list.” The Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens. What many citizens and

    legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or

    possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this! Here is a little 2nd Amendment for

    Dummies and Tyrants.

    Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788. Lesson one comes from George Mason.

    George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” Seems to me a good person to

    listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.” Mason first explains the

    REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

    “Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by

    an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most

    effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally

    disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against

    the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to

    have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention,

    June 14, 1788

    In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government. But Mr. Mason doesn’t

    end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King

    Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

    “Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be

    protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of

    the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table

    gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason,

    Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

    So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND

    to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of

    foreign nations!

    Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster. Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he

    further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

    “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists

    among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of

    oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The

    supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and

    constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military

    force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they

    will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them

    unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

    King Barry the Waster, has his latest “gun ban list.” The Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens. What many citizens and

    legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or

    possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this! Here is a little 2nd Amendment for

    Dummies and Tyrants.

    Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788. Lesson one comes from George Mason.

    George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” Seems to me a good person to

    listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.” Mason first explains the

    REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

    “Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by

    an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most

    effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally

    disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against

    the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to

    have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention,

    June 14, 1788

    In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government. But Mr. Mason doesn’t

    end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King

    Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

    “Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be

    protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of

    the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table

    gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason,

    Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

    So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND

    to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of

    foreign nations!

    Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster. Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he

    further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

    “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists

    among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of

    oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The

    supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and

    constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military

    force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they

    will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them

    unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

    Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that. Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

    1. To prevent rule by a standing army;

    2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

    3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

    4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

    Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry

    Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence). This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and

    even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions. Mr. Lee explains,

    “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,

    especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every

    occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many

    men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

    Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

    Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his

    grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm. How about that directive that we also

    must teach our children to bear arms? I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.

    Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry. Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s

    duty to bear arms. No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will

    preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying

    Convention June 5, 1788

    “Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms,

    wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the

    punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one

    of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines

    of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

    Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants. Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO

    UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he

    knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

    Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it. The States are the

    final battleground against centralized tyranny. We will defend our States, until we regain our nation.

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of

    the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To

    deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the

    representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what

    their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

    In Liberty,

    KrisAnne

    KrisAnne Hall

    Interim President

    About KrisAnne Hall:

    KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to

    citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Her former

    employer, State Attorney for Florida’s 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on

    her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, “My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender

    them.” KrisAnne now serves as Unite In Action’s President and Director of Legal Affairs and travels the country teaching the

    Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.

    Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry. Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s

    duty to bear arms. No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will

    preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying

    Convention June 5, 1788

    “Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms,

    wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the

    punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one

    of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines

    of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

    Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants. Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO

    UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he

    knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

    Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it. The States are the

    final battleground against centralized tyranny. We will defend our States, until we regain our nation.

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of

    the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To

    deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the

    representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what

    their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

    TELL CONGRESS STOP OBAMA’S GUN BAN! – FAX NOW!

    In Liberty,

    KrisAnne

    KrisAnne Hall

    Interim President

    About KrisAnne Hall:

    KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to

    citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Her former

    employer, State Attorney for Florida’s 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on

    her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, “My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender

    them.” KrisAnne now serves as Unite In Action’s President and Director of Legal Affairs and travels the country teaching the

    Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.

  81. http://www.prisonplanet.com/study-mass-killings-account-for-less-than-1-of-homicides-many-do-not-involve-guns.html

    All the left wing whining, and the media BS aside, they don’t want the facts, they (Liberals) want gun control. It’s not about guns , it’s about control.

  82. Dem. Rep. Launches Brutal Attack on GOP, Apologizes to Officials During Libya Hearing: ‘You Have Been Used as a Ruse’

    Posted on December 20, 2012 at 2:51pm by Madeleine Morgenstern Madeleine
    Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) used a House hearing on the deadly Benghazi, Libya attacks to slam his fellow members of Congress and to apologize to testifying State Department officials whom he said have been “used as a ruse” for partisan attacks.

    “I want to first start by apologizing to the deputy secretaries because you have been used as a ruse,” Ackerman said during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. “You are being used as foils to the conflicting intentions of some people on our committee and others in Washington for partisan political purposes and are not here really to explain how we can work together more cooperatively as Americans to make things better.”

    Ackerman, who did not run for re-election in November after announcing his decision to retire, said he fears Congress has become a “partisan bickering bunch of grousing old people trying to exploit whatever we can to our political advantage.”

    “We’ve become people who want to exploit any kind of national calamity to the political advantage of our party,” Ackerman said. “And the public is sick and tired of it. As they should be.”

    He suggested Republicans reexamine their approach, saying, “the voters didn’t reject your policies, they rejected your attitude.”

    He said the political discourse has become poisoned, particularly as directed toward President Barack Obama with people who “refer to him in such vile terms. Trying to take down and disqualify an admin as being illegitimate.”

    “Trying to quibble around here on this particular [Benghazi] issue of the narrative rather than how we work together to make things better, to quibble over somebody said a particular word or didn’t use the right word, rather than figure out how to avoid the mistakes that might been made to not lose American lives in the future,” he said.

    Ackerman also spoke up in defense of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was originally slated to testify herself before the committee before sustaining a concussion after fainting during a stomach virus.

    “Derogatorily looking at the secretary of state who has worked herself to the bone to the point of dehydration and exhaustion…does a disservice to the job she has done in the name of all of us,” he said.

    Ackerman said he personally has disagreed with presidents, but once policy has been set try to make it work “because the failure of a president is the failure of a nation.”

    “We’ve come here to either play defense or offense and defend our point of view rather than do what’s right in the name of our country,” he said.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dem-rep-launches-brutal-attack-on-gop-apologizes-to-officials-during-libya-hearing-you-have-been-used-as-a-ruse/

    Well isn’t this just delightful-having a hearing to get some questions answered about why “they” messed up so bad in Benghazi. And the dems. keep Clinton at home so they can send in someone to bitch and moan and again tell us “How Dare You Question Us” .

    • I like this Gary Ackerman – too bad he’s retiring.

      They’re not trying to get questions answered, they’re conducting a witch hunt. Many here applauded when some GOP congressman apologized to a BP official testifying.

  83. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    So far I see USW was the only one to address your question directly as to whether guns have been used to stop govt oppression, or in my words….tyranny.

    USW’s answer was dead on. But then you moved the ball on him. Changed the question so to speak.

    You asked about use of guns to stop Govt oppression/tyranny. You did not place a caveat on that question that it had to come AFTER the Second amendment was passed.

    So are you constraining the answers? If so please rephrase the question.

    But in the meantime, here is one example in the USA AFTER the Second Amendment was passed.

    I would add to that list The War of 1812. Or are we limited to Govt Oppression by US Governments?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Here is another involving Local Govt Oppression. And YES, I used an UNION as an example of people fighting Govt Oppression.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

      Funny how today those roles have been reversed.

      • Like T-Ray’s example, this is local government oppression. The Fed’s stepped in to end the violence.

        In “Gmans long citation”, as you called it, how many times was “federal government” mentioned? How many times was “Local Government” mentioned?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      And here is another, although not as clearly defined. In this case the threat may have stopped a more aggressive action and caused the negotiations. But in the end, the Fed Govt prevailed by removing the Territorial Governor, a Mormon, and installing a non-Mormon as Gov.

      The part not discussed is that this then leads to events that allow Nevada to enter the UNION as a slave free and SILVER RICH State during the Civil War.

      I urge everyone not familiar with this little piece of history to read the whole thing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Now for a related thought/question.

      Do you think the fact that so many US Citizens are armed has acted as a deterrent to Federal Oppression in any way?

      If not for our right to bear arms and the traditional value of fighting Govt Tyranny, what would this country look like today?

      Do you think perhaps that the desire by most Statists to centralize power in the Federal Govt recognizes this is necessary to eliminate the threat of rebellion at the State level?

      I think there is one good point included in Gmans long citation and V.H.’s comments. It is not just the guns that scare the Govt. It is our ATTITUDE that goes with it.

      If they can destroy the ATTITUDE it will probably make gun ownership moot. But if the ATTITUDE is not destroyed, then there will be hell to pay the day the Govt comes for the Guns. And they know this.

      • See Battle of Athens, TN link above.

        http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/207

        Above link shows there are 10M active deer hunters in the US. Add to that the number of inactive former hunters and you see the size of the potential army that could confront a tyrannical government.

        • A completely unorganized group that would mostly link up to protect themselves and their local area. If the Fed’s really want to oppress them, and the army really went along with it (both completely ridiculous), they wouldn’t stand a chance.

          But since so many of you think we already have a tyrannical government, why don’t you organize them to confront the government…

      • JAC,

        Do you think the fact that so many US Citizens are armed has acted as a deterrent to Federal Oppression in any way?

        No, I don’t think so. I think it’s the constitution as a whole that has acted as a deterrent to Federal Oppression.

    • JAC,

      USW’s answer was dead on. But then you moved the ball on him. Changed the question so to speak.

      The discussions here are about guns in the US. That was the intention of my question, but I didn’t include that at first. However, if you read carefully above, USWeapon responded to the post when I added it. So I didn’t move the ball on him. The ball was moved before he joined the game.

      You asked about use of guns to stop Govt oppression/tyranny. You did not place a caveat on that question that it had to come AFTER the Second amendment was passed.

      Yes JAC, my bad. I see you’re continuing your tendency to look for little loop holes, instead of discussing the issue. But have Syria or Egypt ever come up in a gun-control conversation you’ve had in the past?

      So are you constraining the answers? If so please rephrase the question.

      I did above. Grow up – you sound like an ass-hole I work with who never contributes to the discussion or solution – but just looks for stupid things to pick on…

      Or are we limited to Govt Oppression by US Governments?

      Well, yes. Are you worried the British government is going to come confiscate your guns?

  84. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie & Todd

    The article regarding White Men and slavery was about the stereo typing of White Men as a group. This included the current trend by some of condemning all white men, “as a group”.

    So the context of the statement was not absurd as you claim. Because if the premise is that all white men, as a group, have caused all these bad things, then one must consider all the good things as well. The story must be viewed in its TOTAL. That is all the article was about.

    It was that simple. No hidden meanings, no veiled insults. Just a plain statement of fact. And by the way, I don’t recall the author was only discussing the USA. It seems to me he mentioned the industrialization and advancement of culture in Europe as well.

    So you see in England, it was WHITE MEN who abolished Slavery and nobody started a shooting war to maintain it.

    So the reality here is that you both had to make many assumptions, interject meaning or hidden meaning or nuances, what ever you want to call them. And in doing so you confirmed exactly what the author was saying.

    People on the left when faced with any mention of Good done by white men will resort to talking only about the bad. You couldn’t just admit the statement was factual, you had to claim it was absurd and somehow was intended to make White Men heroes.

    No, it was intended to point out that White Men did bad things and they did good things. And that if not for them these good things everyone loves would not exist. Kind of like Charlie’s rant about the Indians. If not for the bad and the good, there would be no USA. Charlie would never have been born. Those cities Buck and Matt love would not exist.

    Quite frankly, what I see as absurd is the effort to castigate the article by attacking the false meaning which you created.

    And for the record, it was not the English or the Americans that brought slavery to the Americas. It was the ancestors of those mixed bloods, you know the hybrid offspring of the Caliphate.

    Can’t wait to see what “hidden meaning” you find in that last one. 😉

    • Another point, gun control is & has always been about control. It’s history in the US is one of oppressing blacks. They continue to be the largest group harmed by gun violence. Why would anyone believe new laws would be any different?

      http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

    • JAC,

      The article regarding White Men and slavery was about the stereo typing of White Men as a group.

      Yes, and “The white man didn’t start slavery, but the white man was the first to end it” was an absurd statement stereo typing White Men as a group.

      So the context of the statement was not absurd as you claim.

      Yes it is because it was a stereo type trying to dismiss another stereo type.

      Time to let it go JAC. Quite trying to justify everything in “your” favor…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I am not justifying, rationalizing or any other silly stunt you blame me for.

        I am simply being rational.

        You can read into the guys comments what ever makes you feel justified to ridicule others, if that makes you feel better.

        I doesn’t change what it is or that that particular statement was true and it was NOT absurd.

        • You can read into the guys comments what ever makes you feel justified to ridicule others, if that makes you feel better.

          So can you!! 😉

  85. I think there is one good point included in Gmans long citation.

    Sorry JAC (and everyone else) I don’t normally post things quite that long. I find that what I can normally convey in a paragraph or two, often takes an entire novel for Todd to understand 😉 Now, because Todd is blind to the current Govt tyranny going on (even though he recentl posted a link of just that), I will have to post another novel full of examples of govt tyranny that is happening all the time in this country.

    I used to say “you can medicate the mentally ill, but you can’t fix stupid”, maybe now ” medicating the mentally ill might not be so good, but you should medicate the stupid, just so they stop pretending they can think” 😆 Of course, I’m joking 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I figured you would be all over that one. That is the claim that our govt is not oppressive. Good thing I wasn’t drinking something when I read that.

      And by the way G, there were some other good points but to me that was the biggest of them all.

      Guns without ATTITUDE are useless. But ATTITUDE without guns is not necessarily ineffective either. Therefore, it is the ATTITUDE that is the most important catalyst to action.

  86. JAC, I agree 100%, attitude is also a great deterent ! THere is a huge awakening happening in this country, I’m sure you can see that. Gun sales are through the roof and not slowing down. That should make that attitude alittle more concerning to those who think they have everyone brainwashed.

    Just a quick question on some things I have heard today. THe CT shooter did not have an AR-15, just 2 semi-auto pistols. Witnesses are being hushed, but not before a couple accounts came out (still looking for those accounts). Would this surprise you if, and I say if, it were true?

    Also, Someone in the Chinese Govt has come out and said the American people should be disarmed. Should this be a wake up call to what the Chinese really think?

    On a lighter note, Merry Christmas to you and your family ! May your future be blessed with happiness and good health 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      It would surprise me at this point if it turned out the Bushmaster was not used and especially if he did not have it. Given the other parts of the story I think this a pretty slim chance.

      If people don’t understand what the Chinese think and what their goals are they are plain stupid. What should be more disconcerting is that the Chinese reading of the national and international tea leaves feel it appropriate to lecture the USA about what it should or should not do.

      That should be a wake up call in and of itself.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      GMan

      PS: Almost forgot………. A very Merry Christmas to you and your Pop and the rest of your clan as well.

      Still hoping to drop in some day and say howdy.

  87. Just A Citizen says:

    The timing couldn’t have been better. Watch this then lets hear about what is FAIR and what is JUSTICE when it comes to tax policy being proposed by the POTUS.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/12/hayek-social-justice-is-a-meaningless-conception/

  88. @ JAC, You are always welcome, Sir. One must wonder why Todd asks just convoluted questions and then jumps for joy when he finally get the answer he wants, I will give him the answer, almost, that he wants today. He did call you an asshole, which, I think at this point we should have an “asshole poll” and see who is really the asshole. 🙂

    Note to the women: The Chinese military would love for the American citizens to be disarmed. They want to invade. The Chinese military has some 41 million men, who don’t/won’t have a woman for them. This, a product of their one child policy. Conservative women should be very concerned, Liberal women, not so much 😆

  89. @Todd, US government oppression is a daily event in this nation. I can post hundreds of examples. What the TSA is doing at airports is a good example. However, the Feds usually only oppress very small numbers over which they have overwhelming force. No intelligent person would fight back with a gun, considering how past events like the one in WACO turned out. One could argue that the Civil War was an example.

    I am guessing that in your mind, you think that because the Feds are not oppressive, that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment. If you would, please clarify. The reasons we have the 2nd Amendment are very clear and well known. The fact that I think you want to bring up, that it was never used, is a testament to the wise thinking of the founders.

    You might say we don’t need it because we have never used it for it’s true purpose. I will say that we DO need it so that we never have to use it for it’s true purpose. History supports my position 🙂 More later!

    • “US government oppression is a daily event in this nation.”

      What an outrageous, unfounded statement. Our government loves us and protects us, wanting only to insure we are safe, warm and happy!(Medicare has even started sending my anti-depressants direct) We should be grateful the government is protecting us from… chicken chit?

      The Environmental Protection Agency is backing off from a controversial lawsuit that brought farming groups out of the woodwork to defend a West Virginia farmer against charges that chicken droppings violated the Clean Water Act because rains could carry them into a stream located two football fields away.

      The case mobilized agriculture organizations against what they saw as bureaucratic bullying that could impact thousands of other farmers. Green groups saw it as an opportunity to give the EPA tighter control over what they have derisively called “factory farms.”

      The EPA said in November 2011 that Lois Alt and her husband needed a Clean Water Act discharge permit because rainwater on their farm could come into contact with dust, feathers or small amounts of chicken manure that strayed out of the large barns where they raise their flocks. Rainwater at Eight Is Enough Farms empties into Mudlick Run, a stream 200 yards away from the edge of the property.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/21/epa-cries-uncle-in-face-of-lawsuit-withdraws-threat-against-w-va-chicken-farmer/#ixzz2FhC9SOvn

  90. Merry Christmas and Happy Hannuka SUFA 🙂

    Let’s take a bit of a poll. In it’s usual way, the Govt. is going to knee jerk their way to another law as a result of the Sandy Hook shooting. Many want to ban “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines. I’m thinking that we all have an opinion on this idea. What are your ?

    Mine are simple. Banning “assault rifles and these magazines will accomplish nothing. It will not protect anyone, it will not stop the loonies from trying to kill. ANOTHER unenforcable law is NOT the answer 🙄

  91. O’Brien and Peirc Morgan are idiot Liberals who have no idea what they are saying. Both of them, just like everyother person who wants to ban all guns are Lilly Livered, Yellow Bellied Cowards. 🙂

  92. LOI edit

    VH, I’m deleting these and moving them to a new page for X-mas. Hope you approve.

    • Sure, I’ll have a field day of fun 🙂 Can post to my hearts content without feeling like I’ve done enough already. 🙂

  93. http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-york-gov-gun-confiscation-and-forced-buy-back-an-option.html

    I would like to use this as an example of how govt continues to fail in their attempts at tyranny. THis Governor is talking about registration. Would someone please explain how this is anything other than a set up for confiscation? How does registration protect anybody? Stupid Liberals will fool stupid people. If you have a gun that they demand to be registered, do you comply? For the record, I would not comply. They do not need to know what I have in my home, it is none of the Govt’s businss 🙂

    Merry Christmas to all 🙂

  94. Just A Citizen says:

    HURRAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The days get longer from now on.

  95. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Your last response to me reveals just how biased and shallow you are.

    I asked for simple clarification based on your question and then your responses to Gman and USW. I thought it a very good and relevant question. I wanted to hold my response until others had a chance.

    I wanted nothing more, and a simple clarification would have sufficed. But instead you once again see more than there is, conclude I am somehow trying to pick nits from your question then attack. Perhaps that is because your entire purpose and nature is to attack me for some strange reason.

    And you accuse everyone here of confirmation bias. I suggest you do some hard looking in the mirror.

    • JAC,

      Your last response to me reveals just how biased and shallow you are.

      No, it reveals how tired I am of reading and responding to your posts in the hope that you’ll eventually get around to discussing the issue instead of looking for little loop holes to avoid the discussion.

      I asked for simple clarification based on your question and then your responses to Gman and USW. I thought it a very good and relevant question.

      And I answered it: However, if you read carefully above, USWeapon responded to the post when I added it.

      And to clarify, I was talking about the 2nd amendment in the USA.

      I wanted to hold my response until others had a chance.

      Why?

      I’ll hold my thoughts on “why” until after you have a chance to answer that…

      I wanted nothing more, and a simple clarification would have sufficed.

      Yes, because you always want to keep the conversation so simple…I don’t buy that statement for a second.

      But instead you once again see more than there is, conclude I am somehow trying to pick nits from your question then attack.

      No it wasn’t an attack – it was frustration.

      Perhaps that is because your entire purpose and nature is to attack me for some strange reason.

      No, it’s to try to get you to join the conversation instead of picking around the edges.

      And you accuse everyone here of confirmation bias.

      Only because it’s confirmed here on a regular basis.

      I suggest you do some hard looking in the mirror.

      I do JAC – every day.

      Look at some of the stupid crap and personal attacks posted here every day. It’s a lot to wade through and still try to remain civil.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I had already responded to your question. So what was the point of accusing me of doing otherwise? In fact you are still making that accusation, despite me posting three examples.

        Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I didn’t see you additional explanations? Of course if I had I’m not sure it would have stopped me from asking for clarification. I saw the comment about 2nd amendment but that just raises a different question. Is it the amendment or are you just using that as a start point on the calendar? Even though I asked the question I went ahead and responded with some links. Did you miss them? Or did I not address your question?

        Because you see Todd, you asked about GUNS not the 2n Amendment.

        Guns can stop tyranny. The Amendment can not stop tyranny. But it codifies our right to own guns to stop tyranny. They are separated concepts entirely. Without the Amendment it could become criminal to own guns. So the lack of the amendment could reduce guns and thus reduce the chance of guns stopping tyranny. While they are connected, even here they are different concepts.

        Because you already discussed other places that used guns without such an amendment.

        If you have problems with people calling names then deal with them. Don’t take it out on me and others who aren’t doing that.

        If you ask me a question that contains mutiple concepts or unrelated premises I am going to ask for clarification or attempt to deal with the mix separately. Sorry that seems to drive you up the wall but that is how one should deal with such things. Seems to me you have done the same in response to others.

        I don’t recall EVER avoiding or refusing to answer a question. I do refuse to answer a question based on a false premise or assertions. Instead I will continue to show why I think the premise or connections to be false and address each separately.

        The ironic part of this is your question and my request for clarification was not such a situation. I simply asked you to clarify because your discussion with USW had changed the nature of the question.

        I wanted to respond without chasing rabbits. I am sorry that got under your skin.

  96. In the words of the British, this person is a “bloody wanker” http://www.prisonplanet.com/sign-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-for-his-attack-on-the-constitution.html

    Deporting him is being nice. Hanging him from a lamppost would be the correct response 🙂

  97. Off the subject of guns for a moment. Executive Orders from Obumbler. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/274175-cybersecurity-order-likely-in-january-observers-say

    Let me say this and if I’m wrong, someone straighten me out. Obama signs an Executive Order saying whatever. First it is not a law. Second, there is no legal obligation to abide by the Order. Help me out here, I am on the right track?

  98. One thing I will credit the Democrats and Liberal gun haters for, that’s a nice boost in the economy, as explained here: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-supplier-sells-more-three-years-worth-magazines-just-three

    In reality, all there idiotic talk of banning certain guns and high capacity magazines will accomplish nothing. The kneejerk morons in the District of Criminals have, because they are morons, put more of everything they want banned, into the hands of Americans. Now, when the morons figure out that bans don’t work, which I doubt they will ever figure that out, then we will be able to protect ourselves and our kids from the nuts of the world who just want to kill.

  99. This is another very good example why “gun free zones” are completely stupid. Todd, you especailly should watch this, you might learn something. THe blood of those kids is on the hands of government. http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/survivor-of-1991-shooting-gives-impassioned-testimony-against-gun-control/

  100. UH-OH! Are the Liberals lying again? It is starting to look that way. http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/growing-evidence-an-ar15-wasnt-used-in-sandy-hook-massacre/

  101. At this time of the year we all need to be grateful for what we have. Everyone, no matter how big or small can find something to be grateful for. We also need to remember that Jesus is the reason for the season. I want to ask that we all pray for those parents and children who face this Christmas without their loved ones. God Bless you all and I hope you ALL have a MERRY CHRISTMAS. 🙂

  102. In Defense of the Second Amendment

    There is a great deal of emotional commitment in the United States to one of two extreme positions: (1) the right of every non-felon adult citizen of the United States to own any weapon he chooses, and (2) the right of the government of the United States to outlaw the ownership of firearms.

    I am hard core. I would extend this right to convicted felons who have served their time or have made restitution to their victims. I would not let the federal government revoke this fundamental right of citizenship.

    To understand the Second Amendment, we need to go back to something like the beginning.

    FEUDALISM AND POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
    In English common law in medieval times, meaning as late as the 13th century, the feudal legal system limited ownership of military weapons to members of the knightly class, and those classes over the knights. In other words, the ownership of weapons had to do with legal status.

    The common man, meaning a peasant, could not be called into military service. Military service was a matter of inheritance of land and status, and this inheritance mandated military training, which created a military mindset. Thus, the weapons associated with this class, which was also a matter of social status, were not to be shared with the peasantry. This placed the peasantry at an obvious disadvantage in terms of military power. It also extended to political power. They had little political power. They were represented mainly by priests.

    One of the marks of the knightly class was the right to wear armor. Armor was heavy. So, a peasant who had a simple walking staff was in a position to knock a knight off his horse. A knight in shining armor who was lying on the ground could not get up by himself. He was defenseless. So, the fact that a peasant was not allowed to carry a sword, or a bow and arrow, did not necessarily place him at a complete disadvantage, one-on-one, when dealing with a knight on horseback. It all depended on the tactics of surprise. The knight who was not expecting to be knocked off his horse might be at a disadvantage.

    Peasants early on learned how to use walking sticks as weapons. Peasants could not be deprived of their walking sticks. So, they retained a degree of power which was not legally associated with their class. The movie scene of Robin Hood, an outlaw from the knightly class, battling Little John on a log over a stream was unlikely. Little John would easily have killed him. Knights were not trained in the use of staffs.

    Anyone who possessed expensive weapons began with a competitive advantage in the use of power. The knightly class was careful to guard its legal rights. Magna Carta was a document created by the barons to defend their rights against the king. These rights were jealously guarded both against intrusions of power from below, as well as any intrusions from above. It was part of a hierarchical social and legal social order.

    There is no question that, under most circumstances, the knightly class could deal with the peasants in the field of military battle. There were peasant rebellions from time to time. But, over the centuries, the knightly class did prevail against attempts by the peasants to overturn the legal status of the knightly class.

    One of the advantages of this system was that civilians, meaning peasants and the people who lived in towns, were to be left alone by the warriors. They were not to be slaughtered in a military confrontation. Warriors were to do battle with other warriors. Warriors were not to use the specialized implements of warfare against civilians. This was a good arrangement for civilians.

    GUNPOWDER
    Gunpowder signaled the end of feudalism. It did not cause this decline, but it accompanied it. Armies became professional. Mercenaries appeared. Legal access to weapons was no longer based on birth and legal status. With the demise of the feudal order after the 14th century, and the rise of professional armies, which were funded by taxation rather than by a grant of land by the king to specific families, access to military training became available to common men. The more that the armies depended upon conscription, or payment by the central government, the greater the demands for the right to vote by the lower classes.

    This demand became open during the Puritan revolution of the 1640s in England. Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army was made up of commoners as well as members of the higher social orders. Puritans believed in the exercise of the franchise in their local congregations. English Puritans were Congregationalists. They did not believe in a hierarchy of bishops, nor did they even believe in the hierarchy of presbyteries. Presbyterianism was a Scottish concept, not an English Puritan concept. So, with the triumph of Cromwell and the New Model Army, the issue of the franchise became an important political issue. Debates were held in 1647 within the New Model Army over what constituted the right to vote. The Levelers, who were not Communists, believed that the franchise should be extended to members of the New Model Army, irrespective of their wealth. This was opposed by the upper classes, including Cromwell, but there was an open debate over the issue. Cromwell’s son-in-law, Ireton, argued for wealth, meaning personally owned land or money, as the basis of the right to vote. Rainsboro, a representative of the Levelers, argued that mere residence in the land should qualify a man to vote.

    With the coming of the rifle in the 18th century, it became possible for independent farmers — “peasants” — to purchase the implements of war. These could be used for hunting. Civilians were still not part of the warrior class, but as the price of weaponry fell, beginning in the early 18th century, a shift of political power also began to take place.

    In the second half of the 18th century, the common citizen in the British colonies of North America possessed a rifle. In most cases he was a man of the countryside. He had the ability to use it. For the first time, weapons that were available to common people had equal firepower to weapons available to the central government.

    THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
    So, the central government faced a crisis. The colonists in North America were in a position to resist the King’s will. After 1763, resistance against the King’s representatives increased, and the ability of the King to impose his will on these upstarts became more a matter of finances than technology.

    The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers.
    This, of course, was an agreement among officers.

    The Americans honored no such agreement. Americans would target the officers from hundreds of yards away. The chain of command of British troops was disrupted by the American rifle. This was considered unsportsmanlike. But the Americans did not honor the same rules and sportsmanship.

    This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army.
    George Washington only had two major victories,
    Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy).

    His army was usually unable to make direct confrontations in the field with the British Army. In contrast, militia units, firing from a distance against massed armies, and then running into the woods, could not be dealt with by British Army tacticians. The British armies were always tied to the cities. They could not venture far into the countryside to get food, because too many of them would be gunned down by militia members. They were dependent upon the British Navy to deliver supplies to them.

    It was therefore impossible for the British to win that war. For as long as the Americans would stay in decentralized units, firing from a distance into the organized troops of the British, the British could not extend military control, and therefore political control, over the Americans. The Americans kept fighting until British taxpayers grew weary of funding the war, and until the French, during one 30-day period, provided the naval support to block the British Navy from resupplying Cornwallis’s Army.

    George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.

    Americans fully understood this when the leaders wrote the Bill of Rights in 1790. This is why the Second Amendment was inserted into the Constitution. The voters understood that it was their ability to fight any organized army, through the organization of the militia, which was basic to their concept of citizenship. It was the citizen warrior, armed with a rifle that was every bit as good as that possessed by members of the Army, who was perceived as possessing final political sovereignty. The whole concept of “we the people,” which introduced the Constitution, rested on the well-known ability of the American citizen warrior to grab his rifle and fight.

    DEMOCRACY AND WEAPONS
    Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University was an expert in the history of armaments in Western Europe. He is famous among conservatives for about 20 pages late in his book, Tragedy and Hope, in which he discussed the influence of the Morgan banking interests. Very few conservatives have ever read all of this book.

    In chapter 2, “Western Civilization to 1914,” on page 34, Quigley wrote a very important assessment of the relationship between weaponry and political power.

    In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain).

    The American Civil War transformed military tactics. The rise of the railroads and telegraphy made possible the coordination of the movement of mass armies. The only way that the American South could have won that war, other than simply by outlasting the Northerners on the battlefield, thereby weakening the will to continue the war among Northern voters, was to resort to guerrilla warfare.

    But the generals were mostly the products of West Point, or were promoted on the battlefield by graduates of West Point, and their concept was the same as George Washington’s, namely, that centralized armies financed by the national government were the basis of military success. They were not in favor of guerrilla warfare. (This was not true of Nathan Bedford Forest, a businessman turned self-funded cavalry officer. He was a guerrilla, and he was highly effective.)

    From the end of the Civil War until today, nations have been committed to what is sometimes called second-generation warfare. These are armies, navies, and air forces that can assemble massed firepower, using highly precise and very expensive weapons. These military units no longer can consistently defeat guerrilla movements on the ground. Fourth-generation warfare, meaning guerrilla warfare, is now reestablishing the sovereignty of the common man. Vietnam is the obvious case, but Afghanistan certainly qualifies. In the case of Afghanistan, the common man has always had the advantage. Nobody has been able to conquer Afghanistan for more than a few years. This goes back to Alexander the Great. The topography of the nation, and the commitment of its men to fight to the bitter end, meaning the bitter end of the invaders, has been such that these people have not been defeated.

    The one Western European nation that fully understands this is Switzerland. Every Swiss male up the age of 60 is expected to serve in the military. Every Swiss male who serves in the military is expected to master the use of the rifle. It is a matter of honor to be a good rifleman in Switzerland. Bankers in their 50s compete against clerks in their 20s as marksmen. This has been true for five centuries. This is a nation of citizen warriors. It is a nation with a very weak central government, the weakest in the modern industrial world. The presidency is a symbolic office, and it is held on a rotation basis, with only one year as its term. Yet the nation’s army can be mobilized in a matter of days. Switzerland has the longest history of political freedom of any continental European nation.

    It is true that the Swiss surrender their ammo back to the local armory at the end of each summer’s training. It is also true that the political tradition of democracy is so deeply ingrained that it would be impossible for any Swiss government to refuse to return those weapons the following summer. The Swiss are not a disarmed population. They simply let the government store the ammo during the year. The attitude is not that the government lets the citizens have access to weapons. The attitude is that the citizens allow the government to store the ammo. The mentality is completely different from the gun control advocates in the United States.

    In every nation except Switzerland, gun control advocates want to centralize the ownership of any weapon that could be used systematically against agents of the government. This is not a random outlook. All the arguments about reduced crime are refuted by the statistics of increased crime whenever the government confiscates the guns of the population. Guns are as easily available to the criminal class as illegal drugs are available to the citizens and all other residents.

    Gun control advocates insist that the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of the monopolistic government is a moral obligation. Why is it a moral obligation? It is a moral obligation because these people really do believe that the central government possesses legitimate original political sovereignty, an exclusive sovereignty, over the weapons that could be used against the central government.

    It is one of those peculiarities that conservatives who say they believe in the right of gun ownership, and who sometimes even say that this is a means of defense against tyranny, are also in favor of invading foreign nations, when those foreign nations have adopted the concept of universal gun ownership that is comparable to the philosophy of American conservatism. The well-armed “little people” in Middle Eastern countries are able to defeat American invading troops, just as others like them did in Vietnam, precisely because the decentralization that is made possible by a diffusion of gun ownership and explosives is effective in combating the expansion of centralized political and military control. In other words, American troops cannot defeat these tiny countries, precisely because of widespread ownership of effective weapons that can be used against the occupying troops.

    MILITIAS: REAL AND PHONY
    I want to make it clear that I do not believe that it is possible, under anything like present conditions, for Americans to take up arms against the central government. In a period of financial crisis, in which the central government can no longer deliver the goods economically, and which therefore begins to lose its power to control local communities, there may be confrontations between armed camps.

    The obvious armed camps that I am thinking of are the gangs. The gangs are well armed, and in comparison with most small-town police departments, far better armed than the law enforcement agencies. The police know this. The gangs are ruthless, and they have something like a military chain of command. In a time of national economic breakdown, there will be some communities in which the gangs possess primary authority. This is true today in much of Latin America.

    The best form of defense under such conditions would be for the local sheriff to deputize adult males and females who have proficiency in the use of weapons, and who are armed. This is the concept of the local posse. It is not an independent militia, because there is no such thing as an independent militia. In the early 20th century, under the direction of the New York lawyer Elihu Root, who is sometimes called the first chairman of the American Establishment, the federal government nationalized state militias. That was part of the Progressive movement’s attempt to centralize political power in Washington. It was very effective. So, today, the militias are armed agencies of the federal government, even though they are technically under the command of governors. In any case, they are not local.

    The citizens of the United States are so far removed from the citizens of the American colonies in 1776 that it would be inconceivable to organize a military resistance to the central government. I do not suggest that this be done. I do suggest that there is a relationship between the ownership of firearms and the assertion of political sovereignty. I do insist that the right to keep and bear arms is a symbolic affirmation of the ultimate political sovereignty of individual citizens over the central government. This was understood in 1790, and it should be understood today. I do not think it is.

    I think the advocates of gun control understand very little about this symbolic relationship. They are usually advocates of the right to vote. They officially come down on the side of citizens’ rights. But they do not understand the symbolic nature of the right to keep and bear arms as an affirmation of the authority of the citizen, armed with a gun and armed with the right to vote, to veto the decisions of political rulers through politics.

    The defenders of Second Amendment liberties understand far better than the gun control movement that there is a connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental assertion of political sovereignty by the citizenry. They understand that the federal government’s violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power.

    I do not think that many advocates of the Second Amendment believe that there is going to be a time when American citizens get their guns, leave their homes, and somehow adopt urban guerrilla warfare tactics. But they do understand that the gangs may do this. They do not believe the local authorities will always be in a position to defend them against criminal violence. They understand that the decentralization of weapons ownership is basic to the preservation of peace in society, because guerrilla groups, which the gangs are, are mobile, well-armed, well-organized, and ruthless.

    I am arguing that the citizen who owns defensive weapons, and was trained in their use, constitutes the great barrier against centralized power from above and decentralized criminal violence from below. It is the man in the middle, the armed voter, who is the backbone of Western liberty.

    Whenever a political movement seeks to disarm the citizen, it is necessarily simultaneously seeking to expand the power of the federal government, and also the power of armed criminals, including gangs. By disarming citizens, the state asserts an ultimate sovereignty over them, and yet it is incapable of carrying out this assertion of sovereignty in local affairs.

    The central government can do almost nothing about the gangs. It can do very little against criminal behavior. The decline in crime that we have seen over the last 30 years has been mainly a social phenomenon. The biggest single factor is that men tend to commit fewer crimes as they get older. Also, married men commit fewer crimes and acts of violence. The high point of crime in the West was around 1980. This was also the low point of age. After 1980, the average age of residents of the West began to increase. Crime rates dropped. This was not because the federal government became more adept at fighting crime.

    Members of fringe groups call themselves patriots, and sometimes call themselves members of a militia. They adopt a kind of suicidal romanticism regarding their ability to resist the armed forces of the United States. These weekend warriors may go out and stumble around in the woods, armed with semiautomatic rifles, pretending that they would be able to stay in the field for six or seven years, on their own authority, with their own productivity, supported by rural people who see them as liberators. That might have worked in Southern states in 1863, but it does not work today. There are too few people in the rural areas to support roving bands of militia members. These militias would become the equivalent of gangs in short order. Fortunately, they are too incompetent to achieve the status of gangs.

    SYMBOLIC OWNERSHIP
    For most gun owners, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. Most people do not spend a week or two in the summer practicing their skills at shooting. This is what all males in Switzerland do every year. The Swiss are serious about their ability to defend their country against invasion. Americans believe that the government, meaning the federal government, is supposed to do this.
    When the federal government proves incapable of doing this, especially along the southern border of the United States, some conservatives seek to empower state governments to do it. The federal government resists this, because the federal government recognizes that this is an assertion of state’s rights and state sovereignty. The federal government is happy to let immigrants flow into the United States across our southern border, because there is really not much that the government can do about it, other than to authorize state governments to do something about it, or county governments to do something about it, and the federal government is not about to do that.

    I am arguing, therefore, that for most gun owners, most of the time, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. This is also true of gun control advocates. I do not think most gun control advocates believe that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy that is chomping at the bit to take up arms, get organized, leave their middle-class lifestyle behind, and overturn the United States government. If any gun control advocate believes this, he has approximately the same connection with reality as the weekend militia member does, stomping around in the countryside with his buddies.

    Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.

    The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long.

    In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use.

    The citizen soldiers of the late 18th century faced the problem of the local militias. Professional soldiers found themselves facing common men who could assemble together in the fields, shoot their officers at a distance, shoot the scouts who went out into the field to find them, and then disappear into the woods. Tactics changed, and then strategies changed.

    CONCLUSION
    I believe we are coming close to the end of the nation-state as we have known it for the past 500 years. I believe that the military historian, Martin van Creveld, is correct. The central governments are running out of solvency, and their ability to provide protection against crime and also provide retirement benefits for the mass of humanity, is in decline.

    Over the next half-century, and perhaps even less, politicians are going to realize that they can no longer protect citizens against armed criminals locally, and they cannot afford to support their aging populations. At that point, there will be a transfer of legitimacy back in the direction of local civil government. Local civil governments will rest heavily upon armed citizens who are in a position to be deputized.
    So, I expect a greater decentralization. This decentralization will take place most rapidly in societies where citizens have never surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This is why I think the United States is the most likely nation to be the working model for this process of decentralization. Americans are more heavily armed than any other people in the democratic world. They may not be as heavily armed as rural residents of Afghanistan, but they are surely better armed than any other Western nation except Switzerland.

    I doubt that my view of the Second Amendment is widely shared in those circles that are committed to the defense of the Second Amendment. My defense of the second amendment is based on a particular concept of political sovereignty. I believe that individual citizens are sovereign, not because of a grant of authority by the state, but because of a grant of authority by God. The state therefore does not have the right to confiscate the firearms of the people, precisely because the state did not make the original grant of sovereignty to the people.

    Firearms are marks of political sovereignty. They should be defended on this basis, not on the basis of some hypothetical revolution, which is not going to take place. I am saying that such a revolution is not necessary, precisely because the people do possess the right to keep and bear arms.

    They need not take up arms against the government, precisely because they already possess the arms.

%d bloggers like this: