Talking to the Hand

Is the 1st Amendment supported at SUFA, or are we “faking” support?  I used my authority/ability as publisher to delete some posts.  Is this not suppression of free speech?  I hope not & it was/is not my intent.  USW established this site to allow respectful dialog of opposing views, so when personal attacks got out of hand, I censored.  I have never censored anyone for content, even liberal talking points and stances I find offensive or ignorant.

But on another playing field, FaceBook, I have found myself censored by supposed friends/family.  They invited me to be friends and see what’s on their mind.  A black male deleted my response to his pro-Obama post, sorry, but his budget/economy can only be praised by wishful thinking, willful ignorance or lying you’re @ss off.

My last FaceBook deleting was over gun control & the Newtown shooting.  My friend started talking about it the next day, “now can we please have a meaningful conversation on gun control?”  Well dumplin’, if you delete any post that doesn’t agree with you, it’s not really a “conversation”, is it?  And isn’t FaceBook the internet’s largest chat site?  A place to go and talk to friends about whatever interests you or them?  FaceBook does have terms of use that prohibit offensive items, so not the place for naked pic’s.  Offensive is an interesting word in that it depends on what each individual thinks is offensive.  Sometimes I wonder if there is anything I can say that won’t offend most liberals (me” I hugged a tree today”, “it looked lonely liberal”you just caused it to die a slow death from that poisonous detergent you saturate your clothing with“)  Ok, I’m being silly, but I have a point to my humor.  Isn’t Gandhi a liberal icon?  Could there be anything he’s said that they would find offensive?  Heh, heh, heh…

(NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted a historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.(1)

And what happens when you try to have a “conversation” with a liberal on a hot button topic?

John Lott has been doing great work on CNN of late. He’s the author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” Though the title speaks for itself, Lott has elaborated a bit on-air on the work’s thesis: Policymakers have many tools to deter crime, including stiffer prison sentences, but “you can also make it more difficult and risk to commit crimes by enabling victims to protect themselves,” says Lott.

Those views have seeded Lott’s recent slugfests with CNN hosts. Hours after the tragedy unfolded, Piers Morgan hosted Lott on his show, and the result was dramatic. Lott argued that the gun-control laws advocated by Morgan “have killed people.” The host lashed back: “Oh, what a bunch of nonsense.( It’s a lot worse, Piers also cut off Lott and said  said he would not allow a statement Lott made to stand or be repeated, that he would not allow that lie to stand.)

Whether you’re extremely skeptical of John Lott and his theories or you view his contentions more sympathetically, there’s one point upon which both sides can agree: His clashes with CNN personalities have brought the network a great deal of clicks.

Yet Lott is a contributor. He’s even got an archive on the site. The digital record shows that Lott has done a bit of quick-reaction commentary of late

So this dedicated gun advocate is available for booking, though he sounds a bit worn down by his treatment on CNN. In reference to the network’s hosts, Lott says: “The thing that’s most disappointing to me is that they don’t engage the argument,” he says. “They just want to talk over you or just raise the volume.”

In two studio appearances with Morgan — one in July, after the Aurora shootings, and one after Newtown — Lott reports that the host shook hands with him prior to the segment, but not after. In other words, Morgan’s dismissive comments on-air aren’t an act. “I can see he feels strongly about this stuff and he feels that I am a horrible person but it comes across that he feels that way,” says Lott. “I believe that he’s very sincere.”

The treatment from Morgan, at least, is better than what he gets from viewers after a spin on CNN. One wrote to him, “YOU’RE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!” Many other such missives don’t comply with The Post’s family-friendly standards.(2) ( Funny also, the backlash has caused thousands to petition the president to deport Piers Morgan (3), who suggest he might deport himself.)

So, ” can we please have a meaningful conversation on gun control?”

I doubt it but OK, let’s try.  Any thinking American (or person) has reason to not trust our(or any) government.  History shows whatever they take from citizens, they are reluctant to return, ever.  (Consider also Mr. Morgan’s treatment of Dr. Lott.  That is Dr. as in PHD.  Published, pier reviewed, etc.etc.  I would accept the challenge to Dr. Lott’s conclusions, but not his numbers.  He is a numbers geek.  And while he does not make numbers cool, he has earned the PROFESSIONAL RIGHT to state his numbers are correct.  Don’t like his numbers, bring on another PHD with their own  numbers.)

1)  Do any Native Americans have reason to trust the US government?  Countless treaties and guarantee’s and a President BREAKING the law, defying the Supreme Court and somehow getting away with it anyway.(U.S. Grant)

2) Woodrow Wilson & FDR both ignored the law and imprisoned US citizens ignoring constitutional protections.

3)  Income tax was touted to be a minimum tax that would only be used on the ultra wealthy, starting with one percent that was imposed on only the top one percent earners.

4)  Social Security was promised to be kept as a “trust” fund, separate from the general fund and “protected”.

So to the liberal gun banners that want to have a conversation, first, how can we “trust” you?  Remember your guy on his eleven million dollar vacation in Hawaii?  The one that promised to REDUCE the deficit?  Come on, with a straight face, tell us we can “trust” him with our 2nd Amendment rights.  Next, even if we did work a deal and he kept his word, what stops the next senate/congress/president from breaking that promise?  Incrementalism. (4) Apt term.  ( I sometime try inventing words but then find Scooby Doo already said them)  Incrementalism explains the NRA’s opposition to any and all gun laws, ban a machine gun today, tomorrow it’s the platform used to ban all semi-automatic firearms.  (Machine guns are restricted, so all the news stories that include the “assault weapon” term such as Newtown & the Aurora theater, it was a semi-automatic firearm)

Next, can we be clear ( I mean honest) on what you want to ban or limit?  Sen. Feinstein has stated on national television that if she thought she could get the votes, she would ban and confiscate ALL forearms in America.  Is that what you want?  If not, convince us that it’s not just another step, another increment to that total ban.  I think this is the point where maybe the thirteenth “emotional appeal” has been paraded.  “The NRA wants children to be murdered!  Hmm, is this the same NRA that was the main force in implementing the Instant Background Check System?  They advocate that every law-abiding citizen that wants to own (bear) a firearm may do so, not every person.  They think criminals & firearms are a” Bad Thing.”  They threw their support behind a measure to reduce criminal forearm ownership, despite the risk from some of their members who do not trust the government.  What will you offer?  Most media talking heads I’ve seen are back on the “assault weapon” ban and the high-capacity magazines.

Sorry, but I feel most liberals do not understand math or science very well.  Semi-automatic in reference to a firearm means one bullet fired with each trigger pull.  Pull that trigger very fast and bullets are fired equally fast.  No more, no less.  One and one is two.  One and one and one is three.  You want to “beat the math”?  Let me help, just ban external magazines.(good luck)  The ten round ban is useless, since it only takes a second or two to swap magazines.  More to carry and keep track of, but they sell so many shooting vest with an unbelievable number of handy “pockets”.  Yep, better ban vest with pockets. And knives.   And bats. (5) ( the number-9 cause of death on the list: “non-firearm homicides.” The asterisk beside this category identifies, by the FBI, a baseball bat as the most-used item to cause death. Can we expect Senator Feinstein to react to this fact as well?)

A caution to you liberals wanting to ban “high-capacity” magazines, in the Old West, many carried extra cylinders loaded with bullets for their revolvers.  While you study up on your history, math & science, don’t forget psychology.  After you bring facts/numbers to the table, we are still going to be looking at the old/new fact that we cannot trust you.








  1. LOI, Good article. I don’t think we should engage in any “conversation” about gun control. Why can’t they understand “shall not be infringed”? Why do they use, what is appearing as a false flag event, as a forum for their control fight, instead of using the murders in Chicago or Detroit, and any other big city. Oh, I know, because those places have the toughest gun laws in the country, and they ain’t working. Or, maybe because most of these murders are caused by minorities, primarily blacks. I will put it Plainly (yes, for our freind), I will not give up my guns, I will not register my guns, and I will fight to the death to prove it.

    Now, I’ll ask one question for the gun grabbers, are you going to come and get my guns? Or are you a coward and will ask someone else to die for your ignorant cause?

    Yes, it is time for people like me to take a strong stand and say “No More”. No More taking of our freedoms! No More laws that increase the price of very important goods like healthcare insurance. No More wars! No More false flag events for political needs. Just “NO DAMN MORE”.


    • G!

      We have to take part of the conversation or we are surrendering. The mistake is where we allow them to frame everything in their terms. Right now they want to go after “assault weapons”. Ok, lets talk about deaths by “assault weapons”.

      The number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs is much greater than the number of murders committed with rifles. There were, in 2011, 323 murders committed with a rifle, while at the same time there were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. In fact, “nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.” The above is supplied by the FBI.

      Read more:

      • LOI…agreed. The conversation must take place despite the “shall not be infringed”. To not discuss the rationality is the same as allowing the other side to define assault weapons. EVERY WEAPON IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON…………..hammers are assault weapons when used in a criminal act.

        So, discuss it is a must. While I understand G’s side of things…and may even agree with him, it is not the reality. Weapons bans is a hot button item and a distraction…nothing more, and the left knows this.

        • D13,

          I like that thought. Haven’t checked but the tone of the statement “shall not be infringed”, is that used anywhere else in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

      • Well, let’s take part by saying NO. They don’t care about the facts, they will just say, for example, that high capacity mags “can be used” or the same with assault weapons. These people are not knowledgeable or sane for that matter.

        I still believe that Sandy Hook may be a false flag and nobody actually died at all. This event has been handled very differently than other similar events. I will guess that they raze the school and ensure that there can be no real investigation as to what happened, or didn’t happen in the school.

        Just me being me 🙂

        • tch tch…I cannot go that far… are the theorist.

          • Yes I am, I question everything that the criminals in DC can use to deny our rights. I did present actual evidence that one victim is really not a victim at all, but very alive! How is that explained as theory? HEHE 😆

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You did not provide EVIDENCE, nor did the people who made the video.

              What was presented were pictures of a girl in a dress and then a girl in a dress at a different location. Then the author “leads” you to think it is the same girl.

              When was the Family Photo taken???

              Have you ever seen a child change the part in their hair as they get older???

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Here is the explanation, which I have seen in other places.

              The photos are a few years apart. The first shows all the siblings.

              The Obama photo shows one of the younger siblings, now a few years older, wearing the older sister’s dress. Hand me downs………….. Older sister is now dead.

              The family photo is older but the girls looks virtually the same in the Obama photo. How is it she did not change over the one to two years since the family photo was taken?

              Then there is the chance that your conspiracy people are the ones doing the photo shopping.

              • Fair enough and totally possible. An incredible likeness, for sure, if that is her sister. All the other stuff helps to ask all the questions and perceive things like this as possibly true. Columbine is still up and running as a high school. It appears that this school may never reopen. With no pictures or videos being released, and all the other things that are questionable, it is easy to question the whole event as something govt sponsored. Maybe I’m too untrusting of the govt?

              • Bottom Line says:


                38* 56′ 53.56″ N – 105* 08′ 49.60 W


                39* 42′ 38.63″ N – 104* 49′ 30.55″ W


                42* 56′ 04.62″ N – 71* 03′ 16.06″ W

                41* 25′ 10.72″ N – 73* 16′ 42.62″ W


                38* 13′ 13.06″ N – 85* 43′ 31.80″ W


                36* 18′ 04.98″ N – 119* 37′ 50.58″ W


                34* 13′ 23.41″ N – 119* 01′ 42.58″ W

  2. Good Morning, LOI……you will never get a good discussion, free of bias, on gun control. Sorry, but it cannot happen as noted on SUFA. There are those that believe that controlling high capacity magazines is the way to go….understanding that I would much rather have several magazines that carry 9 rounds as opposed to one that carries 30. The reason being, that one magazine can malfunction….where as several do not. Carrying several 9 round magazines, will make a shooter take much more time to aim and be deliberate compared to the 30 round “sprayer” that will miss most targets. The talking points that I have observed, come from people that have never fired a weapon other than “playing around”. They simply do not know. Even in war time, you do not see the military carrying high capacity (30 round) magazines. That is for the movies. All military is taught to single shoot and not shoot on automatic…..because most of the rounds miss and suddenly you are out of ammunition. Automatic fire, is intended for defense only and suppression of ambush….any tactical adviser will say this. The education on weaponry by the lay person is, well, there is no education. What is astounding by the media,is that a person can walk into a school armed with two glock pistols, wreak havoc, while carrying a SEMI automatic .223 on his shoulder and suddenly…all the focus is suddenly on the weapon not even used….the .223 so called assault weapon. ( ANY weapon is an assault weapon ). ( Point to consider…on the border, we do not carry automatic weaponry at all and do not use what the media describes as assault weapons. All of our interdiction is with glock type pistols…and these are “assault weapons”. I personally carry a Browning 9mm high power, a .45 caliber colt semi automatic, and a .380 Walther PPK boot weapon, and a Randall Special Forces knife (which is also an assault weapon)…………I carry three nine round clips for the Browning, three 9 round clips for the .45 and have one 9 round clip for the Walther in addition to the ones in the weapon itself. This means that I carry 90 rounds of ammo. Do the math. So, it is hard to carry on an intelligent conversation that is one sided. As my sergeant told me…..” it is hard to have a battle of wits when the other side is unarmed.” I wish that supposedly intelligent people would actually do some research and learn about weaponry before they speak of the evils.

    A week or so ago, I posted a piece that outlined mass murders in the last 60 years. Most were committed with “non assault” type weapons…..and, over 90 percent of the shooters had a mental health history. The left always yells…”don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”….yet that is exactly what they are doing. They scream discrimination and violation of rights when people want to put away mental health persons……so their aim is to say… away with weapons but leave the mental cases alone. In that piece it was also noted that some of the most notorious serial killers and mass murderers did not even use guns…..

    You know, the funny part of the post…no one challenged it.

      • You don’t even want to get into a discussion on the side effects of psychiatric drugs……that is a very interesting discussion….

        I knew about the prescription drug awareness programs that are in effect by the government. I am also aware of the tracking of PTSD soldiers and civilians by the government. I have PTSD and all of my records are stamped in BIG RED LETTERS…..PTSD. But….know one understands what PTSD really is nor the effects of it. Mt PTSD consists of war dreams (which are diminishing as I get older) and the acute awareness when I am in public. ( Always knowing where the exits are, not sitting with my back against the doors or open windows, taking stock immediately of everybody in the room and assessing danger areas, head on a swivel, positioning the wife away from possible ambush sites while walking (ie. parked cars, alleyways, etc)..My point being, is that I am not a danger to society and I have yet to climb up in a tower to snipe anyone. But I am listed as a possible “terrorist” by the government and Napolitano.

        The government keeps enough records on the average citizen and they do not even know about it. So, it would not surprise me to see any type of “classification” by our government. Remember, the government has already classed us as have and have nots anyway. The years to come are going to be very interesting.

        • I agree Colonel, psych drugs can lead to very bad things. Oh Yes, big pharma is a whole giant discussion by itself. As far the discussion, telling them no is a great start, providing facts will be ignored, as the gun grabbers don’t care about the truth. I would suggest to them that “if” they can get a ban passed (which I doubt) then fine, let them come get’em. I just don’t see that happening with the amount of “assult weapons” in the hands of those willing to fight back. They tend to show their ignorance quite often, I love it when they talk about “automatic weapons” . I just smile 🙂

        • Good Morning Colonel and G-Man.

          I am diagnosed as Bi-Polar and severly depressed. Despite this I have absolutely NO desire to walk into a Mickey D’s and start shooting. Does my diagnosis mean that I will not be able to own a gun in the future? I suppose we will just have to see how far the Government gets with all this.

          But as G said: “I will not give up my guns, I will not register my guns, and I will fight to the death to prove it.” This is a statement of fact that I make also. And I don’t need high capacity magazines because I hit what I aim at. Yes, I am THAT dang good! 🙂 Well, maybe not, but there is only one way to prove it, and I don’t believe the gun grabbers have the guts. While not being dangerous, I WILL fight to defend my family AND my RIGHTS as an American.

          And LOI, you can add Andrew Jackson to the list of Presidents who, despite the Supreme Court, drove the Native American Cherokees off their land, including some of my family. So no. WE DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!

  3. I think the mental health side of this may be crucial. Both of these latest mass shootings were committed by people that should have been committed. So should we on the right want to frame the argument on a person’s mental health? The V.A. seems to think that a hero that risked their life for our country should be black-listed on the Instant Background check system if the forget to pay some bills or have trouble balancing a checkbook. How would we insure we keep our rights without a medical clerk checking a box that takes away our rights because we need a sleep aid or pain med’s.

    What would automatically make a patient taking psychiatric drugs violent? What makes them a threat to society or themselves?

    • That’s a great video V.H. I think a point glossed over on the big cities is black-on-black crime. It appears many cities have written of these neighborhoods to fend for themselves. Then there are the Chicago’s, that do this while disarming the law abiding citizens that live in those area’s.

  4. There is a general, although begrudging, acknowledgement that any organization of free men is superior in the generation of prosperity, promotion of truth, and advancement of civilization .

    But this attitude will have minor effects on the continuation of socialism or growth of government and tyranny.

    A genuinely revolutionary establishment of the ideal structure of political society as envisaged by the classical liberals and free men will not take place.

    Most individuals remain unwilling to jettison romanticized notions of collective control over their economic processes and the advancing tyranny of their nanny State.

    You can see this phenomena on SUFA – where posters, as LOI, will complain about the usurpations, yet continue to support and champion the system that does the usurpation.

  5. LOI,

    So, “ can we please have a meaningful conversation on gun control?”

    Probably not – but it’s not because of the Liberals you like to blame for everything. It’s because of “you”.

    After you make this statement, you have a whole list of “truths” and “demands” that you want answered before the conversation starts:

    Any thinking American (or person) has reason to not trust our(or any) government.

    Do we have to agree with this before the conversation starts?

    first, how can we “trust” you? Remember your guy on his eleven million dollar vacation in Hawaii? The one that promised to REDUCE the deficit? Come on, with a straight face, tell us we can “trust” him with our 2nd Amendment rights.

    What does this have to do with anything? What about that $2 billion trip to India? Oh yeah, that was right-wing bullshit, so I guess we can’t trust you either…

    Next, even if we did work a deal and he kept his word, what stops the next senate/congress/president from breaking that promise?

    You’re right – NOTHING. But the “slippery slope” or “Incrementalism” is an invalid argument because it applies to EVERYTHING. If you eat too much, you’ll get fat and die, so you better not eat anything, because it could lead to obesity…

    Incrementalism explains the NRA’s opposition to any and all gun laws

    Wait a minute, I thought we couldn’t have this conversation because of the Liberals? It sounds like the NRA and the Conservatives refuse to have the conversation…

    Next, can we be clear ( I mean honest) on what you want to ban or limit?

    This is one of the things we would talk about during the CONVERSATION that you refuse to have.

    Sen. Feinstein has stated on national television that if she thought she could get the votes, she would ban and confiscate ALL forearms in America.

    Ok, there are lots of extreme views on both sides. If we could have that CONVERSATION (that you refuse to have), maybe we could reach an agreement and silence Sen. Feinstein.

    Is that what you want? If not, convince us that it’s not just another step, another increment to that total ban.

    It’s not, but I can’t guarantee anything about the future. And neither can you…

    Hmm, is this the same NRA that was the main force in implementing the Instant Background Check System? They advocate that every law-abiding citizen that wants to own (bear) a firearm may do so, not every person. They think criminals & firearms are a” Bad Thing.” They threw their support behind a measure to reduce criminal forearm ownership, despite the risk from some of their members who do not trust the government.

    So I guess the NRA doesn’t believe in the 2nd amendment, because the NRA wants to take guns away from some people, right?

    What will you offer?

    I don’t know – that why we have a CONVERSATION – to discuss these things…

    Sorry, but I feel most liberals do not understand math or science very well.

    Wow – you can’t really be serious???

    Semi-automatic in reference to a firearm means one bullet fired with each trigger pull.

    This has nothing to do with math or science – it has to do with firearms. And I agree a lot of people mix up machine-gun, automatic, semi-automatic, assault rifle, etc.

    The ten round ban is useless, since it only takes a second or two to swap magazines.

    Right, but that second or two can be the difference when the gun is pointed at you…

    A caution to you liberals wanting to ban “high-capacity” magazines, in the Old West, many carried extra cylinders loaded with bullets for their revolvers.

    So, what does this have to do with the CONVERSATION (that you refuse to have)?

    While you study up on your history, math & science, don’t forget psychology.

    I never forget psychology. And after spending time at SUFA, psychology is all I can think about…

    After you bring facts/numbers to the table

    Do you also want to argue over the shape of the table we’ll sit at while we have this CONVERSATION (that you refuse to have)?

    we are still going to be looking at the old/new fact that we cannot trust you.

    So it’s our fault that you refuse to have this CONVERSATION because you don’t trust us?

    And of course the fact that I responded to this will just cause many arguments about whose fault it is (Liberals), and will allow you to continue to not have the CONVERSATION (that you refuse to have)?


    • Just A Citizen says:


      ROTFLMAO……………….. Well played this morning. Looks like you got some rest over the holidays.

      Honestly, I don’t know how we have a “conversation” about regulating weapons when we come from completely different places with regard to fundamental principles.

      So lets see if it is possible that we can agree on one thing? That is that what ever changes are desired, that it be done via a Constitutional Amendment rather than an end run using legislation, and prolonged years of litigation and legal obfuscation of the Constitution itself.

      Is that even possible?

      • Hello, JAC…….I will enter the conversation but the conversation has to start with definitions, don’t you think? We have to discard the mass murders UNLESS we include all the weapons used in mass murder…..whether gun, knife, or club. I cannot fathom an argument that killing 10 is better than killing 20 because a club or knife is better than a gun. To foster an argument that a ten round clip is better than thirty because fewer people would be killed is, in my opinion, a ludicrous argument. A mass killing, whether 10 or 20 is still a mass killing. You will still have deranged people killing in mass with or without guns.

        I have checked plenty of history and mass murders are centuries old….only the weapons change. Does the mere fact that the weapons have changed, mean that those weapons are to be eliminated. Does not the problem lie within the individual that commits murders? should we be “putting away” the mentally ill? And if that is the case, who determines mentally ill? A lot of questions……a lot of questions.

        • Bottom Line says:

          They’re not mentally ill by the standard definition.

          They’re being programmed.

        • It is my understanding that it is already illegal for the mentally ill and felons to have weapons. Where then does this conversation procede to next?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good day Colonel. I agree with your comments. The most effective way to deal with violent people, IN A FREE COUNTRY, is via individual self defense. In the case of schools or other public places this means taking effective and efficient action to prevent and then if needed, subdue the crazy person.

          You cannot legislate away mass murder.

          However, I think those of us on the Freedom side do a dis-service to our arguments by ignoring or avoiding the reality that if NO GUNS existed there “might have been” FEWER mass murders in recent times. We have no way to know if these crazy young people would have gone after their school mates, theater goers or kindergartners if they had no access to guns. I think there is validity in the other side’s argument that many people would not have tried without access to guns. Because guns allow them to act quickly and to some extent without hands on affect.

          The Australian example has some validity that we should be willing to discuss rather than ignore it. Although it doesn’t address our Right to Bear Arms. But a proposed Amendment would. On the other hand, the Australian example ignores that the event causing their gun ban was unique. So there is no proof that such laws would have prevented prior acts of violence.

          But here is the other rub. They cannot assure us that if banned there would be NO GUNS. We all know that the criminals would be armed and those inclined to mass murder would probably figure out how to secure a weapon or two.

          So lets address one part that seems to be missing from this whole “discussion”. That is the RESPONSIBILITY of those gun owners, whose guns get taken for use in mass murder. In a FREE Society we need recourse for the irresponsible actions of others that result in harm. This should apply to gun ownership as with any other device that can cause harm, like automobiles.

          In Sandy Hook it was the mother who failed, but she is gone and therefore there is no liability to be placed. However, if a gun show participant sells a semi-auto to a crazy person who then shoots up a school and then is held liable for the damage, wouldn’t the sellers be a little more careful?

          Of course this then goes to the “tracking” mechanism. This is where I think the Left is disingenuous. They propose “registration” as if it will prevent problems. What it really does is provide a documented chain of ownership, by which some liability can be assigned to an “owner” who allowed their gun to get into the wrong hands.

          This then leads to what is the reasonable means an owner must take to determine if the buyer is legitimate? How much time between sale and crime is needed to absolve the seller? Etc, etc.

          Which leads me back to …………… individual self defense is the only effective answer.

          But then we can begin to address how we handle KNOWN mental illness.

          Aside: The first Crabs are coming in and I am off to find a shipping container that will hold ice without leaking all over the place.

          • Might I suggest dry ice?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I can use dry ice with only 1 carrier I found so far, but it will take 4 days to get there (UPS).

              No worries, I found a plastic container and will get it sent out tomorrow. That is if you got me that address. See your email if you haven’t already.

              Picked up the crabs this afternoon. Fresh but COOKED. Turns out the State requires they be cooked if sold anywhere other than the Coastal Market places.

              So you won’t have to boil them or worry about getting your fingers crushed when you pick them up. 🙂

        • Colonel,

          I cannot fathom an argument that killing 10 is better than killing 20 because a club or knife is better than a gun.

          You’re wrong. 10 dead is better than 20 dead.

          This is another one of your “Road Blocks” to having a discussion. You won’t talk about REDUCING gun violence – you demand that we Liberals guarantee we’ll ELIMINATE all gun violence – which is impossible.

          This is similar to your “knives, bats, and automobile kill people too” argument. You won’t talk about GUN CONTROL unless we include knife, bat, and automobile CONTROL. A completely ridiculous argument.

          You will still have deranged people killing in mass with or without guns.

          Yes, but using guns is much more efficient and results in more deaths.

          I have checked plenty of history and mass murders are centuries old

          So shouldn’t we start dealing with this problem?

          Does the mere fact that the weapons have changed, mean that those weapons are to be eliminated.

          We’re not talking about eliminating guns. But if nothing is done, and the gun violence continues to escalate, that might eventually be the result. And you’ll have no one to blame but yourself, for not dealing with the problem earlier.

      • JAC,

        it be done via a Constitutional Amendment rather than an end run using legislation

        #1. The method is irrelevant if we can’t even discuss the issue.

        #2. Requiring a Constitutional Amendment raises the bar and pretty much assures no changes (which is your goal, right?).

        #3. There is that little bit about “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has already upheld the right of the government to impose some regulations on arms.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I am willing as usual to discuss this or any other topic with you. You simply have to engage in the conversation.

          I do think, however, that on this topic there is not much “wiggle” room by most people. There seems to be a hard core group that wants control or even outright bans and those that want pretty much nothing.

          An Amendment is a high bar, as it SHOULD BE. Otherwise the document is meaningless, as BF is always claiming. But if Society really wants something that much that also infringes upon others rights then they should have to pass a high test.

          My purpose of requiring an Amendment has nothing to do with my desire or lack of desire to control or prohibit certain weapons from being owned by private citizens. It is far more basic. Protection of our Republic against Tyranny. Along with advancement of a more “civilized” nation.

          The fact that the Supreme Court has already violated our Constitution is not an argument against the need to follow that document properly. At least not a logical one. It is however, a good argument showing why the High Bar is needed to prevent usurpation by 9 people in black ropes.

          Only a bunch of lawyers and politicians, who are lawyers, could find that the words “shall not be infringed” mean that “the Govt can infringe when it has a compelling interest to do so.”

          • OK JAC,
            Since you’re the constitutional scholar, lets write out the 2nd amendment, in “long-hand”, as the Founding Fathers meant it.

            This is the 2nd Amendment per Wiki:

            A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

            Here’s my version, trying to use “modern” – and more – words to make the meaning clear:

            A well regulated military, being necessary to the security of each of the 13 individual colonies that are now free and independent countries, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that the individual colonies can use the people as their military to maintain the colonies independence from the Federal Government, shall not be infringed

            I left “well regulated” and “shall not be infringed” for now, best they contradict each other, and will be the hardest to “explain”.

            So, what’s your extended/clarified version of the 2nd amendment?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              My view is that the Founders and the Framers recognized an inherent and natural right of a free people to Bear Arms. This included Owning, borrowing, leasing, renting or manufacturing their own.

              This RIGHT was paramount for several reasons, one of which was Defense of the Town or State. Hence the “militia”.

              The debates at the time included gun ownership itself and the fear of the Fed power eliminating the right of the people to form a militia. Because there were two issues ongoing it seems that they tried to wrap them into the single Amendment.

              Put in context then First comes the right to bear arms. From this then comes the right and ability to form a Militia, then comes the recognition that a Militia is essential to defense of the States as well as the NEW United States.

              So as time passes we no longer depend on a Militia for US protection. But States could still form Militias for their own protection. Lets assume they don’t. What you have remaining is the Core Right to Bear Arms.

              The right to own guns is a Core Right and is not dependent upon the militia’s existence nor is it to be regulated as part of the militia’s regulation.

              As I mentioned to Buck, Madison himself scoffed at the notion that the Constitution would allow the Fed govt to ban or control gun ownership or that it would eliminate the Militia. But BOTH issues were included in the Bill of Rights because nobody trusted his explanation.

              I believe a MILITIA is a GOOD thing and each State should consider maintaining one, or more. Even expanding it.

              The Militia is NOT the Military or A Military. So I disagree with your use of that term in your rephrasing. A Militia could undergo “Military” training but it is NOT a Military Unit, nor should it be. If we want to call the National Guard our “Militia” then we need to PROHIBIT the Guard being sent into war outside the boundaries of the USA.

              Does any of that help?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I take it that you want me to construct my own version, as you have done.

              I will do that in the morning. Very tired right now.

              Until then.

    • Toddster,

      Welcome & thanks for the humor. (did you like the tree hugging bit?)

      “So, “ can we please have a meaningful conversation on gun control?”

      Probably not – but it’s not because of the Liberals you like to blame for everything. It’s because of “you”.”
      May have to agree to disagree on that one sir. I did not delete your totally offensive post the same way my liberal FaceBook friend did to me. I think that proves I am more willing than at least one liberal that I am willing to have a conversation.

      So by your post, you want a ten round magazine ban and we’re all good? No “assault rifles” or pistol bans? Great, we’re almost done!

      • LOI,

        did you like the tree hugging bit?)

        I thought it was funny in a childish way.

        I did not delete your totally offensive post the same way my liberal FaceBook friend did to me.

        The 1st amendment applies to the government and “public” spaces. It doesn’t apply to Facebook, SUFA, or other “private” spaces. You can delete my SUFA posts if you like (like your friend deleted your Facebook post). If I don’t like it, I’m free to go somewhere else.

        Likewise, WordPress can limit or censor SUFA if it doesn’t follow their guidelines.

        If you have a problem with your friend deleting your posts on Facebook, I suggest you take that up with him – or Facebook.

        I think that proves I am more willing than at least one liberal that I am willing to have a conversation.

        Do you really think this article you posted is going to encourage a conversation about gun control? Is it really “respectful dialog of opposing views?” Based on your posts and comments here at SUFA, I’ll bet your Facebook posts that are “censored” are quite offensive – which is probably your intent. You seem to enjoy “pushing peoples buttons” and then claiming some “higher ground.”

        So by your post, you want a ten round magazine ban and we’re all good? No “assault rifles” or pistol bans? Great, we’re almost done!

        I did not say I’m in favor of a limit on magazine size. I was simply replying to you comment that magazine size doesn’t matter.

        • “Do you really think this article you posted is going to encourage a conversation about gun control? Is it really “respectful dialog of opposing views?” Based on your posts and comments here at SUFA, I’ll bet your Facebook posts that are “censored” are quite offensive – which is probably your intent. You seem to enjoy “pushing peoples buttons” and then claiming some “higher ground.””

          Yeh but it got you to post didn’t it?

          • Yes – which is obviously your only goal – just keep the conversation going.

            Don’t actually discuss anything important.

            • Todd, why don’t you start a discussion. What about this issue do you think is important and should be talked about? Tell us what you think about the subject at hand.


    Sorry, a short change in subject-but I just had an epiphany! I now know what the President and the Dems. mean by a balanced approach-it means getting revenue in a balanced way.

    • And balanced of course only means from whomever they deem rich-at least for now.

      • Actually, when you listen to Pelosi and think about all the taxes that are going up on the currant group defined as rich through Obamacare and increased rates-it sounds like what they want to do is take away the ability to become rich.

        • VH…just wait until the middle class gets their first paycheck…..they will see it. Wait until their tax return for next year and they will certainly see how much they lost. Give it time.

          • My wife has already seen hers. Man was she mad. She has also been informed that her hours will be cut back and there will be layoffs. See, she works for a Home Health Company and because of Obamacare they stand to lose MILLIONS this year.

            Is that fair to her company OR her?

            • No doubt, people are going to get a reality check, get the pun, heheh, although it isn’t really funny. My daughter finally found a job, can’t have more than 23 hours a week period, and usually doesn’t get that many, because they hire more people than they need for various reasons. she can’t work another part time job because she doesn’t have a fixed schedule. And I see people who are in there 40’s and fifties working beside her-how the hell do they survive. My son, where he works, giving people buyouts so they can hire contract labor. Yeah, all this great governmental help is gonna kill us.

      • Yeah. About as rich as ten feet up a bull’s butt. My wife and I are far from rich, actually, we are considered poor, and she has ALREADY seen her taxes go up. So what happened to “taxes will only go up on the more fortunate among us”?

        I will tell you what. We were lied to by not only our beloved President, but also lied to and manipulated by the media, by none of them BUT Fox telling us that it was going to raise nearly EVERYONE’S taxes.

        Also, Obama failed to mention all the new regulations and taxes that were going up on everything medical because of the ObamaCare Law.

        I tell you, I am about to get sick and tired of being sick and tired of all of this. Seccession or Revolution is beginning to sound better and better every day. Somehow this government needs to be reined in. Or hog-tied. Or smacked down. Or ………..

        • I agree, the poor and middle class are already being hurt bad, by all these liberal policies and their “unintentional”? consequences. My above comment was based more on their talking points. Not the actual consequences of their taxing the crap out of their current definition of who is rich and passing horrible, stupid bills like Obamacare.

          The tax increase right now on 70 some odd present of the people was caused by taking away an Obama temporary tax cut, that he gave us a couple years ago. Made a good sound bite for him to say he gave the middle class a tax cut. But the election is over so let’s get real-Dems. don’t really give tax breaks-if they did how would they pay for the socialist welfare society they are creating.

          • I’ll take that back-they do give tax breaks but only to those who will help them get re-elected, not to us peons.

            • Yeah I saw that. I wonder how all the liberals live with themselves with all the pork they put in the fiscal cliff bill. Raise taxes on all of us and then turn around and spend it all to repay more cronies. What a bunch of crooks.

  7. Todd, Buck, Chuckie, and Mathius, What are your thoughts on the gun control issue?

    • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

      1) Enforce existing laws re gun purchases
      2) Review existing laws and close any loopholes

      Oh, and provide for better communication between the Feds and States. Though I guess this could fall into #2…

      But the main problem with having a debate is exactly as Todd pointed out above — the right’s refusal to have a conversation in the first place.

      • Good enough, I have no objections to your opinion. Now, what would the debate look like, if say, I had a completely open mind and was in the middle with no position on the subject?

      • Buck,

        Could we start with violent crime instead of “gun crime”? Or could we start with the real numbers instead of emotional ploys? Why ban “assault rifles” when more people are killed with pistols? Or bats, There were, in 2011, 323 murders committed with a rifle, while at the same time there were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. In fact, “nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.” The above is supplied by the FBI.

        1) Enforce existing laws re gun purchases( Funny that gun crime prosecution is down under Obama/Holder, not sure how to change that….RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!!! that will be spent on something else)

        • There is a difference between an object used as a weapon to kill and an object whose sole purpose is to kill. So let’s stick with guns and not got side-tracked with a look at how many people were killed with bats, hammers, fists, pens, etc.

          I am not so sure there needs to be an assault-rifle ban, but am open to the concept — though would need to know more about the topic. How are ‘assault rifles’ being defined for such a ban? What guns would specifically be banned under this formula? Etc.

          Personally, I like the concept of restrictions on high capacity magazines much more. Those who argue against such a restriction since ‘it only takes a couple of seconds to reload’ forget that those seconds can make a huge difference, and I’m sure not all killers are able to reload so quickly.

          But overall I am more interested in taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of (1) criminals and (2) the mentally challenged. And for this, existing laws must be better enforced and any existing loopholes need to be identified and closed.

          • “There is a difference between an object used as a weapon to kill and an object whose sole purpose is to kill. ”

            There is-lets see what are the uses of a gun. To hunt for food, target practice, it’s used in sporting events, to protect ones family, to combat crime, to protect yourself from wild animals. Any others.

            Now let’s look at a bat-used in a sport -is baseball more important than protecting your family. Or shooting game if one is broke and hungry. Although in certain circumstances I suppose a bat too could be used to protect ones family.

            • My point was that assault rifles are not meant for hunting. They are designed to kill. Whether that should be enough to ban or otherwise restrict ownership is another question entirely and one which I said, though I am open to, am not so sure is necessary nor warranted. So, moving on…where do you stand on high capacity magazines? Or, if you prefer, how would you propose limiting access to criminals and the mentally challenged?

              • re high capacity magazines: The lady who was hid in her attic then shot at the intruder..emptied her gun and the guy was still alive. I heard another story about a guy hyped up on meth and he took double digit (forgot how many seems like 11) hits and still was alive enough to blow his own head off. Point being..six shots is not always enough to stop a bad guy.

              • Uh oh…did you just define something?

              • Question Buck-you acknowledge that it only takes seconds to change a clip. But you think this second is extremely valuable to save a life in a mass murder. So I ask you-why should a law abiding person have to take those seconds to change clips to protect themselves from a criminal or criminals who are threatening their lives? I don’t have the percentages but I assume there are many more individual cases of attacks on people than there are mass murders.

                Personally I don’t think the magazine size makes much difference either way. So why take away a right-if it just won’t make enough difference to matter in protecting lives. Like most things there are negatives and positives when it comes to magazine sizes.

              • Assault rifles are rifles of normal size and weight that have the capacity to be fired in a fully automatic mode. the first assault rifle was the German STG – 44. It was followed by the AK-47. The Armalite AR-15, later the Colt M-16 was developed in the late 1950’s and adopted by the United States Air Force to replace their underpowered semi-automatic M-1 carbines. At the beginning of the Vietnam war, the weapon was adopted by the US Army in part for its automatic feature. The M-14 they were previously using was almost useless on full automatic because of the recoil. . Due to the abysmal performance of the gun on full automatic and the consequent wasting of ammunition, after Vietnam, the rifle and its successors were modified to “burst fire”. This would be three rounds on a trigger pull instead of full automatic. Again, for the uninitiated. on full automatic, if you fire, aiming at the belly of a silhouette target, the first round will be in the stomach area, the second at the head/neck and the third in the sky. This is called “climb” and is why fully automatic fire is discouraged in other than machine-guns. The weight of a machine gun, appx. 25lbs will keep the muzzle down.

                So, there is a definition of assault weapon and those black plastic mean looking things sold in gun and sports shops are not. But what the hell is another little lie or two to support the “cause”. After all, they know whats better for us than we do.

  8. Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer’s Account, Company Owner Claims
    By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
    January 7, 2013
    Subscribe to Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.’s posts

    Bank of America has reportedly frozen the account of gun manufacturer American Spirit Arms, according to its owner, Joe Sirochman.

    In a Facebook post dated December 29, Sirochman wrote the following:

    “My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms…our Web site orders have jumped 500 percent causing our Web site e-commerce processing larger deposits to Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review.

    “After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review — her exact words were — ‘We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.’”(emphasis added)

    Sirochman also wrote that he told the bank manager that “they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs” and that “[American Spirit is a] firearms manufacturer with all the proper licensing.”

    He also noted that he has been doing business with Bank of America for over 10 years, but will now be looking for a new bank.

    According to Unlawful News, this isn’t the first time Bank of America has targeted a customer involved in the firearms industry.

    McMillan Group International was reportedly told that its business was no longer welcome after the company started manufacturing firearms – even after 12 years of doing business with the bank.

    Wow, I’ll never use Bank of America for anything-nothing, nada, ever again.
    I mean, good grief, a bank saying I”m gonna hold up Your money, because I don’t like what your doing.

    You’re welcome not to take my business-but you certainly shouldn’t just mess with a person or business that isn’t breaking any laws, just because you want too. So guess what Bank of America-there are two sides to that little tactic-hopefully people will return the favor and not give You their business.

  9. @ VH……RE: Unintended consequence. There is no such thing.

  10. @ Buck……good afternoon counselor………..and Happy New Year.

    Two things:

    (1) You say: ” There is a difference between an object used as a weapon to kill and an object whose sole purpose is to kill. ” I would counter that it is not the object but the intent. A gun, is manufactured with a specific design… to shoot…not to kill. Targets, for instance and competitive matches. By your definition, could a bow and arrow have only one design… kill? A knife? By the same definition, a hammer is designed for one thing as well….to hit nails. But it can be used to kill and, therefore, becomes a weapon. If the wielder kills more than one person, it is a mass killing. That is why I suggest that intent is the primary force. Therefore the answer must lie elsewhere.

    (2) High capacity magazines…there is some logic in this. However, I would argue that any shooter that has the intelligence to use a weapon will also posses the intelligence on reloading procedures. I am trained in weaponry, as you know. I will be able to get off more rounds with more accuracy with 5 clips of ammo of 9 rounds than one person with a 30 round clip in the same amount of time.

    However, I will agree with you on your statement ” But overall I am more interested in taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of (1) criminals and (2) the mentally challenged. And for this, existing laws must be better enforced and any existing loopholes need to be identified and closed.” But, will you agree with me that this is a State and not a Federal issue.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Oh Colonel, you opened up the can of snakes with your last statement/ question.

      You see the left loves to tout the 14th Amendment to suit their needs, but in the case of Gun Laws it has worked against them. Classic case of “beware what you ask for”.

      There was a time when Gun laws were in fact State and Local. Had they just left it alone that would still be the case.

    • 1) Colonel, am I sensing a bit of an attorney lurking under that 13-gallon cowboy hat!? You make a fair point, though irrelevant to this discussion as I have already stated that I am not so certain such a ban is a good idea and have moved on to the next item.

      2). No one is contesting that you cannot reload in a matter of miliseconds and resume shooting as if you had never stopped in the first place. But many people i am sure cannot. And those few precious seconds can make a huge difference, as you readily admit. So do I have your agreement on this score?

      3) No agreement that this must be entirely left to the individual states, sorry.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        As to your #2.

        There are two parts to your claim. One is correct, that being many people, especially the untrained might not be able to switch them out quickly.

        The second is whether changing clips would buy “meaningful” seconds. I disagree and suggest you google up the Australian shooting that was used to ban so many weapons. The internet contains a detailed timeline and description of the shootings.

        There were several times where there were many seconds, even minutes, between firing. Yet most victims sat there huddled within range. Most were killed at near point blank distance. Now this was not your typical teenager gone crazy. But neither was that kid at Sandy Hook.

        Curious why you won’t let the States deal with the gun laws. If you New Yorkers want to ban all guns feel free. Just don’t expect any gun carrying right wingers to come visit.

        • I didn’t say states should have no jurisdiction, just not complete jurisdiction.

          • Buck….I can agree that a non trained person will not reload as fast as a trained person, however, even an untrained person can reload in four to five seconds…..but my feelings don’t change any on the number of killed…..10 or 20… is too many…numbers after the first one do not matter…it is just more.

            As to jurisdiction, where would you see the shared responsibility?

            Our veteran’s group is volunteering to man some of the local schools. Private schools already have armed guards. The local law enforcement is all for it and the school boards are getting on board. These are trained veterans in weapons handling. We are being requested by the PTA’s .

            Now I am sure that I will rile some up on this other subject, but the gun shows here are a little ridiculous. I do not favor the way that they are run. There are no checks and balances. i am a gun advocate and I believe in gun ownership but I am not in favor of the way guns can be bought and sold among individuals. The answer is not a ban but some responsibility needs to be done.

            • I agree with you that one is too many, but numbers after one still do matter. The fewer the better.

              Regarding shared responsibility — there need to be maintained minimum standards and regulations and a national database. States are free to experiment with more restrictive measures if they so choose. And better communication needs to be maintained between states and between states and feds.

              As for your issue with the gun shows — this is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Your thoughts on how to do so?

              By the way Colonel, what ever happened to your trip to NYC?

              • @ Buck…….well, ya’ll had a little blow up there that closed a lot of airports…..and this time of year, your yankee weather is chock full of ice and snow and it limits the flying weather. Even though I am instrument certified and even though my plane is equipped for known icing, you do not purposely fly into ice. So, I shall wait until appropriate flying weather. I cannot fly high enough to avoid low level snow and ice.

              • Wuss.


          • Just A Citizen says:


            I know what you said, and that is what I responded to.

      • Here is where the ex-almost shrink pops in. You, I or even the colonel would probably fumble a reload from time to time. Stone cold psychopathic killers do not. Those personalities go on automatic.

        • Sounds like a broad generalization with nothing to back it up. Maybe you watch to many movies.

          Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.

  11. @Buck, Right now, there are what 2000 gun laws on the books. Felons, by law cannot possess a gun, and that’s the same with the mentally ill. How do we keep guns away from criminals? There is one way, but it’s not legal. Use the Marines and clean up the inner cities. But, it’s not legal.

    High capacity mags. I don’t see them as a problem. Even with the Sandy Hook shooting, what size mag was used? There is even a question if an AR-15 was even used. Not going there, and will say this, banning them will do nothing to keep them from criminals, as the black market will take over, as is the same over banning “assault weapons”. That will only effect law abiding citizens.

    Want to stop mass murders in schools, let the teachers carry concealed and advertise it. I know the normal arguement, that an accident may happen. Well an accident may not happen , and the next nutcase gets capped before killing any kids. I actually heard a news person say that having a member or members of Sandy Hook armed would have made matters worse, I almost puked. That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.

    So, to rap this up, nothing being proposed will affect criminals or nuts. They will affect law abiding citizens. IMHO, if the govt can have it (a gun) we should have it. No, I don’t want nukes or tanks, although a 50 cal; would be nice 🙂

    • No dumber than positing that having a teacher or administrator with a gun would have resulted in no children being killed…

      • I didn’t say that, and you know it. With admin and teachers armed, and advertised, it serves as a deterent. It could result in the intruder being stopped before he can kill, or stopped before he can kill 20. The odds that it would result in a much smaller kill rate is far higher than having no concealed carry, no gun zones, and an invite to mass murderers to “come on in, we can’t shoot back” 🙄

    • Actually the number, fed, state, local is over 20,000. Despite the fact that there is no problem with mass shootings in NY State and there is a stupid but modest “assault weapon” ban in place for years good old Governor Cuomo Jr. (next president) wants to “toughen up” the assault weapon ban and close the loopholes!?

      He is relying on the shootings of those firemen in upstate NY, done by a convicted felon (murder of grandmother with hammer) who used an AR-15 clone which he convinced some sweet young, non felon thing to straw purchase for him. For those not in the know that 24 year old young lady will now probably spend the next 25 ears behind bars for her terminal stupidity.

      G-man, those are the same news pukes who constantly bandy about the figure that you’re 12 times more likely to be killed/injured with your own firearm at home rather than stop a criminal from breaking in. Absolute fabrication, been around for over 20 years and was made up out of whole cloth. Tried for months to find and verify where it came from. Nobody knows. Certainly not backed up by the FBI stats.

  12. This kind of stuff is getting more and more common, and that’s why we have the 2nd Amendment as well. It seems that some Denver citizens need to exercise it.

    Gangs or Cops – Or Do I Repeat Myself?
    by William Norman Grigg

    Recently by William Norman Grigg: Jerrold Nadler: Gun-Grabbing Leninist

    Denver Police Officer Eric Sellers once choked an innocent pedestrian into unconsciousness while two other officers refused to intervene. This was an act of summary “street justice” imposed as a penalty for “contempt of cop”: The victim, a volunteer fire fighter named Jared Lunn, had been assaulted at a nearby club and had told Sellers that he wanted to press charges. When Sellers dismissively told Lunn to go home, the 21-year-old disgustedly muttered “Way to ‘protect and serve.’” Such impudence on the part of a Mundane simply can’t be tolerated.

    A few weeks later, Sellers attacked a young man named John Crespin because the officer thought the kid acted “nosy.” Without cause or warrant, Sellers pulled up into the driveway of Sellers’ home and ordered him out of his car. When Crespin complied, his shoulder brushed lightly against the officer’s arm – an incidental contact that left Sellers feeling defiled.

    So the officer seized the young man in a chokehold and spit a stream of obscenities in his face. After handcuffing Crespin, Sellers used his police baton to lift the young man a couple of feet from the ground, then dropped him face-first into the driveway. He then brutally beat him into a bloody, lumpy mess before charging him with “felony menacing.”

    In March 2008, a disabled Iraq veteran named James Moore was nearly beaten to death on the sidewalk outside his apartment by a thugscrum of Denver officers. After being hog-tied, choked, and pummeled, Moore briefly flat-lined while he was being treated by EMTs.

    The lead assailant was Officer Shawn Miller. Two days earlier, Miller and his partner severely beat a pedestrian named Jason Graber, leaving him with a broken knee and a permanent disability. Graber, alarmed over Miller’s reckless driving, had gesture for the officer to slow down. That prompted Miller to stop and treat the uppity Mundane to a dose of law and order.

    During a November 2010 incident in a secure apartment building, Miller cursed at, browbeat, threatened, battered, and abducted a disabled woman named Doreen Salazar because of her perceived tardiness in buzzing him and his partner into the residential area. Security camera video shows Miller snarling at the small, middle-aged woman, pushing her, and cornering her near an elevator. He then slammed her face-first into the elevator door, handcuffed her, and held her in his patrol car for about ten minutes – a sadistic act that served no purpose other than to terrorize an uppity Mundane who had failed to respect Miller’s supposed authority.

    Tax-subsidized thug Eric Sellers strikes a pose
    Neither Sellers nor Miller, nor dozens of other Denver cops who routinely commit violent crimes against the innocent, has ever been punished. John Copeland isn’t as fortunate.

    Two weeks ago, the elderly man – who is hard of hearing – used his cane to defend himself from what he thought was an attack in a parking lot. The assailant was a volunteer police officer. A few days later, several police later materialized and dragged Copeland out of bed in the middle of the night. He has been jailed on suspicion of felony assault – not because of the severity of his supposed offense, but because of the identity of the supposed victim.

    A few weeks ago, Denver’s Police Union – which, in the face of fierce competition, has distinguished itself as one of the most corrupt, arrogant, and petulant in the country – erected a billboard to protest what it considers improper changes in the city’s all-but-nonexistent police disciplinary system.

    “Gangs or Cops – Which Would You Rather Have On Your Streets?” asks the billboard, as if the question dealt with a significant material distinction.

    Buck, this is becoming a problem in many places, so I ask, should the law abiding citizens be allowed to protect themselves?

  13. On New Years morning, my 17 year old son rolled our 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer twice on the Highway after going to sleep at the wheel trying to get to his girlfriends house too early in the morning. We couldn’t get mad at him because we were too happy he was still alive. Walked away without a scratch.

    It reminds me of how precious our kids are to us. Although our Truck was Totaled with a capital T, it was not near as important as our son is. So when you see your kids, give them a hug and tell them how much you love them. You never know when something may happen to take them away from you, and you don’t want to have any regrets about telling how much you love them.

  14. Let’s have an Opt Out program for the Bill of Rights. If someone don’t like an Amendment, they can Opt Out, and it will not apply to them. Example, if a citizen don’t like the 2nd Amendment, they can Opt Out, and cannot ownor carry any guns whatsoever. They cannot use a gun , legally, to defend themselves or their family.

    In addition, if they don’t like others to have Freedom of Speech, they can Opt Out, and relinquish their right to speak up against anything or anybody, doing so, after Opt Out, in either case would result in a life sentence being a servant to politicians in the District of Criminals, where they must live throughout their term.

    Convicted servants will live on the same welfare dollars that they have supported when they were free. THeir healthcare will be free, at clinics managed by the govt. They will also be on a no fly list, no gun buy list, no drivers license list, no liquor and tobacco list, no strip joint list and no flat screen TV list. Talk about a quiet country, at least away from DC. HAHAHA 😆

  15. Pierc Morgan is such a wanker, can he be deported?

  16. For gun control in general, it’s kind of late to close the barn door – the horse is already out. As many have posted here, the fact that Obama was elected caused many to stock up on guns and ammo. Any proposed gun control would just cause people to stock pile more guns and ammo.

    I agree with Buck on the need to enforce existing laws and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally challenged. If we just enforced that, SUFA would be a “gun free zone.”

  17. Notre Dame had no business in the National Championship. This sure seems like it was about money, because Alabama owns them. What a shame. shame on the NCAA.

  18. Life is good and the world is right. 42 to 14 is what you get when you send boys south to play a man’s game.

  19. I know several have said they do not want to get into the psych drug discussion. I have alluded before that my wife has medical problems. She was diagnosed as bipolar 23 years ago. For many of those years, I believed the problem was chemical and could be solved by the drugs. They did seem to do some good although the response time was very slow. Initially she started with Li which causes many side effects such as tardive dyskinesia. To control side effects more drugs are prescribed. To control the mania and to prevent the antidepressants from triggering the mania, antipsychotics are administered. The combination is quite potent. She developed sever Li toxicity on 2 occasions. Then the “new” drugs (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs) became available. They seemed to work, she was able to function better but was never the same person as before the drugs. After several years on these drugs, she started to develop mobility problems similar to Parkinson’s. The symptoms got worse and eventually she was diagnosed with Low Gerhig’s and its ultimate death sentence. More drugs. Her health was declining noticeably. so much so that I figured she was just months from hospice care. Then a miracle happened. She fell and hit her head which caused a brain hemorrhage and a 2 week coma. We almost lost her twice. After 10 week in the hospital, she came home drug free and a totally different person. She read War and Peace in record time, the first book she had read in 16 years. She still had neurological problems since the drugs had caused brain damage similar to microstrokes but her speech and mobility were significantly improved. Unfortunately, after about 6 months, the depression returned necessitating a return to drugs but not the same ones. Speech and mobility were immediately impacted when the drugs were reintroduced. I am now actively working to get her off these drugs altogether. Over the last 6 months, I have reduced them by 60% without negative impact. With one exception, I have been accused of practicing medicine w/o a license.

    Read the book “The Emperor’s New Drugs” by Irving Kirsch. He has reanalyzed the clinical trials of SSRIs and found that they are only marginally (not statistically better than) a placebo. After 20 years of experience with them, I have to agree. They do not solve the problem and can cause significant harm. Why we feed this stuff to kids with developing minds is beyond me. If I could prove that these drugs were definitely the cause of my wife’s neurological problems, I would sue the manufacturers. There is no way to prove it. Beware of all psych drugs. Be especially wary of SSRIs.

    I do not have solution to bipolar disorder, but these drugs are not the answer.

    • T-Ray, the psych drug could certainly be a long discussion. I also would add vaccinations to the talk. Sorry to hear about the wife, I’m no doctor by any stretch, but I have been researching natural remedies and have found that alot of ailments can be solved with the correct amount of vitamins (that actually get in the system) and minerals (what many are claiming is the primary cause). The stuff we put in out bodies, from the chemicals in drinking water to the foods we get at the grocery store all may have a part in health problems. My father and myself use Isotonix products for our vitamins and minerals. They are more expensive than the crap at the store and are designed to get in the bloodstream. may have some good links and info. I stopped all vaccinations a long time ago. I don’t get the flu and rarely even have the sniffles. If a real investigation were conducted, vaccines would likely get outlawed, but thats anyone subject for another day.


  20. Buck and Todd, I agree that there is no chance that the gun grabbers win. The barn door has been open for too long and we gun owners are a stubborn bunch. I’m not sure how the gun control side can think that outlawing assault weapons and high capacity mags will make a difference in the future, but all the power to ya. I think if you want to make a difference, outlaw “no gun zones”.

    To add fuel to the fire of an already heated populace, this comes out today 🙄

    I’m starting to feel like we are in a “watch this hand so you can’t see the other hand screwing you” time. I’m still watching the economy, as that’s where our problems are really at.


  21. Back to the gun chatter. I keep hearing about a “National Registry”. Just how is that going to prevent mass murders? Any opinion Buck?

  22. D13, Have you seen this survey and it’s results? Here’s a sample:

    45: I would swear to the following code: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

    (___) (___) (___)

    (___) (___)

    Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

    Agree No Opinion

    46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?

    (___) (___) (___)

    (___) (___)

    Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

    Agree No Opinion

    End of questionnaire

    Now ask yourself these questions:

    1: Are we to turn over our armed forces to the U.N.?

    2: Can we be the U.N.’s world policeman?

    3: Or the world’s policeman on our own?

    4: Should we give oath of allegiance to a foreign power?

    5: Should we compromise our U.S. Constitution in the name of world government?

    6: Who is first, the United States or the rest of the world, specifically the United Nations?

    7: Would you rather answer to a world court (United Nations court) or to the courts of the United States?

    8: Do you believe you will have any say in a world government or world court (United Nations)?

    9: Are you willing to sacrifice national sovereignty for world laws and courts?

    10: Is the United Nations better able to dictate our lives to us than we as a country are?


    Think about it, that is what this survey was meant to convey, A New World Order Run By the United Nations!

    Here are the results of the survey:

    Shoot Americans (New World Order Survey of Last Year) Survey Results One In Four Marines would fire! Results are in from the U.S. military “shoot Americans” survey ‑ and they are disquieting By Mike Blair. About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps Base in Southern California. In addition, more than four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to “participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force.”

    • I have seen no such thing other than today…..but I am aware of a world wide police effort. It will never get off the ground. However, you can take the Marines out of the picture. I offer a much more prolific picture. 95% of the gun owners in America will NOT surrender their arms or agree to a nationwide volunteer registration system of existing weaponry. I will not abide by any such system and I will never turn my weapons in on a voluntary basis. Texas will never agree to any such proposal. Just as Texas will not abide by the ACA, it will never agree to a National Registration system and the Feds cannot enforce it. Every state knows this. A compromise is going to have to be reached.

    • Bottom Line says:

      The New World Order is what the people make it, as no government is more powerful than the will of it’s people…unless they are all divided, fighting and squabbling over bullshit.

      YOU ARE the New World Order.

      • THere are far too many sheeple to not be concerned. As we sit here, the govt has become the enemy of the people, yet few people are willing to do anything, yet 🙂 That time will come soon.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Try convincing everyone into agreeing on the same system, …at this point, it ain’t gonna happen. Pressure will build ’till it pops.

          New World Order out of Chaos

    • This is a video link. What do you think about what it says?

  23. @ Buck…….gun shows… Texas, this is a real problem. We love our guns here. Most of us carry and here, we can open carry rifles and shotguns and there are no restrictions. If I wish to display and carry an AR 15 in a gun rack I can do so. The only limitation is that it must be semi automatic. We can purchase and have automatic weapons but that takes a Federal Permit to do so and a very involved registration system. I have one weapon as I said that is fully automatic. It is registered and is considered a proper war trophy. So, there are already laws on the books for fully automatic weapons and the State and Feds already talk on this level.

    Gun shows do allow the personal sales of weapons and this is where I feel there is a problem. Personal sales of weapons do not require felony background checks. I do not like back ground checks but I can compromise in this regard….PROVIDED….gun registration is a private matter and not subject to public disclosure as just recently happened. My neighbor has ZERO business knowing whether or not I own a weapon. If you are going to require back ground checks on guns, then you must have back ground checks on bleach or ammonia or drain cleaners….all common household chemicals that can kill greater amounts than 20. This is where the slippery slope starts.

    On a personal note, when we buy ammonia nitrate greater than 20 gallons, we are checked . Why? Because of the OKC bombing. The problem is that ammonia nitrate by itself is not explosive…..combine it with diesel fuel and a detonator…you have a bomb. Diesel fuel is not restricted and neither are detonators. You can buy bleach and ammonia and air freshners and drain cleaners in bulk and they make a much more formidable weapon than a semi automatic rifle. What is next?

    • I’m a bit confused Colonel — on the one had you argue that the failure to require background checks on the personal sales of guns poses ‘a real problem’, yet on the other you argue that there shouldn’t be any background checks on the sale of guns so long as there are no checks on the sale of common household chemicals? Can we just agree that there should be mandatory background checks on the sale of guns regardless of who the seller is? Why do you have to go down the whole slippery slope here?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is why.

        Because the anti gun crowd argues that this is about prevention of mass murder.

        But the data shows that guns account for less murder and are not the cause of the biggest mass murders. Although it seems to be growing.

        Data shows that “mass murder” has been and therefore can be accomplished by other means.

        But nobody talks about the “other means”.

        So what is a freedom loving, second amendment supporter supposed to conclude?

        If mass murder is the stated issue, but the other guy ONLY wants to talk about guns, therefore the other guy really only wants to take away the guns.

        That is why so many bring up these other examples and why it keeps entering the debate. I can tell you that your proposal here is far from those being argued by your Political Allies. So the slippery slope may not appear a good argument to you, because of your stance, but it is certainly applicable to the larger debate.

        Now I am guessing you understood all that before. But it seemed time to summarize it for you and everyone else.

      • Sorry to confuse you, kind sir. That was NOT my intention. I obviously did not make my point…I do not wax eloquent….I shall try again.

        I recognize one problem in gun shows. I go to many. If you buy a weapon at a Texas gun show from a reputable dealer there is a background check. It is accomplished in 10 minutes or less. However, there is NO background check required by individuals who sell guns at a gun show. This is the dilemma that I think is wrong. In Texas, I can go in the internet or walk into a gun show and sell a gun….no checks required. All I have to do is pull someone aside, and show them a weapon and ask if they want to buy. It is not illegal to do that. I am saying….. I can compromise on that issue. Stop individual sales without back ground checks. I have no problem with background checks except that they do not go far enough….there are no checks on whether or not someone has a mental health issue. That has been declared an invasion of privacy by the Liberal element in Washington….not the NRA or the gun lobby. All that is done is a criminal background check. Nothing more. Since the MAJORITY of serial killers and mass murderers have a mental health issue…I wonder why this is not checked.

        I dislike the idea of registration of weapons…I can see see both sides, however. Serial numbered registrations can follow a path. I understand this. But I also see the other side of it in that serial numbered registration and addresses makes all gun owners guilty until proven innocent. If I own an AR 15 and a homicidal maniac used one in a mass killing and was not caught…to make me a suspect would be wrong. I feel this even more so since a newspaper published the names and addresses of gun owners. This had only one motive and that motive was not a public service….it was designed with evil intent and a gross invasion of privacy. So, this is where I was coming from on registration,.

        Now, one other issue that I read where you posted……I believe you are incorrect in the application of the right to bear arms. Understanding that a well regulated militia was the civilian population, the introduction of an Army does not super cede this….remember that the militia’s were an integral fighting part of a regulated Army. And that still exists today. The National Guard is still a State militia. JAC is wrong in that it is not. The National Guard is NOT under the supervision or the jurisdiction of the POTUS……UNLESS, a national emergency activates the guard. Desert Storm was fought with 40% guard units….some were assigned to regular Armed forces as a round out and some fought as their own division. Iraqi Freedom was fought with 51% National Guard or reserve units. The State of Texas still has a State Guard militia in addition to the National Guard Units…..the State guard militia functions in the place of the National Guard Unit when it is gone. Several States have this. The Texas Guard Militia is a volunteer unit and numbers over ten thousand. All civilians with their own weapons. Just like the National Guard that is under the jurisdiction of the Governor, so is the State militia. When the Texas National Guard is paid, it is with State funds and operates separately. I suggest that this fits the well regulated militia and therefore fits the right to keep and bear arms as a civilian.

        • 1) In terms of gun shows — I completely agree. No more individual sales absent back ground checks. I also agree that such back ground checks should include a mental health component.

          2) In terms of registration — I see both sides as well, though I lean towards the pro-registration side. While your ownership of an AR-15 that was used in a crime may make you a suspect, that should be relatively easy to overcome — e.g., was the gun stolen? Did you report such theft? Your ownership of a weapon used in a crime, absent anything else, should not (and to me, will not) overcome the high burden of proof the prosecution would have.

          3) In terms of 2d Amendment interpretation — I don’t believe the introduction of the Army supercedes the 2d Amendment; my argument here is that the 2d Amendment clearly references a well-regulated State-run Militia (today: the National Guard perhaps). How that interacts with the individual right to bear arms, I don’t know. That remains to be sorted out. And to make matters even that more complicated and difficult to sort, there is ample historical evidence on both sides.

          Now, back to the discussion of gun control, the mere fact that a liberal New Yorker and a rough and tough Texan Colonel can come to some sort of agreement on an issue like gun control clearly demonstrates there is common ground to be found and says a lot about the state of affairs in Congress that nothing can ever get done….sigh…

  24. January 8, 2013
    GOP may use debt limit bill to force Senate Dems to pass a budget
    Rick Moran

    It would certainly be a novelty – Senate Democrats who haven’t passed a budget in nearly 4 years actually obeying the law and coming up with spending guidelines.

    Washington Examiner:

    Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

    There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democratic majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.


    “I think it should be a firm principle that we should not raise the debt ceiling until we have a plan on how the new borrowed money will be spent,” Sessions told me Monday in a phone conversation from his home in Alabama. “If the government wants to borrow money so it can spend more, then the government ought to tell the Congress and the American people how they will spend it.”

    There are no specific proposals yet, but under this scenario Republicans would insist on a debt ceiling agreement that includes (among other things) a requirement that Congress pass a budget by a specific date. If that doesn’t happen, there would be some sort of enforcement mechanism, perhaps an arrangement whereby the debt ceiling was lowered, or one in which Congress would have to muster a supermajority to raise it again.

    Ignoring their statutory obligations is nothing new for either Senate Democrats or the Obama administration. But this idea has a lot of merit in that having to demonstrate where our tax dollars will be spent puts Senate Dems on the spot. If they want to run trillion dollar deficits, they are going to have to show why it is necessary.

    Of course, it is unlikely that Harry Reid will allow this to happen. But blocking it shows the intent of Senate Democrats to hide their profligacy from the voter.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    “The budget passed by large Democratic majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.”

    Another example of going around our system and just flat out wrong. What I want to know is why Reid has the power to do this? Can the Republicans stop him or do they just not want to?

    • As usual no real conversation on guns as the title says. Been here before and check back from time to time.

      How about the “lets ban guns” crowd details what they want and why.

      Start with the facts. It will happen again. No one can stop it. Guns are here to stay. So what to do?

      2nd lets start with something we can all digest. How do we stop the criminal once he has pulled up in front of the school and chosen his path?

      All I have seen and read here and through countless hours of reading and listening is not really getting to the point. Once a person makes the decision to commit this crime it will take another person to stop him. How do we increase the odds that there will be a person there sith the ability to stop him/her?

      No 10,000 foot level arguments about clip sizes and what not. He has 20 bullets for a handgun and a shotgun with 10 rounds. You are at the school and he is coming in. How would you stop him?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mike M


        It starts with building configuration and emergency planning built into design.

        Doors that actually can’t be breached, two exits from classrooms, etc. Video cameras.

        And of course, armed staff of some kind. On this one I find it odd how schools that have armed officers place them inside the building and away from entrances.

        They should be posted at each entrance, outside the building.

      • Hi Mike, I agree mostly with JAC, but I would ensure that someone in the Administration would be well trained with an AR -15 with armor piercing bullets.

        I really think that ending “no gun zones”, and allow people to carry concealed anywhere. Anywhere being at work, in schools, in malls and grocery stores (all stores). Make it well known that anyone attempting to harm others will be shot. Deterence works, even with the mentally ill. The last three has proven that, they attacked places that advertised being a “no gun zone”. The whackballs were invited basically.

  25. Just A Citizen says:


    Sir, check your email to see if you have a new message from me.

    I didn’t get a response to my other one so let me know if it is not getting through.

    In case you haven’t received it you can contact me directly. LOI was here….


  26. …and there is always this angle:


    Guess our national leaders didn’t expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
    They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

    “Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
    “The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.
    “In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent
    I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

    Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
    Your words are empty air.
    You’ve stripped away our heritage,
    You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
    Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
    And precious children die.
    You seek for answers everywhere,
    And ask the question “Why?”
    You regulate restrictive laws,
    Through legislative creed.
    And yet you fail to understand,
    That God is what we need!

    “Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
    What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
    Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

    “As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

    To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
    My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”
    – Darrell Scott

    • Alright Anita, you’ve gone and done it-you made me cry.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I want to see the video of the testimony. Not him, but the faces of the Committee members.

      For the record. I doubt his testimony was as big a surprise as the author made it out to be.

      Each side gets to “invite” those they want to testify. They don’t usually invite someone if they have no idea what they will say.

      • I’d like to see that video too 🙂 If only half the room was surprised it is probably worth watching.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh, I forgot yesterday to post one of my examples of Conservative Contradictions.

    It relates to my comment to the Colonel and Buck regarding States Rights to deal with gun control.

    The Conservatives often argue that the 14th Amendment is misapplied in forcing States to adhere to restrictions meant for Congress and the Fed Govt only. In my view they are correct in most of these arguments. Although that water has passed under the Progressive Court bridge.

    But you see, their arguments that gun control is protected EVERYWHERE by the Second Amendment relies on expansion of power from the State to the Federal level via the 14th Amendment.

    For those that think the Bill of Rights was not specifically aimed at Federal restrictions I point you to the multitude of States that had some form of gun control following ratification of the Constitution.

    Of course some of those States also had a State recognized religion.

    Contradictions are pesky lil’ thangs.

    C M Wangs.

    CM E D B D Eyes.

    A big hug to my Southern Belle this morning, should she be lurking in the balcony. But first make sure the safety is on. 🙂

  28. Roll Tide!! 🙂

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Just got this in my email, so just had to share. Bwahahahahaha!

    > (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
    > 700,000.
    > (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
    > per year are
    > 120,000.
    > (C) Accidental deaths per physician
    > is 0.171
    > Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
    > Health and Human Services.
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > Now think about this:
    > Guns
    > (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
    > is
    > 80,000,000.
    > (Yes, that’s 80 million)
    > (B) The number of accidental gun deaths
    > per year, all age groups,
    > is 1,500.
    > (C) The number of accidental deaths
    > per gun owner
    > is .0000188
    > Statistics courtesy of FBI
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > So, statistically, doctors are approximately
    > 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > BUT
    > Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
    > This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be
    > killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > Please alert your friends
    > to this alarming threat.
    > We must ban doctors
    > before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > Out of concern for the public at large,
    > We withheld the statistics on
    > lawyers
    > for fear the shock would cause
    > people to panic and seek medical attention!


    The clinic isn’t licensed? And it took the police being called for a possible break-in, which might never of happened, to find out about these unsanitary conditions. Why wasn’t the State checking on these facilities-they check on friggin restaurants but abortion facilities??????????????

    • Seriously people, what does this mean the clinic isn’t licensed-You can just rent a building and start doing medical procedures?

  31. Boom: Energy cash influx leads to a state surplus in Texas
    posted at 2:41 pm on January 8, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

    While we all wait with bated breath for President Obama to figure out if he wants to be more or less of a stickler on domestic energy production, i.e. as he dithers at the fork in the road of letting the economy do what it does best and take fuller advantage of our abundant energy resources, or pandering more heavily to his greenie base and bringing the pain on non-’renewable’ energy sources, there is ample available evidence of the type of economic gains we could be letting loose if we could commit to the former choice on a national level. Thank goodness for federalism:

    Legislators in Texas, the biggest energy producer among U.S. states, will begin deliberating its next two-year budget with a surplus forecast today to match an $8.8 billion record set in 2007.

    The Texas economy has topped budget projections over the past 15 months, as booming energy output fueled job growth and an 11 percent fiscal first-quarter gain in sales-tax receipts, the biggest source of general-fund revenue. Even after paying off $7 billion in health and school bills, Comptroller Susan Combs said today that the state will be flush heading into 2014. …

    Disciplined spending policies have helped Texas retain top credit grades from Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings. …

    As the taxable value of oil produced in Texas surged to $39.1 billion in 2011 from $18.4 billion in 2009, the state led the nation in employment gains, adding about 700,000 jobs, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The state unemployment rate has tumbled to a four-year low of 6.2 percent. Oil and natural-gas drilling rigs more than doubled by mid-2012 compared with two years earlier, and the industry’s workforce climbed 9.2 percent, Combs said.

    An inbound crush of revenue, private sector productivity, job creation, economic growth — this is everything we are giving up while the Obama administration has tried to forcefully mold the energy economy of their greenest political fancies by delaying on drilling leases for federal lands and waters, flexing their regulatory muscles and waging a war on coal, “investing” our money in their pet projects, and bandying around with potential new regulations to crack down further on hydraulic fracturing. This pretty much sums up the possibilities, if only President Obama would fully pursue them:

    David Burge @iowahawkblog

    You know who else inherited an economy from Bush? Rick Perry.
    8 Jan 13


    And speaking of the type of greenie-pressure Obama is facing from the other side of the energy spectrum, it is looking increasingly likely that President Obama will finally approve the full Keystone XL pipeline in the coming months, and you can bet that the eco-crowd not taking the news well:

    More than 70 green groups urged President Obama in a Monday letter to kill the Keystone XL pipeline to make good on promises to address climate change.

    In their letter, the groups said Obama should speak out more often on climate change, impose emissions limits on existing coal-fired power plants and focus on creating clean-energy jobs.

    They added the president also should shut down the proposed pipeline that would bring Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

    “Hurricane Sandy made it tragically clear that many communities are extremely vulnerable to climate change. We can and we must build back better — with investment in sustainable infrastructure, not the kind of carbon-intensive development that helped drive this problem in the first place,” the groups wrote in the letter.

    Run for President again Perry-Just please- practice, practice, practice on your debating skills!!!!!!

  32. ““Hurricane Sandy made it tragically clear that many communities are extremely vulnerable to climate change. We can and we must build back better — with investment in sustainable infrastructure, not the kind of carbon-intensive development that helped drive this problem in the first place,” the groups wrote in the letter.”

    What a pile of Horse Doody.

  33. Sir,
    I come to you to demand that you stand for our 2nd Amendment Gun Rights. I realize that “demand” is a strong word but, as an American, I am entitled to have as many guns and whatever guns I want. You see Sir; the 2nd Amendment is not open to interpretation. It is non-negotiable. It plainly says that we have the right to own a gun.

    We should be able to own as many guns, and whatever guns we wish. It is not the Government’s business what guns we have. As long as I harm no one or anyone’s property, it is my right as an American citizen. It is the only right we have that says “Shall not be infringed”. Therefore, Sir; you and your fellow members do not have the power to take any guns away from us, nor to “ban” any.

    So I demand Sir, that you and the rest of Congress resist President Obama’s efforts to take our guns away, as I believe that that is his full intention. There are enough of you to stop his efforts in this endeavor if you all would stand firm.

    If the GOP would only stick together instead of the infighting you have shown of late, you could have stopped him in his Fiscal Cliff efforts to raise our taxes. Please do not let him succeed in his and the Democrat’s new efforts to suborn the Constitution.

    While the Newtown, CT tragedy was horrific, it does not mean that we have to make brand new Gun Control Laws and Assault Weapon Bans that have absolutely no effect. We have enough Laws already on the books without making more.


    Karl Lindsey

    This is the letter I have sent to ALL of my Congressmen (or Women). My advice would be for all of you that care about your 2nd Amendment Right to fire one of these puppies off to your Congressional Representatives and Senators immediately. Or else you may just wake up one morning to your Rights gone.

    After all; if they can take away one Right; they can take away ALL of them.

    • It is the only right we have that says “Shall not be infringed”.

      And it is the only right that also references “A well regulated Militia”…how come that part doesn’t seem to matter much anymore?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It DOES matter. But it is not the prerequisite for “bearing arms”.

        Bearing Arms is the essential RIGHT, which flows from our Natural Right of self defense.

        The Militia is the People. Its existence depends on the People having their Natural Rights and its associated Right to Bear Arms protected.

        A well regulated Militia is simply a more effective tool for National Defense as opposed to a thousand Militias all acting independently.

        Remember Madison’s refrain when an anti-Federalist claimed that the draft Const. wording could allow someone to Ban private ownership of weapons. He said that was about as ridiculous as thinking Congress would ban hunting.

        If only hunting had been included in the Amendment as well. 🙂

        • A well regulated Militia is simply a more effective tool for National Defense as opposed to a thousand Militias all acting independently

          So everyone can own a gun, any gun, and as many as they want. But now we need to impose any number of other laws to ensure that can form a cohesive fighting unit. Let’s call that unit, hmmm, I dunno, the National Guard? Each state can regulate its own National Guard. All individuals MUST serve (or forego their right to own a gun). Each state can pass whatever other laws they deem necessary to ensure its National Guard is ‘well regulated’ as well.

          Sound good? 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The National Guard is no longer the Militia, but I support any proposal to return it to its traditional status. Otherwise, you are proposing nothing new.

            However, I don’t see how this addresses your concerns over gun ownership or control.

            Going back to States Rights would address that, for those states which choose to ban certain types of guns.

            Did you know, that along the line of progression in the erosion of the Right to Bear Arms, that by the mid 1800’s many towns maintained ARMORIES which is where the “heavy weapons” of the Militia were stored. This was done for two reasons I could find. One, to assure they were available when needed in the quantity and type needed, and Two, to keep people from carrying them around all the time.

            The second reason was of major importance because the Free and Slave State crowds within some towns were becoming ever more violent against each other.

            • I like that idea — everyone is free to own as many and whatever guns they wish. However, all such guns must be maintained at all times in the municipal-run Armory.

              This way, your rights to own guns is not being infringed, and the context of maintaining a well-regulated Militia is kept intact.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Actually your right to “bear” arms is being infringed in this case. Along with your Right of Self Defense.

                Kind of hard to run to the armory if I need to fend off a sudden Zombie attack in my neighborhood.

                But notice how these rights were being eroded at the local and State level. Back then when States Rights were more distinct.

                See a pattern here?

                I actually like the armory idea for certain types of weapons, but not those which everyone is all up in arms over. It would be the proper place to store our Apache Helicopters, RPG’s, mortars, howitzers, heavy machine guns, etc, etc.

              • I again return to the phrase ‘A well regulated Militia’.

                The entire context of the individual right to bear arms rests on the necessity of a well regulated Militia to defend the State. How would you propose regulating this Militia without any infringement on your right to bear arms?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                One added thought more along the lines you are thinking.

                My Son’s University allowed Guns on Campus. But they had to be stored in a centralized Locker Bank with security maintained by the University. To get a gun you had to have your key and get the Univ. Security to unlock the door to get to your locker.

                I think this system could be applied to many PRIVATE situations, like Apt Buildings. But then you need Security Guards patrolling and controlling those entering.

      • Buckster, Do you not think that having an armed populace is a major deterent from invasion by a foreign nation, such as China. When we finally default on our debt to them, we the people are the backup to our Federal military forces. 80 million gun owners is quite a deterent if you ask me.

        • Do you not think that having an armed populace is a major deterent from invasion by a foreign nation, such as China.

          I think our armed forces is a much larger deterrent, but please, go on with your wishful thinking that you and your gun is keeping China at bay.

          • HAHA, that is funny. I don’t think that you’s on the left understand what the bill of rights really is (Buck, maybe you do). I also think that’s why so many people think they can impose gun control. Blissful folks, very blissful folks 😉

          • Actually, you are incorrect on this Buckster…..I have it in archives and will try to find it….but in World War Two, the Japanese Generals were all in consent NOT to attack the mainland United States because “each and every citizen had a gun”……this was a quote. I will find the general;s name who said this. There were very afraid of not only the Army but the citizenry.

            • Fair enough, but my point still stands — the much larger (and much more effective deterrent) today remains the US Military and not you and your gun.

              And once again, gun control (to the vast majority of Americans in support of some such measures) does not mean taking away all guns. You are letting Feinstein’s comments of her support of confiscating all guns define the debate for some reason.

  34. So SUFA, where does everyone stand on the $1T coin?

    Me? I’d just like to know how to get my hands on it first!

    • If a 1 trillion coin was made, kiss the value of the dollar goodbye. Our fiat is going to hell anyway, they may as well hasten the process. 😦

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think it should prove what a crackpot Krugman really is. But I have been responding to your tribal members for two days who think this guy walks on water. Of course they love the idea, along with all its alternatives.

      Best one I saw was why not just have Mr. Obama put a wooden box at the Fed and declare it is full of magic air which is of such high value it will cover the debt. Along with an executive order that should the box be opened, the magic qualities will be lost.

      As to a direct answer……….. I think it is Bull Shit and a sad testament to how far we have fallen. On the other hand, it is kind of funny, in a sad kind of way.

      • Don’t be silly JAC — there is no law allowing for the magical wooden box idea!

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I know, but maybe Mr. O could just issue an E.O. or perhaps Mr. Reid could introduce it in the Senate.

          • No need — platinum coin idea, silly as it is, is completely legal based on current law.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Not entirely. As I understand it the authority does not extend beyond commemorative coins of existing values.

              But if that is possible then why not just print up a 1 Trillion Fed Reserve Note and put that in a box? Cheaper than using platinum.

              • Per the statute in question:

                ““The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.”

                The intent may have been solely for commemorative purposes, but that is irrelevant. Plain language would have to dictate here.

  35. I was very entertained by this video, mainly Piers getting a dose of his own medicine. I do not normally condone or agree with such behavior. This is a “talk show” and a back and forth debate is the expected format. So I think Alex Jones was as much wrong as Piers was in his treatment of John Lott and a few others.

    • I was very surprised by Alex Jones. I to expected a debate, but I guess Alex is tired of all the gun control BS talk each time some nut goes off. He went off on the perfect person, on the perfect cable channel. This will surely go viral. It looked as though Pierc was feeling a bit threatened as it went on. The female producer was in tears afterwards. Nobody expected what equates to an ass chewing on national TV. Frankly, I’m tired of all the gun control sissy’s myself. I have but one thing to say to them, “there are plenty of other countries where the right to bear arms doesn’t exist, please feel free to move there”. I think it’s rather silly when these very same people say the head of the NRA should be shot and killed. They are no better than the nuts who shoot helpless kids, pathetic really. 🙄

    • I look at this about the wayyy I looked at Rush calling that woman a slut-stop trying to help us, if this is the way your gonna do it. I think he hurts more than he helps, even if I agree with some of what he says. As a conservative-my instinct was just to turn him off and stop listening to him. I figure most libs did.

  36. Just A Citizen says:


    “Buck says:
    January 8, 2013 at 6:00 pm • Edit

    I again return to the phrase ‘A well regulated Militia’.

    The entire context of the individual right to bear arms rests on the necessity of a well regulated Militia to defend the State. How would you propose regulating this Militia without any infringement on your right to bear arms?”

    This is where we disagree. As do the scholars we cite on both sides of this issue.

    I maintain that the context of being able to maintain the militia rests on the right to bear arms. This is the REVERSE of what you are arguing.

    That is the context in which the Framers wrote the Second Amendment.

    First comes Right to Bear Arms. This exists as the primary RIGHT.

    Next comes existence of Militia.

    Next comes need for a “well regulated” Militia.

    • So you agree that there does come a need for a well-regulated Militia?

      Assuming so, how do you propose regulating that Militia without infringing on the right to bear arms?

      • Language drift. Militia at that time meant all willing and able men who would pitch together for common defense. Well-regulated meant regular, as in sharing common bullet sizes.
        Watch some movies from the 50 & 60’s and see how many times they refer to being “gay”.

      • Buck, The 2nd Amendment is simply telling the governments that they cannot deny its citizens the right of self defense. As a part of that right, assuming a role in a local militia to defend the state, was the expected action of all able bodied people.

        It’s an individual right, one that is natural. To KEEP means the guns don’t sit in an armory, to BEAR means to use the selected arm to defend ones self or more up to and including the State.

        • Interesting statement in an amicus brief submitted in Heller signed on to by historians of early American history:

          “Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.”

          • Historians, those who guess what dead people were thinking when writing something. Kinda like the scientists who said all the glaciers would be gone by 2012 due to global warming. THe Supreme Court has already decided that it’s an individual right, as it should be. Frankly though, I think we could do a better job of redesigning a government that can’t be corrupt. This group we have now, all of them, are horribly corrupt 😦

            What exactly would you do with this subject, eg remove guns from all citizens?

            • Interesting that you uphold the Supreme Court when its decision suits you….what do you think of the Supreme Court in terms of abortion? eminent domain? civil rights laws? etc. etc. etc.

              Based on my previous posts, I believe you know full well that I don’t propose nor support removing guns from all citizens or anything close.

              • Buck, I never figured you as a hard core anti-gunner. The SCOTUS has certainly made decisions that you would disagree with as I would. I’m not happy with their Obamacare decision, but it is what it is, legally speaking.

                Abortion to me is a moral issue, I’m opposed to it because I think it’s taking a life, and in some cases the law agrees (killing a pregnant woman can lead to 2 murder charges in some state, I believe). I was too young to remember the Scotus decision, but it is what it is, a legal decision. I do have issues with eminent domain, as how it’s been handled by some cities. I don’t think the govt should take one’s property, unless it’s agreed to by the land owner.

                You should know by now, that I’m against most all governments. I think they are thieves and murderers. I have watched, what I believe, the courts becoming apolitical, and positions filled because of political views. It distorts the rule of law, which I’m beginning to disliking our current legal system just as much as govt. We all are going to have issues with our freedoms, regardless of political affiliation. They (govt) are the ruling class and we are the peasents. So they seem to think.

        • Some additional points on the interpretation of the 2d Amendment:

          “For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon…”

          “there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.”

          • Just A Citizen says:


            As I said, you have your historians and I have mine. Which even includes James Madison.

            And that is what will kill any debate/discussion. Once the left tries to force a solution on the basis that the “right to bear arms” is NOT an individual right the willingness of people like me to discuss reasonable options will stop.

            Because to me the principle of the Constitution is even more important. And there is no rational person who can conclude that the Second amendment is ONLY dealing with the Militia or that the Army is now the Militia replacement.

            If you think changes are needed and a vast majority of people agree, then AMEND the Constitution. If you are correct in your views and perceived support, then it should be absolutely no problem to get it ratified without Texas and Montana and Idaho and Wyoming.

            You’ve got 8 states to play with to get er done.

    • The Framers were using common sense. The People in a State have the right to protect the State, in order to do so the people must be able to bear arms. Take away the right to bear arms and you take away the right to form a Militia. Unless you want to change the definition of a Militia-‘made up of citizens not professional soldiers’. I don’t see where it says anywhere we have to have one, SIMPLY THAT ONE IS NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE STATE AND IT’S PEOPLE-but it sure says we have the right to the ability to create one-NOT BE INFRINGED. Take away my right to bear arms and you take away my right, ability, and responsibility as a citizen to protect my State and it’s people. No matter where the danger comes from.

  37. When disarmed, or just lacking, and live in a Communist country that believes in Agenda 21, this is what happens, aka, Charlies utopia 🙄

    long article, very sad. No way can we give up our guns, and we damn sure can’t allow “redistribution of wealth”. You will read why!

  38. Gotta ask Buck and Todd this question. There will be no “gun control or gun confiscation”. With that said, what do you think can be done to stop mass murders? Don’t worry about all the murders in Chicago or any other big city, as that wasn’t an issue all year, no sense in making it one now, just talking about the real mass murders like Sandy Hook.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    More ideas for discussion. From a conversation I was having today on Huff Po. A civilized discussion no less.

    I guess it depends on the interpretation of “infringe” that you want to use and the definition of the “people”.
    I believe that registration and rigorous screening processes to regulate the types of weapons an individual can own are perfectly in accordance with the amendment – the “people” in general still can bear arms – that particular individual cannot legally do so. I also think that we can prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of certain types of weapons and still be in accordance with the 2nd. We can also require periodic training and re-certification for all weapons and be in accordance. None of these things infringe on the right to bear arms by the people – and it could be argued that they conform with the “well regulated militia” portion of the amendment.

    • Who is this, Bill Clinton 😆 Bill says: I believe that registration and rigorous screening processes to regulate the types of weapons an individual can own are perfectly in accordance with the amendment. Oh My, where does the Amendment require this? Whew! This person is a whackball, he needs checked out by the local shrink, not sure he should own a slingshot 🙂

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck, et al.

    Mr. Natelson’s discussion of Heller, soon after the ruling. He affirms my view on the Right to Bear Arms but recognizes the nuance Buck raises with the courts ruling and Flawed interpretation of history.

    Comments on the D.C. Gun Case-Guest Opinion
    Written by Gregg Smith on 26 June 2008

    Comments on the D.C. Gun Case

    By: Rob Natelson

    On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees citizens a limited right to keep guns for self-defense. The Court rejected the argument that the Amendment protects only state militias. Here are some of the implications of the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller:

    Gun owners shouldn’t be too enthusiastic. They almost lost this one. The majority was only 5-4, and the Court preemptively announced that some gun bans were constitutional. The Court went out of its way to make this announcement even though those bans were not part of the case.
    All the justices relied heavily on historical evidence of the Constitution’s original understanding (sometimes inaccurately called “original intent”). You might expect this of Justice Scalia, but it was also true of the lead dissent by Justice Stevens, who earlier in his career tended to disregard such “originalist” material. This is part of a real shift in the Court toward focusing on the Constitution’s original understanding. You can see it also in the recent habeas corpus case of Boumediene v. Bush.
    You won’t read this in either stridently pro- or stridently anti-gun publications, but the nature of the historical record made D.C. v. Heller a tough case. As a constitutional historian, I’m convinced that our Founders believed the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual one. They would have rejected the idea that it was merely a prerogative of the state. But because the individual right was taken for granted, the Founders didn’t say much about it. Also, prior bills of rights in England and America did sometimes protect government agencies rather than individual rights. These facts handicapped the individual rights side in the Heller case, and gave a leg-up to those arguing that the Amendment protected only a state right.
    The District of Columbia argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply there because D.C. isn’t a state. This was historical nonsense, since a major purpose of the Bill of Rights was precisely to protect people within the capital district from federal oppression. Fortunately, the justices didn’t buy the argument.
    The dissent conceded that, even if the Second Amendment was mostly about protecting the states, individuals could sue to ensure that the Amendment was honored. This is a change. Throughout the 20th century, liberal jurists generally denied individuals the right to sue to protect the federal-state balance. Perhaps there is a new recognition that federalism is not just about “states’ rights.” It also protects the rights of individuals.
    The modern Supreme Court treats some constitutional rights as more important than others by applying different “standards of review” – degrees of protection – to different rights. For example, the Court gives the right to choose an abortion much more protection than it gives the right to choose a job. The Heller decision doesn’t tell us what standard of review will apply to the right to keep and bear arms.
    The holding applies only to federal gun laws, not state laws. We do not know whether some future Court will decide that the Second Amendment, like most other parts of the Bill of Rights, protects individuals against the states.

    The narrow holding and the narrow majority disproves once again the common claim that the Supreme Court is now “conservative.” On the contrary, four of the nine justices are fairly reliable liberals (Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg). Only one is a thoroughly reliable traditionalist (Thomas), although one other usually votes that way (Scalia). Two justices seem focused on preventing big changes in any direction, including changes away from the liberal jurisprudence of prior decades (Roberts and Alito). One justice flips back and forth (Kennedy).

    Thus, a single appointment by a President Obama could make the Court firmly liberal, but it would take at least two, and probably three, by a President McCain to make it firmly traditionalist.

  41. Was ‘Hottest Year on Record’ Based on Phony Data?

    By P.J. Gladnick | January 08, 2013 | 22:33

    Not Even Close: 2012 Was Hottest Ever in U.S.

    So declared The New York Times in an article almost dripping with self-righteous jubilation. This sentiment was also echoed at the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, and many other media outlets. But could they all end up eating globally warmed crow?

    According to Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? that is exactly what they might be forced to do. The source upon which this “Hottest Ever” story is based is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). According to Watts’ intensive research, it appears that the NCDC has been keeping two sets of data: one for public (and gullible MSM) consumption and the other the actual stats. Here is what Watts discovered:

    First, I should point out that I didn’t go looking for this problem, it was a serendipitous discovery that came from me looking up the month-to-month average temperature for the CONtiguous United States (CONUS) for another project which you’ll see a report on in a couple of days. What started as an oddity noted for a single month now seems clearly to be systemic over a two-year period. On the eve of what will likely be a pronouncement from NCDC on 2012 being the “hottest year ever”, and since what I found is systemic and very influential to the press and to the public, I thought I should make my findings widely known now. Everything I’ve found should be replicable independently using the links and examples I provide. I’m writing the article as a timeline of discovery.

    At issue is the difference between temperature data claims in the NCDC State of the Climate reports issued monthly and at year-end and the official NCDC climate database made available to the public. Please read on for my full investigation.

    And here are a few of the highlights of Watts’ investigation. However, I urge everybody, especially scientists and gullible reporters, to read his full highly detailed report:

    …In the July 2012 State of the Climate Report, where NCDC makes the claim of “hottest month ever” and cites July 1936 as then benchmark record that was beaten, they say the CONUS Tavg for July 2012 is: 77.6°F But in the NCDC climate database plotter output, the value is listed as 76.93°F almost 0.7°F cooler! They don’t match.

    I initially thought this was just some simple arithmetic error or reporting error, a one-off event, but then I began to find it in other months when I compared the output from the NCDC climate database plotter. Here is a table of the differences I found for the last two years between claims made in the SOTC report and the NCDC database output.

    As you can see, there are significant differences between the public State of the Climate report and the actual NCDC database. It will be interesting to find out if there will be a response from the NCDC about Watts’ revelations. And if there is a response, I sure hope the following question posed by Watts is answered:

    The question for now is: why do we appear to have two different sets of data for the past two years between the official database and the SOTC reports and why have they let this claim they made stand if the data does not support it?

    Read more:

  42. NBCer Okay With Publishing Gun Owner Addresses: ‘We’re Not Outing Child Molesters’

    By Kyle Drennen | January 08, 2013 | 16:48

    During a panel discussion on Tuesday’s NBC Today, chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman voiced her support for a New York newspaper, The Journal News, publishing a list of addresses of local gun owners: “You have these sort of blind assumptions that when your child goes over to play with another kid, he or she is going to be safe. And I think that has been now negated. So I have no problem….we’re not outing child molesters, this is a legal transaction, it’s a public transaction.” [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

    Snyderman’s declaration was prompted by fellow panelist, advertising executive Donny Deutsch, also standing by the paper’s controversial action: “I think it’s a great idea, I’ll tell you why. I’ve got two little girls at home and I would like to know if they’re going on a play date in a house where there’s a gun….when you have a gun, you are setting yourself up as somebody different. It’s your choice…”

    Attorney Star Jones was the only one on the panel to offer any objection: “I think what it did is it also targeted those homes that don’t have guns in them. So you’ve now told the criminals, ‘Well, let me pick that one over there instead of that one over there.’ I just don’t think it was a good idea.”

    Responding to Deutsch’s parenting concern, Jones wondered: “Wouldn’t you call the parents?…Why would you not call a parent to know, ‘Do you have guns, do you have drugs out?’ Don’t you talk to parents where your kids go?”

    Apparently that was too much effort for Deutsch: “I don’t call every parent proactively and say, ‘Is there a gun in your house?’…No. You don’t proactively say to a parent, ‘Oh, by the way, is there any cocaine laying on the counter?”” Snyderman chimed in: “No, no….no, you wouldn’t.”

    For his part, co-host Matt Lauer skipped over any threat posed to the gun owners whose addresses were publicized, but instead focused solely on threats directed at the newspaper in the wake of the article: “Now in response, perhaps even retaliation for this, personal information about the paper’s editors and writers is being posted online. The paper has received many threatening calls and e-mails, some saying reporters will be shot on their way to their cars.”

    Snyderman sarcastically remarked: “Lovely, lovely.” Deutsch argued: “I actually think it’s a vulgar display of everything that’s wrong with what’s going on with guns. And I’m sorry if we pull the veil back and say you have a gun.”
    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    Here is a full transcript of the January 8 exchange:

    8:13AM ET

    MATT LAUER: Let’s move over to this, the battle over guns. A New York-area newspaper, in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, did something unusual. They published the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in their area, more than 33,000 people. Now putting First Amendment considerations aside, should the newspaper have done this?

    STAR JONES: I don’t think so. I think what it did is it also targeted those homes that don’t have guns in them. So you’ve now told the criminals, “Well, let me pick that one over there instead of that one over there.” I just don’t think it was a good idea.

    DONNY DEUTSCH: I think it’s a great idea, I’ll tell you why. I’ve got two little girls at home and I would like to know if they’re going on a play date in a house where there’s a gun…

    NANCY SNYDERMAN: I agree, Donny.

    DEUTSCH: …to know that it is properly locked up. I’m sorry, it is a lethal-

    JONES: Wouldn’t you call the parents?

    SNYDERMAN: No, no.

    DEUTSCH: I don’t call every parent proactively and say, “Is there a gun in your house?”

    JONES: Oh, I would.

    SNYDERMAN: I put it right up there with alcohol.

    JONES: I would.

    SNYDERMAN: No, but – no, you wouldn’t.

    JONES: Why would you not call a parent to know, “Do you have guns, do you have drugs out?” Don’t you talk to parents where your kids go?

    DEUTSCH: No. You don’t proactively say to a parent, “Oh, by the way, is there any cocaine laying on the counter?”

    JONES: Okay.

    DEUTSCH: I mean, you know.

    SNYDERMAN: And, “How much alcohol do you have in the house?” And, “Do you smoke?”

    JONES: Then go ahead.

    SNYDERMAN: So you don’t. You know, you have these sort of blind assumptions that when your child goes over to play with another kid, he or she is going to be safe. And I think that has been now negated. So I have no problem.

    LAUER: Interesting, you guys take the – you take the parenting side of this. Now in response, perhaps even retaliation for this, personal information about the paper’s editors and writers is being posted online. The paper has received many threatening calls and e-mails, some saying reporters will be shot on their way to their cars.

    SNYDERMAN: Lovely, lovely.

    JONES: Oh, good.

    LAUER: Packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and to a reporter. The violent threats are obviously unacceptable. Is it fair game?

    DEUTSCH: No. There’s a difference between-

    JONES: No.

    SNYDERMAN: This underscores the whole point.

    DEUTSCH: No, no, exactly. You are – when you have a gun, you are setting yourself up as somebody…

    JONES: I agree.

    DEUTSCH: …different. It’s your choice, by the way.

    JONES: But it’s – and it’s public – it’s public knowledge.

    DEUTSCH: And by the way, it’s different between – and you’re just you. I actually think it’s a vulgar display of everything that’s wrong with what’s going on with guns. And I’m sorry if we pull the veil back and say you have a gun.

    SNYDERMAN: Yeah, we’re not outing child molesters, this is a legal transaction, it’s a public transaction.

    LAUER: By the way, it’s public information.

    JONES: I said that. I mean I thought maybe it was going to be-

    SNYDERMAN: Right, it’s public information.

    JONES: It is, it just was never put together like this.
    At NewsBusters, we watch the liberal media so you don’t have to! But we can only provide the immediate exposure of liberal media bias and insightful analysis if we have your support.

    Read more:

    Someone please explain this comment to me! ” We are not outing Child Molesters” What??? What does this person mean by this? Is this “person” saying it would be wrong to out child molesters but outing gun owners is okay. They are more worried about their child being hurt by the mere fact that a person owns a gun- than by a child molester. Is there any other explanation because I am just flabbergasted.

    • I don’t qualify to be a feminist! Besides those types generally get on my last nerve 🙂

  43. Bottom Line says:

    I was thinking about how to deal with economic collapse and thought of an idea for a new currency…

    ( a free market system of course)

    Make a note of some kind with a gold and/or silver thread or band in it, perhaps write micro inscriptions on it or something.

    Put people like Mises and Hayek, or Ron Paul or Thomas Jefferson or Ghandi, or whatever on it.

    If you need to extract the metal – burn it.

    What do you guys think?

  44. The link between well-armed citizenry and a well-regulated militia today

    Since not every gun owner wants to serve the country as a form of militia or regular military personnel, the problem is to link between well-armed citizenry and well-regulated militia. The answer can be found in US Code Title 10 Chapter 13: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are the organized militia (the National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (i.e. all other able bodied males etc). [3]

    The Second Amendment has been increasingly interpreted as recognizing an individual right to firearm ownership. An even more radical proposition believed by some people is that residents of the United States have an unconditional right to own guns. This right was recognized by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago, clearing up any uncertainty left by the Court’s earlier decision in D.C. v. Heller.

    Another point, the phrase “militia” in the Second Amendment could be read to mean that all able-bodied Americans form a sort of militia, which can be tapped by the government using the draft (Selective Service). Indeed, since 1903 all able-bodied male U.S. citizens from age 18-45 have been legally classed as the “Reserve Militia” or “Unorganized Militia”, to allow them to be called into service should such a dire need arise. Ostensibly, it would be easier to teach someone to fire a weapon if they have some experience with a firearm. An interesting result of this is a justification for denying firearms to the mentally ill: these are people that wouldn’t be sent into combat.

  45. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

    • Sorry Colonel,
      That’s not a real quote.

      Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

      It has been declared this attribution is “unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.”, according to Brooks Jackson in “Misquoting Yamamoto” at (11 May 2009)

      Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called “the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said, I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]

  46. Switzerland, Europe’s most peaceful country, has no standing army. Instead, the country is defended by a militia composed of virtually all male citizens. The government issues rifles to these citizens, and the rifles are kept at their homes.

    The Swiss call their rifles “assault rifles” to add to the mystique and convince foreign rulers that these people mean business. These rifles have never been used for criminal purposes, although they would certainly be used against any invader. Instead, they are used for essentially one purpose: to shoot as many bullseyes on paper targets as quickly as possible at sporting competitions…

    The Swiss have the reputation of being the world’s foremost bankers. The fact that many are regular shooters and presumably better able to protect their stashes can’t hurt their reputation for protecting your gold.

    In Switzerland, firearms in the hands of the citizenry are considered wholesome and a civic duty. Newspapers and cosmetics are advertised in shooting programs I picked up at the rifle range. Can one imagine the New York Times placing an advertisement in a program for a U.S. pistol shooting event?

    The backbone of Swiss defense and independence is the individual citizen with his assault rifle, which he keeps at home and with which he stays proficient by entering matches such as today’s Historisches St. Jakobsshiessen.

    The St. Jacob’s historical shoot exemplifies aspects of Swiss culture which explain why none of the belligerent countries invaded Switzerland in World War I or II. This country has a centuries-old tradition of bloody and stout resistance to the most powerful European armies. Its people have continued into the twentieth century to be an armed citizenry whose members regularly exercise in weapon handling and practice.

    The Swill laughed contemptuously at the anti-gun claim that “assault rifles” have but a sole purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. To these Italian Swiss, a fucile d’assalto (assault rifle) has only one purpose in peacetime: to shoot as many bullseyes as quickly as possible.

    These Swiss saw this disarming of the American people, denying them the right to possess assault rifles, as contrary to the rights of the citizen. Indeed, the rifles to be banned by the Crime Bill were not real “assault weapons,” they were semi-automatic sporters. The Swiss pointed out that for centuries, no European power has dared aggress against Switzerland, a nation in arms. An armed citizenry in Alpine terrain has never been very inviting. If Switzerland were to be invaded, the invaders would face assault rifles in the hands of skilled shooters — the Swiss citizenry.

    The Swiss have, through referenda, consistently rejected membership in the United Nations and the European Community. The majority of the Swiss felt U.N. membership was inconsistent with independence, and that the EC would impose German-style gun controls.

    Lawyers, judges, bankers, cheesemakers, and watchmakers — all seem to have firearms. Armed and disciplined, the Swiss people have what Machiavelli called civic virtue. In a world seemingly manipulated by the goddess fortuna (the banking cartels), the tradition of having a heavily-armed civilian populace has been this small nation’s guarantee of freedom and self-determination.


    • Colonel,
      Not quite right – again.

      The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland’s militia and regular army. Under the country’s militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world.

      The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[3]) . Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily.

      See citation 3:

      Sep 27, 2007 – 21:40

      Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.

      With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland’s militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.

      They can keep the guns at home, but not the ammo. Maybe we should follow the Swiss example.

  47. Todd says:
    January 8, 2013 at 1:24 pm • Edit

    Yes – which is obviously your only goal – just keep the conversation going.

    Don’t actually discuss anything important.

    V.H. says:
    January 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm • Edit

    Todd, why don’t you start a discussion. What about this issue do you think is important and should be talked about? Tell us what you think about the subject at hand.
    Life of Illusion says:
    January 9, 2013 at 10:45 am • Edit

    “Don’t actually discuss anything important.”

    I think we have a different opinion on what’s important. I think history is important and the words and actions of significant historic figures is therefore important. So FaceBook censoring a Gandhi comment is important to me & worth discussion. Piers silences an expert he invited onto his show for pointing out the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. The only numbers he will allow to be discussed is gun crime, where the US rate is much greater than the UK. I did ask in this article, does it matter to you if you are attacked with a gun, knife or club? If the attacker kills you, does the weapon used make any difference?

    Obama has said he wants action on this issue & supposedly everything is on the table for discussion. Is the table topic gun violence or violent crime? Would you support reducing gun crime and allowing violent crime to double?

    • LOI,

      I think we have a different opinion on what’s important. I think history is important and the words and actions of significant historic figures is therefore important. So FaceBook censoring a Gandhi comment is important to me & worth discussion.

      If you really want people to take you seriously, and have a serious discussion, then write a serious article, and leave out all the little STUPID comments and cheap shots. Don’t blame your readers for not taking you serious.

      Piers silences an expert he invited onto his show for pointing out the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. The only numbers he will allow to be discussed is gun crime, where the US rate is much greater than the UK.

      Because the current issue is gun violence. But you won’t talk about that unless we first talk about every other item that could possibly be used for violence.

      I did ask in this article, does it matter to you if you are attacked with a gun, knife or club? If the attacker kills you, does the weapon used make any difference?

      Yes, it does matter to me if I were attacked with a gun, knife or club. Because I have a much better chance of surviving a knife or club attack. But you refuse to see that difference.

      Obama has said he wants action on this issue & supposedly everything is on the table for discussion. Is the table topic gun violence or violent crime?

      I don’t know – and neither do you – because you won’t even have the discussion.

      Would you support reducing gun crime and allowing violent crime to double?

      No. And there’s no proof this would occur.

      • Toddster,

        “If you really want people to take you seriously, and have a serious discussion, then write a serious article, and leave out all the little STUPID comments and cheap shots. Don’t blame your readers for not taking you serious.”

        A little humor with discussion is my style. I think some here like it, sorry you don’t. I look at it on many of these issues, you can laugh or you can cry. Neither has any effect but which do you prefer? I could try “channeling” Spock and try explaining things thru logic only…But mixed with my cheap shots and humor are serious discussion points. You choose to ignore them and focus on points to attack me instead.

        ” If the attacker kills you, does the weapon used make any difference?

        Yes, it does matter to me if I were attacked with a gun, knife or club. Because I have a much better chance of surviving a knife or club attack. But you refuse to see that difference.”

        I do see the difference and even agree. I think I could win a knife/club attack, one on one. You want to discuss that? I don’t think my wife could.

        “Would you support reducing gun crime and allowing violent crime to double?

        No. And there’s no proof this would occur.”

        Yes there is & this was one example I raised, this is the pier reviewed study Piers and many liberal want to silence.,_Less_Crime

  48. @ Buck… Wuss statement (with a smiley face)…….There are old pilots and there are bold pilots……there are no old/bold pilots. I will grow old…….and yes sir…..when it comes to icing……you may put a Upper Case W on the wuss. But, as you did, smile when you say that.

  49. Lawmakers outraged after AIG announces it is weighing joining suit against US that claims terms of bailout that rescued it in 2008 were unfair.

    This is in Fox News……worth reading.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    My oh my. I will share my most “popular” post on Huff Po in a long time. I have succeeded in flushing out dozens of “right wing types” from the bushes.

    ““The single biggest thing we can do to REDUCE gun ownership, and perhaps the most efficient in terms of “least cost” is to bounce the Democrats out of Congress and the White House.

    Seems to me that every time the Progressive Dems get in power the volume of guns sold goes up exponentially.

    So the only rational thing to do is OUTLAW Progressive Democrats.”

  51. what makes this case different is that 21 percent of the news stories actually mentioned that a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon used his gun to try and help stop the attack.

    The citizen, 50 year old Mark Wilson, was one of the two people murdered. As CNN reported, “Everyone here agrees, Wilson saved lives.” Fox News’ website quoted the sheriff as saying “if it hadn’t been for Mr. Wilson, [Arroyo’s son] would be dead.”

    Wilson, a licensed concealed handgun permit holder, heard Arroyo’s shots and saw the commotion from his apartment window. He grabbed a handgun and headed toward the attacker. Arroyo had already wounded several police officers and there was no one left to prevent his rampage.

    Arroyo had also shot his 22-year-old son and was about ready to shoot him again from very close range when Wilson fired his gun, hitting Arroyo several times in the chest. Arroyo was wearing a bullet resistant vest and flak jacket and Wilson’s shots did not seriously wound him. Yet, Wilson’s shots forced Arroyo to come after him, and it used up a couple of minutes of his time. Unfortunately, in the exchange of gunfire, Arroyo eventually fatally shot Wilson. With police arriving, Arroyo fled the scene and was later shot to death by police as they pursued him.

    Neighbors described Wilson as “one of the nicest, sweetest guys I’ve ever known.” Others pointed out that “He’s not going to sit back and — when he could do something about it, and just let it happen” and called him a hero.

    It is not remarkable that someone such as Mark Wilson was there at the scene to stop the attack before police arrived. For example, in about 30 percent of the multiple victim public school shootings that have captivated Americans’ attention starting in 1997, people used guns to stop the attacks before uniformed police were able to arrive on the scene. Few people know about these cases because only about one percent of the news stories on these cases mention how the attacks were stopped.

    Read more:,2933,149250,00.html#ixzz2HVHOSC7X

    • L.A. Police Have History of Seizing Fake ‘Rocket Launchers’
      Author- Warner Todd Huston (Bio and Archives) Wednesday, January 9, 2013

      Earlier we reported that the Los Angeles Police Department made a big show of having found “rocket launchers” during it most recent gun buyback program. We pointed out that the so-called launchers were being misreported and the police were illicitly using them as a scare tactic. But now we find that this same Police Chief has done this before.

      On December 27 L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck displayed a pair of what he claimed were “weapons of war” turned in during his latest gun buyback program. Chief Beck told the media that a pair of “rocket launchers” turned up and he evidently wanted to scare his city and make waves in the media about his success in getting these “weapons of death” off the streets of L.A.

      Of course, the “rocket launchers” Chief Beck showed the Old Media establishment were nothing of the kind. Instead, what Beck waved about during the December press conference were U.S. Army training devices that were dummy devices. They are essentially prop pieces made to show young soldiers what such anti-tank weapons look like and how they feel. These training devices have never been able to fire anything nor could they be made to do so.

      After the press conference, the Old Media establishment dutifully posted stories with scary headlines such as the L.A. Times’ piece, “LAPD investigating rocket launchers taken at gun buyback.”

      Dozens of other Old Media outlets followed suit with scary headlines and many followed up with false stories, misreporting, and downright scaremongering.

      But upon looking into this story further, it appears that Chief Beck has played this misleading game at least once before and with the exact same device.

      Back in May, Beck again paraded before the media with a “rocket launcher” he claimed his department had received during a gun buyback program. That piece, too, was clearly marked “trainer” and was incapable of ever firing any rockets.

      All this raises many questions. Did the police really ever get any such devices in its gun buyback programs? Is this just a repeat tactic that Chief Beck is using to scare the public and make it seem as if his program is working? Does the Chief and his department understand at all that the devices he keeps claiming are “rocket launchers” are really nothing but harmless plastic tubes? Why do these “rocket launchers” keep showing up in L.A. buyback programs but not anywhere else in the country? Finally, why hasn’t the media called Chief Beck on his repeated fake rocket launcher claim.

      Many questions abound about these faux “rocket launchers” that seem to turn up every few months in Chief Beck’s gun buyback programs.

      • Hollywood’s Denial and Blatant Hypocrisy on Guns
        – Rev. Michael Bresciani (Bio and Archives) Tuesday, January 8, 2013
        Arnold Schwarzenegger is the latest Hollywood star to chime in on guns and gun control. Like many Hollywood actors he is standing in the line marked “we had nothing to do with it” as far as personal responsibility or even tacit culpability is concerned.

        Schwarzenegger has starred in films such as, “Predator,” and “The Terminator” which are loaded with gun violence. His next offering of gratuitous and graphic violence is called, “The Last Stand.” NRA’s chief Wayne La Pierre has noted that the new film is loaded with unnecessary violent depictions of a sheriff who is trying to stop drug cartels from slipping over the border.

        Let’s see, the head of the Rifle Association saying there is too much violence in films while the actor paid millions of dollars to show the world the worst men can do with guns says , it just ain’t so!

        Schwarzenegger claims the blame, and any chance of solving the violence problems of the nation, lies with mental health improvements, gun laws and parents. No changes are needed in Hollywood. The sainted celebrities are simply—entertaining us.

  52. This, my internet friends, is what is going to wind up happening in the Gun Control CIRCUS in Washington. Obama will take the initiative and UNILATERALY take action to screw ALL gun owners over. This is the pattern of his Presidency since being elected 5 years ago, so believe it!

    • It will then be challenged and in a couple years be heard by the SCOTUS. By that time, Obama will have stacked a few more justices that think the constitution no longer applies to the federal government.

      • But hey, voting doesn’t matter. Not talking to you, LOI 🙂

        • Apparently it don’t.

          • Well, I suppose if you believe that Romney would have threatened to take away our guns. Or would put dyed in the wool liberals on the SC, or that republicans would have brought a bill forward to get rid of Presidential term limits or would refuse to pass a budget for 4 years. Then I suppose there isn’t any real difference.

            • What I am saying is, that with the Liberal Idiots in charge of the Government. And the Gutless GOP unwilling to stand for anything. We might as well not have an election. And by the time we have another, it may not matter anyway, what with the Liberals doing all they can to change the Laws where they don’t have to give up power.

              By the time of the next Presidential Election, we may not have a term limit anymore. By the time of the next, we may have a Liberal SCOTUS. By that time, we may not have GUNS anymore either V.H..

              Elections seem to mean less and less every year. The lies we are told seem to get bigger and bigger every year. Where will it all end?

              • I don’t disagree with your comments. But elections have consequences and if one allows the liberals to stay in power -I think things will be far worse. And I think Obama is quickly proving me right.

                Time. to wake up our fellow Americans or Revolution is our only options if freedom and Capitalism is gonna win-so I go with voting for the lessor evil-and it helps if republicans aren’t forced to compromise/sarc. . And it is the fault of “We the People” that they compromise.

                If Bush’s tax rates had all gone away-many, many, many people would have had a fit and not voted for them. What that would cause is more Obama’s. So if we want the Republicans to stand on Principal, we’re gonna have to stand behind them when they do. Don’t see much evidence that we have the numbers willing to do so. I may be naive but I am hoping that more time will give us a chance to convince more Americans that freedom not socialism, which is what they have been living under for many years whether they realize it or not, is what really works.

        • I don’t blame you a bit, gotten where I ignore what I say myself. Dreary days like this make me wonder…

          • Heheh, Should have said that better-my sarcasm was not directed at you.

            • I know it wasn’t. I am just aggravated at the whole situation. There is actually a move in Congress to do away with term limits. And with the Gutless worms in the GOP, who knows how far it can go.

              Makes me think they are all in on it.

    • Yeah, and by then Obama may be elected President for life when he gets through doing away with term limits. And then he can replace the WHOLE SCOTUS.

  53. Just A Citizen says:


    Mission accomplished on this end.

    You and the Missus should plan on shell fish for dinner tomorrow night.

    The Fed Govt’s mail delivery service has promised me your packages will arrive by noon tomorrow. Let’s see how good their promise is.

    I waived the need for signature so hopefully the mail man will leave them at the door. I only used enough dry ice to get them there, so if they make you come down and get the packages, I suggest you go right away.

    Enjoy my Texican friend.

  54. This town has a good idea. Kennesaw, Ga did the same years ago.

  55. All;

    coming very late in the discussion, but have read a number of the posts above and would like to present my thoughts:

    The government is not re-kindling the fire under gun control because they agree or disagree with the 2nd Ammendment, they are re-kindling that fire because they believe they can make additonal advancements toward complete gun control as a result of the latest shootings. They are using these horrible incidents as cannon fodder to further their endeavor of removing weapons from the citizenary.

    Discussions about the Constitution, 2nd Ammendment, and State verses Federal rights is just redirectional bullshit on their part.

    The Constitution was developed and founded on universial/individual rights which absolutely ensure each one of us has a God given right to defend ourselves as free men and women. The government has no right to alter or limit that right. That is an absolute!

    What is happening is that these smucks seated in government believe that they are better, smarter, wiser and more entitled than the populace they now rule. And that was not an error in wording; these people believe they are the rulers. They no longer serve, we do.

    Gun control, emminent domain, taxes, licensing, etc, etc are all primary examples of a calculated plan to control. And it is farm more difficult to control a populace that is armed than one that is not. History provides enough examples of how those who chose to rule by oppression and fear first ensured that those they oppressed were defenceless by being weaponless.

    We also have example after example of how a repressive government progresses their objectives by invoking what the public is brainwashed into believing is just a minor altering of founding principles. Once a precedent is established it is then just a matter of time before their ultimate goal is accomplished. In the case of gun control that ultimate goal is to remove any and all weapons from the populace.

    Rational individuals and governments cannot make a logical claim such as ‘Arming our teachers and/or school administrators would most likely cause more deaths” in a case like Sandy Hook. It is a moronic statement. It has no sense of logic or rational thought. If they really believed that Feinstien would not possess a concealed carry permit.

    Any armed person has a better chance of defending themselves than an unarmed person.

    The issue here is that these people believe that they are of a higher level than those they rule. They belive they are entitled to more stuff and privileges than the rest of us, that we are of a lesser class and that we are to stupid to take care of ourselves.

    As I have said in these pages many times, these people are about control and everything they do is to further that control. They are masters at redirection and manipulation and they will use whatever means required to further that effort and ultimate goal of control.

    As a free man I am ensured of certain inalienable rights, and the right to defend and protect both me and mine is one of them. Any limits set by a government on that or any inalienable rights is tyranny and oppression.

    All we are doing by arguing or discussing restrictions, the wording of the Constituion, magazine capacity, licensing, gun free zones, armed guards, medical records, etc etc only fuels the fire of an already oppressive and controling government.

    Divide and Conquer is what these people are all about.

    No! is our only approach.


    • I’m thinking the all-out-run, to buy every gun available-is a non verbal way of saying NO!

    • I believe every thing you said is true CM. And what’s worse, it is working!

      You see it every day in the news. You see it in families. You see it on the streets. The Liberal crowd have studied long and hard for these moments. They lie in wait for every tragedy and crisis to take advantage of. And all we do is argue among ourselves whether or not they have the right to take away our Constitutionaly GUARANTEED and GOD GIVEN rights.

      OF COURSE THEY DON’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      But they’re doing it. And they’re getting away with it too. Why? Because we are too divided to fight back, and to ignorant to see it. We need as a people to wake up and smell what they’re shoveling on us people.

  56. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: My rewording of the Second Amendment.

    The existing wording:

    A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    My revision to clarify the Constitutional intent:

    “The Natural Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Now my proposed Amendment to address modern times.

    “The people of the United States have a Right to keep and bear arms. Neither Congress nor any State may pass or establish any law for disarming the people or any one of them, unless for violent crimes committed, using such arms, and subject to limitations and requirements for criminal prosecution, as provided herein.”

    Now, I considered using Citizen instead of People, as this would be more consistent with the original meaning of “people” than using today’s meaning. I would be interested in the thoughts of others on which would be better.

    By the way, I borrowed some of the wording for the modern Amendment from a draft of several Amendments as proposed by a Pennsylvania delegation of dissenters to the Const. Convention outcome. As a point of interest and furthering everyone’s discussion I have included the complete text of their proposal below, along with the one that followed:

    7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or a real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

    8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

    Buck made the point about how the “founders” would be appalled that we did not allow for some restrictions. Notice that the Penn. proposal, drafted by anti-Federalists, does allow some prohibition or restriction. First for crimes and second for “real danger of public injury from individuals”. Now this will start some discussion of what “real” means but it is pretty clear they meant something like Real as opposed to speculative and now as opposed to some future time.

    Obviously this wording in our time would be great fodder for the Statists and their lawyers. But here is a critical point relative to our debate here.

    Notice that the Second Amendment in its final form did not provide for these exceptions. It simply stated that “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

    If as Buck and others claim, the Framers would have wanted some exceptions, then why did they not include them? They did for other “rights”, such as: “….nor be deprived of life, liberty,or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Article V).

    I would also like to point out that in the rebuttals to the Pennsylvania letters and proposals the notion of including the right to hunt and fish was ridiculed as absurdly unnecessary. Derogatory comments were made against most of the proposed amendments. But NONE was levied against No. 7 above except as it related to oversight of a Standing Army.

    • “being necessary to the security of a free State”

      The above words-as used in this amendment-how would you define “a free State”?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        A “State” as in any one of the thirteen States and those that might be added later.

        “Free”, as in any State that exists absent of Tyranny from within or invasion from without.

        • Free-absent of tyranny from without-that includes tyranny from the Federal government.

          But when I see the word State-I see “We the People” so protection of a free State-means protection of the people and the property within a geographical location. When I see Federal-I see United States, which means State power, but State power is “We the People” power. So how the hell can anyone believe that protection of the State means protection of governmental power -not protection of “we the People” and our rights.

          I haven’t explained my feelings well but do the best you can to try and understand my meaning.

          • I thought you got your feelings across quite well. After all, what moron would actually believe that it was meant to protect governmental powers?

            The entire Constitution was written to protect “We The People” from our own Government’s Tyranny and Oppression.

  57. The Republic of Texas…..huah!

  58. The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
    From: Brian T. Halonen

    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Those are good citations. But let me add this, which is ignored by the Statist arguments.

      The Second Amendment is part of the “Bill of Rights”. These provisions establish LIMITS on Federal and sometimes State authority and power.

      They do not convey authority to the Fed Govt. That is done under the other sections of the main document.

      The authority for congress to establish standards for training and to call out the Militia are contained in the main body. This authority carries not special restrictions or conditions that link private gun ownership. So I think your reference author is correct. Regulated in the second amendment is referring to a “well organized and properly functioning” Militia.

      “Regulations” as in laws, is dealt with under the authorities vested in Congress.

  59. After catching up on todays posts, then doing some other reading, it appears that Obama might do an Executive Order about guns, which to me means nothing. Obama cannot make laws, and they really don’t matter to the populace. I think he really believes he is the King. He will have to learn the hard way I guess. 🙂

    • Learn the hard way-seems to me-he is winning. But then-Elections have consequences 🙂

      • THere are alot of us who believe the elections were totally rigged. Places in Ohio that have 108% of ballots cast, places where 100% of votes were fo Obama ect, ect. Our Govt is totally corrupt, as I have said. But your right, as long as people believe they have a choice in which criminal to vote for, elections really do have consequences 🙂 🙂

        • Well, I’m thinking people aren’t gonna quit anytime soon-so those consequences are here to stay.

  60. “And the American genocide continues, with 333,964 murders in 2011. That’s the figure proudly released by Planned Parenthood Federation of America in their report delineating how many abortions they performed in fiscal 2011. Doing some simple math reveals that the number of abortions performed equates to one abortion every 94 seconds.”

    FYI-Just a highlight -if you want to read the whole article go to the link.

    Every 94 seconds and that’s just Planned Parenthood. Can anything really justify this type of mass killings? Or if you don’t see it as killing-this mass destruction of LIFE.

    • This is eugenics 2012. If you dig alittle deeper, you will likely find that a majority of abortions involve black people. Most people are fooled about racism, but the real racists aren’t hard to find, they just don’t know it. 🙄

      • Not really into the idea that current day people, at least Most of them are into killing black babies specifically. I’m more of the” they know not what they do” idea.

        • I have studied the subject of Eugenics into it’s deepest depths. It has a purpose and it is on purpose. Remember the starvation in Ethiopia when we were younger? Reality is that they starved for a reason, eugenics. Most abortion centers are located in black neighborhoods (just google it). They don’t really know what they are doing, I agree with that, otherwise we could call Buck a racist, and I don’t believe he is even close to a racist. 🙂

          • Oh, don’t misunderstand me-I do believe that eugenics is alive and disgusting. I firmly believe that there is pure evil in this world -I just want to be careful about calling the people, in general, who believe that abortion is okay, racists. Although, I have no problem telling them it’s creation and it’s real purpose is evil.

    • I hate to be pushy but I really NEED an answer to the above question. I have listened to all types of reasons for why abortion is supported. From it isn’t a person, although it is obviously a life, to it’s a matter of freedom, to there’s no way we can make sure that a woman isn’t forced to give her life to have a baby. So please, make me understand, is there a reason that can justify the out of control numbers of babies that are being destroyed.

      • V.H. You won’t get an answer, because those who support abortion are brainwashed to believe that a fetus is not a living being, despite all of the evidence that shows they are very much alive. Much like genocide and eugenics, it continues.

        Get armed my dear, you will need it!

        • No, G- there are many, right here on SUFA who are Pro-choice based on the things I listed. I just can’t understand how they can continue to be so-when confronted with the actual number of babies that are destroyed each year.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    At the moment I am feeling severe frustration and must share with SUFA.

    For three days now I have been engaged in “discussions” on Huff Po, etc trying to explain to everyone that Failure to raise the debt ceiling DOES NOT MEAN we default on our debt. It simply does not. And there is no reason to believe that we will or that a credit downgrade is automatic because of it.

    It is simply amazing to me the power of propaganda put out by the DNC, RNC, Administration, Congress, media, you name it. LAZY reporters repeating Mr. Carney’s stupid comments unquestioned and without explanation.

    When I explain it in detail I am an idiot, uneducated, uninformed, etc, etc, etc. When I provide links, they are FAUX NEWs inspired propaganda.

    I’ve had a similar experience over this stupid Trillion Dollar Coin idea. Today I finally had it and told a bunch of them to just PRINT THE FREAKIN MONEY. Go ahead, make my day. Those of us who understand will do just fine with the ensuing inflation. The rest will still be howling in ten years that they have been screwed by the rich people. Because they will have screwed themselves without knowing it.

    It does indeed seem that the country has reached a point where there are a different set of FACTS and TRUTHS which entirely depend on your political point of view. I wish the two universes were not linked. I would simply look away and laugh. Unfortunately they are linked and their lack of understanding will take the rest of us down with them.

    OK, my rant is now over. Some Ginger Root and Lemon tea, with Honey and Brandy now. To help with my head cold and my attitude. It is a miracle drink and was recommended to me by my Vietnamese American Barber.

    • I feel for ya JAC. You just can’t fix stupid, so why waste the time. We may well be on the verge of Civil War II. It won’t be North/South, it will be oppression vs. freedom. Don’t worry about the HuffPo crew, they won’t make it if there is a breakdown in society in our cities. Sadly, I think that is where we are heading.

      PEACE! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I’ll tell you why its worth the time.

        Because in trying we stumble across each other. The Remant, as BF calls them.

        We also stumble upon those on the Left who do have a clue and may not be as extreme. Like Mathius, Buck and Todd.

        I hope I didn’t cause them an aneurism over that comment. 🙂

        It also gives us a chance to defend and thus validate our own beliefs, assumptions, etc.

        Well that is my story anyway, and I’m sticking to it. Bwahahahaha.

        Is deer hunting over?

        Cause given our weather you should get a pretty good snow by mid to late next week. Although it might get pretty darn cold.

        • Yep, deer season ended for me awhile ago, got me a nasty pinched nerve in my neck. Quite a pain in my neck (pun intended) 🙂 We”ve had plenty of snow, 21 inches on the ground before the warmer temps moved in. Could be 60 on Saturday. My next deer tag comes on Feb 1st. So we can still whack’em when ever we choose.

          I hope we do get some more cold weather, I like snow in winter, it keeps the well full 🙂

          I’ll be hoping for the Green Bay Packers to win it all this year. Although Seattle looks tough to beat with that defense. Not sure about the AFC, just don’t want the Patriots to go all the way. The Texans would be a nice change. Texans vs. Seattle would be great!

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Something good to share.

    I have stumbled upon a Talk Radio guy by the name of Michael Berry. Our stations recently switched a bunch of people in their line up.

    The guy is an absolute hoot and adds a little fun to my afternoon errands. I suspect many know of him. If not I suggest you see if some local station carries him.

  63. It will never end, maybe. 🙂

    Press release!

    Law offices of Orly Taitz

    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts scheduled a case by attorney Orly Taitz dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s use of forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court. The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.

    Please, keep in mind, Richard Nixon was reelected and sworn in, but later was forced to resign as a result of Watergate. over 30 high ranking officials of Nixon administration including Attorney General of the United States and White HouseCcounsel were indicted, convicted and went to prison. ObamaForgery gate is a hundred times bigger then Watergate. More corrupt high ranking officials, US Attorneys, AGs and judges were complicit, committed high treason by allowing a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro to usurp the U.S. Presidency by use of forged IDs and a stolen Social security number

    SCOTUS printout is below. For more information on this and other cases please, go to

    web site Attorney Taitz can be contacted at, fax-949-766-7603. In case of an emergency only she can be contacted by phone 949-683-5411

  64. I have met Ted Nugent, he is a great American and has no problem speaking against the gun grabbers. Here he is again

  65. Worth watching. It seems that the govt cannot demand registration unless they get rid of this part of Obamacare.

  66. Irony? The propaganda agency of the former USSR is advising American’s to fight to keep their firearms…

  67. Two years in the slammer if your dog bites a burglar
    Thomas Lifson

    The United Kingdom seems to have a lot of concern for protecting the rights of burglars as they commit crimes against law abiding citizens. The case of Tony Martin, convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter after an international outcry) in 1999 for killing a burglar in his house with a shotgun was only the beginning. Now comes news from the UK Telegraph that the Wales parliament is vetting legislation that would send dog owners to jail for up to 2 years if their dog bites a burglar in the course of committing a crime.

    [The] Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill contains the provision for owners to be jailed for that period if a dog injuries another pet or a person, and to be given an unlimited fine.

    The current Animal Welfare Act provides for owners to be jailed for a maximum of six months and fined up to £20,000.

    The draft legislation, out to consultation until March 1, provides no defence if a dog bites a burglar, or if the person bitten provokes the dog.

    The Kennel Club believes the Welsh Government had “got this one wrong”.

    It is a good idea to make dog owners responsible for their pets’ behavior. But since the dawn of civilization, man’s best friend has performed an invaluable role in alerting people of intruders, and taking them on with their only available weapon – their teeth. Dogs’ loyalty, their willingness to sacrifice their own survival to defend their masters, is one of the reasons they rank as man’s best friend.

    Obviously, the bill should exempt those in the course of commission of a crime from any protections under the law. However, given the trend in UK law, it seems that rendering powerless the law abiding subjects of Her Majesty and protecting the criminal element from any self-defense measures of their prey is a greater priority than protect8ing the innocent.

    Read more:

  68. Good Morning All 🙂

    I have had some thoughts about the Sandy Hook shooting, the statements by govt folks and the MSM. First and foremost is the attack on assault rifles. First, it is not positive that an assault weapon was actually used. The media has had several stories, from an assualt rifle and two pistols to just 4 pistols. The gun found in the car was not an AR 15, it was a semi-auto shotgun. There have been no pictures or video, not even a video of the shooter at the door he entered. Is that because it would destroy the assault weapon mystery, like maybe he didn’t have one after all. Shouldn’t the discussion be about psychotropic drugs that are common in these types of mass killings?

    Why did Gene, the guy the 6 kids went to, have so many different stories about what happened that day. Why did the coroner fidget around like a typical liar ? How does a 150 lb. person, put on a heavy bullet proof vest (which is still debatable), then carry a reported 200 or so rounds and 3 guns. Most 200 lb. men would struggle with that much weight, doing it the first time. How did he carry all the magazines? How many magazines did they find empty? OH! This number was never stated, or reported, why? Isn’t that important to the high-capacity magazine ban?

    There are more holes in this story than in a 1 ton block of swiss cheese. I would like to debunk all the theories and I would like your help. Pick one and lets start 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Whether you think this a possible false flag or just another tragedy, it will not be able to SERIOUSLY evaluate it until the COMPLETE POLICE REPORT is released. That should then include number and type of casings, clips/magazines, etc, etc.

      • JAC, I’m sure the final police report will say whatever they want to coincide with the media version of what happened. The evidence so far is lacking. No videos, not pictures ect. People are finding things that were done before the shooting. I have lots of questions, like how did 5 SWAT teams get there within minutes of the shooting? I did mention on that day that it looked more like a parade for the Feds than a crime scene.

        Speaking of final police report, it’s been almost a month, how long does this usually take? Isn’t anyone curious why their were no survivors? There have always been injured victims in every other event. Why did the police official say that he would prosecute anyone who posted false information?

        JAC, are you wondering or do you believe what you have heard so far from the MSM?

        • My two cents.. you’d be better off going after the bigger fish, gun control. You can put up all the ‘evidence’ you want..doesn’t mean anyone is going to admit to anything, or that anything will be done about it. F&F, Benghazi….

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I haven’t seen much from the MSM and I am not wondering very much.

          I am waiting to see what the final reports look like.

          I do think that some of the stuff put out by your references is flawed. Like the picture supposed showing the Bushmaster in the trunk. Remember I questioned that.

          Also the woman in two pictures. Sure looks like different people to me. Notice different angles make it impossible to be certain. You must depend on what your “told” to see.

          Also like the girl in the photo. WHEN was the first photo taken. Where is the third sister in the second photo?

          The guy with all the stories. Easy to explain. A publicity seeker and a stupid media. Not some plant.

          Lack of tears?? Not all people tear up after such an event. Not all handle the media very well. Now I grant you one here. That creepy Dad. I have NEVER, EVER seen a parent laughing one second and then so deliberately get himself worked up to sorrow the next. For the Camera.

          As for the PARADE after the incident ……….. that is true of EVERY such incident. You should see the video of the mall shooting in Clackamas. Guys riding on the downwind side of armored personnel carriers. Long after the shooting stopped.

          I don’t think that is conspiracy, just usual Police Overkill when its all said and done. But then we must ask, would it be overkill if there had been more than one shooter? If another person was lurking around waiting for people to come back in?

          And just how fast did SWAT get there? Who had the timer running. Five minutes would not be that unexpected, depending on where the stations were located.

          • The gun in the trunk was a semi-auto shotgun. The cop who handled it didn’t do it as if was evidence, from what I saw. I agree with the Creepy Dad thingy, 😆 The numerous SWAT teams were there rather quickly because the shooting coincided with a DHS exercise somewhere near. Seems like these exercises are always happening the same day, 911 is an example.

            I’m not trying to convince anyone that this is a false flag, but rather pointing out things that are unusual. I still wonder why there are no pictures or videos, thats my #1 beef.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Here is one I will offer you. When it is time to fan the flames of passion some more, to get gun control passed, don’t be surprised if photos are “leaked” to the media.

  69. OK, nobody has any ideas? Here’s a video, which has some foul language, so if you have virgin ears don’t watch it, LOL.

  70. Just A Citizen says:


    You want to stick with guns so lets just look at that factor. As with many issues we don’t agree there is an issue. At least one deserving of significant Federal Action.

    A tale of two worlds told in graphic form.

    LEFT: Oh my the USA has a gun violence problem.

    Now note the MAJOR lack of statistical correlation in the graph as opposed to what the author is telling everyone to see.

  71. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd (continued)

    RIGHT: What Gun problem?,r:1,s:0,i:87&tx=110&ty=75

    Now SUFA, note that there is data on this graph designed to make you think there is a strong correlation that in fact is probably not true. One of those is the number of carry states compared to the death rate.

    Also for EVERYONE. Please note that the number of gun deaths and the gun deaths per 100k people had already increased BEFORE the Assault Weapons Ban expired. It continued to rise one more year then increased at a much slower rate. Despite the increase in the number of these weapons.

  72. After playing a clip of Morgan’s interview with radio host Alex Jones, WXIX’s Ben Swann said, “The stat that Piers Morgan was continuing to cite, one that Great Britain which banned guns about fifteen years ago had only 35 gun-related murders in 2011 compared to the United States which had 11,000. Let’s start there because that number is not correct.”

    Swann then broke down the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showing that there were 12,664 homicides in the U.S. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

    “But of those,” said Swann, “400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement, 260 justifiable homicide by private citizens.”

    As such, Morgan has been routinely citing an incorrect figure for the U.S.

    Morgan was also misstating Britain’s gun-related homicide rate in 2011 which was actually 59 NOT the 35 he repeats over and over again.

    Not surprising that facts really aren’t important to folks such as Morgan.

    But that’s just the beginning, because what anti-gun media members such as Morgan completely ignore is the differing crime rates relative to the population.

    “The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, an average of 88 guns per 100 people,” Swann stated. “That puts it first in the world for gun ownership.”

    If there was a significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide, America should therefore be one of the highest nations in the world in terms of gun-related murders per fixed number of people.

    Not so said Swann. “Honduras, El Salvador, and Jamaica have higher rates. So do 24 other countries. The U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership is number 28 in gun homicide with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.”

    But here’s where it really gets interesting.
    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    “The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU,” Swann said. “The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate, the fourth highest burglary rate. But more importantly, the EU named Britain as the most violent country in the EU.”

    Swann noted that in the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. By contrast, there are 466 violent crimes per 100,000 here in America.

    “We’re not even in the top ten,” Swann said.

    This means that Britain’s violent crime rate is over five times that of the U.S.

    Not surprisingly, Morgan chooses to ignore this statistic.

    Also of note, Swann’s sources for some of the numbers he cited were Britain’s Daily Mail and Guardian.

    Maybe that will convince Morgan – but don’t hold your breath.

    Read more:

  73. Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his that trained “crisis actors” may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event’s true purpose: gun control.

    “As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends,” writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.,0,4267958.story


    Interesting that a Professor in Media History would say that “crisis actors” were used and the whole thing was for political reasons.

  75. Interesting observation today. Stopped in at a local store today named Cabellas and then stopped in at Outdoor world. The reason was to buy some more ammunition and casings for several weapons. In talking with the head store guy at Cabellas…..I was informed that they cannot keep .223/5.56 ammo in stock nor the weapons. Also, there are record sales in the 9mm, 7mm, .45 and .380. I went to Outdoor world and there were about 60 people waiting in line to buy weapons for the first time. I also noticed several people, me included, that had carts with at least 1,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibers. There are gun shows scheduled in 12 major cities just this weekend.

    Governor Perry today, after the announcement that Biden has a new idea that Obama might issue an executive order on, announced that Texas would not abide by any Executive Order on weapons control that does not give the rights to the States to decide. His statement today said that the Federal government has no concept whatsoever of weapons, much less how to control them. Since Texas took over the border defacto…….gun running has all but ceased and the cartels have moved to Arizona and California where the Federal government runs things.

    Tomorrow, Mrs Colonel and I are going to the Texas Gun Academy. Since I am losing my Federal Permit in October, we are going through the State approved CCH classes. She will be a pistol packing mama shortly. This is going on in record numbers. Texas is serious.

    • Perry recognizes that the description of an assault weapon passed under the Clinton Administration has some merit. Defining an assault weapon as such:

      (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:
      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;
      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
      (iii) A bayonet mount;
      (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
      (v) A grenade launcher

      (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
      (i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
      (ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
      (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
      (iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded

      (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;
      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

      The Texas Legislature is thinking about adopting these measures.

      • Colonel,

        Early reports show that Biden will be proposing two measures in terms of gun control:

        1) High-capacity magazines
        2) Universal background checks

        Sound a bit familiar?

        • That will never work. I may affect gun shows, but that’s it.

          • What won’t work and why not?

            • Any of it. If Joe wants to sell a gun to Bob, it’s sold, the Feds will never know. I think their only reason is gun shows, but that will be beat as well. They will just do background checks at the gun shows, no big deal.

              There millions of high capacity mags out there, all the Feds are doing is making a black market. Once again no big deal.

              An Executive Order of any kind is a joke, it is not law and no one has to abide by it.

              • So simply because a law can be broken means there shouldn’t be a law in the first place? Interesting approach.

              • No Sir, the background checks will be legal. The black market comment is just reality. Cocaine is illegal, but almost anyone can buy it if you know the right person. Just because the Feds say it’s illegal, don’t mean it just disappears.

                What would this law serve anyway. There is no evidence pointing at gun shows and at this point, their is no evidence that high capacity mags were used in any recent shooting. What do they think they will stop, criminal mental cases who don’t follow the law anyway.

              • Hard to comment on what the law would/could do without having the specifics of a proposed law.

                Expanding background searches makes perfect sense. Limiting access to high capacity magazines could make sense as well depending on the scope and definitions for reasons already discussed. Would either of these laws stop gun violence in this country? Of course not – no one is saying they would. But they could well serve to reduce it.

              • Going back to Columbine now, just how many of these mass shootings were done with weapons purchased via the “Gun Show Loophole”. How many prospective terrorists who have been entrapped, whoops I mean arrested by our FBI had weapons they purchased through “the Gun Show Loophole” ?

                Of course you know the answer and so do I so, other than making someone “feel” good or “feel” safe, What exact purpose will these proposals make.

                I have no real problem with any background check and I am sure that you are aware Buck that it was the NRA who initially supported background checks through the Instant Check system (Schumer was opposed) but, if you have it, it has to be as unintrusive as possible. If, at the back of the gun show, they merely set up a table where buyer and seller could meet, exchange information, show Photo ID and then call the purchaser in without doing any paperwork, I’m for it! Even charge the buyer $ 5.00 or $ 10.00 for doing it is fine for me. Taking it beyond that is where nefarious motives are suspected.

                Just listened to Hannity. Lannie Garnier was the guest. they talked of guns. Garnier was going on about how they need “reasonable” laws to prevent “assault weapons” from being sold without background checks. Now, come on, 99.9 percent of all what he considers assault weapons are sold through dealers with checks in place and HE KNOWS THAT. The man is lying for a reason. Yesterday Joe Montone from 1010 WINS New York was on the streets of Harlem going on about High Powered Weapons. the implication from the interviews was that we were talking assault style weapons. The interviewees were quoted in such a way as to make it seem we are talking about rifles. The reality is, and take it from someone who worked 10 years in Harlem and still has business there, you almost never see a rifle there. You see “nines”. 9MM handguns ranging from cheap crap throughput $ 1,000 plus guns. You, Joe Montone and I all know that is not the issue here but if you just keep telling the lie, the uninitiated will believe it. Liars abound on this issue because they feel they are serving a “higher” purpose.

        • @ Buck…..

          Universal background checks…….they already do that. However, it is limited to felony background checks. I wonder what “universal means”. Does universal mean that mental health is included in the background check? I do not see the ACLU being very receptive of this. Senator Reid is even against this particular issue stating that health concerns are not a matter of public record.

          High capacity magazines…….ok……limited to what. I would like to see a definition of same before I could get behind it. If it is anything like Feinstein wants… way. ( She even wants to limit hunting rifles to three rounds) I would not hunt a bear with only three rounds or even an Elk. Sometimes it takes more than two or three well placed shots to bring down something. Target shooters and gun range enthusiasts and competitive shooters routinely need 16 round clips.

          Does sound familiar….and I have not seen anything yet according to this. Perry’s stance is absolute……it is a State affair. We shall see. But if this is the only area and they do not change the definition of assault rifle…..I can see some compromise albeit very little.

          All this second amendment stuff and fourteenth amendment stuff is smokescreen. Militia is well documented and it does mean individuals.

          • From my reading, universal background checks would expand the scope of the check to better cover mental health issues and apply to private sales. Clearly much more information is needed.

            Re: high capacity magazines, the move is to restrict/limit such magazines, not an outright ban from what Ive read so far.

            • Buck, HIPPA laws do not allow for the disemination of medical records or issues without permission of the person in question. How can Govt get around this very important privacy issue? Also, what would constitute a mental issue that would disallow a person the right to own a gun?

              I agree that more info is needed. My opinion is that the Feds should step down and let the states handle it (the only it being Fed laws). What say you?

              • Clearly HIPPA laws and other privacy laws would have to be amended to provide for inclusion in background checks for gun purchases. I feel this is an area of gun control where we can get broad support.

                I’ve already posted on my feelings about Fed vs. State authority — there needs to be (1) minimum national standards and (2) a national database to run background checks through. A state-by-state database would do nothing (unless you had to run each name against all 50 state databases). If a State wants to impose increased regulations above the minimal standards, that is within a state’s authority.

            • Ok,,,an expansion of background checks to include mental health…..if it can be done.

              I wish that I could speak to the magazine issue….but will wait to see.

            • “Restrict” the last time out meant only police/military. I have one in my collection from that era and that is how it is stamped.

              I commend you for sticking with the debate which indicates a willingness to learn. If I remember correctly, it is the much maligned John Lott who started his research on firearms convinced it would prove the opposite of what he actually found. He had the honesty and integrity to publicly switch positions when the numbers failed to bear out his initial suppositions.

              The mental health issue is a gem. The last four shooters in the school, the universities, and the congresswoman have all been mad as hatters. Governor Cuomo Jr. my unfavorite rabble rouser (did you listen to his state of the state? He’d give Hitler a run for the money in style.) Spent much time on Gun bans but never mentioned, not even once that it was his Daddy, Cuomo the Elder who was instrumental in allowing the crazies out the door of the institutions. Like the issue of the power company on Long Island which he now wants to privatize, he thought better of mentioning it was his Dad who took it out of the private sector to begin with. What a crew!.

  76. JAC… friend…..remember on the graphs,,,,,figures don;t lie but liars can figure.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes Sir, that is true.

      By the way, if you haven’t in the past few minutes, check your email.

      My shipment was derailed.

  77. @Buck, I don’t believe there is anyone that reads this blog that wouldn’t want a reduction, if not and end, to gun violence. Where you and I may differ, is how to reduce it. I don’t think laws will do anything, except effect law abiding citizens.

    As long as the governments think that “gun free zones” are still needed, these events will continue to happen. These mentally ill people who have done these mass murders as of late, all events were in advertised “no gun zones”. That would be my first step, eliminate the no gun zones.

    I am going to write an article on my blog on what I think is the real problem that needs addressed. It has nothing to do with guns. I know that Todd thinks that guns just jump up and start shooting, but they really don’t 😆 Joking of course.

    • Any proof that the REASON these mentally ill have committed these acts in these locations is BECAUSE the locations are ‘gun free zones’?

      Somehow I don’t think that fact influences their choice much at all.

      • I reckon that if a person is planning to commit a mass murder (yes, they plan them, and that has been proven) one would pick a place with lots of people that has the least amount of resistance. It was reported that after the shooter in the Portland Ore. mall took his life after he saw a man with a gun (it was a no gun zone, the guy was in violation). Despite the mental issues, I have no doubt they go after easy prey. It is the nature of the beast, so to speak. I’m trying to think like one, but that isn’t perfect.

      • @Buck

        Somehow I don’t think that fact influences their choice much at all.

        Really? Then can you explain that EVERY mass shooting that has occurred has been carried out within a gun free zone, with the single exception being the Gabby Giffords shooting? Do you believe that to be a coincidence?

      • I do see your point that the main reason they pick the place, especially the school shootings is probably not Just that they are gun free zones. The desire to kill is based on some other perceived wrong. But the fact that they are gun free zones may be why they carry out these perceived wrongs at school. They could attempt to kill the people they were angry at in some other less crowded place. But maybe the mere fact that they know they can “take a lot of them with me” had a great deal of influence on why they carried through with the plan and why they choose the school specifically to do it in.

        • Crazy does not mean stupid. These people, at least most of these mass killings seem to be planned. And I personally think they consider all the possibilities. They don’t seem to just pick up a gun and run to the school in an out of control rage.

        • Remove the ‘gun free zone’ sign and I’d be willing to bet these same people with clear mental health issues would have still chosen the same course of action.

          Yes, they may plan their steps, but I just don’t think the ‘gun free zone’ influences their choice of location all that much, if at all.

          • Well, maybe we can agree-that crazy mass murderers tend to go to public places to kill people. And it is these types of places that are gun free zones. And people in these places are left without any real protection-so the nut usually manages to kill many of them.

  78. Love the Judge’s take on gun control.

  79. Justice fires back — privacy, the press and guns

    By Judge Jeanine Pirro

    Published January 09, 2013

    Read more:

    Pretty interesting read.Now, it is only fair to publish the names and addresses of the reporters and all employees of the newspaper.

  80. Just A Citizen says:

    Mexico’s “most feared” drug cartel has moved into a surprising new business
    Thursday, January 10, 2013
    Text Size: increase text size decrease text size


    According to the U.S. government, Los Zetas are the most technologically advanced, sophisticated, and dangerous cartel in Mexico, a set of qualities that has also led them to become the most violent and feared. Formed back in 1999 when commandos from the Mexican army’s elite forces deserted ranks and became the armed forces for the Gulf Cartel, they then split off to start their own gang in 2010.

    In the past few years they have taken control of Mexico’s Coahuila region in the north, along the border of Texas, and are now starting to thrive like never before. Los Zetas covertly entered the region, and under the threat of extreme violence for those who didn’t cooperate they swiftly brought every aspect of commerce, politics, and business under their control in less than three years.

    This expansion was not undertaken to increase its drug trafficking or prostitution ring operations, but rather to enter into the business of coal mining.

    The state of Coahuila is rich in coal, and mining the fuel offers Los Zetas a rare chance to actually make money in a legal manner, as opposed to the normal rackets of drugs and sex trafficking.

    The coal is mined through their own poorly paid workers, or bought at a low price from small miners, who are forced to sell their product. Los Zetas then resell the coal onto a state-owned company for a profit that is 30 times greater than the initial investment…

  81. For a short time, this movie is offered for free. It is titled Agenda and I have just watched it. Very telling and thought provoking.

  82. AS I pointed out long ago……companies are cutting to part time employees. Hobby Lobby standing by its ethics…..would rather close down than be forced to do something against their will.

  83. Would a progressive on here please explain to me the reason behind your belief that any pension fund, public or private, needs to be paid with tax money? Why is it that the pension administrators are not held responsible for their mismanagement of their respective pension funds? What gives any recipient the right, any right, to expect a bailout? I do not believe anyone will answer my question, but thought I would float it out there anyway.

  84. Bottom Line says:

  85. Recasting History: Scholarly Study Finds that Race, Class, and Gender Studies Crowd Up University American History Classes

    Bryan Preston

    January 11, 2013 – 12:07 am

    This week the Texas legislature is kicking off its 83rd session in Austin. The funding of public education in the state will be a hot topic as it always is, but this session, the content of public education will be worth a look. The National Association of Scholars today released the findings of a study into the contents of university-level history teaching at two of Texas’ (and the nation’s) most highly regarded public universities, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, in Bryan-College Station.

    Specifically, the NAS looked at the syllabi and reading assignments of classes at both universities, in 85 sections of lower-division American history courses. These classes covered the state requirement, passed by the legislature in 1971, that all undergraduate students at Texas public institutions take two American history courses. What the NAS study found is very disturbing.

    The study found that U.S. history courses at both universities strongly emphasize race, class, and gender (RCG) in reading requirements. Fully 78% of faculty members at UT emphasize race, class, and gender, while 50% of faculty members at Texas A&M do the same. Likewise, 78% of UT professors have special research interests in RCG, while 64% at A&M do too.

    The study contends that the strong emphasis on RCG crowds out other relevant themes in American history, such as the nation’s intellectual, military, spiritual, and economic history. The emphasis on RCG studies also influences a further narrowing of history subject matter and the tailoring of “special topics” courses, which omit the use of significant primary source documents. These narrowed-focus classes, the study finds, “seem to exist mainly to allow faculty members to teach their special interests.”

    The effect: Students at two of Texas’ flagship universities are not being assigned to study such important and influential milestones as the Mayflower Compact or President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. “Only one faculty member,” the study finds, “assigned the ‘Letter from a Birmingham jail’” or Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Major historical figures, from John Dewey to Alexander Graham Bell to Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers, are increasingly being left out of American history courses at both universities. The result of this is that we are losing touch with our history, replacing it with an overemphasis on grievances.

    “These trends extend beyond the two flagship Texas universities,” the study report says. “History departments at other universities around the United States share similar characteristics, such as faculty members’ narrow specializations; high emphasis on race, class, and gender; exclusion of key concepts; and failure to provide broad coverage of U.S. history.”

    The National Association of Scholars proposes 10 remedies to correct the imbalance of U.S. history teaching in universities. Those remedies include instituting external reviews to ensure that professors are not narrowing history classes down to their particular field of interest, and depoliticizing the teaching of history. “Historians and professors of United States history should counter mission creep by returning to their primary task: handing down the American story, as a whole, to future generations.”

    Download and read the entire NAS “Recasting History” report here.

    • My 17 year old son is in Advanced American History in High School. His teacher is a Liberal Democrat. We know this because that’s ALL she talks about and teaches. Or rather, she did before I got done filing a complaint about it with the school wit hthreats to go all the way to the state board.

      This…..woman had the gall to tell my boy that anyone who did not vote for Obama in the last election was racist. In other words, me and his mother. But now, as far as teaching, she just teaches American History.

  86. G-man,

    I have been hearing a lot this past week about the Sandy Hook shootings being done primarily with the pistols, not the Bushmaster. Is there any definitive proof on this? Initial reports indicated the pistols, with the rifle in the car trunk then they were revised to the rifle exclusively. .

    Seems to me, with the amount of shooting going on, there should be photos of boxes filled with empty cartridge cases. The difference between a 5.56 and a 9MM would be obvious even to morons. Are there any photos?

    • SKT, Not a single photo or video has been released. The gun in the trunk was not a Bushmaster, it was a semi-auto shotgun. That was made clear when watching the video in slow motion. This has the makings of a misinformation event, if not an outright false flag.

      I don’t think that the powers that be expected the pushback against the gun grabbers that they got. Piers Morgan has been proven a moron time and time again. The progressive mouthpieces and their useful idiots in the media are failing miserably. All they have managed to do is put a lot more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Now what are they gonna do?

  87. Just A Citizen says:

    I have an alternative Gun proposal.

    BAN ALL GUNS. In addition BAN all modern Compound Bows. Hunters must use long bows or spears from now on. Some trapping of waterfowl would have to be allowed.

    This BAN would of course include ALL Law Enforcement agencies and their personnel.

    It would also include ALL Military personnel located within the US, except in case of TRAINING.

  88. January 11, 2013
    I’m British and Piers Morgan is Damn Wrong
    By Adam Shaw

    Many Americans, since the Sandy Hook massacre, have been disgusted by Piers Morgan’s snooty condescension toward their great country, and his blatant disregard for the Second Amendment. This culminated in his recent interview with talk show host Alex Jones, that ultimately backfired when his fiery guest wiped the floor with him.

    Since the shooting, Morgan has strutted around as the flag waver for gun control, pointing to his native Great Britain as the ultimate example of what these dumb, gun-toting Yanks should try and imitate. Not only did he use Britain constantly in his scathing editorial against American gun laws, but also repeatedly pointed Alex Jones towards the supposed low gun murder rate in the United Kingdom.

    As a fellow Englishman living in America, there is no reason I should not be on Morgan’s side. I have spent most of my life in Britain — the supposed gun-free paradise. While I respect the American Constitution I have no particular reason to be persuaded of an argument just because there is an amendment allowing it; and coming from a country where even the police are unarmed, it can seem excessive to English eyes when Americans claim that military assault rifles like the AR-15 are for self defense.

    And yet I can say with confidence that Piers is being either intellectually dishonest, or downright ignorant, if he believes that the USA should imitate the diabolical disaster that has been British gun control.

    The first thing to be observed is that his very usage of Britain as an example for the U.S. to follow is proof that his claim only to want to ban certain assault weapons like the AR-15 is an outrageous lie. If it were true that he were a mere moderate quite happy to allow Americans to own ordinary guns, then he would have no reason to quote British gun statistics.

    For the UK does not merely prevent its citizens from obtaining military guns, but any gun whatsoever (with very few exceptions), including the handguns with which Piers implies he has no quarrel. So to imply that minor gun restrictions in America would result in British-style results is like arguing America should restrict sales of alcoholic drinks with over 40% alcohol, while promising Prohibition era results.

    Additionally, Piers’ insistence that he is merely focusing on assault rifles is destroyed by his own logic. One of the arguments he put forth to Alex Jones was that the AR-15 should be banned as it is a common feature in the big massacres such as that in Newtown. Yet handguns were used also at Newtown, so surely those need banning too?

    Indeed this was the precise logic that led to the banning of handguns in the UK. After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren and a teacher were killed (and 15 injured) by a man wielding only handguns, Britain’s already strict gun laws were enlarged to include them. The newspaper leading the call for this ban was the Daily Mirror — the editor? A certain Piers Morgan.

    If Mr. Morgan wishes to ban all weapons, then he should have the decency to come out and say so. For his argument appears to be that banning just military weapons will stop massacres. Yet the Dunblane massacre he cites proves that it is possible to kill almost as many innocent children with much weaker weapons. Banning assault rifles may change the hardware murderers use, but it won’t stop the killing.

    So why doesn’t Piers just admit it? After all, he keeps nodding to the gun-free nirvana that is our home nation. Why wouldn’t Americans want to imitate our harmonious gun laws?

    Simple — Americans wouldn’t want British gun laws for the same reason they don’t want to join the European Union or eat Black Pudding — because they’re not as good as they look.

    Piers may point to the fact that Britain has relatively few gun deaths, but this is like saying that if we banned cars we’d have a lot fewer road deaths — it would be true, but that would only paint a small part of the picture and would fail to take into account the huge knock on effects that this would have.

    Note that Mr. Morgan fails to take account of gun crime in the UK, only gun deaths. If he did, his argument would lose steam. Since the gun ban in 1998, the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has risen by 89%, and in some areas of the country has leapt by as much as 500%. Gang culture once never seen in the UK is now rife — disproving the notion that banning guns will weed out gang culture.

    Additionally, according to a study by UN affiliated European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control last year, it was found that Britain has higher robbery, assault, and burglary rates than America. When criminals know you are unlikely to have a gun, what is to stop them from robbing you, beating you up, or simply breaking into your house?

    A comprehensive 2007 study showed that we don’t even fare well among our European neighbors. Britain was not only the burglary and assault capital of Europe, it also had higher than average rates of car theft, robbery and sex offences, and came second only to Ireland in the overall crime league.

    This is no surprise to anyone who has lived in England for any amount of time. Having lived in Manchester, England, and now in New York City, I can say with confidence that while I am prepared to catch a subway at midnight in Manhattan, I wouldn’t have dared take my bus home in Manchester past 10pm. I have never been attacked in New York, but have been mugged three times in Manchester.

    Well, at least Britain hasn’t had any massacres since the gun ban? Wrong. In 2010, Derrick Bird went on a rampage around Cumbria with a shotgun and a rifle, killing 12 and injuring 11. His casual shooting-fest lasted nearly four hours as he drove around vast areas of land completely unopposed in this gun-free country. Thanks to British leftists like Piers Morgan, Bird knew that there was unlikely to be anyone armed to stop him. Only when armed police were dispatched did he commit suicide. Shocked socialists could only babble about how this proved that the country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world needed more gun control.

    If Piers Morgan wishes to use Britain as a model for gun control then he should be honest, not only about his true wishes to ban all guns, but what it has done to our country. UK gun laws have destroyed the freedom of law abiding British men and women, and turned our great nation into a crime hotspot. Americans should not imitate Britain, and instead should learn from our failure to keep our citizens safe.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  89. Although this doesn’t have a chance probably of even getting out of committee, it still smokes my fanny that it’s even being tried. The audacity!! The unmitigated gall!! 🙂

  90. Anybody suprised to hear this? Huh? Anyone?

    The problem with this Gun Control garbage is that the President and his worthless minions are going to go ahead with it regardless of how much HOWLING protests they get against it. If he can’t get it through Congress, then he’s just going to sign some Executive Orders.

    Why don’t we just start calling him El Dictador? That’s what he’s acting like. He has already signed more Ex Orders than any Presidente’ in History. Which he said, by the way, he wasn’t going to do. But then, he’s done a lot of things he said he wasn’t going to do, hasn’t he? Some that’s even pissed off his Liberal constituents, though not bad enough to keep them from voting for him.

  91. Obama anti-gun project spurs protest from African-American lobby
    3:12 PM 01/11/2013

    Neil Munro

    The White House’s anti-gun project has created a minor crack in the progressive firmament, with African-American advocates worrying that increased police security at schools may lead to greater arrests of African-American students.

    “Adding police and armed security to schools often means that normal student behavior becomes criminalized,” said a Jan. 10 statement from Damon Hewitt, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

    “The negative consequences of increased police activity is felt most sharply in schools with large numbers of African-American and poor children,” he claimed.
    Ads by Google

    Don’t Buy An Annuity…Until You Watch This Video Report! Top Annuity Flaws* – Warning
    Prostate Cancer TreatmentGroundbreaking Protocol in Atlanta Survival Data on Over 14,000 Men

    The push-back came in a rapid response to an article in the Jan. 10 Washington Post, which cited California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s claim that Vice President Joe Biden was “very, very interested” in her proposal that the federal government should fund police guards for schools.

    The proposal is seen “as a potential area of common ground with Republicans who otherwise oppose stricter restrictions on firearms,” said the Post.

    But the push back is likely to succeed. The White House — and like-minded progressives in the media and other Democratic advocacy sectors — have shown little enthusiasm for right-of-center proposals that trained teachers be given the right to choose to carry guns into schools.

    The push-back against cops in schools complements the effort by African-American lobbies to set quotas on schools’ discipline policies.

    These lobbies, including the Dignity in Schools group, argue that unregulated disciplinary rules unfairly target African-American youths, and cause more of them to be disciplined than their white and Asian-American peers. Even Attorney General Eric Holder has relied on those statistics to claim that “students of color … are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.”
    Ads by Google

    Vietnam Veteran StoreAnything a Vietnam Vet Could Want. Free Shipping-365 Day Guarantee
    Prostate Cancer TreatmentGroundbreaking Protocol in Atlanta Survival Data on Over 14,000 Men

    Critics contest that disciplinary action should be consistently enforced, regardless of race.

    However, the African-American lobbyists’ opposition to police in schools is shared by many social and libertarian conservatives. They fear that school police would increase the role of federal criminal law in local policies governing school management and student discipline.

    The NAACP-led coalition fears that a greater presence of police in schools will likely lead to more African-Americans being treated as criminals.

    “Instead of addressing infrequent, serious threats to safety, police in schools often respond to minor student misbehavior by handcuffing, arresting and criminalizing the young people they were intended to protect,” said a statement from Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project.

    “A police presence makes us feel unsafe and unwelcome in our own schools,” claimed Tanisha Dennard, a spokeswoman with the Youth Justice Coalition, which is a member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign that is pushing for discipline-quotas.

    “Police are trained to stop and prevent crime on the streets, not to mediate problems that may come up between young people in a school,” she said. “When we go to school, we go there to learn, to be students, not to be treated like criminals.”

    Read more:

  92. Aw Come On!! Really?

    I can understand that Police do not need to be involved in Dicipline matters in School. That much makes sense. But “Unfairly Targeting”? Sounds like more racist crap from the NAACP to me.

    And “The push-back against cops in schools complements the effort by African-American lobbies to set quotas on schools’ discipline policies.” WHat the Heck does that mean? Quotas? Does that mean that after a set number of disciplinary problems per day it can no longer BE a problem?

    And then we have this. “These lobbies, including the Dignity in Schools group, argue that unregulated disciplinary rules unfairly target African-American youths, and cause more of them to be disciplined than their white and Asian-American peers. Even Attorney General Eric Holder has relied on those statistics to claim that “students of color … are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.” Funny, I worked at a school in Georgia and the main reason I saw for them to be disciplined more was because they got in trouble more, along with the Hispanics. But when the White boys (and girls) got in trouble, they were treated the same. And just because “we are a Nation of cowards” Eric Holder uses it, doesn’t make it Gospel, or even true.

    And finally. “A police presence makes us feel unsafe and unwelcome in our own schools,” claimed Tanisha Dennard, a spokeswoman with the Youth Justice Coalition, which is a member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign that is pushing for discipline-quotas.” I bet you if somebody with a gun came into the school you would just be glad a cop was there! I think this is just a matter of looking at the Police as enemies.

    This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

  93. Just A Citizen says:

    Written by Rob Natelson on 11 January 2013

    The claim—partly silly, partly dangerous—that President Obama may raise the debt limit unilaterally without the approval of Congress is again being raised. I addressed it previously here. Now it has been further debunked in a Wall Street Journal op-ed authored by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey.

    Under the Constitution, only Congress may incur debt. The exclusive power of the legislature to do so is one of the central parts of our governmental system, pre-dating the Constitution by centuries, and with its roots in colonial and British practice.

    Those seeking this indefensible extension of presidential power argue that the existing level of entitlement benefits are “debt” and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires it to be paid.

    But as Messrs. Rivkin and Casey point out, projected benefits from entitlement programs are legally non-contractual largess, and the Supreme Court has said as much.

    The Fourteenth Amendment provides that the “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” But, of course, debt issued in excess of the statutory debt limit is not “authorized by law.” Even if the President attempted to issue debt on his own authority, it would not be valid and, for that reason, probably wouldn’t find many takers.

    One minor quibble: The Rivkin-Casey article contains a typographical error. It identifies the congressional power to incur debt as “Article I, Section 2.” The correct citation is Article I, Section 8, Clause 2.

  94. A Dark Past
    Contraception, abortion, and the eugenics movement.

    By Jonah Goldberg

    Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from Liberal Fascism.

    Margaret Sanger, whose American Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood, was the founding mother of the birth-control movement. She is today considered a liberal saint, a founder of modern feminism, and one of the leading lights of the Progressive pantheon. Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood proclaims, “I stand by Margaret Sanger’s side,” leading “the organization that carries on Sanger’s legacy.” Planned Parenthood’s first black president, Faye Wattleton — Ms. magazine’s “Woman of the Year” in 1989 — said that she was “proud” to be “walking in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger.” Planned Parenthood gives out annual Maggie Awards to individuals and organizations who advance Sanger’s cause. Recipients are a Who’s Who of liberal icons, from the novelist John Irving to the producers of NBC’s West Wing. What Sanger’s liberal admirers are eager to downplay is that she was a thoroughgoing racist who subscribed completely to the views of E. A. Ross and other “raceologists.” Indeed, she made many of them seem tame.

    Sanger was born into a poor family of eleven children in Corning, New York, in 1879. In 1902 she received her degree as a registered nurse. In 1911 she moved to New York City, where she fell in with the transatlantic bohemian avant-garde of the burgeoning fascist moment. “Our living-room,” she wrote in her autobiography, “became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.’s could meet.” A member of the Women’s Committee of the New York Socialist Party, she participated in all the usual protests and demonstrations. In 1912 she started writing what amounted to a sex-advice column for the New York Call, dubbed “What Every Girl Should Know.” The overriding theme of her columns was the importance of contraception.

    A disciple of the anarchist Emma Goldman — another eugenicist — Sanger became the nation’s first “birth control martyr” when she was arrested for handing out condoms in 1917. In order to escape a subsequent arrest for violating obscenity laws, she went to England, where she fell under the thrall of Havelock Ellis, a sex theorist and ardent advocate of forced sterilization. She also had an affair with H. G. Wells, the self-avowed champion of “liberal fascism.” Her marriage fell apart early, and one of her children — whom she admitted to neglecting — died of pneumonia at age four. Indeed, she always acknowledged that she wasn’t right for family life, admitting she was not a “fit person for love or home or children or anything which needs attention or consideration.”

    Under the banner of “reproductive freedom,” Sanger subscribed to nearly all of the eugenic views discussed above. She sought to ban reproduction of the unfit and regulate reproduction for everybody else. She scoffed at the soft approach of the “positive” eugenicists, deriding it as mere “cradle competition” between the fit and the unfit. “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue of birth control,” she frankly wrote in her 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization. (The book featured an introduction by Wells, in which he proclaimed, “We want fewer and better children…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us.” Two civilizations were at war: that of progress and that which sought a world “swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny.”

    A fair-minded person cannot read Sanger’s books, articles, and pamphlets today without finding similarities not only to Nazi eugenics but to the dark dystopias of the feminist imagination found in such allegories as Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale. As editor of The Birth Control Review, Sanger regularly published the sort of hard racists we normally associate with Goebbels or Himmler. Indeed, after she resigned as editor, The Birth Control Review ran articles by people who worked for Goebbels and Himmler. For example, when the Nazi eugenics program was first getting wide attention, The Birth Control Review was quick to cast the Nazis in a positive light, giving over its pages for an article titled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need,” by Ernst Rüdin, Hitler’s director of sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. In 1926 Sanger proudly gave a speech to a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey.

    One of Sanger’s closest friends and influential colleagues was the white supremacist Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. In the book he offered his solution for the threat posed by the darker races: “Just as we isolate bacterial invasions, and starve out the bacteria, by limiting the area and amount of their food supply, so we can compel an inferior race to remain in its native habitat.” When the book came out, Sanger was sufficiently impressed to invite him to join the board of directors of the American Birth Control League.

    Sanger’s genius was to advance Ross’s campaign for social control by hitching the racist-eugenic campaign to sexual pleasure and female liberation. In her “Code to Stop Overproduction of Children,” published in 1934, she decreed that “no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit…no permit shall be valid for more than one child.”47 But Sanger couched this fascistic agenda in the argument that “liberated” women wouldn’t mind such measures because they don’t really want large families in the first place. In a trope that would be echoed by later feminists such as Betty Friedan, she argued that motherhood itself was a socially imposed constraint on the liberty of women. It was a form of what Marxists called false consciousness to want a large family.

    Sanger believed — prophetically enough — that if women conceived of sex as first and foremost a pleasurable experience rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. She brilliantly used the language of liberation to convince women they weren’t going along with a collectivist scheme but were in fact “speaking truth to power,” as it were. This was the identical trick the Nazis pulled off. They took a radical Nietzschean doctrine of individual will and made it into a trendy dogma of middle-class conformity. This trick remains the core of much faddish “individualism” among rebellious conformists on the American cultural left today. Nonetheless, Sanger’s analysis was surely correct, and led directly to the widespread feminist association of sex with political rebellion. Sanger in effect “bought off” women (and grateful men) by offering tolerance for promiscuity in return for compliance with her eugenic schemes.

    In 1939 Sanger created the above-mentioned “Negro Project,” which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through the Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers (including the Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr.), doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. “The mass of significant Negroes,” read the project’s report, “still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes…is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” Sanger’s intent is shocking today, but she recognized its extreme radicalism even then. “We do not want word to go out,” she wrote to a colleague, “that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

    It is possible that Sanger didn’t really want to “exterminate” the Negro population so much as merely limit its growth. Still, many in the black community saw it that way and remained rightly suspicious of the Progressives’ motives. It wasn’t difficult to see that middle-class whites who consistently spoke of “race suicide” at the hands of dark, subhuman savages might not have the best interests of blacks in mind. This skepticism persisted within the black community for decades. Someone who saw the relationship between abortion and race from a less trusting perspective telegrammed Congress in 1977 to tell them that abortion amounted to “genocide against the black race.” And he added, in block letters, “AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE I MUST OPPOSE THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR A POLICY OF KILLING INFANTS.” This was Jesse Jackson, who changed his position when he decided to seek the Democratic nomination.

    Just a few years ago, the racial eugenic “bonus” of abortion rights was something one could only admit among those fully committed to the cause, and even then in politically correct whispers. No more. Increasingly, this argument is acceptable on the left, as are arguments in favor of eugenics generally.

    In 2005 the acclaimed University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt broke the taboo with his critical and commercial hit Freakonomics (co-written with Stephen Dubner). The most sensational chapter in the book updated a paper Levitt had written in 1999 which argued that abortion cuts crime. “Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.” Freakonomics excised all references to race and never connected the facts that because the aborted fetuses were disproportionately black and blacks disproportionately contribute to the crime rate, reducing the size of the black population reduces crime. Yet the press coverage acknowledged this and didn’t seem to mind.

    In 2005 William Bennett, a committed pro-lifer, invoked the Levitt argument in order to denounce eugenic thinking. “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.” What seemed to offend liberals most was that Bennett had accidentally borrowed some conventional liberal logic to make a conservative point, and, as with the social Darwinists of yore, that makes liberals quite cross. According to the New York Times’s Bob Herbert, Bennett believed “exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool.” Various liberal spokesmen, including Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, said Bennett wanted to exterminate “black babies.” Juan Williams proclaimed that Bennett’s remarks speak “to a deeply racist mindset.”

    In one sense, this is a pretty amazing turnaround. After all, when liberals advocate them, we are usually told that abortions do not kill “babies.” Rather, they remove mere agglomerations of cells and tissue or “uterine contents.” If hypothetical abortions committed for allegedly conservative ends are infanticide, how can actual abortions performed for liberal ends not be?

    Some liberals are honest about this. In 1992 Nicholas Von Hoffman argued in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

    Free cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don’t want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster… At their demonstration, the anti-abortionists parade around with pictures of dead and dismembered fetuses. The pro-abortionists should meet these displays with some of their own: pictures of the victims of the unaborted — murder victims, rape victims, mutilation victims — pictures to remind us that the fight for abortion is but part of the larger struggle for safe homes and safe streets.

    Later that same year, the White House received a letter from the Roe v. Wade co-counsel Ron Weddington, urging the new president-elect to rush RU-486 — the morning-after pill — to the market as quickly as possible. Weddington’s argument was refreshingly honest:

    [Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged as discriminatory, mean-spirited and… well… so Republican.

    [G]overnment is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions. . , . There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery . . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.

    How, exactly, is this substantively different from Margaret Sanger’s self-described “religion of birth control,” which would, she wrote, “ease the financial load of caring for with public funds . . . children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation”?

    The issue here is not the explicit intent of liberals or the rationalizations they invoke to deceive themselves about the nature of abortion. Rather, it is to illustrate that even when motives and arguments change, the substance of the policy remains in its effects. After the Holocaust discredited eugenics per se, neither the eugenicists nor their ideas disappeared. Rather, they went to ground in fields like family planning and demography and in political movements such as feminism. Indeed, in a certain sense Planned Parenthood is today more eugenic than Sanger intended. Sanger, after all, despised abortion. She denounced it as “barbaric” and called abortionists “bloodsucking men with M.D. after their names.” Abortion resulted in “an outrageous slaughter” and “the killing of babies,” which even the degenerate offspring of the unfit did not deserve.

    So forget about intent: Look at results. Abortion ends more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions. That rate has held relatively constant, though in some regions the numbers are much starker; in Mississippi, black women receive some 72 percent of all abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Nationwide, 512 out of every 1,000 black pregnancies end in an abortion. Revealingly enough, roughly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion centers are in or near minority communities. Liberalism today condemns a Bill Bennett who speculates about the effects of killing unborn black children; but it also celebrates the actual killing of unborn black children, and condemns him for opposing it.

    Of course, orthodox eugenics also aimed at the “feebleminded” and “useless bread gobblers” — which included everyone from the mentally retarded to an uneducated and malnourished underclass to recidivist criminals. When it comes to today’s “feebleminded,” influential voices on the left now advocate the killing of “defectives” at the beginning of life and at the end of life. Chief among them is Peter Singer, widely hailed as the most important living philosopher and the world’s leading ethicist. Professor Singer, who teaches at Princeton, argues that unwanted or disabled babies should be killed in the name of “compassion.” He also argues that the elderly and other drags on society should be put down when their lives are no longer worth living.

    Singer doesn’t hide behind code words and euphemisms in his belief that killing babies isn’t always wrong, as one can deduce from his essay titled “Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong” (nor is he a lone voice in the wilderness; his views are popular or respected in many academic circles). But that hasn’t caused the Left to ostracize him in the slightest (save in Germany, where people still have a visceral sense of where such logic takes you). Of course, not all or even most liberals agree with Singer’s prescriptions, but nor do they condemn him as they do, say, a William Bennett. Perhaps they recognize in him a kindred spirit.

  95. @ JAC……. Re: Alternative gun control…..

    Ok JAC….I will agree with you on this….BAN ALL GUNS………….but, you have to come to Texas and take em away. If you succeed in that, then you can have your way. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Evening Colonel. Funny you were the only one to respond.

      I tried that alternative on a lefty site, only offering to ban ALL semi-auto rifles of greater than .22 cal. IF THE POLICE were also banned.

      I was told by left wing gun haters I was crazy. How would the Cops defend us. Against what I asked. If the AW’s are banned then what is needed for defense. Well what if someone still has one they said.

      EXACTLY I said.

      Best to you and yours.

      And don’t forget. Montana beat you guys to the idea of guns made in the State which are banned from sale to another State.

      • Good Morning, JAC……it is sad to see that no one thinks…..they want to ban guns from the populace but unrestricted to the police? Go figure.

        • One other thing JAC that really surprises me…….there are some pretty crafty thinkers on here from the Progressive movement….some willing to see both sides…..but there is one thing that I have found in common with Mathius, Buck, and Todd and Charlie…………….they favor a police state and what bothers me the most, is that they do not understand what one is. That is the thinking these days….and I feel sorry for my children and grand children. They are the ones that have to carry the burden. I hope that Texas is one of the hold outs…..I think it will be but we shall see. Entitlements and power in government……sad day.

          • Colonel,

            Please provide your working definition of a ‘police state’ and how I am in favor of any such thing.

            P.S. I am sending Charlie out your way. Please hand him all of your guns. Thank you for your cooperation.

            • scuse me for butting in, I’ll butt right back out

              🙂 🙂 🙂

              • That is why there will not be a gun confinscation. Everyone on the left (almost) wants one, but noone has the cahunas to lead the pack 🙂 Now that is what I call funny 😆

              • I’m having visions of Charlie knocking on the Colonel’s door…wait…Charlie won’t even make it as far as the door…BOOM! 🙂 . …realizing it’s Charlie, the Colonel just wizzes a couple shots near Charlie’s ankles, causing Charlie to drop the sfogotelli he brought as a peace offering..Charlie then says……… (fill in your own blank)

            • Just A Citizen says:


              What do you have against Charlie?

            • @ Buck….how’s that baby? I don’t know if I said it before, but many congrats on being a new dad. Your holidays must have been fun…..


              • Hey Murf,

                It’s absolutely incredible — I’m loving every second of it! She is starting to smile and laugh at practically everything now, which always brightens up my day! How are things with you and yours?

                Not so sure about Texans eating Italian but figured its worth a shot!

              • Buck,

                I can promise you, you will think she can’t possibly get any cuter….and then she will, again and again. The joy is boundless. I am sure it helps that she is no doubt the single most beautiful child ever born….and while in your heart you are certain of this, you are aware that most if not all parents think the same about their babies.

                But they are wrong, aren’t they? 🙂 🙂


              • It all matters not…………………………THEY STILL GROW UP TO BE TEENAGERS!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA………

              • HOwever, in retrospect…..mine did survive that time period and are still living and they finally realized that I was not so dumb after all.

  96. Interesting fact about the Connecticut shooting………..I am researching this. At my concealed weapons licensing class yesterday, we were told that the shooter in Connecticut by passed 7 schools that were closer to his house and went to the only school that was ” gun free”……does anybody have any information on this?

    • To my understanding, they are all gun free. He may have gun to the one with the youngest kids. Adding to the least resistance theory.

      • My mistake………see correction below……I should have referenced the Aurora shooting……My bad.

      • Actually, he went to the school where his mother volunteered, and chose the classrooms where his mother read books to the children. He was apparently resentful of the time his mother spent with those children…that is the theory, anyway.


  97. Another interesting fact from research……since 2001……more people have been killed by Pit Bulls than by assault rifles by a 5 to 1 margin. Very interesting.

    • Great Colonel, just don’t post that on HuffPo, they’ll be calling for a dog ban and a cat ban and god knows what else.

      @Buck, a police state being told what you must have and what you cannot have. When the State rules your everyday life, you will know that you are in a Police state. By then, it’s too late to go back.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Alas, but some communities have banned or at least severely restricted ownership of Pit Bulls.

      But then the Constitution doesn’t protect ones’ right to own said dog.

  98. Just A Citizen says:

    Since someone brought up Police States, lets look at the one we have already.

    Make sure you read the entire article to understand what he really did as opposed to what he was formally charged with.

  99. Just A Citizen says:

    Another thought on the Police State.

    We constantly complain about and “over” armed police force. One that has become more aggressive and quicker to shoot citizens. Simply put, more violent and less accountable.

    But if we apply the same logic to this situation as we do with other discussions of how to reduce violence, what do we find. I am talking about the notion that if one reduces the tension then the other side follows. Someone has to take the first step, as they say.

    So the question is this. Is he current military police the result of a populace that is increasingly armed as well? Do the police seed more sophisticated weapons because they might encounter them on the other side of the door, or mall?

    The extension of this is of course, if we as Citizens reduce our weapons would not the Police follow suit and disarm as well?

    • Seems to me that people have always had access to guns. So something else has changed.

    • I blame TV & movies. There was a show back in the 70 or 80’s, SWAT. Now it’s reality TV and they show swat teams used to serve warrants (to supposed drug dealers, etc) Have friends that are local LEO’s and they have a semi-swat team including snipers. Town of less than 10,000 & county under 20K. You give boys grants to buy toys, guess what they buy? For the most part, they are over-equipped & have no need for most of this stuff. But there is also at least one guy I know with a .50 cal. If the cops went after him in full swat mode, they would be in for a very bad day with their .308 Savage. But if they were to call him and ask him to come talk to them, he would do so.

  100. gmanfortruth says:

    I believe the police are just gearing up for the puposeful collapse of the economy.

  101. @ Buck….you need to pick on someone else, sir, Charlie would not come to Texas under any circumstance…..

    To clarify MY definition of a police state….(not to be confused with East Germany or some such in their time)…

    You lost me some time ago when you agreed with “prosecutorial discretion”. You and I have talked many time about law and the rule of law. You even made a comment to me once that said ” so much for the rule of law”,,,,,which was a response to me saying that Texas will not abide by the ACA regardless. You are a supporter of discretionary application of the law as you have stated before under the disguise of there are not enough persons to apply the law. To me that means, you believe that when you have laws, they do not apply equally. They only apply to the ideology with which you agree. That is a police state. Immigration is an example of where you believe in the discretionary application of law.

    You further believe that a sitting President can bypass Congress with Executive Order…ie: gun control legislation, immigration, etc. This is a police state by MY definition.

    You wonder and chide Texas for electing to not follow the ACA and it will not follow any weapons legislation that takes the power away from the State and it does enforce the immigration laws on the books when the Feds will not. The Federal government invented the template of which laws they choose to enforce and which ones they do not…..but for you, if a State chooses to do that you say……”so much for the rule of law”.

    I know you to be a just man, I think but I cannot fathom you claiming unequal treatment on one hand and then supporting unequal treatment in the discretionary application of law in accordance with ideology. That to me……is a Police State…or at the very least the beginning of one.

    Texas knows exactly what it is doing when defying laws that are not properly instituted….the ACA for one…..EO’s on weapons with the design to by pass Congress, EO’s on immigration which we all know is coming…….AND…this applies to ALL Presidents of all stripes…..and most should be wearing them anyway. I really believe that Texas is going to lead the way in State’s rights and be prepared for this. It is coming. No, this is not a threat of secession at all. I would talk against any such secession movement, however, I prefer independence to a police state….and that is where the United States is headed.

    Now, you and I can still have a dinner and wine… element of freedom is the right and privilege of having differing opinions… far we still have that.

    Hope you and yours are having a great start to the New Year……..

    • Colonel,

      Will try to get to this a bit more in detail tomorrow, but suffice to say you raise some good points. On prosecutorial discretion, I feel there is a valid place for this in our system. But this, to me, does not equate to a police state.

      Regardless I look forward to having that steak and a nice wine at some point over some lively political debate.

  102. CORRECTION to a posting above…….I used schools in my example of gun free…..this was in error……I should have said the Aurora shooting in which the shooter by passed 7 movie theaters to a Cinemark that posts gun free. My mistake.

  103. Quick hijack here….is anyone else getting an unsolicited window on their cell phone popping up that says “Exchange object with ZERO DARK THIRTY?” and yes/no buttons? Then it disappears in about 2 seconds…..puzzling. I am guessing that no matter how you respond (which I have no intention of doing), it puts some sort of cookie into it. Both my husband and I have seen this on our phones in the last few days.


  104. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana fashioning their state finances after Texas……wanting to eliminate all corporate and personal income taxes and become a pay as you go state. Adjusting the sales tax (consumption tax) to all with no exceptions. The well off still pay more, lower income families will have more money and will have to decided how to spend it….they are hoping to cash in on the people migrating from other states with high taxes and corporations the same way. They want to go to a balanced budget in their State Constitutions and want to have their legislatures meet only bi annual with no permanent salaries.

    All cite the Texas model as the conservative way to go. ALL pay taxes……broadens the base and eliminates the burdens on a few.

    They noted that people and corporations are leaving Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, California, Oregon, Washington State…..etc. in droves moving to less taxing states. With Federal taxes soon to go up, people will reduce their tax rate elsewhere. The conservative states are recognizing this and plan to cash in as Texas and Florida seem to be doing. They are also wanting to eliminate union and closed shop and go to open shop rules.

    • Is this the real signal that Americans really don’t want the Liberal Obama agenda? Will the takers continue to outnumbers the producers at the polls (which are corrupt anyway)? Is it possible that we are really past the beginning of Civil War II or maybe even Revolution II?

      Gun control of any kind will not work. Nor will the Govt even try to confiscate any guns. What I’d love to see is for Obamaloni to do an EO that basically outlaws so called assault weapons. Then the Liberals will find out how little the people really think of him, as he is a joke of a President.

      Good Morning Sir 🙂 Just a short rant and some questions for folks to think about 🙂

%d bloggers like this: