What’s on Your Mind?

I don’t have an article ready.  Not sure what I would want to write about.  I think the battle on the debt ceiling should be in the news more. (Is Obama back from vacation yet?)  The gun ban talk is a perfect distraction for this president with the anti-gun media giving him cover.  I think twenty innocent children gunned down is worthy of national attention.  But how many more were killed in Obama’s home town of Chicago?  Why isn’t that national news?  Does it not fit the media narrative?

And here we are having some strange weather.  Summer drought with NOAA altering it’s temperature readings to show skewed results.  California & the East coast are bass ackwards on temps…  Russia & China suffering record cold while Australia is in a heat wave & drought.  Made me want to find an unbiased source for info…

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Speaking of weather and how strange it can be sometimes, One subject rarely brought up, on that the Govt has admitted to spendind 5 billion every year, is “chemtrails” as they are known in the alternative news. I have limited knowledge of them, other to say that they are intended to alter the weather somehow. Does anyone have any other info on this?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      Cloud seeding. It has been going on for decades.

      I thought they stopped doing this back in the 80’s but then saw some story that various parts of the country have continued.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Absolutely, but what have they learned since the 80’s? Science can do many amazing things, if left in the wrong hands it could be quite deadly. I think they have evolved from just plain cloud seeding.

  2. LOI;

    Obama is a smuck and a liar. His latest statement about not taking our hunting rifles, shotguns or even handguns is as truthfull as his statement about not taxing the middle class. Although I didn’t see the stats I understand there were thousand’s of calls from a variety of middle class folks wanting to know why their first paycheck in January was less. Well, as Struther Martin said in the movie Cool Hand Luke: “This is the way he wants it, so this is the way he gets it.

    That’s right all you liberal/progressives who voted the bastard back into office he lied to you too. Oh well, can’t do much about it now you got him for another 4 wonderfull years.

    Interesting how even the threat of a gun ban resulted in record arms sales these past few weeks. Prices are up 50-70% on all Ar-15 like rifles, ammo, and
    clips. Biden’s recomendation will be interesting.

    Wonder how obama and his administration are going to present/defend the unemployment numbers in Jan, given the seasonal people are now laid off and a number of companies have laid off 100’s and 1000’s as a result of the Healthcare bill?

    I am curious what everyone thinks about 2013. Is the economy going to grow, slow down, crash what? Why?

    CM

    That

    • Barring more wars, a deepening recession.
      Keynesian economics of money pumping has exhausted the economy.

      Public choice doctrine dictates that the public demand more government and more social services, demanding an increase in the thievery of their neighbors – but at the same time demand lower taxes and lower debt; attempting to avoid the thievery of their neighbors.

      The current economic condition is the consequence of trying to accomplish the will of Public Choice.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Well look who’s back. I thought maybe you froze to death.

      • Yes, a deepening recession for most. The only states that will avoid the deepest part of it already have things in place. Wait until the new insurance rates hit if you wish to see an uproar.It is coming down the pike at runaway freight train speeds.

        As a veteran,my insurance increased under tricare……..from $150 per month to $647 per month. I am, however, on the VA system for war related injuries and that costs me nothing out of pocket except prescriptions. So the contract with Veterans….has gone away. Under the new ADA, VA coverage DOES NOT qualify as health insurance. I see a trend to do away with VA health shortly. Even veterans that have lost limbs have a co pay now for their prosthetic. Their prosthetic is provided but the new tax is not….it falls under co pay.

      • BF;

        I am a professional recruiter specializing in IT and indicators continue to point at an increase in hiring or contracting in IT and Engineering. Some of my clients like Credit Unions are moving slowly since they are only making about 3% on mortgages, but other clients’s (mostly manufacturing) are planning for significant growth across the board (at least at this time).

        The insurance companies (property, life, auto) are also adding staff in IT, and almost every Hospital is also adding staff; and in a lot of cases hiring verses contracting.

        What are your thoughts here? Is this a reaction to the 2008-2010 recession and a need to be on track with technology? And it is not just social media efforts. As a matter of fact every client I have is adding to the Infrastructure area to support hardware and network enhancement and upgrades.

        Interested in your thoughts and why?

        CM

    • A little harsh starting out calling our president a liar. I’m sure there are some details not covered that will be explained later. He say’s we’ll be able to keep our “hunting rifles”. Maybe it depends on how you define things…

      http://www.gamousa.com/family.aspx?familyID=37

      “Wonder how obama and his administration are going to present/defend the unemployment numbers in Jan, given the seasonal people are now laid off and a number of companies have laid off 100′s and 1000′s as a result of the Healthcare bill? ” Simple, keep it “not news”. Keep the MSM focused on guns and other topics and ignore Obama’s failures…

      • LOI….do not worry…they will not get the guns nor will anybody register them. But beware of the new tax on ammunition. Start loading your own…..and……………the government has now classified black powder muzzle loaders and pistols as……..are you ready for this…………explosive. The reason is that the powder used in these weapons is explosive while flat powder to load .223 AR 15 ammunition is “burning” and does not require a special license. Go figure. So, you can order all the powder you want to load the dreaded assault rifles……but there is a licensing requirement for the powder for single shot muzzle loaders……Sigh.

        • Trying to tweak a .257 round right now. My best were with 90 gr bullets. Am going to make batches with different OAL’s and see what happens. Looked at my normal sources for bullets for reloading this weekend, a lot of their .224 was out of stock. I might should sell some of my stock while prices are so high…..

      • LOI;

        I have been calling him what he is for years. And so are the rest of his minion’s. He is also a traitor and should be impeached accordingly. But then so should 99% of the Congress.

        America has a problem and as Eienstien said ” You cannot fix a problem with the same people that created it”

        We need to flush the system

        CM

  3. Not News in U.S.: 60,000 on NHS’s ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ (to Death) in UK Never Told

    By Tom Blumer | January 12, 2013 | 12:52
    A search this morning at Google News on “Liverpool Pathway” (not in quotes) returned 69 items (Google’s initial indication was over 800, but it was really only 69). Roughly 60 of them related to the National Health Service’s “palliative care” protocols known as the “Liverpool Care Pathway” employed in the UK’s government-run health care system to place hospital patients on a path to death. The latest news about the pathway has drawn the attention of a few prolife blogs in the U.S., but almost no attention from U.S. establishment press sources.

    That’s stunnning, given both the seriousness of the news about the pathway’s real-world effects, and the reactions of those who insist that it’s still a great thing in their brave new healthcare world. A UK Daily mail item on December 30 summarized the extent of the horror in three succinct sentences (bolds are mine throughout this post):

    Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.

    A third of families are also kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment from loved ones.

    Despite the revelations, Jeremy Hunt last night claimed the pathway was a ‘fantastic step forward’.

    From what I can tell, the term “palliative care,” which supposedly “is an area of healthcare that focuses on relieving and preventing the suffering of patients,” is devolving to really mean “lack of care designed to end a life” in the UK. I don’t know how else to react, given how the term is used by defenders of the indefensible in a UK Independent item on January 8:

    Specialists in palliative medicine have hit back at critics of the so-called Liverpool Care Pathway, a checklist devised to help hospital doctors and nurses assist patients to a humane, dignified and pain-free end. They argued that its aim was to enable patients to “live until they die” – freed from the paraphernalia of tubes and machines that can increase distress.

    The measure, developed over a decade ago by palliative care specialists in Liverpool, has become embroiled in controversy in recent months, as some doctors, religious leaders and pro-life groups have alleged that patients are being put on the “pathway to death” without their consent or that of their families in response to financial incentives from the NHS. The Daily Mail has run a campaign claiming hospitals are being bribed with millions of pounds to send patients to an early grave.

    … An estimated 350,000 patients with chronic illnesses need palliative care each year but fewer than half (170,000) receive it, of whom 130,000 are placed on the pathway.

    The audit last year by the Royal College of Physicians and Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool of 178 hospitals found 44 per cent of patients who were conscious and a third of families were not consulted before the decision was taken.

    Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, condemned the failure to consult as “utterly unacceptable.” But he defended the Liverpool Care Pathway as a “fantastic step forward”, adding that “one or two mistakes” should not be allowed to discredit it …

    It’s a long way from “one or two” to 60,000, Mr. Hunt.

    In essence, the pathway represents the real life application of the “death panels” against which former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned in 2009 as the threat that Democrats in Washington would pass its own version of state-controlled health care now known as ObamaCare materialized. As Wesley Smith at National Review noted just before Christmas, this is where nationalized health takes a country, regardless of whether its citizens want it to go there:

    Doctors Lose Humanity Serving Govt. Masters

    The implosion of UK healthcare quality is a warning for the U.S.

    … Loss of humanity is a predictable consequence of centralized control. As the quality of healthcare worsens, the technocracy kicks into high gear, issuing more regulations, guidelines, and treatment (or rationing) checklists–further devolving medicine into a deprofessionalized, connect-the-dots craft. And that can be deadly.

    The same thing will happen in the U.S. once Obamacare’s cost/benefit and best care standards bureaucracies are up and running.

    “Zeke the Bleak” Emanuel and his fellow grim reapers stand at the ready to implement their equivalent model known — which gives “gives preference (for medical treatment) to people 13 to 40 years old — as long as they are reasonably healthy” — right here in the U.S.

    Segments of the U.S. press surely are aware of what is happening in the UK. One can only conclude that the are doing all they can to ensure that the warning signals from Britain’s NHS are never seen or heard in the USA.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/12/not-news-us-60000-nhss-liverpool-care-pathway-death-uk-never-told#ixzz2HxkiCvDk
    (Wasn’t this the “model” for ObamaCare? Just don’t say DeathPanels)

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Here at Natural News, we have a reputation for asking intelligent questions about things that don’t add up. There are a lot of mysteries out there, and they deserve to be explored and questioned: Why is there still mercury in vaccines? Why did the WTC 7 building implode and fall when no airplane hit it? If the government can create money from nothing, why are we still paying taxes?

    And today, I’m adding to that list this commonsense question: Why has no surveillance footage been released from the Sandy Hook shooting, showing Adam Lanza blasting away with an AR-15?

    Here’s why the non-release of this video footage is so interesting:

    Every time a school shooting takes place, one of the very first things that gets released to the media is the school surveillance footage depicting the gun and the shooter. The purpose of this is to associate the pain and anguish of the massacre to the image of a scary-looking rifle.

    In mere days after the Columbine shooting in 1998, for example, the media received footage from the massacre and began playing it over and over again, hammering home the images of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold with their guns. The same is true with numerous other school shootings as you’ll see below.

    But with the Sandy Hook school shooting, no video footage has been released. A reasonable person has to ask the question: WHY?

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/sandy-hook-ar-15-hoax-still-no-school-surveillance-footage-released.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Does anyone KNOW for absolute sure that there is any footage???

      My kids schools did not have surveillance cameras, but they did have a Police Officer.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The school had cameras, including outside of the main entrance. That is how they would allow visitors in after the doors locked in the morning. It’s interesting that there are no pictures of the outside doors that were supposedly shot for the shooter to gain entrance, as they reported. The reason……the shooter did not use an AR-15 and did not have to “shoot his way in”. He was let in with 4 hidden pistols, as reported by NBC, a report that has been removed from “almost” everywhere on the net. I say almost, because I will provide the link in a few minutes (need to find it again 🙂 ).

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          We had cameras outside of our school to let people in as well. But they did not RECORD anything. They were just there so we could see who was at the door.

  5. Alabama Supreme Court affirms value of all life including the unborn
    Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on January 14th, 2013 in Politics | 29 Comments

    This isn’t a ruling on abortion, but this ruling does make a meth addict responsible for the death of her child who delivered prematurely and died 19 minutes later:

    48 NEWS – Friday, the Supreme Court of Alabama handed down a ruling that includes unborn children in the chemical endangerment statute.

    This ruling comes as a result of an appeal filed by Amanda Helaine Borden Kimbrough of Colbert County.

    Kimbrough pleaded guilty to child endangerment after her son Timmy died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough went into labor at 25 weeks.

    A medical examiner with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences determined Timmy died from “accute methamphetamine intoxication”. Kimbrough later admitted to smoking meth three days before the child was born.

    Kimbrough pleaded guilty to chemical endangerment of a child, but later appealed. She argued that the chemical endangerment statute did not extend to unborn children.

    The Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals ruled that Kimbrough’s guilty plea should stand.

    Kimbrough then took the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

    The Court ruled that the Court of Criminal Appeals made the right call.

    The ruling states, “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”

    Kimbrough is in Tutwiler Women’s Prison. Her release date is in 2015.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/alabama-supreme-court-affirms-value-of-all-life-including-the-unborn/

    So a woman can’t Choose to take drugs that will kill her baby but a so-called doctor can give her drugs which will kill her baby or burn her baby to death, or he can surgically dismember her Baby and that’s okay. One is a choice and the other is murder. And the difference is somehow based on a definition of using violence. Makes no sense whats-so-ever.

  6. For those that say in modern society we don’t need guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, I offer the following:

    http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/119/the-battle-of-athens

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Common Man

    In answer to your economic question. I just listened to the PRES. respond to a question about deficit and debt.

    He said that if the R’s agree the goal is to reduce the deficit and debt to “sustainable levels” then a deal is possible.

    He used that phrase “sustainable level” several times.

    So there you have it. The President believes that CONTINUING to run a Deficit and INCREASE Debt can be SUSTAINABLE.

    This dictates a combination of two things in the near future.

    MORE borrowing.

    MORE printing of money.

    What this means to me is what I predicted two years ago. More 0-2% growth in GDP. And that is with Govt contributing about 40% of that value.

  8. Jan 14, 12:10 PM EST

    Obama demands quick action to raise debt limit

    By JULIE PACE

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama demanded Monday that Congress raise the federal debt limit quickly, warning that “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed if they don’t,” and cautioning Republicans not to insist on concessions in exchange.

    “They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,” he said at the final news conference of his first term. “The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better decide quickly because time is running short.”

    “We are not a deadbeat nation,” he declared.

    The president also said he will soon ask Congress to enact new gun legislation in the wake of the shootings a month ago that left 20 elementary students dead in Newtown, Conn. Facing stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association, he conceded lawmakers may not approve everything he asks for.

    Among the proposals under consideration are a ban on assault-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. Obama said he would unveil his proposals next week. He was meeting after his news conference with Vice President Joe Biden, his point man in producing gun control measures to present to Congress.

    Obama opened his news conference with a statement noting that a vote to increase the debt limit “does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already agreed to. These are bills we’ve already racked up and we need to pay them.”

    Obama said he was willing to consider future deficit cuts, but only if they are done independently from a vote to raise the $16.4 trillion debt limit.

    In a blunt rebuttal to Republicans who say they will not agree to any more tax increases, the president said taxes and spending both must be on the table.

    He said he is “open to making modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to protect them for future generations,” and wants to close tax loopholes at the same time.

    Obama spoke less than a week before his inauguration for a second term, and several days after he signed legislation that narrowly averted a “fiscal cliff” of automatic spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases.

    Combined with other bills he signed earlier in the term, he said he and Congress have reduced deficits by about $2.5 trillion over a decade, somewhat less than the $4 trillion he said is necessary to get them down to a manageable size.

    “I’m happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits in a sensible way,” he said, but added repeatedly he wasn’t willing to let congressional Republicans use the debt limit as leverage in negotiations over spending cuts.

    Failure to raise the debt limit would put the United States into a first-ever default, a step that Obama said could “blow up the economy.”

    Congressional Democrats have recently urged the president to lift the debt limit unilaterally. He said – as he has before – that he won’t do it, that Congress had voted for the spending that resulted in federal borrowing, and should now agree to pay the bill.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-14-11-57-50

    • The 3 Myths Obama Uses to Bully on the Debt Ceiling

      Email Article
      Print Article Send a Tip
      by William Bigelow 13 Jan 2013 58 post a comment
      In a clearly articulated, illuminating piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, authors David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey convincingly make the case that there are three prevalent myths bandied about by the Obama Administration with regard to the debt ceiling: That failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause a default on the national debt, that the government cannot cut federal entitlement programs, and that the president can unilaterally raise the debt ceiling without the approval of Congress.

      Those who scream that failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause our credit rating to plummet ignore the fact that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment provides that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.” What this means is that any debts incurred by the government must be paid off; creditors will not be fleeced, and contrary to the hysteria that there is not enough money to pay off these debts, the government’s incoming tax revenue, which amounts to $200 billion per month, is enough to do the job. If the government refused to do so, creditors could get a money judgment from the Court of Federal Claims. Thus credit agencies should have no doubt that the United States will pay off its creditors.

      These debts do not include federal entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Even though the Obama Administration keeps blustering that the debt ceiling must be raised, federal entitlements programs are not considered part of the “public debt” but rather obligations. In fact, the original wording of Section 4 was changed before it was enacted and ratified specifically to replace the word “obligations” with “debts.” This means that Congress is free to cut entitlements any time it wishes to and is not obligated to borrow money to pay off “obligations.”

      As for Obama’s desire to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, as echoed by Nancy Pelosi, Section 4 is quite clear: it gives “the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” to Congress alone. Only Congress, according to Article 1, Section 2, has the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” No president is given such power.

      Given these facts, there is nothing to stop the GOP from educating the public with them and standing firm on the debt ceiling—except lack of courage to stand up to the bully in the White House.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/12/The-3-Myths-Obama-Uses-To-Bully-On-The-Debt-Ceiling

      • “cautioning Republicans not to insist on concessions in exchange.

        “They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,”

        Asking for concessions isn’t what is going to crash the economy.

        “reduced deficits by about $2.5 trillion” Someone tell me, please, what were these cuts?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The cuts are “future spending” cuts that haven’t existed yet. Just useless words to fool the public into thinking they are actually cutting deficit spending. All they have to say is they planned on spending 5 trillion, but had to cut 2.5 trillion. So they really increased deficit spending by 2.5 trillion instead of 5 trillion. Then they claim they cut deficit spending by 2.5 trillion. 🙄

        • Obama ’06: Raising the debt ceiling means America can’t pay its bills; Obama ’13: Not raising the debt ceiling means America can’t pay its bills
          posted at 1:52 pm on January 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

          Everyone knows by now, I hope, that The One himself voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, back when he was eyeing a presidential run and realized he couldn’t get elected without pretending to be a dovish, pro-gun, fiscally responsible opponent of gay marriage. Not until Guy Benson tweeted about it today, though, did I realize how sharply his rhetoric at the time conflicted with today’s Democratic talking point du jour. Obama then, in “get our house in order” mode:

          The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

          Jim DeMint couldn’t have said it any better. Seven years later, here’s the state of Hopenchange:

          Obama said Congress would be “irresponsible” if it does not act quickly to raise the debt celing, putting the country back into another crisis. “Time is running short,” he said.

          “While I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficit, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress over how to pay the bills they’ve already racked up,” Obama said. “To even entertain the idea of this happening, of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd.”

          “We are not a deadbeat nation,” he said of a country that owes $16 trillion and is staring at tens of trillions more in unfunded liabilities. The liberal retort to this is that, unlike the House GOP, Democrats circa 2006 had no intention of actually blocking a debt-ceiling hike. It was pure grandstanding; Obama himself later admitted as much. Okay, fine. Was the disapproving rhetoric about shifting the burden of bad choices onto future generations also grandstanding that shouldn’t be taken seriously now? Does Obama bear any responsibility for showing zero interest as president in bending his party towards the realities of entitlement reform? One of the drawbacks of the GOP’s debt-ceiling brinksmanship is that it lets the left pretend that they share the goal of serious deficit reduction and object merely to Republican tactics, as if the GOP was intent on hitting the ceiling out of some sort of nihilistic impulse or personal spite towards Obama. Hitting the ceiling is, to be sure, a desperate fiscal measure, but that’s because these are desperate times and there are way, way too many progressives who seem either not to know or not to care. When does Obama ’13 decide that Obama ’06 was right after all and gets to work on educating them?

          Update: Case in point, Philip Klein notes that O’s explanation today of why S&P downgraded the U.S. last year was debt-ceiling brinksmanship. They did mention that at the time — but they mentioned something else too:

          Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

          http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/14/obama-06-raising-the-debt-ceiling-means-america-cant-pay-its-bills-obama-13-not-raising-the-debt-ceiling-means-america-cant-pay-its-bills/

  9. Huge lines at gun stores…..ammunition selling out all over…..shelves are empty…..I am going around buying all the ammo I can get. Leaving shortly for Cheaper than Dirt…..new shipment coming in today. The Walmart by my house got in 144 boxes of 9mm…..sold out in one hour. All 380 ammo selling out…..45 ACP ammo non existent……got my hands on 1 case (1500 rounds) of .30 cal. Glocks and ammo nowhere to be found…..

    • I just checked…..Walmarts near me are all sold out of all their ammo. Wow.

      Murf

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Most ammo that D13 posted are gone here too. Forget .223. We do have high power rifle ammo still available, but prices are a lot higher than 3 months ago. I’m reloading several rifle rounds, well stocked on pistol rounds and shotgun rounds (the secret stash everyone should have). 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Shotgun shells that is. Great for close combat and can reach out 100+yds with the right shells. I’ve harvested quite a few deer with my old Mossberg 500!

    • At my Wally World you can’t even get .22 Ammo, much less any other kind. You can totally forget high power rifle ammo of any kind ANYWHERE. I’ve never seen anything like it.

      As a distraction from the economy it is working like a charm. No one talks about the economic problems right now because the gun crisis has it all taken up.

      • Went to Cabelas yesterday. Never spoke to a salesperson but I did see shelves and shelves of ammo. The gun library was packed. Take a number. Ticket # 99 was next number to be pulled as they they called #17 ! People were freely speaking about fears of gun control and just plain Obama hating in general.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TULIPS

      Nuff said?

    • Hey, at least the economy is getting a boost! Of course if we mention that to the right-wingers, they’ll be stuck in the ultimate “squeeze”…

    • I went by the reloading store yesterday. No primers, little or no powder, no brass and very few bullets. I found a place on line that had thousand round lots of loaded 55 grain FMJ boat tail .223 ammo in stock but they wanted $990 for them. I paid just under $400 for the exact ammo 5 months ago. We had a big gun show this past weekend and there was a 2.5 hour wait in line just to get in the door.

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    Liberalism at it’s finest! http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/13/ny-newspapers-gun-permit-disclosure-leads-to-burglary-new-legislation/

    This newspaper made a kneejerk, stupid, condescending, ignorant decision. I hope they pay a high price for their actions and in a bigtime way, as in criminal charges if someone gets hurt or robbed based on their actions.

    • Wait…but I thought having a gun serves as a deterrent — shouldn’t the burglars have burglarized the homes NOT on the gun ownership list??

      • It would in my town. If they wanted to let that info out here, a few idiots would probably die in a matter of days.

        But Buck, dopeheads don’t have enough sense to heed the signs.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        With a little research, they picked a 70 year old gun owner. Real brave criminals there. Notice they didn’t pick on a cops house!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You are guilty of committing an oversimplification of the argument. It makes for great political rhetoric but does not inform the issues.

        What we now have is the left arguing for better gun security at home. Make sure trigger locks are installed, guns stored where kids and other can’t reach them.

        Then when a paper publishes the location of said guns we are surprised they go to those homes to steal the guns if they can.

        Then we get this argument that if the owner had a gun why didn’t it prevent the theft.

        Much like the cache comment the other day. Makes for great fun but it is a flawed argument.

        • You are guilty of committing an oversimplification of the argument.

          No, I am guilty of poking fun at a serious issue. But even besides that, surely you can see the disconnect here — the argument on the right is that guns serve as a deterrent…that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with the gun….that more guns reduce crime…. And here you have a situation where the burglars are targeting houses WITH guns as opposed to avoiding those houses at all costs for fear of getting shot by an armed homeowner…go figure! 🙂

        • Kind a like the right arguing that “Gun Free Zone” make for inviting targtets, right JAC?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            Logically speaking, NO. It is a different argument.

            Buck himself identifies the flaw in his. He says they argue that more guns are needed.

            But the obvious point that connects this comment is: The gun has to be in the hands of or very close to the person defending his home.

            Yet Buck is ignoring this to have a little fun. I recognized that but others are making the same argument as if it is meaningful.

            Now to your. I believe that some of this whack jobs do in fact pick targets based on “expected resistance”. Hell, we know some of them evaluated and planned in advance. The last one is probably NOT one of these situations.

            The one in Oregon remains, and will probably always remain, a mystery. Nobody knows why he did or why he picked the mall.

            • I had read somewhere that the thieves waited until the guy left the house. The assumtion was that they didn’t want to be confronted with an armed home owner. They left without his weapons as he had them locked in his gun safe.. wish I had the link, but do not ..

            • JAC,

              The gun has to be in the hands of or very close to the person defending his home.

              That kind of defeats the entire “protection” arguments, doesn’t it? Do you have to have the gun in your hand and point it at everyone you pass on the street – just in case?

              Extreme – yes. But shouldn’t we look at other ways to make our society safer. Instead of an “Arms Race” – how about a “Peace Treaty”?

              I believe that some of this whack jobs do in fact pick targets based on “expected resistance”.

              I think it’s more based on the amount of violence they think they can commit. Most do not intend to survive their attacks.

              Hell, we know some of them evaluated and planned in advance.

              Yes, but there’s almost always a “connection” to the place of shooting – and a feeling that they were somehow “wronged” by people there…

              • Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

                … Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting.

                Some of the “accidents” may, in fact, be suicides, because police and newspapers sometimes preserve the decedent’s reputation by saying that he shot himself while cleaning his gun. This is a physical impossibility, because you have to disassemble a gun to clean it. Even if we accept the 2.39-to-1 ratio, however, note the phrase “every justifiable fatal shooting.” From police instructor Massad Ayoob’s The Truth About Self Protection:

                For every one shooting thirteen to fifteen criminals are deterred or driven off just by the sight of the gun, and this fully accomplishes what the homeowner bought the gun for in the first place. When you also consider the fact that only about one out of four people who are shot actually dies, you realize that for every home intruder shot dead by the resident, there are ninety-nine others who don’t get killed, but who give up their assaults.

                The Brady Campaign must therefore admit that, for every 43 misuses of a firearm in the home (including suicide), 100 violent felonies are prevented. For every genuinely accidental or criminal firearm-related death in the home, more than 40 violent felonies are prevented. Property theft, by the way, is not a violent felony; we are talking about rapes, aggravated assaults, and murders.

  11. How bout all the crazies in Taylor(tucky), Michigan creating a dust up over the Section 8 housing vouchers. 1000 available..3-5 thousand show up..lined up overnight to get a voucher..doors open..crowd rushes in..staff can’t control them and call in the State Boys for backup..staff ends up closing the doors and no one got a voucher. Taylor is my neighboring city. The exodus from Detroit ended up fanning out and most ended up in Taylor. Thank God I have a huge airport between here and there.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/12/fighting-and-throwing-chairs-riot-explodes-as-thousands-seek-housing-vouchers-in-mi-town/

    • Major sad that there are so many people so desperate-I wish I knew the answer-but obviously advertising that they are giving them out isn’t the answer. Perhaps they should just wait and give them out to the people who come in and inquire about help. You gotta figure the people who are in the most desperate need are gonna come in and ask for help. But advertising brings out everyone, even those who have other possibilities.

      • Couple thoughts,,as though I’m going to get somewhere with them 🙄

        There is always talk about paying your fair share. It’s time for the baby daddies to start paying their fair share.

        What ever happened to moving in with family or friends?

        Temp agencies in the area start at $7.50/hr…bring home on 40 hrs is $250 x 4 = $1000. Double that with two people working. Rent is in the $500 range. I don’t understand the problem.

        • Yeah, you understand the problem. The problem is having sex comes before marriage. Must make sure we are compatible before we tie the knot. Which is total BS- wayyy too easy to walk away when things get hard. We should make sure we are in love first, the lasting comes from making a friggin commitment -love is easy, staying friends is the hard part-the commitment is what makes you stay long enough to realize you are still in love, even when circumstances make you Temporarily not particularly like the one you LOVE.

          And it is easier to take from the government than from family-hurts the pride to ask the family for help-much easier to ask for help when it’s a form, not a person.

  12. UPDATE (dit dit dit) …….. Walmart’s in Dallas and Fort Worth…..sold out of all ammunition except shotgun. Cabella’s in North Fort Worth….I bought the last of the .265 Magnum, .270 Winchester. and .222 Remington. Not one box of .22 long rifle in any store anywhere…all sold out. Tons of 9mm on the shelves, .40 glock ammo, and .380. Arms sales were standing three deep.Cheaper than dirt was out of everything except 9mm Luger, .45, and .40 cal. Plenty of .30 cal carbine and plenty of magazines available. Outdoor World in Grapevine sold out of .223, .270, .264 mag. Plenty of .40, 9mm and .380. All semi auto weapons sold or being held. In the DFW area alone in the last two weeks, over 75,000 rounds of various ammunition sold and and it is estimated that 3,000 weapons have been sold of various calibers.

    I am on the waiting list for .22 cal long rifle and .222 Winchester Talons.

    However, weapons are plentiful in all types. Gun show this weekend in 12 cities.

    Governor Perry reaffirming that it matters not what Obama signs……Texas is independent and weapons will be sold as usual.

    • Colonel, If you want an exercise in frustration, go to Cabela’s or Bass Pro (I live half way between the two) on a Saturday and try to buy a firearm. I went to Cabela’s the weekend after Sandy Hook (I was pricing the weapon all week at different places), the background check line was about 5-6 hours. Nothing like standing in an extremely slow moving line for hours on end….fortunately, living 10 min from there meant I could go when they opened on Sunday, still waited 40 minutes, there was even a line when the store opened. I can only imagine what it is like now.

  13. Maybe, just maybe, I’m not quite as nuts as some think I am 🙂 http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/guns-arent-the-problem/

  14. One for you’s economic guru’s (I do enjoy your opinions and knowledge). http://etfdailynews.com/2013/01/14/food-price-crisis-signals-imminent-hyperinflation/

  15. Now, back to my normal self, 😆 http://www.newswithviews.com/McGuire/paul156.htm

    THis is a long read, but the end has a very important message. I gave up being fearful a long time ago, maybe that loss of fear has a reason. Maybe not, time will tell.

  16. Well, this is different. First, it’s east to see it’s morning and with a little work with the shadows on the ground that it was early in the morning. I will have to look at other vids to get a comparison, but it is a different look from what the media gave to us. I have no opinion just yet, will work on it. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/raw-helicopter-footage-before-fake-sandy-hook-shooting-started-must-see-video-2536368.html

    • I see nothing that proves this is a video of Sandy. G-I simply do not see how anyone can look at this situation and think it is a fake situation. It would take almost the whole town of Newton and the media, police, school, and FBI, etc. to pull something like this off. You aren’t just talking about the families lying but their extended families, their neighbors, school friends,not to mention everyone else. Maybe their not showing video because there isn’t any or they have consistently said that showcasing these crazies just makes more crazies wanting publicity. But personally, I simply don’t believe it is possible to fake something of this magnitude.

      • V.H. The kind of conspiracy that you are thinking of would truly be impossible, nor am I claiming that this is what it is. I haven’t posted 1/4 of what is actually out there, some of which is rather scary. I’m also not trying to convince anyone that the whole thing is fake, but that there are holes that one could fly a C-5 Galaxy through. If you would like, I can post more links. I’ll start with this one: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/united-way-sends-condolences-to-sandy-hook-victims-3-days-before-the-shooting-2530888.html

        THis is just one of a few that I’m aware of. What are your thoughts, just coincidence? Do you want to see others?

        • G,

          I look at a computer and I see the possibility for many things happening. People are more than capable of hacking into the computer and changing many things. So for me to believe that such a thing as the Sandy killings to be faked -has to make logical sense to me-and this type of complicated scenario with so many being required to carry it out simply does not compute.

          • V.H. I understand how you feel. This is exactly what they are counting on. They want the populace to believe the story they frame, then they demonize those who question them. I believe you have seen this with your own eyes. So, it’s not a big deal. they control the minds of the vast majority of the populace. Not just the minds, but the stomachs and rent payments too. The sheep are in the fence and the gate is shut. Only a few remain free of mind (and even some of them are being found dead from strange causes). But that is the life we have now. It’s the 1.5% or so that will lead the fight against tyranny. We’ll see what all these gun owners have in the near future, I’m not counting on much.

            • Continuing, There is a part of me that believes that the shootings occurred. There is a part of me that is fascinated with govt corruption, as far as the desire to expoese them for all to see. I like conspiricay theories because they test the mind. Is it really possible or just some nuts imagination. Conspiricy theories start for numerous reasons, mostly lack of information/knowledge of the activities in question. With our current group of criminals in the Distric of Criminals, we should all question everything. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. So let’s continue questioning them on this matter 🙂 http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/has-adam-lanza-even-been-alive-the-last-3-years-video-2536816.html

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                I don’t mind questioning the Power. But you should look to different resources. The one you keep using seems pretty suspect, given the track record so far.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      The guy keeps saying “where are the cop cars” then he says “oh look there is one”. The parking lot has bunches of police cars. They are GRAY. You can plainly see their lights.

      I do have one criticism of the response, assuming the cars are where they were upon the response.

      It would seem to me that the patrol cars should move close to the building to provide cover for the cops first and then any kids escaping the building. Otherwise there is a long run without cover if the shooter were covering a front window.

      • Understood and I saw the same. Now compare how the media had all the Fed agents that night, that I commented on if you recall. I’m not going to claim it’s a fake or a movie, but there is something wrong in Denmark, as the saying goes. I don’t recall anything like this after Aurora Colorado, or the Portland mall shooting. Now, I’m still looking, but an off duty female police office shot a theater shooter today, somewhere. Why isn’t that in the news? Still looking but the source is quite good.

        • One thing is for sure, the theater shooter with the orange hair was just too good to have commit suicide. As was the Arizona kook. I have not seen a picture of the CT shooter at his current age of 20, have you?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Gman

          Even HuffPo carried a piece on the off duty cop in the theater. The responses were see…..only a Cop should have guns. Nobody would admit that any well trained and capable person could have done the same thing.

          But at least they did cover it. About three days after it happened.

          • JAC, While I don’t consider HuffPo Mainstream, they are growing with the help of AOL, but despite that they are nothing more than a left wing rag. The vast majority of people who write for HuffPo and mainly those who post their opinion there, are the opitomy of what a “useful idiot” is. Let me guess, they said only cops should have guns, you said what if no cop was in there and there was silence. I say that because the next logical answer is “let the innocent be be shot to shreds by the sick twisted murderers”, or, an even less intelligent “useful idiot” would say have a cop “everywhere” where a mass murderer would go”.

            Before anyone says, if the govt would take all the guns, we wouldn’t have to worry about this problem” let me remind you that the govt can’t keep guns out of the hands of gangs and criminals now, much less keep them from drugs off the street, so dream on.

  17. Biden: W.H. readies 19 executive actions on guns

    1
    Joe Biden is shown. | AP Photo
    By REID J. EPSTEIN | 1/14/13 6:49 PM EST Updated: 1/14/13 8:38 PM EST

    The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups.

    The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.

    The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said.

    “It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

    The White House declined to comment on the details of what Obama will propose.
    But Biden did indicate that the remains of the Obama campaign apparatus may be activated in the effort.

    “He said that this has been a real focus on the policy and that the politics of this issue, that a strategy on the politics of the issue hasn’t been undertaken yet,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told POLITICO. “He did remind us that the campaign infrastructure is still accessible.”

    Biden did not address two of the more significant issues in the gun debate: the appointment of a permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the role violent images in the entertainment industry play in the nation’s gun violence.

    Obama touched on his expected legislative guns agenda at his own news conference in the East Room on Monday, while stressing the power he has via executive order.

    “How we are gathering data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals, and how we track that more effectively — there may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed through legislation,” Obama said.

    Even Democrats who back gun control concede that reinstating an assault weapons ban — the 1994 law expired in 2004 — will be a heavy lift for the White House. During his meeting with gun-rights groups last week, Biden mentioned only an assault weapons ban when telling the NRA and other organizations that Obama has “made up his mind” to support it.

    “I think everybody acknowledges that the assault weapons ban is a challenge, but other things — like the size of the magazines, the background checks, straw purchases — are all things that have a good chance of passing,” Scott said.

    Speier said she told Biden the White House should do as much as it can on its own.

    “I urged him to do as much by executive order as possible,” she said. “Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress is going to do anything significant.”

    And Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democrats’ Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said the magazine ban and universal background checks would be far more effective than an assault weapons ban without the political cost.

    “Probably the most recognizable thing you can say in this debate is ban assault weapons,” Thompson said. “But the other two issues” — forbidding high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks for gun purchases — “those two things have more impact on making our neighborhoods safe than everything else combined. Anytime you try and prohibit what kind of gun people has it generates some concern.”

    Biden’s personal gun violence outreach now includes the families of the 26 victims of the Dec. 14 school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Biden told the Monday meeting that he’s been reaching out to the families. A White House official confirmed the vice president has been in touch directly with some of the families.

    “The vice president mentioned that he has called every one of the families that has lost children in Connecticut, and that the conversations have lasted no less than 45 minutes,” Speier said.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187_Page2.html#ixzz2I18KuJ4Z

    Call me stupid but what the heck does the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” have to do with gun control. Just using this department, which obviously has nothing to do with gun control shows that what they are talking about doing is total BS.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anderson Cooper did his show from Newtown School tonight. Coincidence????

      Some are suggesting that Obama declare Guns a National Health Hazard, which would fall under his emergency powers for dealing with National Health Emergency. This may be why CDC is included in the talk at this point.

      • Well, I suppose they can declare whatever they want to-if the people and the courts are corrupt enough to allow it-but it’s still total BS.

      • Cooper served a two year stint as a CIA intern before going into journalism at the Communist News Network (CNN). He did not go to school for journalism. Odd how he was even considered at a major network without the education. HMMM, and now you can guess the rest of the story!

      • Anderson Cooper did his show from Newtown School tonight. Coincidence????

        No, it’s not a coincidence. It’s the one month anniversary – DUH!

        Someone needs to teach you guys to count past 10…

  18. Iran May Hang Imprisoned U.S. Pastor
    Saeed Abedini / ACLJ.org

    Saeed Abedini / ACLJ.org

    BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    January 14, 2013 3:09 pm

    An American-Iranian pastor imprisoned in Tehran since September may face hanging because of his Christian faith. Saeed Abedini sent a
    letter to his family Jan. 10 detailing his torture and treatment by Iranian authorities.

    The Jerusalem Post reports:

    The U.S. State Department expressed “serious concerns” about Abedini’s situation on Friday.

    Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) wrote to the The Jerusalem Post on Friday, “This is an extremely critical time for American Pastor Saeed and his family. We now know with certainty, from his own words, the brutality and life-threatening danger he faces in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison.”

    “In a powerful letter from him released to family members in Tehran, Pastor Saeed reveals that he is undergoing beatings and is being told that he ‘will hang’ for his Christian faith. That treatment combined with the recent news that Pastor Saeed’s case has been turned over to one of Iran’s ‘hanging judges’ makes his circumstances more dire than ever,” Sekulow said.

    Abedini became an American citizen in 2010 after marrying his American wife, Naghmeh Abedini, according to FOX News.

    The Iranian government does not recognize his American citizenship, though it had enabled him to travel freely between both countries until this past summer. That’s when he was pulled off a bus and placed under house arrest, according to his supporters. Abedini was then imprisoned and charged with several crimes that have not been made public, but it is widely believed that it is because of his Christian faith.

    Jihadists and allies of the ruling mullahs target Christians living in Iran.

    Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, an expert on Iran who has written extensively on the persecution of Christians in the Islamic Republic, told the Post on Saturday, that Abedini’s case was “an example of the insidious and perfidious policy of the Islamist dictatorship” in Tehran, adding that “the main goal of the rulers is to intimidate Christians and Iranians who are interested to leave Islam and change their religion.” […]

    “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and representatives of Islamic Jihad even play the role of pastors in churches in Isfahan to “guide” the Christians and teach them that Islam is better,” Wahdat-Hagh stated.

    http://freebeacon.com/iran-may-hang-imprisoned-u-s-pastor/

    Christians who are on or reading this blog this man needs our prayers!

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I’ve Got It. That is I have figured out the Progressive agenda regarding Guns.

    Keep increasing the number of crimes designated as Felonies.

    Pretty soon nobody who owns a gun will be allowed to own guns, because we will have all committed one Felony or another.

    Meanwhile think of all the unemployed Law Students that can be put to work. Maybe they can pay back all their loans.

    A win-win.

  20. Lessons from France on Defending Marriage
    by Robert Oscar Lopez
    within Marriage, Politics

    January 14th, 2013

    Unlikely characters, including gay men, are leading the French people in protest against redefining marriage. A repeating refrain is “the rights of children trump the right to children.” Americans should follow their example of mobilizing across party lines.
    Share on facebook Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services

    The international press was shocked on November 17, 2012, when hundreds of thousands of French citizens took to the streets to fight against a parliamentary bill redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships and legalizing same-sex adoption. Less than a decade ago, France symbolized all that American conservatives despised and all that American liberals praised. Now we should learn from them.

    Consider that in March 2003, the White House, irritated with France’s opposition to the American invasion of Iraq, changed the name of French fries to “freedom fries” in three Washington cafeterias. Four years later, not only did Michael Moore idealize France in Sicko for its seemingly endless capacity for romance, but Bill Maher also broadcast a three-minute ode to the French for their seemingly sterile politics:

    Maybe the high turnout [of voters in France] has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortions, stem cell research, or gay marriage.

    How wrong Maher was. So were the conservatives who dismissed the French fifth republic as a wasteland of unfettered socialism. In the haze of these Francophobic outbursts, few could have anticipated that France would host the West’s last stand for the traditional family.

    France offers activists an example of a country that can question gay rhetoric without engaging in the violent homophobia one sees in the repressive laws of Putin’s Russia. Those who feel no ill will toward LGBT people, but who believe that there is something special about male-female relationships—marriages—especially because of their role in rearing children, must watch closely what unfurls. Edged by Spain and Portugal to its south and Belgium and the Netherlands to its northeast, France is surrounded by countries that have redefined marriage and treated gay parenting with indifference. Yet France is mounting an opposition.

    As reported in the Guardian, France’s northern neighbor, the United Kingdom, is under increasing pressure to redefine marriages, with polls indicating that now 62 percent of British voters support the idea. With so many of France’s peer nations marching to the beat of “marriage for all,” most would have expected the French to say “à chacun son goût” to such issues, and go back to minding their own business.

    Instead, the French have hit the streets in what can only be called a tidal wave. News about the various alliances forming against the redefinition of marriage and same-sex adoption emerges in snippets at lightning speed. Much of it is not translated into English. To help Americans learn what is happening, I have put up this website offering quick translations.

    Yesterday, January 13, occurred the much-anticipated “manif pour tous” or “march for all,” pitted against the pro-same-sex marriage movement called “marriage for all.” Buses and trains from all over France carried hundreds of thousands to Paris to demand a referendum.

    While a bill is scheduled for a vote in Parliament on January 29, an alliance of religious, secularist, straight, gay, rightist, leftist, and non-partisan sources has amassed to halt the bill’s passage.

    The three most prominent spokespeople are unlikely characters: “Frigide Barjot,” a bleached-blonde comedienne famous for hanging out with male strippers at the Banana Café, and author of “Confessions of a Branchée Catholic”; Xavier Bongibault, a young gay atheist in Paris who fights against the “deep homophobia” of the LGBT movement, believing it disgraces gays to assume that they cannot have political views “except according to their sexual urges”; and Laurence Tcheng, a disaffected leftist who voted for President François Hollande but disdains the way that the same-sex marriage bill is being forced through Parliament.

    In a poll conducted in December, fully 69 percent of French people wanted a referendum on “marriage for all” rather than an act of Parliament, with 42 percent seeing this as an “absolute” demand. Right-wing citizens are most adamant, but even a comfortable majority of the French left opposes “marriage for all” without a rigorous debate on what this will mean for families, and, most of all, for children.

    If the thunderous calls for a referendum are honored by Hollande, it is not at all clear that his “marriage for all” push will have clear sailing. The “march for all” movement spearheaded by Barjot, Bongibault, and Tcheng has flipped public opinion. In June 2011, according to this aggregate of polls, 63 percent of French citizens favored same-sex marriage and 58 percent thought it would be fine for gay couples to adopt children.

    After the marches, vigorous debates, and probing coverage in the press, the public is wavering. As of January 11, 2013, 54 percent oppose gay adoption. In addition, 53 percent oppose “medically assisted procreation” such as surrogacy and insemination, while the number favoring same-sex marriage, still high at 60 percent, has declined slightly. Many predict that a true national debate, which protesters allege has not been allowed yet, will awaken many citizens to the counter-arguments against redefining marriage, and push the number even lower.

    At a protest in Lyon, dissenters gagged themselves with black scarves below an effigy of Hollande, while a ringleader with a bullhorn raged about the lack of true debate:

    We’ve had phony discussion […] Only one third of the […] hearings were allotted for those opposed to the law. Of these most were clergy. As if only clergy were against the law. No! Citizens of all backgrounds, and in ever greater numbers, oppose this law. Mr. President, in the name of our Republic, in the name of the rights of man, in the name of general interest, let all of society have its say. Do not deny us the guarantee of a full-fledged serious debate by branding us as homophobes if we oppose this. Let’s have a true debate […] It is scandalous and unprofessional, unconscionable, that you have welcomed radical LGBT activists to the Elysee and you have not received anybody opposed to this law. Hundreds of thousands of French people say now, we must open the debate!

    History must note that France was the first country to reject the facile charge of “homophobe” as a way of silencing people’s doubts. Nobody in the US has been able to break the stranglehold of threats, character assassination, and emotional blackmail that has allowed LGBT activists to call those who doubt their proposals bigots (and get them fired, incidentally).

    Since the late 1990s, France has offered same-sex couples “PACs” or civil unions, so the issue of lovers living together is not the powder keg. Though still mostly (if nominally) Catholic, the French are by and large willing to stay out of the bedrooms of people who love one another, irrespective of sex.

    Such live-and-let-live philosophy does not apply when the citizens see a threat to the nation’s children. Here is where Americans must follow their playbook closely, because it is probably the surest way to break the stalemate in the United States about marriage and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In France, a repeating refrain is “the rights of children trump the right to children.” It is a pithy but forceful philosophical claim, uttered in voices ranging from gay mayor “Jean-Marc” to auteur Jean-Dominique Bunel, who revealed in Le Figaro that two lesbians raised him. For most of France, LGBT rights cross the line when they mean that same-sex couples have a “right” to children—something that both France’s grand rabbi, Gilles Bernheim, and Louis-Georges Barret, Vice President of the Christian Democratic Party, have refuted as a right at all.

    The right to a child, according to Bernheim and Barret, does not exist; it would mean changing children, as Bernheim says, from “child as subject” to “child as object.” Bunel states in Figaro that such a shift violates international law by denying the right of children to have a mother and a father. Bunel writes:

    I oppose this bill because in the name of a fight against inequalities and discrimination, we would refuse a child one of its most sacred rights, upon which a universal, millennia-old tradition rests, that of being raised by a father and a mother. You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father. The international convention on the rights of the child stipulates in effect that “the highest interest of the child should be a primary consideration” (Article 3, section 1).

    Bunel suggests that laws allowing gay people to create unnecessary same-sex households for unwitting children should be brought to Europe’s high court of human rights.

    Homovox is a web portal for testimonials from gay men who oppose the “marriage for all” bill. Hervé Jordain, a Marseille homosexual, says on Homovox, “It is utterly abnormal to uphold one’s ‘right’ to have a child … A child is not a cute little doll you go out and buy on December 15.”

    Echoing this growing sense among France’s gay men that the metropolitan movement for gay parenting has fostered a selfishness and destructive disregard for others among LGBT leaders, “Benoît,” a 43-year-old gay business owner, says, “this bill is a dupe … it is a lie, an error, a farce. It is like looking for a magic spell to say gay and straight people are the same.”

    Emmanuel, a gay art historian, says bluntly, “Why must we say gay and straight couples are the same? They are not equal.” Even more eloquently, gay blogger Philippe Ariño cautions, “equality is not a good thing by itself. There are bad forms of equality. We call that conformism, uniformity, banality.” “Jean-Pier,” a bespectacled 49-year-old screenwriter, offers an even more personal admonition:

    Twenty five years ago—remember, I’m 49—I truly wondered about having a child. Like everyone else, I wanted to have a child; it was a question of transmitting my heritage. But then I realized very quickly that if I were going to have a child that way, it would be for the wrong reasons. […]The desire for a child, for me, is fulfilled. I am a writer and creator. I create stories for children. That’s a way to address children and respect them. That’s an act of love for them.

    As a bisexual, raised by a lesbian and her lover (read my account of “growing up with two moms” here), with decades of experience in gay American discourse, I find this dissension among France’s gays utterly inexplicable. A fellow American Thinker contributor, who is also gay and worries about same-sex parenting, admitted to me after seeing these shocking translations: “This would be unthinkable in the United States. If you were gay and said such things in America, you would be flayed alive. You’d never get published. You’d never work again.”

    The gay men like Xavier Bongibault who have taken to the streets against gay adoption are indeed indecipherable from the vantage point of American LGBT discourse. In the United States, gay camps bicker with each other over policy differences, tone, and whose associations are most respectable; they rarely touch on existential schisms. In America the rightist dissenters from gay orthodoxy, embodied by GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, fight with Democratic activists over taxes and defense policy. In the end, the gay right is an upper-class version of the gay left: All the identity politics and sense of entitlement, with none of the social-justice consciousness that leftists demand in order to be acknowledged as part of their club.

    Far-left dissenters from gay orthodoxy in the United States criticize gay neoliberalism but would not, generally, be caught dead allying with right-wing opponents of same-sex marriage in the way that Xavier Bongibault has marched alongside French clergy.

    The best parallel one could offer is that many Jewish commentators are particularly harsh in their critiques of Israel not in spite of, but rather because of, the Jewish state’s claim of acting in their name. The same dynamic may explain the plethora of gay men who have not only supported but orchestrated the march on Paris to protest gay adoption. The idea of instrumentalizing children’s lives as a way of fulfilling gay aspirations is so abhorrent to a foundational Gallic sense of decency that the gay men who are being invoked to license it seem first in line to denounce it.

    It is time for Americans to follow France’s lead. Frigide Barjot, Laurence Tcheng, and Xavier Bongibault have presented us with a game changer. They have given us the necessary rhetoric and republican logic to present a strong case against redefining marriage. They have provided us a playbook for mobilizing across party lines. They’ve presented colorful characters whom we can emulate. I will keep translating the news as it comes in, in the hope that American defenders of the family will be inspired to do as the “march for all” movement has done.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7601/

  21. Obama on Congress:‘They Order Me to Spend’
    By Fred Lucas
    January 14, 2013

    President Barack Obama. (AP)

    (CNSNews.com) – Explaining why he has no choice but to demand an increase in the legal limit on the national debt, President Barack Obama said at a Monday press conference that Congress orders him to spend money.

    “This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending,” Obama said.

    “They order me to spend,” he said. “They tell me: ‘You need to fund our Defense Department at such-and-such a level. You need to send Social Security checks. You need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans.’ They lay all this out for me, and–because they have the spending power–and so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.”

    The current debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion, a number that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner agreed to in August 2011, when they increased the previous limit by $2.4 trillion. The Constitution gives Congress the power to borrow money. So, the president cannot increase the debt of the United States unless Congress enacts legislation authorizing him to do so.

    “Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid,” said Obama. “And so what Congress can’t do is tell me to spend X and then say, but we’re not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills.”

    During Monday’s press conference, Obama talked about why he refused to cut federal spending in exchange for Republicans in Congress once again increasing the legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow.

    “The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said. “We are not a deadbeat nation and so there’s a very simple solution to this. Congress authorizes us to pay our bills. Now if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don’t have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m happy to take it.”

    Obama referenced a proposal by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) during the 2011 battle over raising the debt ceiling that would have given the president authority to raise the debt ceiling without prior congressional authorization.

    Obama said he did not want to raise the debt ceiling himself unless Congress authorized it. But he called on them to expedite it.

    “If they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done and you know, there are no magic tricks here,” Obama said. “There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending.”

    While the GOP-dominant House of Representatives has passed budgets for the last two years, the Democrat-led Senate hasn’t passed a
    budget since April 2009. Also, the House passed several annual appropriations bills but they too were not taken up by the Senate, headed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    Instead, over the last few years, Congress and the White House have ended up passing Continuing Resolutions to keep the federal government operating. In September 2012, the GOP-led House passed a $1.047 trillion funding bill, a Continuing Resolution, which will fund the government through March 27, 2013. To become law that CR also needed to pass the Senate and be signed by Obama.

    Once the current CR expires in March, the executive branch will only be able to spend the money that Congress authorizes it to spend after that date.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-congress-they-order-me-spend

    Wow, This man is such an unbelievable Jerk.

  22. January 15, 2013 4:00 A.M.
    Averting Default, Achieving Restraint

    By The Editors

    The federal government will hit the statutory limit on its debt within the next two months, and further borrowing would require congressional action. Almost everybody recognizes that such action will need to take place, since no one has proposed a way to end all deficit spending immediately. But Republicans want to make sure that as Congress takes that action it both highlights the problem of overspending and takes steps to address it, while Democrats want to make sure that the problem receives neither attention nor remedy.

    To achieve its end, each party has focused on a different element of the debt ceiling. Republicans treat the debt-ceiling vote as a moment to recognize the implications of runaway spending and to bring down the future trajectory of that spending (and therefore of the debt). They want any authorization of future borrowing to be tied to reductions in future spending, so that as we acknowledge how much debt we are amassing, we also do something about it.

    Advertisement
    Democrats, however, treat the debt ceiling as having basically nothing to do with the future. Past spending decisions are in the past, they say, and now Congress just has to pay for them. The debt ceiling, in their telling, threatens to stand in the way of Congress’s doing so, and especially to thwart debt repayment, raising the prospect of a default on the government’s debts, which would have catastrophic economic effects. As White House spokesman Jay Carney put it recently, “there are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default.”

    The Democrats are treating all federal spending (not only the repayment of past borrowing) as a sacrosanct obligation that cannot be undone. And they insist that attaching any conditions to a debt-ceiling increase would be unprecedented and tantamount to blackmail, even though such conditions have been attached in the past and have resulted in some fiscal reforms (including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget caps in 1985 and more modest measures in 1996 and 2011).

    Republicans should recognize that the prospect of default is the Democrats’ chief weapon in their campaign of avoidance. That prospect is not a source of Republican leverage in the debt-ceiling fight; it is the primary source of the Democrats’ leverage. It is a way to distract the press and the public from the reality of our fiscal crisis.

    The Democrats’ strategy offers Republicans an opportunity. Since the Democrats insist that the prospect of default is the reason they will not negotiate about spending restraint, Republicans should begin the debt-ceiling fight by permanently eliminating that prospect, turning the debt-ceiling debate into an argument about future spending rather than past borrowing.

    The House should pass a bill to redefine the debt limit so that it constrains primary spending but not debt service. Under this reform, a Treasury that had hit the statutory borrowing limit could continue to borrow what it needed exclusively for paying interest on the national debt and to roll over existing debt obligations, but it could not borrow for any other government spending until the limit had been increased. This would take default entirely off the table.

    Other spending would have to be put off or reduced, based on the amount of revenue available at any given time, until the debt limit had been raised. Since debt service now amounts to roughly 8 percent of the budget while the deficit is well over 30 percent, this would mean very significant limits on spending until the debt limit had been increased — whether by a large, across-the-board reduction of remaining spending or a partial shutdown of the relevant government programs and services. Both parties would have a strong incentive to come to agreements that prevented the debt limit from being hit, at least for long.

    Advertisement
    This proposal would improve, rather than undermine, America’s creditworthiness, as it would both avert any possibility of default and compel a discussion about getting our government finances into order. It would enable Congress to exercise its exclusive Article I authority to borrow while meeting its 14th Amendment obligation to assure “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law.”

    Such a move would turn the debt-ceiling debate explicitly into what Republicans already treat it as being: an argument about ongoing government spending and deficits, like the debates about the budget or continuing resolutions, rather than about paying debts incurred for past spending and deficits. Democrats do not want that debate, but would not have an easy time rejecting this proposal. To do so would be to insist that default remain on the table, or else to insist that the president be given an unlimited power to borrow and spend. Surely neither is what the public wants or what the country needs.

    What the public wants, and what the country needs, is for the federal government to pay its past debts but reduce its future ones. The debt ceiling should offer an opportunity for a debate about precisely how to do so. By carefully redefining the debt limit in law, Republicans can make sure that discussion takes place. And by then proceeding to offer specific spending cuts coupled with a proportional increase in the debt ceiling, they can help make sure that it ends with our country less in debt and better positioned to prosper.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337681/averting-default-achieving-restraint-editors?pg=2

    Opinions-and help understanding exactly how this would work 🙂

    • Predictions:

      The first person busted with a magazine holding 8 rounds will sue the state, costing taxpayers millions.

      Gun crimes in NY will increase.

      Between taxes and gun laws..last person out of NY please turn out the lights, and leave your police state attitude behind.
      (re-education camp is in Ft Worth) 😉

    • This should show you why politicians are a useless group these days with no concept of reality. This law will be destroyed in the courts and is nothing more than a kneejerk waste of tax dollars

    • Let me know when the criminals start registering, whoops, they can’t own guns already… Let me know when the criminals start turning in their guns. When the gangs decide to go old school and fight only with fists, knives, clubs and chains. I would bet on NY passing Chicago on violent crime within two years!

    • Interesting article which is, of course, the first step to taking away ALL weapons. At least that is how I read it. BUT,,,,,,it is a State option which I support. Leave it up to the State and if this is what they want to do….I am for it. It gives people the right to decide and move if they do not want to live under these rules.

      I am curious though….how does New York expect to enforce this?

      “Current owners of those guns will have to register them.” The text of this statement follows a description of what an assault weapon is in the eyes of New York. So, New York is going to expect that people will just voluntarily step up to the police and register the weapons. Some law abiding citizens MIGHT…..but the criminals will not.

      Then there is this statement…: “New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.” I would like to know HOW this is going to be enforced unless it would be the right to just show up and ask someone who registered a weapon to show them how it is stored. This is what I term a POLICE STATE. Also notice, that assault weapon was not defined in this statement….is says “a weapon”. Please note that the whole article specifies assault weapon when it means assault weapon….in this case it did not say assault weapon. I submit that it does not pertain to just assault defined weapons and was included purposely to mean all weapons, as defined by New York. So, you also have a State telling you how to buy over the internet….I am sure that a case of cokes will follow.

      “Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.” Notice that the term “assault” was carefully redacted from this statement.

      “The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, also would mandate a police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.” Read this statement very carefully….since there will be an assault BAN, those that have them will be able to keep them….this is called “grandfathering”. But the mandate calls for a registry…in other words, those that have them need to now register them. Also, read the statement…worked out in a CLOSED session. If this is not a Police State, what is it.

      And there is finally this…..”In the gun debate, there is one concern for New York is its major gun manufacturer in upstate.The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.” You will be pleased to know that the City of Plano, Texas had already approached the Remington factory ( before this happened ) and has offered it a great deal to move to Texas. No corporate income taxes, no property tax for a period of 15 years to pay for its move to Texas, and the land donated by the City of Plano free of charge. Plano, Texas, the home of many large corporate headquarters and manufacturing, is a great place with great weather.

      However, it is a State issue and that is ok with me……if the Feds try this……………well, it is prohibition all over again. The first gun ban did not work and neither will this one but to the Progressive movement……bring it on.

      • Colonel, Maybe I read the Constitition and Bill of Rights wrong, but as I read it, the 2nd Amandment applies to all people in all States, and even the States cannot infringe upon that right. The heller decision was quite clear, I thought, about this matter.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Gman

          Unfortunately it was not THAT CLEAR.

          Thanks to Scalia and others, they once again left open the option of the Govt “infringing” upon this Right.

          You see we have a Right, unless the govt can make a compelling case to infringe upon that Right. That is the position of the Supreme Court.

          Now can you see why a Constitutional Convention is needed?

          • I’m all for a Constitutional Convention. While we are there we can rewrite the part about the 3 branches of Govt. (I’ve written on the matter here before). In all seriousness though, whether it’s State govt or the Fed’s, any major attempt to take away the peoples guns will never work. It may actually be a good idea in retrospect, It’s time to remind politicians who they serve in this country. To clarify on above statement, Heller, to me, stated that it’s an individual right to have commonly owned guns (e.g. AR-15). It has been the most popular long gun for quite some time. NY’s insistance to register and their magazine issue fails the test on that matter.

            Strange weather, 65 degrees Sunday, 26 degrees right now. Even the dogs don’t like it 🙄

        • For the most part, I am with you on this G!. Can the states suppress you 1st Amendment rights? But like JAC said, Heller did not close the issue. SCOTUS will allow some infringement, but not say where the line is drawn. For example, registration.

      • Colonel — I commend you for being consistent!

        One question though — do you support the provision in the proposed law dealing with background checks on the private sale of guns?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          Count me as a NO vote on that proposal.

          I will add that the background checks are crap as they are today. That is if you want them to “prevent” crime.

        • Count me as a “NO” also. Laws just don’t stop criminals or the mentally ill who are hell bent on destruction. More laws only effect law abiding citizens, I don’t understand why that is so hard for some to understand.

  23. @JAC, Re:sources. Since the MSM can’t be trusted, HuffPo is a left wing rag, I tend to use alternative media. At least they try to tell the truth, unlike the MSM. I did say I would post the 4 pistol NBC video, it’s inbedded in theis video, which is a very telling video if you take the time to watch it. And yes, I still believe that the Emilie girl with Obama and her sisters (yes, that is sisters) picture is legit and is the girl in the familiy photo. Notice the two sisters on each leg! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1k1vT8Ud8

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      The family photo is three BLONDE kids. The Obama photo has TWO Blonde kids in the sit down version.

      Has anyone identified the other kids in the Obama photos?

      Also note in your video source, they try to say the Nurse Confessed the mother was a teacher. She did not say that. She said she knew the lady well.

      That is entirely possible without her having been a teacher at that school.

      I do wonder who it was that the Sheriff was threatening for putting out BAD INFORMATION. Also curious why that is a “crime”.

      • You have as many questions as I do, sir! The story has changed so many times I’m not sure which one to believe. How many guns and what kind? The bullet holes in the car in the video looked like pistol holes, certainly not from a .223. Why would he need the pistol if he had “hundreds of rounds”. Too many holes, no pistures or videos, piss poor media coverage and hoops of bad info that day. Oh well, guess the real story will be what people choose to believe.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      GMan

      You know how I know that your Hoax people are the Hoax??

      Do you see any of them interviewing parents or teachers asking them if they personally knew any kids that were killed?

      Do you see them interviewing any of the first responders?

      Nope. They sit at a distance combing over video, photos and stories. Pulling pieces out and placing them into a different context.

      This event did have something most don’t. That was the complete failure respecting the early information released. So WHO released that information?

      That should be the real question.

      Frankly, I don’t remember such a cluster by the media in recent times. There are always some facts that are messed up but this took the cake.

      Here is my theory. These “we have been informed” or “we have been told” statements are the REAL LIE. I think each network rips off the others and then claim they have sources. So all it takes is ONE bad report and away it goes.

      Because nobody wants to be scooped by the competition.

      I have another theory, and it relates to the political coverage as well. It seems that “journalism” folks just aren’t as smart as they used to be. By smart I am including “experience”. They used to have some knowledge of subjects or at least their community from which to base good questions and reporting. What I see more and more resemble those characterizations in some Cynical Movie about “News Anchors”.

      • I can agree. But I always wonder, what if this time, the story we are given isn’t 100% true? What if an AR-15 was never used or even on school property? You know, never let a crisis go to waste! However, moving on with the gun control issue which is more important anyway. What do you think of NY’s mag restriction that is of less bullets than the standard mag sold with the firearm?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          I don’t think much of their proposed laws. But if it makes them happy, so be it.

          But I can’t wait to see how they deal with that little Constitutional requirement that each State recognize the rights and privileges afforded by Other States.

          This was the left’s big argument with States Rights over Gay Marriage. Lets see how they try to run from it this time, when it doesn’t fit.

          As for the gun control issue itself, we are failing to OBJECTIVELY look at the issues and select clear and meaningful goals.

          For example, is the goal to reduce Mass Murders? Mass Murders in Schools? Gun Murders of Innocent People? Gun Murders? Gun Homicides/Deaths? or now “GUN VIOLENCE”.

          All of these give different answers to the solutions.

          And of course is the goal to REDUCE or ELIMINATE? We will hear…….”reduce to the extent possible”. Well how do we know when we reached the goal?

  24. d13thecolonel,
    A couple thoughts on your definition of “Police State”:

    d13thecolonel says:
    January 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    @ 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…..one element of freedom is the right and privilege of having differing opinions…..so far we still have that.

    Hope you and yours are having a great start to the New Year…

    It seems to me that your definition of “Police State” is:

    Any society that passes laws that you PERSONALLY disagree with

    Is that about right?

    I find it interesting that your example of a “Police State” is Buck (and Obama) enforcing the ACA, but not enforcing Immigration laws, but you then point out how Texas enforces Immigration laws, but won’t enforce the ACA.

    Isn’t that a little hypocritical?

    Or is Texas a “Police State” too?

  25. Hey all,

    Just caught this on FB. Don’t recall this incident, but she is a brave woman. Doesn’t look like slimy, arrogant Schumer has changed at all.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    NEW SUBJECT; from Mises Institute.

    Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money
    By Joseph Salerno
    Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

    Ben Bernanke’s confided yesterday that he is unaware of any new method of stimulating economic growth. Spoke Bernanke: “As far as I’m aware, there’s no completely new method that we haven’t [already tapped].” So Helicopter Ben has run out of innovative and unconventional ways to create new money. Lest you be tempted to breathe a bit easier, however, rest assured that the now conventional method of quantitative easing, involving the Fed’s monthly purchase of $85 billion worth of mortgage-backed and U.S. government securities, seems to be working just fine according to Bernanke and he foresees its continuation. Noting the stubbornly high unemployment rate combined with the low inflation rate in the U.S. economy, Bernanke stated, “That is the case for being aggressive, which we are trying to do.” Although he is “cautiously optimistic,” he does promise to closely monitor the risks, efficacy, costs and benefits of this inflationary policy.

    I guess the rapid asset price run-up in stock and commodities markets, which are nearly back to financial bubble levels, and booming farmland prices do not count in Bernanke’s benefit-cost calculus. More likely, Bernanke accounts them as a benefit, which, via the “wealth effect,” will induce another debt-driven consumption spree on the part of the American public that will stimulate economic growth, i.e. create another bubble economy.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Hopefully this is the correct clip. Watch BOTH video clips. The second one is a great over view of key issues vs. the mundane legal arguments.

    The topic is use of Drones and our war on terror.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/michael-boyle-visceral-ha_n_2480590.html

    • The use of drones in foreign countries has killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians. We are not at “war” with any of these countries (Pakistan, Yemen ect), yet we continue to engage in the activities. Personnally, I think the war on terror is a joke, much like the war on poverty, it’s just making the problem worse, not better.

      It would be a sad day when armed drones are used in U.S. airspace against the people. One more reason why the people should have the same weapons as the police. A small one with a video cam would be a fun toy though 🙂

  28. Hi Todd, a fair and sensible question, but to answer your direct question…….” Any society that passes laws that you PERSONALLY disagree with “. No sir, that is an unfair assessment. I disagree with lot of laws but I do not classify them as a police state. Allow me to explain….

    My complaint is the use of “prosecutorial discretion”. This is the hypocrisy. If there is a Federal Law on the books, and the Federal Government chooses not to enforce a specific law because it does not want to and then enforces other Federal Laws on a whim or deemed politically correct…..THAT is a Police State to me. Enforce all the laws or do not enforce any law. You cannot pick and choose which ones you wish to enforce. When you use the law to support your position and you do not use the same laws to support a differing position because of political expediency, I submit therein lies the hypocrisy. If the Federal Government chooses not to enforce its own laws, and a State, Texas for example, chooses to enforce a law already on the books, that is simply good law enforcement. If you, Todd, disagrees with the Federal Law on immigration, then repeal it. But if a State chooses, through its legislature, to enact and enforce its own laws, that is its right to do so. New York, for example, is going to go beyond the Federal Law as it now stands….that is New York’s privilege to do so. If the law is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, a court will say so and the Constitution will prevail. I believe that. When a government mandates a registration and then mandates that they have the right to invade your privacy and private property to enforce it…..that is Nazi Germany revisited. This is what I consider a police state.

    You used the ACA as an example. In the ACA, each and every state has the right to opt out. That is not hypocrisy. It is the State exercising its right to opt out. Texas simply said, we opt out and if the Federal Government wishes to enact the ACA, come on down and do it. We are not. We are not going to spend one dime of State money to continue the ACA when the Feds leave….that is also in the ACA. If a State adopts the ACA, then it must continue it after the Feds leave using their own money. Texas does not believe in that and our governor has simply said…we do not want the ACA and are not going to institute that.

    I would have a similar problem with Texas if all of a sudden they were going to take away a right like New York. I would NEVER under any circumstance register and firearm that I have. I will NEVER under any circumstance surrender any firearm that I have. You can take that literally if you wish. There is truth in the statement of “from my cold dead fingers”. I do not have to worry about that in Texas. This is gun country, pure and simple.

    However, you must understand that the law we had in place for ten years on magazines and so called defined assault weapons….did not work at all and it did not lower gun crimes nor mass shootings by even one percent. It drove the gun sales underground much like prohibition drove liquor sales under ground and created a much more disruptive and violent society. It will drive the gun sales of assault type weapons underground and create a lucrative black market. It is VERY easy to procure an AK 47 and bring it across the border…….especially in Arizona and California. We have almost eradicated the drugs and weapons on the Texas border. Our biggest problem now is human trafficking which is becoming more and more prolific. Human Trafficking defined as the kidnapping of minors and bringing them into the United States as prostitutes. Our Federal Government, under Obama’s supervision, turns a blind eye to this at the border. I can state this for fact. An absolute fact. Combine that with the disarming of the Federal Employees on the border and arming them with non lethal bean bags, with a standing order of ” if you see a gun, you run” …you suddenly have a Federal Government complicit in human trafficking and gun running. I call THIS a police state.

    The reason Texas is so successful is because of the introduction of the dreaded militia (the Texas National Guard) that the progressives unilaterally despise. The same militia that the second amendment supports and the National Guard is comprised of local citizens. We patrol our own borders and enforce Federal as well as State laws and we do it with live ammunition and we will shoot if the word “halt” or “alto” is not complied with. As a result, you can now raft down the Rio Grande in Big Bend without being sniped at…you can jet ski on the lakes again, and you can fish again without being robbed. We pay our militia with state funds…and not one dime of Federal funds. The State militias are NOT under the command of POTUS unless/until they are Federalized in a National Emergency of a declared congressional war. We have gun boats on the rivers and lakes all run by the Texas Department of Public Safety with State money. We have armed and outfitted all of our ranchers with satellite radios and weapons technology and incorporated them into the border patrol. This is NOT a police state as civilians are incorporated into the overall plan. We do not exclude them and make them part of the solution and not part of the problem.

    Sorry….got long winded.

    • Real quick interjection here:

      On the one hand you correctly state that Texas is opting out of the ACA as is its right under the terms of the law. But on the other hand you state: “…it [Texas] will not follow any weapons legislation…”

      You may disagree with the federal law, but now you are unequivocally arguing for selective enforcement of the law. That stated refusal of a state to follow a federal law would constitute a police state under your definition my friend.

      • Honest question, Buck…doesn’t the term “police state” imply an action AGAINST the citizens of said state?

        Murf

        • Not based on the Colonel’s definition.

          He defines a police state to include any unequal application/enforcement of a given law.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Actually, what he described was ARBITRARY enforcement by the HIGHER Authority.

            The Feds deciding to not enforce Fed Law but arbitrarily enforcing other laws. The only difference being POLITICAL desire or acceptability.

            The arbitrary use of power enforced by force is part of what most people define as a Police State.

            A subordinate power resisting a higher power is NOT a police state. It is a rebellious State.

      • Hmmmmmmmmm….thinking……thinking,,,,,,,thinking……….I think that you have possibly misunderstood….I believe that I used the term EO’s. I would not be consistent in my thinking if the law was enacted properly through Congress and became the law of the land…..and I said no way Jose’…then I would be inconsistent. However, an EO with the intent to circumvent the Constitution and the enacting of laws that are supposed to be Constitutional or erode State’s rights…..combined with a POTUS (regardless of who it is) that says…I won the election I will do it my way…or words to that effect….smack of police state.

        Perry’s comment was also that if there is to be a Federal Law of such, then let it be like the ACA. Let the State decide.

        Do you agree with me that any restriction on sales will be just like the prohibition days?

        • I see what you are getting at here, but would make the argument this would still result in a ‘police state’ per your definition above. Texas would still be obligated to follow the EO given the weight an EO carries and other existing laws. You don’t like the EO in question, have Texas bring an action to deem it an unconstitutional exercise of power (but in the meantime, Texas would have to follow that EO).

          I understand you would LIKE the federal law to be like the ACA and allow an opt out provision, but absent an opt out, too bad; Texas would still be obligated to fully enforce the law or risk being deemed a police state.

          • Fair point…….but only slightly fair……..all these 19 EO’s rumored to be ready will be challenged. I think my position would be, that until ruled Constitutional……the EO has no effect other than a memorandum from the POTUS……….If ruled Constitutional and the EO had the effect of law…then I would be on shaky footing but you have a small…but fair point.

            • Unfortunately that’s not how it works.

              • EO’s can be challenged….especially on the Constitutionality.

              • But they have the force of law until such time. Just as any other law — it can be challenged on constitutional grounds, but that doesn’t give you the right to refuse to follow until ruled constitutional.

              • EO’s do NOT have any force of law. Citizens cannot be arrested and charged/convicted with violating an EO then jailed. EO’s are directives to Federal employees. If he signed an EO to go door to door and collect all weapons, the people can, legally shoot the Federal employees in self defense if they attempt to do what the EO tells them to do. Obama has no power of making laws, no matter how Kingly he thinks he is.

              • You are talking about the proper scope of an EO, not the legal effect. EOs do, in fact, carry with them the full weight of the law.

                In your hypo, as crazy as it is (though I’m sure you believe this to actually be a possibility), no, individuals would not be legally allowed to shoot the federal employee in self defense. They would legally be allowed to refuse compliance, get arrested, and challenge the EO on constitutional grounds. 🙂

              • A thief is a thief buck. There may not be a shootout, but the only arrest will be that of the Feds by the local Sheriff. Cititizens absolutely have the right to defend their property against a thief, regardless of the thiefs claim of correctness. Sorry Buck, You lose this one. Maybe you should read the real reason why we have a 2nd Amendment. This is the exact reason, although you claim some form of legal bullshit.

              • Not to worry though, Obama won’t do this. The issue is rather moot, cuz it won’t happen 🙂

              • Don’t shoot the messenger!

                You were the one that brought in legality, arguing that the individual would have the ability to “legally shoot the Federal employees”.

              • Bottom Line says:

            • Nothing personnal Buckster. Even I know they would have to shoot first. I am aware of the numerous EO’s already signed. Hopefully, they will never be used as written. Interestingly, in 2010, a law was passed that would make some of his EO confiscatory declarations within the law. By the time it would have time to be challenged in court, it would be far too late (not guns). That poses another problem of course. But for now, I’ll just have fun being the site Conspiracy Theorist and entertain the readers with my vast knowledge of “what if’s” LOL 😆

    • Damn, that was well said, Colonel!

      @ Buck….good enough?

      @ Todd….ouch!

      🙂 🙂 🙂

      Murf

      • Nope, I have further questions for the good Colonel….it seems that Texas remains a police state…

  29. @ Buck…..to answer your question sir. I will not be so quick to jump on the NO band wagon. Of the 24 mass shootings that I have researched since 1950″s…….84% of them were purchased legally through gun stores, and the others were stolen weapons. There was not one weapon deemed to have been bought from an individual at a gun show.

    Now let me clarify this statement…… There is no record available of a weapon purchased legally and then sold to someone of dubious character or I have not found one as yet.

    However, I do think that background checks are a good thing and they work well in Texas. To openly sell as an individual to someone at a gun show, to me, is not a moral or right thing to do. There is no assurance that the person selling the weapon is not selling one to someone that will use it wrongly….but there is no assurance that the legal selling of guns is to someone who will not use it incorrectly will stop. For example, do you want a law to stop me from selling you a weapon because you are a friend? You want me to run a background check as an individual?

    So let us talk background checks…….I, for one, do not have a problem with known felons not having a weapon. I have no problem with mentally challenged or mental health people not having weapons. I have a HUGE problem with an individual legally buying a weapon and then knowingly selling it or giving it to someone known to be a felon or known to be mentally not capable. Now, how to solve this problem. I would not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    How about letting the civil courts handle it? If a weapon is traced to someone who legally purchased a weapon and did not safe guard it…..let them be held financially and personally liable if not culpable to a felony issue themselves.

    • So….on background checks…my proposal based on your comments:

      1) Mandate background checks for private sales
      2) Ensure the scope of said check properly covers felons and those with known mental health issues (caveat: yes there is an issue as to what mental health issues should warrant an individual not being permitted to own a gun, but we can address that at some later date)
      3) Failure to run said check results in:
      a) a misdemeanor charge carrying no jail time but a fine; or
      b) IF that gun is found to be used in a crime by an individual that would have been precluded from purchasing a gun by the mandated background check at the time of the sale, criminal liability for the crime in question (plus the aforementioned misdemeanor and fine leveled under para. a. above)

      Where do you stand on this proposal? Any changes you would make?

      • OOOOOO…we are close…..REAL close here…..

        Question….private sales at gun show? Or private sales anywhere….

        • Anywhere to anyone. Though I’d be willing to allow an exception for family in terms of the misdemeanor and fine, though not in terms of criminal liabilty under (3)(b).

          Why would you seek to only limit the mandated background check to private sales at gun shows?

          • I would not but wanted your reply so I can play in the same ball park here…..I have some changes that I would make that are actually tougher….please stand by……………..

            • ….standing by….

              • Ok…..let’s roll.

                1) The Federal Government issue guidelines and definitions of “assault” weapons, magazines, etc.
                2) State’s have a right to ignore, follow, or strengthen this definition.
                3) Mandate through Congress a Federal Law that requires background checks to include felony, class A misdemeanor, and mental health checks. This would apply unequivocally to all State’s, territories, and/or commonwealths. Any convicted of such do not pass the test. This would apply to ALL sales.

                Penalty phase:

                1) Any licensed gun dealer that violates these provisions and knowingly sells or conveys ANY weapon ( assault or otherwise ) in violation of (3) not only surrenders his license but is subject to a mandatory prison sentence in a State or Federal prison of not less than 10 years and a fine of not less than $50,000. (Minimum requirements)
                2) Any individual private sale that is convicted under (3) above, will receive the same sentence. (Minimum requirements)

                Pretty simple. This would not preclude any civil penalties. Civil penalties against the individuals would wreck the finances of any family. I do not have a problem with this as it is a strong deterrent to said individual if he/she knew it would wreck the lives of his wife and children, etal.

                This solves the problem of State’s rights to determine what to allow to sell or not. It solves the problem of weapons sales with no checks. It solves the problem of penalty and allows state’s to strengthen them. You do not have to address types of weapons or magazines which are readily available anyway. No law will stop them. Also note, that you will NEVER stop the stupid from going bonkers at any time. In addition, you stop the issuance of EO’s certain to e challenged and I do not think Congress would have a problem passing this at all.

                (Note: Texas does not issue a CCH to Class A misdemeanors which include drug and alcohol usage. )

                I would also consider even stronger measures on no second chances at all. Convicted of a class a 20 years ago….too bad. Serve your time….too bad.

              • One question — does your state’s right provision apply to the background check as well? I want to make sure you are not leaving an opening for Texas to opt out of the mandatory background checks on all sales.

              • No options….it was a Federal Law…..passed by Congress. There is no opt out.

              • Good to hear.

                We are in agreement concerning background checks. I shall give more thought to #1 and #2, though believe there to be some role the Feds can play here, as opposed to merely allowing them to issue meaningless guidelines/definitions.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel and Buck

      Why don’t you focus your background check on the individual instead of the sale.

      If I have a permit to purchase weapons then the Govt need not know which guns I buy, how many I have or where they are.

      In fact, I may not have any at all.

      • JAC
        Now that idea is a workable solution. Why it even makes sense.

      • JAC…re-read my proposal carefully..that is exactly what I was implying….Federal Guidelines, State jurisdiction, background the individual, It matters not what weapons he has….whether a pea shooter or bazooka. It is the penalty that carries the weight.

  30. When can a line be drawn on this kind of activity? IMHO, I would organize the community to be ready to surroung the building and arrest the agents for abuse of force. Put them in jail for 72 hours and let’s see what happens. http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2013/01/have-obamacare-irs-raids-begun-rampant-injustice-2448682.html

  31. How about the conundrum in Oregon….Passed laws to require gas mileage issues, people bought electric cars and smaller cars to respond and,,,,,,,the tax revenue fell 30%. Now Oregon is crying foul and is raising taxes on other things and wanting to institute a GPS mileage reporting system and taxing that…..in other words….you will be tracked……..this is a police state.

  32. @ Buck…you mean issue more meaningless and worthless paper?

  33. Bottom Line says:

  34. Bottom Line says:

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman vs. Buck

    Ability to shoot Feds for trespass.

    This depends on State Laws and whether the Fed officers identify themselves.

    You cannot harm a Federal Officer in carrying out their duties. The local Sheriff can escort the Feds away if they do not display proper authority, however.

    No Executive Order can force a State to do anything. It is an order to the Fed Agencies or an mechanism for implementing Agreements between the Fed agencies and State agencies.

    I think any State could simply ignore any order made to the State. If they arrest Fed officers carrying out an EO then you will get into the Constitutionality of the underlying EO. Maybe.

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” This depends on State Laws and whether the Fed officers identify themselves. ”

      Ink and paper is BULLSHIT.

      ” You cannot harm a Federal Officer in carrying out their duties. ”

      Why not? They bleed just like anyone else.

    • Thank you JAC….and exec order does not apply to states….except as a mechanism for guidelines.

      From my classes that I attended in the Army where the FBI conducted the class, there is no enforcement mechanism for EO’s. The FBI according to the FBI cannot enforce same. They cannot even enforce a State Law….only Federal. The States retain lawful jurisdiction but only to the point that Federal Law does not supercede.

  36. @ Buck……in your repose, sir, while deep in thought, please give consideration that there need not be and Federal jurisdiction over anything concerning weapons or magazines. If the Federal Law requires the background check and the penalties, then let the state’s do their thing. Please explain to me why you would need a Federal anything once the law was passed. If you limit magazines and certain weapons, any crazy will obtain them anyway. So let the states deal with it…they are better prepared.

    • The idea, for me, behind having at least some minimal standards/regulations on this issue is because guns are so easy to obtain and transport. However, that being said, having a national database and mandatory background checks on all purchases would probably do much more than any other gun legislation could do.

      In your scheme, if one state were to impose a ban on a type of gun or high capacity magazine, that state would still be able to prosecute an individual who legally purchases such a gun in another state and carries it into said first state, correct? Assuming so, I believe I can get on board with having just the background check as we discussed.

      • Just as it is now, with CHL……I cannot carry into another state unless that state has a reciprocal agreement. I am subject to the laws of that state if I violate that particular state’s laws. It is MY responsibility to check that state’s laws. So…..yes, that state would be the jurisdiction.

        What I am finding most interesting, is that Senator Reid, so far, is not going to allow a gun bill to the floor of the Senate. Why is that? That is the Pres’ strongest ally but the dems will not vote on it. I do not get that at all.

        It is possible that a super conservative and a super lib can get together….you and I just proved it…….at least as far as guns go.

        • I think on most issues you and I have been able to find some common ground.

          Buck/Colonel 2016! Please submit your donations by PayPal….

  37. Re: Background checks. After some thought, just how many issues will eventually be used to “ban” gun purchases? Because I don’t agree with our corrupt govt., will that be used an an excuse? Will felon and mentally ill also include anti-government? Will comments on the internet be used to put people on the no buy list? Why was USW on the “NO Buy List” ?

    When the majority put others in charge of these decisions, only disaster will occur. The majority, or the self proclaimed smart people, or somebody came up with the idea of “gun free zones”, which, in reality, has denied good people the right to defend themselves. the result is obvious, but nobody is seeing it. Whatever the corrupt govt decides, it will only deny the rights of good people to defend themselves and their family. It will NOT stop criminals. When will we the people realize that we can’t legislate safety for our kids or our families or ourselves? That is now and always will be a individual issue of choice. Any attempt to legislate any further restrictions concerning gun ownership will be a disaster for the law abiding citizens.

    With all that said, I will go on record and say that D13 and Buck’s comments and ideas today, although very well thought out, are in fact very anti-freedom. They are agreeing to attempt to legislate security and safety, which has proven to be both impossible and rather anti-American. We are a people who’s lives should be free. Free to choose our direction in life, free to say to our neighbor, “hey, how did your new magnum work for you this morning”. We should demand our teachers protect our children if they intend on educating them, by being armed and trained. If that isn’t acceptable to some, then there better not be an anti-freedom law that says I must send my kid to your education establishment. I wouls rather pay to build a school to teach my kids my way, not what has been legislated.

    I keep coming back to one word, legislated, see the problem now?

    • Bottom Line says:

      It is time to break the rules, G.

      We don’t need their stupid lists. If you want a gun, buy one. If the gov. says no, ignore it and buy one anyway. If someone forcefully interferes, shoot them.

      Real simple.

      I find it somewhat disgusting to see so many people even entertain the ridiculous notion that anyone has a right to say anything about what anyone else buys.

      Which form of ink and paper is the best to obey?

      Really?

      Seriously?

      pfft…

    • Actually what the Colonel and I are doing is very much about freedom. Based on our proposal, the only safeguard in place (unless your state were to impose other restrictions), would be a mandatory background check.

      I believe it to be in keeping with the 2d Amendment to restrict the sale of guns to known felons and those with mental health issues who pose a threat. Or do you believe the 2d Amendment would require felons and the mentally ill to be allowed to purchase guns at will?

      If a cowboy gun-toting Colonel from Texas and a liberal Yankee attorney from NYC can reach consensus on gun control, then surely we are on to something!

      • OMG…dogs and cats living together…………

        G man and BL……..I can understand your position and I agree with it….to some point. No one is more conservative than I on guns and no one is going to get mine. Did you notice that we did not address magazine sizes or ammunition because there was no need…..all we did was cut through all the bullshit to get to the source of the problem. The problem is weapons in the hands of individuals that do not need to have one and that is fair and in keeping with this conservative’s view of the second amendment. I have also seen where both of you have said to focus on the individual and not the guns…..we are in agreement. Both of you do not want guns in the hands of felons and the mentally challenged. Both of you do not want the government to say….which guns can or cannot be bought. So, I took your emphasis and I took it further to state’s rights. Throw the Feds a bone and let them issue guidelines if they wish and the state and the people of that state can decide. In other words, back to state’s rights. However, put a universal penalty (minimums) on the very people that you are trying to stop.

        Our proposal allows the purchase of any weapon, with ay magazine, and any bullets. It allows the states rights (the people) to decide what they want. It even allows municipalities to do the same. BUT, it puts a responsibility upon those who sell guns to run a background check on those who wish to purchase a weapon. You are not going to stop gun running, the mentally challenged, or anyone from stealing weapons.

        I am a staunch conservative, you know this….. but our job was to reach a compromise. Buck wants the guns….I want responsibility. The middle ground ended up being responsibility and state’s rights but the responsibility for your decisions has a penalty. But that was my par of the compromise. If Gman wants to buy an AR 15, he can do so under our agreement but who he buys it from has a responsibility to make sure he is not a felon or a mentally challenged person. Under our proposal, Gman can buy and have any number of rounds he wants in any magazine he wants. But Gman must not be a felon nor mentally challenged. The penalty for selling a weapon to a known felon or mental person is where the compromise is…..nothing more.

        More later…I have a commute to do this morning.

        • Buck, D13, I looked at things at what this country is today. Right now, we have more people imprisoned than any other nation on the planet. There are so many laws on the books, we could all be felons by the end of the year. Should a tax cheat at age 24 (a felon) be denied the right to protect himself because two people can agree? I used the point of “legislate” for a reason. First, all these laws, give a false sense of security to the populace. Far too many actually believe the govt is there to protect them and thats what their taxes are for. This is the big lie and this is also why we have the mass killings we have in public places. People have turned over their protection to people who cannot protect them.

          Are all convicted felons danngerous and violent? Can someone who is a convicted felon leave a good life after serving his/her time? Why should a non-violent Federal conviction deny someone the basic and natural right of self defense? Are all mentally ill violent? What mental illness’s are most likely to lead to violence? Can they be treated?

          As you can see, your ideas also have flaws, and big one’s. It is far easier to “legislate” and continue the big lie that govt can protect, than to say “no more laws that lead to a false sense of security”. Let’s eliminate all these laws and tell the populace to protect themselves. This should never be “up to the States or local govt’s”. The right of self defense is universal and no majority should ever be given the right to deny that to anyone. Families should police their family members, not the majority police eveyone.

          My point is simple, point the responsibility of self protection back on the populace, get rid of all these rediculous laws that deny that and in short order the felons will be a nice pleasant quiet bunch and the mentally ill won’t be committing any mass murders in public places.

          Sadly, this will not happen, more dumb laws will be made and the one’s we have will continue to be a failure. Until, as I said, the sole responsibility for security is where it belongs, the lies and the mass murders will continue to happen. That, gentlemen, is all that you will truly accomplish.

          With respect 🙂

          • The Colonel and I have both conceded that more needs to be done in terms of what mental illnesses (or how severe…) would enable the gov’t to prohibit that individual from owning a gun; whether a non-violent offender should be allowed to purchase a gun after serving his time; etc.

            That being said, do you agree with the broader picture, the proposal at large? Or do you believe that all felons and all mentally ill should have unfettered access to guns?

            • Buck, Laws stop nothing. Do the mentally ill even comprehend what is legal or not? We can stop violent crime by ensuring that the populace has the natural right to protect themselves as they see fit. All that happens is laws just make it harder and harder. Why can I conceal carry in Pa, but not in Ohio. That, counselor, is totally stupid. Does that imaginary line make me dangerous somehow?

              RE: Felons. Most so called felons were convicted of non-violent crimes, yet they are all clumped into one catagory (see tax evasion). I’ve made my point clear on this subject.

              Re: mentally ill. If all adults take the responsibility for their safety, get all the laws that deny that effort out of the way, then we won’t have mass murders like the last one. Unless, people choose to continue to put their safety in the hands of govt, such as a church or other public meeting place. that would be their choice.

              • I agree you still will have the problem of theft, and perhaps someone can come up with a proposal to better target this problem. But for now, we are talking about ways of helping to keep guns out of the hands of certain individuals — hence, the background check. I’m not quite sure as to what your issue with a background check is. This would still allow you to own whatever and however many guns and firearms your heart desires.

                You write: “Why can I conceal carry in Pa, but not in Ohio.” — And I thought you were the one that respected States’ Rights while I was the one that wanted to trample all over the very idea!

                Regarding Felons — For certain crimes, yes, an individual should be barred from owning a gun (e.g., ‘violent crimes’ — murder, rape, armed robbery), but for other crimes I for one would be fine with that individual being allowed to own a gun after serving his time and any probationary period (e.g., ‘non-violent crimes’ — tax evasion, fraud, etc.). I fear your insistent here is based on the current law which makes one category of ‘felon’. What we are doing is fashioning a new law and I, for one, am perfectly fine with carving out other categories. Colonel — your thoughts?

                Regarding the mentally ill — your comment doesn’t really deal with the mentally ill, except by way of saying if everyone had a gun on them at all times, there would never be another such mass murder. I call BS on that statement. But I ask again, why are you so willing to allow the mentally ill, at least those known to be a danger, go out and purchase a gun??

            • Continuing. There are already laws pertaining to felons and the mentally ill, so what exactly have the two of you really accomplished?

              • Well we have mandated a background check to ALL sales, for one. We are also in the process of discussing getting expanding on ‘felon’ to allow non-violent felons to subsequently own. I think we accomplished a good deal.

          • G, a few thoughts on the background check from Slate this morning:

            “Philip Cook of Duke University said the Brady Act, passed in 1994 after President Reagan was shot, probably hasn’t worked very well either. The law, which prohibits gun sales to certain people, is hamstrung by an inefficient and ineffective reporting system and an incomplete database—much of which is by design of either Congress or state Legislatures.
            Agencies are not sharing information. States, in part due to privacy laws, are not reporting mental health records. There are both technical and financial problems with fully implementing current restrictions.
            The mentally ill, people with criminal records, and criminals with mental problems are still buying guns, said Linda Frisman of the University of Connecticut. In most places, no one comes to take away guns from people who are prohibited from having them.
            Contrary to popular opinion, gun shows sell only a small percentage of the guns that wind up used in crimes. Most guns used in crimes (80 percent) are bought on the private market, and many are sold by federally licensed dealers. Surveys of dealers have found that a disturbing number (20 percent) admit they’d sell guns to people prohibited from buying a weapon, and Congress has blocked efforts to stamp out the illegal sales.”

            Your thoughts?

            • Buckster, I don’t think background checks actually stop anything, much less crime. All that is happening is that good people have to jump through hoops, have their privacy invaded, all to make a simple purchase. It solves nothing, it costs taxpayers a fortune, and it will never work. I’m a law abiding citizen, I conceal carry and have a permit (which I should never have to get). I don’t worry about criminals or nut jobs when I am out and about. I would rather go out of my way to make a private purchase, than go to a gunshop and buy there. Why, you ask? Because the govt is corrupt. they are far more dangerous to my freedom and safety than any criminal will ever be.

              You disagree with my premise that if more people are armed, it would stop mass murder. Yet, I have the proof and facts on my side. Had teachers been able to take armed action against Lanza, it would have certainly saved lives, that cannot be denied. Would it have saved all the lives that he took that day? It is far more possible with my method than the NGZ method legislated. I would like to hear any argument you may have on that. I also stick to that premise in every public place (as was proven in the Portland mall event recently).

              There you have it, Sir. I hope you have a fine day 🙂

              • Based on this research (highlighted in the Slate article) background checks can very well help remedy the problem. However, under the current framework, there are clear areas that need to be fixed — apply the check to all sales, enhance communication and shared information to ensure a complete database, revise privacy laws to include the sharing of mental health information for purposes of completing this database, etc. etc. etc.

  38. Let me look at recent events (the official story) and prove a point. Killing another person in cold blood is a not legal. Adam Lanza killed his own mother first. Theft of personal property is not legal. Lanza stole the guns he used from his now dead mother (noone has said if the guns were locked up). Car theft is not legal> Lanza stole his now dead mothers car and put his now stolen weapons into stolen car. Drive s to school, parks car. It’s a “No Gun Zone” and it’s not legal to have a firearm on the property. Lanza did not get that memo. Discharginging a firearm on school property is also illegal. Lanza did not get that memo either. Lanza’s actions were that of someone suffering from severe mental illness and he is not allowed by law to possess a gun or guns. That law didn’t work well. You know the rest of the story.

    What did all the laws do to prevent this event? Will more laws prevent a similar event from occurring? The answer is basically the same. Laws don’t stop criminals or mentally ill people hell bent on murder. Only one thing can stop that, and we keep “legislating” that from being a possibility.

    • Ok Gman, I will bite and enter a respectful debate with you. As I said above, there is nothing to prevent a person from going bonkers. No law, no mom and/or dad……nothing. If someone is going to go ballistic, there is nothing that will stop that. Taking all the guns from everybody would still not have stopped any of the mass killings….they would have simply found another approach whether it be a car driven into a school yard or a bomb or a gasoline explosive……..there are a myriad of things out there that will kill. So, the fact that this nut job takes off to kill….no one is going to stop it.

      Now no where in my diatribe did I mention that a school or school administrators should not be weapons trained and to carry. I believe that they should. I believe, as you do, that in society today, there needs to be additional awareness and that awareness needs to be retrospect…..especially where children are involved. Just as the old adage says….guns do not kill people……people kill people.

      So, let you and I start with some common ground. In my proposal, since I did not ban any weapon, nor magazine, or the number of rounds exactly where do you disagree? Is it the background check only where you and I disagree? Or is it the “legislation” of background checks? Let us start here first because I want to address each one of your issues.

      • Gman…..reading your answer to Buck….a question. I thought that you believed in state’s rights…..to be explained, that the Federal Government needs to butt out and let the State decide what it wants. Am I wrong here?

        • I’ll start with the States Rights issue. Nobody, I mean nobody, has the right to legislate my (or your) natural rights. THe Feds, the States, even the local town council should never be given this right. Our natural rights are just that, natural, oblivious of imaginary lines known as borders.

          As a nation, we far too often believe that government is the answer to our woes. Maybe I should ask this, why do you think the States have the right to deny or approve your natural rights, such as free speech, freedom and religion and the right to self defense?

      • Gman…..you keep bringing up the issue of “gun free” zones and how impractical and stupid they are…..Ok, you and I agree on this. I think that gun free zones are stupid and impractical. Let me ask you this as it is happening as we speak, in Texas as it pertains to schools. Texas, as a state, allows school administrators to run their schools. If a school administrator and his/her administration, and the PTA all get together and decide to allow teachers to be armed, as many Texas schools are doing now, then I am assuming that you have no problem with this. Neither do I. What if these same administrators, and administration, complete with teachers and parents get together and decide that they want “gun free”……..are you in agreement on this point? If you are not in agreement, then what do you suggest to do because you cannot enforce a gun free zone because that would be legislative.

        I would be perfectly ok with the decision of the administrators, administration, and the PTA if this is what they decided as this is local, grass roots effort,

        • Very good question, one for which I have an answer. Let’s face it, not all parents can home school, that would solve the problem of eliminating the problem (every kid gets home schooled). That will never happen, so let’s look at the next issue. The law say’s children must attend school. I agree that the kids need educated, but since they make it a law, there comes a responsibility with that. The safety of the children are now the responsibility of the legislators while they are abiding by the law (going to and from, and attending school). They should then be held accountable for a failure of that safety, if they choose to deny every possible way to protect from harm of an outside source (whackball shooter).

          This brings about another thought, which trumps the other. Why should I be denied the right to self defense because I’m at work? With workplace violence also a major issue, should the employer be accountable for a failure to protect if he makes his place of business a GFZ? I say yes. With that said, if a person or persons deny an idividual the right of self protection, due to private property decisions, then they assume the responsibility for the safety of all employed, or otherwise there as a part of business or legal requirement.

          • Ok…we agree…..what next?

          • Re: work as a gun free zone

            I say absolutely no.

            You are seeking to hold the employer liable for the unforeseen acts of a deranged individual because he made a decision to not allow guns on his private property. Think about that for a second. Would you also propose holding me liable if you are at my house and a lunatic breaks in and starts shooting simply because I don’t allow guns in my home?

            • This is where I say the civil courts and juries make the decision…anybody can sue anyone for anything…..is that not why we have a court decision? A judge could throw it out or a grand jury could indict. I could see an employee suing an employer for not allowing weapons if this happened. I have seen lawsuits for hot coffee in a car…….

              • yes, anyone can bring an action, but I would demand summary dismissal of any such action brought based solely on the fact that the employer or business owner chose to restrict access to patrons with guns.

              • Ok….so you fight back and a decision is rendered…one way or the other.

              • Nope, automatic dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

                You can’t have it where you support a private employer (or business owner, or school board) declaring a gun free zone, and then turn around and seek to hold that same individual liable for the unforeseen acts of another.

              • OH NO…..Counselor…..do you not trust your fellow man on a jury? What happened to jurisprudence?

              • Never trust a jury, didn’t you know that!? 🙂

                Absent any other facts or prior knowledge, there can be no liability here. Let me ask you what I asked G — would you seek to hold me liable if I invite you into my home (I make a mean steak and always have a nice bottle of wine on hand), do not permit you to enter with a gun, and some lunatic breaks in and starts shooting?

  39. Gun-control advocates claim that if we got rid of all the guns, if we rounded them all up and melted them down to make decorative planters and such, there’d be no more crime. No more guns = no more gun crime. Yay!

    When people who actually have some common sense hear this, they retort that disarming law-abiding citizens only makes them more vulnerable to criminals, who don’t obey laws because they’re, y’know… criminals. The Second Amendment doesn’t stop being a right just because someone abuses it, and it’s immoral to punish good people for the actions of bad people.

    It’s easy to write an op-ed about gun control, or to spout off about it on TV. But how many of these gun-grabbing pundits and “journalists” would be willing to practice what they preach? How many of them would want everybody in the neighborhoods where they live to know that there are no guns on their premises?

    How many of them would be willing to publicly designate their own homes as gun-free zones?

    James O’Keefe found out:

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/james-okeefe-goofs-on-gun-grabbers/#ixzz2I9IdwpY3

    • LOI….none…..I am not for gun control per se at all…..If I want a bazooka….I should be able to get one…..but with guns, comes responsibility. You and I and Gman are responsible people. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns….I believe in this completely. So, I am not for registering or turning anything in,….I firmly believe that an armed populace keeps tyranny at bay. But there is somewhere that serious gun owners need to have responsibility and where does it come from if not from us? If we just sit back and have no involvement at all besides saying “from my cold dead fingers”…..guess what. It will be from our cold dead fingers. So, understand that I am not a no gun advocate…quite the opposite….I am a gun advocate and any gun is ok with me…..but if we do not take some form of responsibility within ourselves, we are for sure giving it up to someone else.

  40. Bottom Line says:

    Colonel, Buck, G, SUFA,

    Everything I have read on this page is very well intentioned and thought out. Nonetheless, it is all a bit off center from my perspective.

    When I try to think of what is being written, I immediately go into ” does not compute mode”. You see, law is kind of like a straw man argument for a means of regulating reality with paper and ink. No matter what you come up with, at the end of the day, there is still real world circumstances that law cannot keep up with, thus it seems a bit nonsensical, a false premise.

    Like G said above, ” Laws stop nothing ”

    Over the course of the last year[s], I have discovered some of the greatest secrets/mysteries of mankind and the universe itself. I will assure you that reality is stranger than what many of you consider fiction.

    I find it difficult to indulge in some of these discussions as I do so in the context of more or less pretending to not know. It just seems so trite, …so please excuse me if I seem a bit rambunctious at times.

    I don’t know exactly how things are to play out in our future, but I have a pretty good general grasp of what is to come.

    Pardon my French, but to put it bluntly, …If we humans don’t come together and get our shit together in a hurry, …we’re fuct,

    Debating simple things like how best to manage gun ownership is a waste of time. To me, it is kind of like cleaning your house while it is burning down. Forget about the ‘Windex’, grab a fire extinguisher or a water hose.

    • Right…..but where is the starting line then….all I have done is start somewhere……where would you start?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Take any set of circumstances and try to contemplate through cause and effect, all the variables/possibilities as well as all contingent responses.

        It is virtually endless, infinite. The constant is choice at the very core. Everything starts with individual choice between right/wrong, good and evil.

        The answer is discerning the difference in order to know how to do what is right. The problem is all that which keeps us from doing as such.

        Law inhibits choice as it attempts to forcefully make that decision for us. It can’t keep up with all the possibilities and thus has a certain futility to it. And at it’s core, is coercive force, which is fundamentally wrong. Yet we sit here and debate it as a legitimate means for a solution.

        Consider this:

        What if we lived in a society that raised our children to understand the value of “The Golden Rule” instead of all this bullshit we fill their heads with? What if everyone made a legitimate conscious effort to practice it in our every day lives?

        We wouldn’t have but a fraction of the issues we have today.

        Granted, the nature of man, in spite of all our greatness and achievements, is flawed with the capacity to do evil. It is that evil we need to learn to overcome.

        I am gonna try to leave it at that before I start delving into Genesis 6:6 (…which was my waking thought on New Year’s Day)

        🙂

        • You have certainly awakened my curiosity. 🙂 Sounds almost like you are saying we should turn to God for the answers.

          • Bottom Line says:

            V,

            Well, yes,…sort of.

            It is all about the struggle between G[o]od and [D]evil within us all.

    • Re: Like G said above, ” Laws stop nothing ”

      I disagree. They stop me from doing a lot of things like speeding as much as I want and endangering lives on the road……I would say that laws don’t stop EVERYTHING…but they do stop some things. By having laws like the ones the Colonel and Buck are proposing concerning background checks, it will be more difficult for violent felons and the mentally ill to obtain guns. That alone COULD prevent a mass shooting like the one in Newtown…I realize there are no guarantees because without access to guns the kid might have just stolen his mom’s car and plowed into the school, or run in with a baseball bat….but he most likely could not have killed as many as he did in as short a time. What the Colonel and Buck are doing is not trying to control the guns, but the people who shouldn’t have them. I also understand that the devil is in the details, but they have both conceded that more work needs to be done on hammering out such measures.

      Murf

      • Bottom Line says:

        Law doesn’t make you do anything – you do. You decide as an individual to obey or not to obey.

        It still boils down to individual choice.

  41. @ Buck………Yes, I can see where an individual could end up suing a school administration for lack of security…..it would then be up to a jury of peers to decide. Correct? Even in a jury, it is still the people deciding a course of action. That is our system…correct?

    Back atcha Bucko!!!

    • Nope, sorry. If the local school board chooses to maintain a gun free school, that is their free decision, as you and I have agreed upon. But now you are saying that the same school board must be fearful of a lawsuit for this decision due to the unforeseen acts of another? Based on these facts alone, there would have to be dismissal.

      By the way, if your local school board chose to have a gun free zone….how would you vote in that lawsuit?

      • I understand your position and you might get a dismissal…but then again, you might not.

        How would I vote on a jury……sneaky lawyer question. Ok, I am on the jury. I am in Texas. I believe in the right to carry. I am a parent with school age children. A shooter comes in and blows away a bunch of kids and teachers. I would have a hard time not holding a school responsible for the safety of my children. Reasonable safety. I would define reasonable something more than locked doors.

        I think I would hold the school responsible for the safety of my children.

        After all I have seem some pretty stupid OSHA rules that holds employers responsible for stupid employees.

        • In that case, what is the point of your support for a local school board or private business from choosing to maintain a gun free zone?

          Coincidentally, if the school was not gun free, and a shooter came on, and an armed teacher/administrator pulled out his gun to fire at the shooter and wound up hitting a child, would you still vote to hold the school board liable?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        It seems to me the standard for voting guilty or not is the same as always.

        Negligence.

        If they go gun free and do nothing to secure safety then I vote YES.

        It they go gun free and make rational decisions about securing the building and some devious crazy figures a way around it then I vote NO.

  42. Gman….maybe I better ask you another question…..so you want unfettered rights for anyone to carry any weapon anywhere he/she wants. Do I have you correct?

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    You asked above about whether people with mental problems had the right to keep and bear arms.

    The CORRECT answer is YES.

    I know that is not the standing law per the SCOTUS willingness to just create law from thin air.

    BUT IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION. Both conceptually and in reality.

    So as I have said from day one, we need to AMEND the document to give Congress the Authority to restrict Gun Ownership when convicted of violent crimes or determined by due process to be a danger to others.

    I believe it should also be amended to give Congress the authority to require registration of individuals who purchase firearms and set standards for competency for licensing.

    The approach I would suggest is a broader provision giving the authority to regulate weapons then using the Second Amendment, as Amended, to restrict what that regulation can be.

    The other approach, more along Madison, would be a more prescriptive authority with restrictions on the same, amended in Article 2.

    • JAC…..you are now becoming part of the solution….but I won’t tell anybody.

    • Stop being a strict constructionalist — not even Scalia agrees with you on this! 🙂

      Even in the late 1700s and early 1800s there were some laws on the books restricting gun ownership. So why not now?

      • BUt, he is becoming part of the solution…….none the less.

        • This is fun…Anita- come on over for some popcorn….. 🙂

          Murf

          • Late to the party…I’m still speechless at the Buck/ Colonel 2016 ticket above… Buck is left of Obama…I cannot comprehend that…Maybe Colonel/Buck…but then I need the Colonel to head the State Dept… Maybe JAC/Buck..yep that would work!

            Pass the popcorn 😉

            • I may be left of Obama, but I am also a pragmatist. As is the Colonel.

              So no, we shall keep the ticket as Buck/Colonel. I’m sure we can find a position for JAC in the Cabinet though…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Scalia is a conflicted idiot. Sometimes he just happens to agree with me.

        What restrictions were placed on gun ownership when the Constitution was ratified?

        I say NO, HELL NO and ABSOLUTELY NO.

        Amend the Document and start holding Govt Responsible NOW.

  44. Implementation is always a problem. Don’t want crazies to have guns but how do you determine crazy. Reading about New York’s new gun law-they’re making it where psychiatrist Must tell the authorities if their patients make a credible threat. What’s credible? Is this gonna make people less likely to talk to a professional which in turn might cause them to be more likely to do something stupid? Has privacy just gone out the window? Are psychiatrist gonna be prosecuted now-if one of their patients kills someone?

    And if we are gonna talk about gun violence -why is it being limited to crazy mass killers? Why are we not talking about the biggest problem when it comes to gun violence-the criminals and gangs that kill people everyday? Seems to me leaving the discussion on mass killings fits the narrative of taking away gun rights and the discussion of the everyday gun violence points more to the need to not take away guns from law abiding citizens. I would think we need to acknowledge and look at both situations before we could possibly come to any correct conclusions.

    And we really need to add in the coddling of criminals to the discussion of gun violence.

    • I think New York is all wrong but that is New York….when have they ever been right?

      This is all a very slippery slope……the only thing that Buck and I have done is try to reach a compromise with relation to the Second Amendment and to prevent the taking of guns for no reason other than emotional reaction to a mass shooting.

      In doing so, we have opened a can of worms….but look at this…..In our compromise, the Federal government does not have the right to take anything away…..only issue guidelines without the authority of law. We agreed that guns do not kill people……people kill people….guns are a tool. We agreed to state;s rights……the Fed is out of it. We agreed to any gun, any ammo, any magazine.

      We agreed that people need to take responsibility….but we also know that in the real world, responsibility will NOT be taked without penalty. We came up with the penalty. It is a starting point and we are much further than Washington and we have so far preserved the Second Amendment. That is a pretty good starting point……..AND it was a Cowboy gun toting Colonel along with a Liberal Yankee Lawyer that lives in New Jersey and works in New york. If we can come to a starting point…..why not Washington.

      • I’m not bashing your starting point-but the starting point is just that a starting point. I’ve watched for too many years while seemingly good ideas turned into horrible laws with costly consequences to just accept the ideas. Back ground checks-okay–how much freedom and privacy is going to be violated to get this information? what information is included? Again how do you determine crazy? I may agree with the idea of background checks but I need this information before I can personally decide whether the actual policy is sound. And I’m not gonna just agree on the basics without the details. Doing so-I believe is why we have so many stupid laws. The idea sounds good-the implementation usually sucks.

        Smart saying-“Is the cure worse than the disease.”

  45. Why Does the Anti-Gun Camp Need to Lie?
    By William A. Levinson

    Human beings are almost universally receptive to impartial facts, and people will therefore support any course of action that is inherently right and effective. If the truth were on the side of the enemies of the Second Amendment, they would not need to lie to the public along with fellow members of Congress.

    The Brady Campaign Speaks with Forked Tongue

    The Brady Campaign has a long track record of using distorted statistics to deceive the American people, including well-meaning donors of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money. Consider, for example, the Brady Campaign’s statement that a firearm in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as a violent criminal. The Brady Campaign, therefore, wants us to believe that gun owners shoot family members in fits of rage, when the truth is very different.

    Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

    … Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting.

    Some of the “accidents” may, in fact, be suicides, because police and newspapers sometimes preserve the decedent’s reputation by saying that he shot himself while cleaning his gun. This is a physical impossibility, because you have to disassemble a gun to clean it. Even if we accept the 2.39-to-1 ratio, however, note the phrase “every justifiable fatal shooting.” From police instructor Massad Ayoob’s The Truth About Self Protection:

    For every one shooting thirteen to fifteen criminals are deterred or driven off just by the sight of the gun, and this fully accomplishes what the homeowner bought the gun for in the first place. When you also consider the fact that only about one out of four people who are shot actually dies, you realize that for every home intruder shot dead by the resident, there are ninety-nine others who don’t get killed, but who give up their assaults.

    The Brady Campaign must therefore admit that, for every 43 misuses of a firearm in the home (including suicide), 100 violent felonies are prevented. For every genuinely accidental or criminal firearm-related death in the home, more than 40 violent felonies are prevented. Property theft, by the way, is not a violent felony; we are talking about rapes, aggravated assaults, and murders.

    The Brady Campaign adds:

    What’s more, a more sobering study conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis found that suicide is the leading cause of death among gun buyers, especially women, in the first year after the weapon was purchased. In fact, the study — which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine — found that a person who purchases a handgun is 57 times more likely to commit suicide within a week of buying the weapon than the general population as a whole.

    This statement confuses cause and effect and is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has studied basic statistics. If somebody kills himself with a handgun within a week of buying it, he almost certainly bought it for the express purpose of suicide. Similar “facts” could doubtless be quoted for first-time purchases of sleeping pills (especially with alcoholic beverages) and ropes.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/why_does_the_anti-gun_camp_need_to_lie.html#ixzz2I9d3f51c

  46. @ Buck…….interesting comment on schools being held liable……..How about schools and teachers being held liable for not reporting possible child abuse? This is happening now……a teacher in a school sees bruises on a child…suddenly the school MUST report it. Is this not basically the same thing and precedent setting? Is this not saying that a school takes the responsibility for the child’s safety and failure to report it carries some pretty stiff penalties for the teacher and the school board. So, would you support the same stance…….teachers and school boards are not responsible for the child’s safety? I do not see a difference……but what the hell…..I am a gun toting Colonel from Texas who knows nothing.

    • Oh, I completely agree that a school does have some responsibility. In the case of a danger to the child, the school must take appropriate steps. However, a debated and voted upon decision to maintain a gun free school cannot and should not be sufficient to hold that school liable for the unknown and unforeseeable acts of a third party.

      It is that unknown and unforeseeable that differentiates the two (child abuse and school shootings). In the former, school officials witness signs of abuse. In the latter, there is no such prior knowledge nor foreseeable harm.

      • Poohy on your foreseeable stance. I see the distinction but it is not an applicable comparison in this instance, in my opinion. We are talking about the responsibility to take reasonable measures to stop something from happening, because You refuse to allow the individual to take personal responsibility for his own safety, not reporting something that has already happened -but there have been enough shootings to foresee the real possibility, which shows a need for some type of protection against a foreseeable real possibility.

        Just like I know ice on my steps might cause someone to fall. The law says I’m responsible, which in my mind is stupid, but then I believe in personal responsibility. I can see the ice, I am aware of the weather, if I fall it’s my own fault, but if you tell me I must walk down those steps without holding on-well then you have a responsibility if I fall.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Given the evidence of school shootings existing, how can you say they are not aware of “foreseeable harm”?

        On the main point, I agree. Liability does not rest on a decision to go “gun free” nor a decision to go “with guns”. That is simply one decision in a more complex package of actions needed to assure safety.

        • I agree-it isn’t whether a place is gun free or not that should establish liability-it is whether or not I am forced by law to enter said place. Having the right to protect myself includes the ability not to enter said place. But if I am by law forced to enter said place, such as a court house-then it is their responsibility to provide security.

          • VH, see my below response to G in terms of liability and being legally required to be somewhere.

            On the issue of a court house — are the security measures currently in place sufficient to warrant a dismissal in your mind?

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck and Colonel

    Now for a little “cold water” on your proposal. Actually it is cold water on the concept which includes what is coming out of the White House and Congress.

    As I followed the recent mass shootings I do not recall any Psych. diagnosis that would have categorized these people as “potentially violent”.

    So WHO is going to establish the Psych Criteria for “not fit to own a gun”??????

    • Hi JAC………I have absolutely no idea how to do that without being invasive and robbing people of the freedom of their medical records. This has to be addressed in some fashion.

      • You allow for the inclusion of such records in the database, but do not provide any information to the buyer/seller nor the individual running the search. If someone is on the database, all you get is a “PING!”

  48. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is reporting that they have records on 5,216,732 illegal or unlawful aliens. These records are kept under the “Prohibited Category Description” of those in the United States that are not allowed to purchase a firearm.

    The NICS background check system was implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on November 30, 1998. The data reported are a compilation from the program’s implementation to December 31, 2012.

    Total active records in the NICS Index for individuals in the “Prohibited Category Description” are 8,323,931.

    Since the start of the NICS program the organization has performed 160,474,702 background checks. As a result of those checks the FBI has declined 11,974 illegal/unlawful aliens from purchasing a firearm.

    A phone call to the NICS call center to ask if the NICS system is used by the FBI to communicate immigration status to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a Department of Homeland Security organization, resulted in being put on hold for 98 minutes before the call was terminated.

    According to FBI.gov, if a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (FFL) requests a background check on an individual that is not in the NICS system “If no matching records are returned by any of the databases, the transaction is automatically proceeded.”

    “Currently there is no consistent state-by-state policy of notifying local authorities that an illegal or unlawful alien or a fugitive from justice is trying to purchase a firearm” according to one high-volume Virginia gun dealer. “In Virginia, the State Police are notified and they make the determination if they are going to respond to the prohibited individual with legal action. Not all states use the NICS.”

    According to the FBI.gov website “NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/fbi-has-5216732-illegal-alien-records-in-gun-background-check-system/#ixzz2I9pk28Tp

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    I am curious. If you could wave your magic wand and get what you want, would it be a BAN on ALL Guns?

    Assuming peaceful response, would you like to see ALL GUNS confiscated and destroyed?

    If NO to these then what would be your IDEAL exceptions.

    This is your “wish” list so don’t caveat with the political reality of today.

    • Are stinger shoulder fired missiles pushing the envelope of my want list?

    • 1) Would it be a ban on ALL guns? No, as I believe I made clear.

      2) What, in my ideal world, would be banned? Specifically, beyond rockets, missiles and nuclear weapons, I don’t know.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    I want you ALL to see a little something I found in an article (@ HuffPo) on the Pres’ proposed gun policies.

    “White House officials signaled that Obama would seek to rally public support for the measures he puts forward, perhaps holding events around the country or relying on Organizing for America, his still-operational presidential campaign.”

    Todd, how about we revisit that notion that Anderson Cooper’s show was not “coordinated” with the White House.

    • JAC,

      “White House officials signaled that Obama would seek to rally public support for the measures he puts forward, perhaps holding events around the country or relying on Organizing for America, his still-operational presidential campaign.”

      What would you like to revisit? Do you think this validates your little conspiracy theory? That Anderson Cooper’s show was “coordinated” with the White House?

      Have you ever watched AC360? Cooper is always “on location” of the top news stories.

      Do you have a problem with Obama rallying public support and perhaps holding events around the country or relying on Organizing for America, his still-operational presidential campaign? Isn’t this what a President should do – lead the charge on an issue and work to gain public support?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        YES, I think it was coordinated.

        Yes, I have seen his show many times.

        Yes, I have a problem with the President using a campaign organization to create and spread PROPAGANDA. In fact we have laws against it. Yet it appears this group has found some loophole. I have not had time but will be digging into this a little more.

        The Pres should lead via the Govt mechanisms. He already has access to free air fare, room and board and unlimited travel to make his case.

        • JAC,

          YES, I think it was coordinated.

          And what do you base this on?

          PROPAGANDA

          Definition: Anything you disagree with…

          I have not had time but will be digging into this a little more.

          Can’t wait to hear the results.

          He already has access to free air fare, room and board and unlimited travel to make his case.

          Usually you guys COMPLAIN about his government paid travel. Why the change of heart???

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            My experience and observations.

            No. Propaganda is propaganda. And when put out by the Govt it is FORBIDDEN by law. When you tie Govt to arguments that “opposition to common sense solutions” that is propaganda.

            I have never complained about a President using privileges to discuss issues around the country. I may not like how many do it but that is their prerogative.

            My personal complaint has been how Campaigns overlap this use of Govt money during the campaign season.

  51. Back from “physical” therapy 🙂 Nothing major. Here is my stance as of now. Conceal carry should be legal everywhere, with no permit required. Background checks are a joke and cannot be enforced. They are also suseptable to mistakes and corruption. NGZ’s are allowed, but if anyone is harmed because they cannot defend themselves appropriatly due to the NGZ designation, the owner/govt body can be held liable. This would not apply to a private home.

    So why am I wrong?

    • Because once again you seek to impose liability solely for a decision to maintain a gun free zone. This, in my book, is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant any finding of liability.

      Above VH seems to indicate that this finding of liability should only apply where there is a legal requirement to be present at that location. Well, even in the case of school, you are free to homeschool, or send your kid to private school, or move to a district where the school board has opted to allow guns….

      • That is true and a valid point, yet if I do not choose to eat in a particular restaurant or work at a particular place-the government will not come and get me and my children and force me to choose one or the other. Or put me in jail and possibly take away my children. So it is a small point but morally-no point at all. I actually made this point myself once 🙂 but after a little thought, the difference is moot.

      • Here is my thinking about NGZ’s. If the designation of NGZ is made in a public place, place of employment or govt building and a person gets injured or killed, where he/she would have otherwise defended him/herself and not have been as injured or killed, then the decision makers denied that individual the right of self defense (basically, they were legislated out of a guarenteed right), then liablility is necessary. Why should it NOT be?

        • G,
          DO you believe that the government has the right to tell a private business owner they cannot allow smoking for instance, based on the fact that the man owns the business and no one is forced to go there or work there. Is this not the same principal as far as private ownership is concerned?

        • I would actually love to see you try to prove that you “would have otherwise defended yourself AND not have been injured/killed”.

          A finding of liability in this sense would necessitate there to be a foreseeable harm. There is no foreseeable harm for the criminal acts of an unknown third party. So no, liability is completely unfounded here.

          • Actually, the requirement for a safe workplace is already established. In high risk jobs, arms are expected. In public places like mall, theaters etc. liability for safety has also been established, see the really bad lawsuits people have won. Now for schools. Should the school board be held liable for not providing adequate security for the children? NGZ’z are not a Federal law, so the responsibility would fall on the legislature that established the zone AND did not provide armed security guards.

  52. What I think some of the big problems we have today is too much fear. The media and govt has brainwashed the people to be afraid of their own shadow. Then we have all this rediculous political correctness. I say Bullshit on all of that. Young kids getting suspended in 1st grade for pointing their finger like a gun and playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians! Really, these idiots making these decisions need to find a new line of work. What the hell is next, a nut drives an SUV into a schoolbus killing 40 kids so we have to talk about banning big SUV’s. Do we talk about how big one should be? Do we have a special license to drive one? Can felons and the mentally ill drive them? Should we do background checks on all vehicle sales? What is next my friends? Laws don’t stop criminals. Bans don’t stop criminals. Legislation only hurts the law abiding citizens because the bad people really don’t give a shit. Personnal responsibility is the only true answer. Collectivism has already proven a major failure, but we are going down that path anyway.

    I feel better 🙂

    • Gman,

      What I think some of the big problems we have today is too much fear.

      I agree. Maybe if the NRA and those on the Right weren’t constantly ginning up fear about Obama, we wouldn’t have so many people feeling carrying guns is the only way to be safe.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Todd, I’m glad we agree on something 🙂 I have carried guns on a daily basis since I entered the military in 1983. After one war, 17 foreign countries, and 30 years later, I have never had to pull the trigger on another human. I have had the crosshairs of a sniper rifle on several people, when assigned to protect Bush in 1990. Luckily, action was not required. I have some other events that can wait for another day, but so far so good. I would like to die an old man who can say “I always carried a gun, and never had to use it”.

        With that said, the American people spoke with words and their actions on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. The shelves are bare at gun stores. That says alot about what is the mindset of the majority of the people in this nation. They told government NO! http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/01/16/republican-insider-obama-livid-over-gun-rights-backlash/

        • Gman,

          I would like to die an old man who can say “I always carried a gun, and never had to use it”.

          I would like to die an old man who can say “I was never so paranoid that I always carried a gun”.

          With that said, the American people spoke with words and their actions on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. The shelves are bare at gun stores. That says alot about what is the mindset of the majority of the people in this nation. They told government NO!

          No, it says a lot about a minority of the people of this nation: I’m so gullible I let the NRA’s PROPAGANDA scare me into spending wasting money on guns I don’t really need, just to enrich the gun manufacturers and dealers, that are the real backers of the NRA.

          I’m glad we can agree on that too. 🙂

  53. Southwestern Pa. hospital to stop baby deliveries

    Posted: Jan 16, 2013 10:58 AM CST Updated: Jan 16, 2013 10:58 AM CST

    WINDBER, Pa. (AP) — A southwestern Pennsylvania hospital will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can’t afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.

    The Windber Medical Center, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, is losing two obstetricians and two others are shifting their focus more to gynecology.

    Hospital officials say the population of women of child-bearing age is dropping and that the number of births the hospital would be called upon to perform isn’t enough for it to provide the service in the face of lower reimbursements under the federal Affordable Care Act.

    The hospital delivered about 200 babies each year since restarting its obstetrics program in 2005.

    Officials aren’t sure how many jobs will be lost.

    Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20603065/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries#ixzz2IAZVCuyS

    Oy vey

  54. To make my point on GFZ’s

    The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populace counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

    There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9000/the-most-pro-gun-low-crime-city-in-the-united-states/#ixzz2IAcE7WYf

  55. Speaking of background checks, this is for everyone who believes that we need them, maybe we should demand a background check on the man who can authorize the launching of our nuclear weapons. Since noone seems to know anything about Barry, I mean Barak, or whatever his name is this year, isn’t that a legitimate demand?

  56. Now this is funny, only in Liberal land, BWahahahah! http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20590152/elmont-high-school-under-lock-down

  57. I hope everybody understands, that limiting high capacity magazines will result in more casualties and not less. Anyone who knows weapons will understand this.

    In Aurora, the most casualties were inflicted by shotgun and pistol……in Ct…the most casualties were inflicted by pistol.

    I can hear Buck now…….how do you make the assumption that more casualties will happen with limited magazines. That does not make sense.

    Here is the reason why….a shooter walks in with a 30 round magazine and empties it. Estimated casualties would be 10 – 12. A shooter walks in with three ten round magazines,…estimated casualties 18 – 22 and that is from an inexperienced shooter. Firing from the hip or shoulder in rapid succession and emptying a large capacity magazine always..and I say ALWAYS… results in less hits…even from a well trained shooter. That is why military weapons now are set to five round bursts. When a shooter takes the time to aim and empty a ten round magazine, the weapon stops and during reload, aiming takes place once again, The mindset is taking more time to aim because of less time in shooting.

    If there are any bird hunters out there, you all know that a flock of tightly patterned dove flying overhead, that an experienced shooter will shoot the lead dove and so one with careful aim. An inexperienced bird hunter will unload three or five shots at the covey or flight……and miss.

    Sigh…………………….

    • Less is better and more deadly. This has been proven in war and on the ranges but no one asks the real questions. Asking Biden and Pelosi about weapons and function….is like….well, asking Buck to do brain surgery with a pocket knife.

      • I accept the challenge! 🙂

        …though I feel bad for the patient….

        Arguing over whether or not it makes sense to restrict high capacity magazines is pointless — we all know that given today’s political climate, nothing is going to come of this proposal. That being said, I’m not as certain as you that a high capacity magazine will always result in less hits — it seems you are assuming an individual with a 30-round clip will just unload all willy-nilly whereas an individual with three 10-round clips will take his time in aiming. I’m not willing to make that assumption. Not to mention, that added time in ‘aiming and reloading’ may well make the difference in stopping the guy.

        • Buckster, I was a USAF marksmanship instructor for twelve years. I have a wall full of award plaques, a chest full of medals and numerous trophies for competition shooting. D13 is 100% correct on the magazine size. It is a mental thing when you have a bigger mag, you don’t tend to aim as well. It takes alot of training and practice to overcome the mental aspects of marksmanship. The magazine ban means nothing in terms of having less casualties. To a killer, they would simply do a New York reload, which is much faster and will mean more casualties.

          Please do not do any brain surgery!

          • I don’t deny the possibility, but I take issue with the assumption that in every instance high capacity means fewer deaths.

            • More law abiding citizens with guns would make a huge difference. 🙂 The assumption about hagh capacity mags is mostly correct, but if someone like me or any competition shooter would certainly cause more casualties. However I’ll stand by my first sentence when it comes to lowering casualties. 🙂

  58. How many believe that background checks have been working? Even if more stringent, will they really do any good? Is it worth the money to keep doing it? It hasn’t really stopped gun violence in places like Chicago, so shouldn’t we be spending background check money on the control of criminals and gangs in the inner cities?

    I think we can stop mass murders (with guns) at schools. I think we can reduce crime in this country, without spending a fortune in tax dollars. I think we can END gang violence and bring peace to our inner cities. It’s will be hard, it will take courage and determination and trust in our fellow citizens. It will take some sacrifice and a change in our mindset. We CAN do it! First, what is really in our way from achieving a peaceful country where violence is a rarity on the evening news?

    • Gman, the problem is solvable. Most of the gun crimes are in the major cities. Cities that have gone after the gangs and locked up the worst offenders have substantially reduced the problem. However, this is not enough. Idle minds are the devils workshop. These young men need to be gainfully employed or at least kept busy and engaged. Many lament the state of CA and reflect that the ’50s-’70s was our golden age. Why, because the welfare state was still young and had not infected the masses. Government money was spent on infrastructure, water, roads, airports, etc. These are tangible things were the public got something in return that grew the economy. We now just pass out the money w/o expecting any return. We need to go back to those times.

      I would do the following:

      1) Eliminate the minimum wage.
      2) Stop unemployment extensions
      3) Make drug testing for welfare mandatory
      4) Fund infrastructure that is meaningful and necessary (no trains to nowhere, no tea pot museums)
      5) Eliminate the prevailing wage rules for construction projects (these are just to placate the unions) In rural areas, local contractors do not qualify hence outside contractors must be brought in to do the jobs.
      6) Crack down on gang activity in the cities. Lock up repeat offenders.
      7) Fix the food stamp program so only food can be purchased with the cards. In fact, make it obvious that the individual is using food stamps. Currently they look like any other debit card. Make it obvious so there can be public oversight.
      8) Reduce significantly the use of SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs in people under 20
      …..

      • I got interrupted.

        9) Stop chickifying our boys. You can’t even have a good snowball fight is schools anymore. Make more sports available. Allow them to work at younger ages so they feel a sense of accomplishment. I do not mean full time factory jobs, but part time jobs such as bike messengers, delivery boys, sweepers, gofers, mowing lawns, paper routes, etc. This should encouraged. I was collecting eggs and feeding chickens at 7 yrs old and went full time on a construction crew at 13.
        10) Stop glorifying violence in our films and games. Gun fights used to be bloodless. When we grew up, there was violence in Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons, but we knew this was imaginary since rabbits don’t talk and most of the violence was over exaggerated and slapstick. Now the cartoons are human like with super powers, mega weapons, etc. Idols to be emulated. Same goes for the games.

        I think you get the drift. We give away too much money w/o expecting something in return. We put up roadblocks to anyone that wants to hire youngsters. As a result, boys and young men feel depressed, unneeded, hence a small percentage act out.

        • But I did love the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner cartoons. In college, we used to drink every time Wile E Coyote, Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, Marvin the Martian, Daffy Duck, Foghorn Leghorn or anyone else got “killed”. Made for some FUN Saturday mornings!

      • T-Ray,
        I think I can sum up most your ideas in one statement:

        Kick’em when they’re down…

  59. @Bottom Line, Are the seals beginning to open? You know what I’m asking.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I dunno. I am not even sure what they are exactly. As a guess, yes, I have cracked at least half of them.

      I am working against the odds and I am mentally exhausted. It’s difficult to stay motivated.

      I am more concerned with trying to discern between friend/foe.

      Somethings stinks.

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    What the heck my Texican friend. It seems my States of Idaho and Montana have you Texicans beat when it comes to Gun Freedom. And now your proposing more restrictions.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

  61. When I read this, I too could not help but think, ‘Yeah, you’re definitely on to something.’

    I view gun control from the prism of the gender wars. It’s a last-gasp attempt by lower-income men to hold onto some shred of self-respect: at least a capacity for autonomous violence, if they are left with nothing else.

    And they are being left with nothing else, since the job market is increasingly feminized on all but the highest levels, most remaining male-gendered work (except uniformed public service) is increasingly losing income and status, and patriarchy is no longer a particularly strong legal or cultural norm. This is responsible for many things: almost all bad. I call it the Scots-Irishization of lower-income white men.
    The politics of this are miserable, at least in the short and medium terms. In a democracy rife with veto points, a passionate small group will preserve the status quo every time. About the only exception to this (and the only small ray of hope) was the civil rights movement of 1915-67. But that’s fifty years, folks. And that movement at least had the advantage of extreme sectionalism: there were no passionate segregationists outside the South.

    I despair of rational gun control until some progress is made with this situation. And I only see it getting worse.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/rage_bait.php?ref=fpblg

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I know you put up your shield, the smiley face, but………… Why does the author ignore the fact that the Democrats have the same rule?

      They just never articulated it with a Name.

      Or is perhaps because the Dems march pretty much in lock step like a bunch of good little Fascist Progressives, unlike the more Democratic Republicans. 😉

      • Or is perhaps because the Dems march pretty much in lock step like a bunch of good little Fascist Progressives, unlike the more Democratic Republicans.

        That ::WINK:: at the end means you’re kidding, right??

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Maybe, then again maybe not.

          Its your shield so you’ll have to tell me how to use it properly.

  62. January 17, 2013 12:00 A.M.
    The War between the Amendments
    Expanded ideas of free speech have arguably encouraged mass violence.

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Archive Latest RSS Send

    inShare
    Print
    Text
    Comments
    7
    Victor Davis Hanson

    The horrific Newtown, Conn., mass shooting has unleashed a frenzy to pass new gun-control legislation. But the war over restricting firearms is not just between liberals and conservatives, it also pits the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution against each other.

    Apparently, in the sequential thinking of James Madison and the Founding Fathers, the right to free expression and the guarantee to own arms were the two most important personal liberties. But now these two cherished rights seem to be at odds with each other and have caused bitter exchanges between interpreters of the Constitution.

    Many liberals believe there is no need to own semiautomatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than ten bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don’t need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game — and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.

    Implicit in the liberal argument for tighter gun control is the belief that the ability to rapidly fire off lots of bullets empowers — or indeed encourages — mass murderers to butcher the innocent.

    Advertisement
    Most conservatives offer rebuttals to all those points. Criminals will always break almost any law they choose. Connecticut, for example, has among the tightest gun-control laws in the nation. A murderer can pop in three ten-bullet clips in succession and still spray his targets almost as effectively as a shooter with a single 30-bullet magazine. Like a knife or bomb, a gun is a tool, and the human who misuses it is the only guilty party. An armed school guard might do more to stop a mass shooting on campus than a law outlawing the shooter’s preferred weapon or magazine.

    Homeowners should have the right to own weapons comparable to those of criminals, who often pack illicit semi-automatic handguns. If mass murders are the real concern, should ammonium nitrate be outlawed, given that Timothy McVeigh slaughtered 168 innocents in Oklahoma City with fertilizer? Banning semi-automatic weapons marks a slippery slope — each new restriction will soon lead to yet another rationalization to go after yet another type of gun.

    Liberals counter that, just as free speech can be curtailed without infringing on the First Amendment (you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater), the constitutional right to bear arms is not infringed upon by the banning of semi-automatic, large-magazine firearms or by current prohibitions against heavy machine guns.

    Conservatives reply that the chief purpose of the Second Amendment was not necessarily just to ensure personal protection from criminals or the freedom to hunt with firearms, but, in fact, to guarantee that a well-armed populace might enjoy some parity to an all-powerful, centralized government. To the Founders, the notion that individual citizens had recourse to weapons comparable to those of federal authorities was a strong deterrent to government infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms — rights that cannot simply be hacked away by presidential executive orders.

    That may be why the brief Second Amendment explicitly cites the desirability of a militia. By intent, it was followed by the Third Amendment, which restricts the rights of the government to quarter federal troops in citizens’ homes.

    So which amendment should we begin pruning to deal with monsters like those at Newtown and Columbine?

    The Connecticut shooter, Adam Lanza, was known to be mentally unstable. He sat for hours transfixed by violent video games — in a popular culture of cheap Hollywood mayhem where bodies implode on the big screen without anyone worrying over the effect of such gratuitous carnage on the viewer.

    Just as semi-automatic weapons mark a technological sea change from the flintlock muskets of the Founders’ era, computer-simulated video dismemberment is a world away from the spirited political pamphleteering of the 18th century. If we talk of restricting the Second Amendment to protect us against modern technological breakthroughs, why not curtail the First Amendment as well?

    How about an executive order to stop Hollywood’s graphic depictions of mass killings, perhaps limiting the nature and rationing the number of shootings that can appear in any one film? Can’t we ban violent video games altogether in the same way we forbid child pornography? Isn’t it past time for an executive order to curtail some of the rights of the mentally unstable — given that the gunmen in mass killings usually have a history of psychic disorders and often use mood-altering drugs?

    If conservatives have ensured that there are millions of semi-automatic assault weapons in American society, liberals’ unprecedented expansions of free expression have led to an alarming number of unhinged Americans on our streets, nursed on sick games like Grand Theft Auto and hours of watching odious movies such as Natural Born Killers.

    Legislating away the evil in men’s heads and hearts can be a tricky — and sometimes unconstitutional — business.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337906/war-between-amendments-victor-davis-hanson

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mornin Buck 🙂

      I read the whole article. All I really got out of it is the author is against law abiding citizens carrying a sidearm when in public. I’m not sure what the subject has to do with the Newtown shootings, but it seems people are trying to add words to the Amendment again. Why can’t “the right to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed” be understood. Oy Vey, I shouldn’t read left wing rags, it gets my blood pressure up 😆

    • The right to protect my self and my family ends at my front door-hmmmm-I think not! The argument itself seems to put the True in the assumption that the end game is to effectively take away all guns rights. I’m surprised, but I think I’ve finally heard an argument, if passed, might really start a civil war in this Country.

      • The concept is that the 2d Amendment does provide an individual right to ‘keep and bare arms’, but that right does not necessarily mean that no restrictions can be imposed on the carrying of said guns in public places — meaning a municipality is free to restrict (or possibly even prohibit) concealed carry / open carry if that municipality sees fit.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, what’s your opinion of concealed carry? You know my views, even though they have an underlying reason, that any adult should have the right to protect oneself. I’m sure that there are some with mental issues that nobody would want to have that person armed, but I think that should be up to the family, not the legislators.

          I agree with V.H. that we would come amazingly close to a Civil War if she is right about taking all the guns 🙄

          • Concealed carry? Personally I’m no fan of it; just don’t see the reason. In terms of the Slate article and potential court cases, if it is deemed concealed carry is not required under the 2d Amendment (which I don’t believe it to be), then it would be left up to the states and local govts to decide.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Fair enough. So, in a nutshell, you believe that a persons right to protect themselves ends at the front door, as the article mentioned? Depending on your answer, I will query again, mostly out of curiosity.

              • Yes and no.

                You still have a right of self defense. But that right doesn’t necessarily extend to allowing you to concealed carry.

              • Well, I’m sure people wouldn’t mind strapping their guns on their hips so you could see them, like the old days. But somehow, I don’t think that is your meaning. So just how exactly are people supposed to implement this right to self defense. I’m thinking most men and quite of few women could kick my behind, in hand to hand combat. And I’d really like to know what I’m supposed to do on a dark night, on a lonely highway, if my car breaks down. And where I live-that isn’t an unusual situation.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                So, how does a petite young woman protect herself from being raped by a 250 lb man in an allyway? Very few people have the skills of Bruce Lee. If you are against conceal carry, then how or who is responsible for the safety of that petite young women?

              • Look I see your concerns and your argument, but my point is that I believe it to be within the keeping of the 2d Amendment to have a state make the determination of whether and under what circumstances to permit concealed carry.

                But I get it — you are a states’ rights kind of guy….unless the state in question passes a law you don’t like… 🙂

              • So the States, in your mind, not only have the power to tweak the rights listed in the Bill of Rights but to simply take those rights away completely if they decide they want too.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Actually, I don’t think any govt has the right to deny the right s outlined in the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment doesn’t say “shall not be infringed, unless some politicians think otherwise”, now does it? It’s real simple to me, “shall not be infringed”. History is clearly on my side as well, as the founders knew that one’s self defense and the defense of their property was a natural right, not one that is granted. If that were the case, we would have a King. We don’t, we just have a King wanna be 😆

              • No, in this instance the State in question wouldn’t be taking away any rights — the ‘right to keep and bare arms’ is still left intact. But that right does not necessarily mean you get the automatic unfettered right to walk down the street with a pistol in your purse.

                By the way, to G’s point above, if god forbid you are suddenly attacked by some 250-lb thug as you walk down some alley at night, having a pistol in your purse probably isn’t going to help all that much.

              • G — then how do you explain restrictions on guns at the time of the 2d Amendment?

              • It’s nice that you see our concern, yet you have no answer for this concern, beyond the State has the power to do away with my right to self protection and a vague reference to “I still have the right to self defense” but exactly how I might manage to defend myself seems moot compared to the States right, which I’m still not sure where this State right comes from, to control me.

                This is important Buck, whatever one believes the State has the power to do-somethings simply shouldn’t be done, even if you have the right to do it. And leaving people defenseless is one of those things that simply shouldn’t be done. And the shame of it all-is that leaving them defenseless will not even stop the crazies from hurting or killing them.

              • You raise a fair point — just because the State has the power to do something doesn’t meant that it should be done. But that’s all I’m saying here — that the State does have that power.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Thanks to imposing the 14th on the States I don’t think the States have that authority any longer.

              Heller destroyed it. Or at least it should have in a logical and rational world.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          More mushy legal “interpretation”. If a Right is clearly stated as this is, then by what authority can Govt restrict “keeping and bearing”. Keep = own or have. Bear = carry and use.

          Where is the caveat in the words “shall not be infringed”???

          • Do you agree that there are restrictions on freedom of speech? freedom of press? freedom of assembly?

            But heaven forbid there be some restriction on the freedom to carry a gun…

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              NO.

              I agree that Govt has taken those authorities. IN DIRECT CONFLICT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

              Did you really think I would be inconsistent in this?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              You know I am RIGHT.

              But then you would have to abandon all that WRONG thinking they stuffed in your head at law school.

              I find is funny how folks on your side of the argument think my approach is so backwards when my approach would actually work to your advantage.

              That is when a substantial number of Citizens agreed with you. It would in fact eliminate the continuous contentious debates on most things.

              And we would have CLEAR boundaries of authority between Fed and State and the individual.

              But then all the lawyers would have to do things like Estate Planning and Tax Law and Contract Law, instead of working for Lobbying firms and the Govt.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      I think that summarizes my comments on this pretty well.

      In addition it makes a great example of what happens when Judges start trying to parse what should be an otherwise simple decision. Basically creation of job security for Lawyers.

      It further shows the mess created by the Progressive Court is spreading the doctrine of the 14 to the other amendments.

      Given CURRENT Court decisions the STATES have NO authority to restrict ownership or the carrying of weapons.

      Idaho and Montana get it. There are no restrictions on open carry. Although they have restrictions on conceal carry, which to this day I do not understand.

      You criticize my “strict constructionist” views, but my approach eliminates all these caveats, exceptions and need for continual litigation to get clarity on some nuance the court didn’t address last time.

      And before we get there, let me emphasize that PRIVATE sales of things to other PRIVATE people is NOT COMMERCE.

  63. January 17, 2013 4:00 A.M.
    The War Against Black Men
    Chicago’s murder statistics tell a story of young black males without fathers and at risk.

    By Lee Habeeb

    The date was January 12, 2013. You probably didn’t hear about this tragedy involving guns and two teenage boys. But this was the headline in the Chicago Tribune: “Boys, 14 and 15, killed in separate shootings Friday.” You didn’t hear about it because such events aren’t news in Chicago. They’re ordinary daily occurrences. As we continue to hear calls for ever-tightening gun laws from the Obama administration, and from states such as New York, it is worth thinking about those headlines in Chicago. And in inner cities all around America, places where strict gun laws are already in place. Places where the weapon of choice isn’t an AR-15 but a semiautomatic handgun — the same kind of weapon most Americans use reasonably, and safely, to secure their most precious assets: their loved ones and their property.

    Advertisement
    So let’s go back to that wretched January 12 story from Chicago, President Obama’s hometown. The murdered 14-year-old had a name, Rey Durante. He was gunned down by two shooters while standing on the porch of his Humboldt Park home. The two men opened fire, according to news accounts, near midnight, striking him multiple times in the chest.

    When paramedics arrived on the scene, he was lying just inside his home, bleeding from several bullet wounds. He died there. Police found blood all over the front steps and more than half a dozen shell casings on the sidewalk. He would have turned 15 in a few days, his stepmother told reporters.

    On the sidewalk near the crime scene, a local paper reported, the father of one of the boy’s friends cried as he paced near a group of teenagers. When a neighbor asked him what had happened, his response was simple — and heartbreaking.

    “A little boy just got murdered,” he said.

    Earlier that same day, a 15-year-old boy named Victor Vega was approached by a gunman in the Chicago neighborhood known as Little Village. The gunman shouted a gang slogan and then opened fire, striking the 15-year-old in the torso. Vega was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 7:19 p.m., according to the office of the Cook County medical examiner.

    Both shootings were gang-related, police suspected.

    Twenty children and six adults were killed in Newtown, Conn., last month, and the media quickly, and justifiably, descended to tell the tragic story. In the first few weeks of January in Chicago, 25 people have already been murdered. Most were young black and Hispanic men, murdered by other young black and Hispanic men.

    In Chicago, it’s Newtown every month. But the media haven’t converged on Chicago this month.

    You don’t know the names of those kids and adults gunned down in Chicago this January, all by handguns. But the Chicago Tribune’s RedEye website tracks the Chicago body count since January 1: Gregory Bady, 28; Damian Barnes, 22; Marcus Wallace, 23; Tyrone Soleberry, 39; Brian Cross, 34; John Taylor, 23; Darville Brown, 24; Tyshawn Blanton, 31; Marcus Turner, 19; Lavonshay Cooper, 22; David Bartzmark, 25; Michael Kozel, 57; Ulysses Gissendanner, 19; Kevin Jemison, 29; Myron Brown, 30; Devanta Grisson, 19; Octavius Lamb, 20.

    You don’t know the names of the other 530 young people, most of them minorities, who were killed in Chicago between 2008 and January 2012 either. You don’t know their names, and the national media haven’t parked their media trucks in Chicago, because the liberal narrative does not offer easy answers to the problems haunting Chicago.

    You don’t know their names because the real racism that exists in the media is this: A young black male’s life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male.

    You don’t know the names because the media don’t or can’t blame the deaths in Chicago on a weapon like the AR-15, or on the NRA.

    You don’t know their names because the media aren’t interested in getting at the real cause of much of the senseless gun violence in America: fatherlessness.

    About 20,000 people live in my hometown of Oxford, Miss., and there are probably twice as many guns. Folks own handguns, shotguns, rifles, and all kinds of weapons I’ve never even heard of. But I can’t remember the last murder story in the local paper.

    That’s because my town has lots of guns, but lots of fathers, too.

    Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem; it has a father problem.

    Gun control isn’t the problem on Chicago’s streets; self-control is.

    When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways.

    When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs.

    In my little town, if some boys tried to form a gang and do violence on our streets, the fathers wouldn’t bother calling the sheriff. Those boys would face a gang of fathers hell bent on establishing order in our community. And if that meant using physical force, so be it.

    Back in 2005, William Raspberry, the late Washington Post columnist and no conservative, wrote “The Elephant’s Tale,” a column on inner-city black fatherlessness.

    It turns out that, some years before, game managers in South Africa had had a problem with an elephant herd at Kruger National Park. It was growing beyond the park’s ability to sustain it. The experts came up with what they thought was a brilliant two-phase solution: They moved some of the herd to the Pilanesberg game park and killed off some of the elephants that were too big to transport.

    But that decision had ramifications. Years later, some of young males started attacking Pilanesberg’s herd of white rhinos, an endangered species.

    Raspberry described the problem, and the solution:

    The elephants used their trunks to throw sticks at the rhinos, chased them over long hours and great distances and stomped to death a tenth of the herd — all for no discernible reason.

    Park managers decided they had no choice but to kill some of the worst juvenile offenders. They had killed five of them when someone came up with another bright idea: Bring in some of the mature males from Kruger and hope that the bigger, stronger males could bring the adolescents under control.

    To the delight of the park officials, it worked. The big bulls, quickly establishing the natural hierarchy, became the dominant sexual partners of the females, and the reduction in sexual activity among the juveniles lowered soaring testosterone levels and reduced their violent behavior.

    The new discipline, it turned out, was not just a matter of size intimidation. The young bulls actually started following the Big Daddies around, yielding to their authority and learning from them proper elephant conduct. The assaults on the white rhinos ended abruptly.

    Fathers matter. And though it is possible for a young man to get along without a father, it is difficult for young men to get along in fatherless communities, or in fatherless cities.

    So why don’t the media focus on the epidemic of fatherlessness in our inner cities and on the tragic consequences for boys? The mostly white liberal editors and gatekeepers of the mainstream media would never admit that liberal policies of the 1960s have had disastrous consequences. They won’t admit that government can’t replace the essential role that marriage and family plays in raising, disciplining, and loving children.

    Those same white liberal editors also assume that such stories won’t draw ratings or readers, especially not from a white majority insulated from the problems of inner-city life.

    And that assumption may be correct.

    In a column last year in the Wall Street Journal, Juan Williams cited a comprehensive study by the Justice Department in 2005 on the subject that he said should have been a “clarion call” for the black community and the nation at large.

    Almost one half of the nation’s murder victims that year were black, and a majority of them were between the ages of 17 and 29. Black people accounted for 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005. Yet they were the victims of 49 percent of all murders, and 93 percent of black murder victims were killed by other black people.

    That’s right. Almost half of murder victims in the entire country are black males and, all too often, young black males. And nine out of ten of those young black men were killed by other young black men.

    So much for the war on women, a narrative the media sold relentlessly in the run-up to the November election. The real war in America is on men, and black men in particular.

    Men need fathers, and need them desperately, but the out-of-wedlock birth rate in black America is 75 percent.

    Fewer than half of young black men graduate from high school, and for far too many black boys public schools are jails before they get to real jails. Young men staring down such bleak prospects are young men without hope. And young men without hope can do desperate, senseless things.

    That we are still not properly talking about this all-too-real race problem in America is a failure of imagination and conscience.

    That the media have spent so little time on the body count in Chicago and other inner cities in this country is sheer malpractice.

    Yes, the senseless murder of those children in Newtown was a tragedy of epic proportions, and our prayers should go out to every affected family and to all of their loved ones.

    But white kids in suburbia are not getting gunned down with regularity. White suburban kids live, for the most part, on safe streets, free of gangs and drug dealers.

    White suburban kids go to public schools that work, and work because having two parents matters when it comes to schools and the culture of schools.

    The nation is still grieving the loss of those innocents in Newtown, and a nation continues to lift that community up with our prayers.

    But while you are praying for the families in Newtown, say a prayer for all of the thousands of young black Americans whose lives were cut short by street violence. Say a prayer for the faceless, voiceless victims we never hear or read about or see on TV.

    Say a prayer for all of those young black men without fathers.

    And with the out-of-wedlock birth rate recently passing the 40 percent mark for all Americans, say a prayer for all of those young American men without dads.

    Because they’ll need them.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337929/war-against-black-men-lee-habeeb?pg=1

  64. Canine Weapon says:

  65. Canine Weapon says:
  66. Bottom Line says:

  67. Bottom Line says:

  68. Just A Citizen says:

    WAKE UP SUFA

    Definition Alert…………..

    I was informed earlier this morning that the Tea Party people are BIGOTS. But you won’t guess why.

    It is because we crazy right wingers are “ideologically opposed to socialism”. Yep, that’s right. Being opposed to socialism on ideological grounds is a form of BIGOTRY.

    Where as you “Conservatives” or “Evangelicals” are BIGOTS due to your RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY which has no tolerance for Homosexuals or Minorities.

    ………………….We now return to your regular programming.

  69. gmanfortruth says:

    Down here Buck 🙂

    What restrictions are you speaking of way back then? Just because there were restrictions at the time, doesn’t make them right or lawful. But, were does it say that the States have the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Buck, 2 sections from the Pa Constitution that are important to the discussion: Article 1
      DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
      That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE THAT –
      Inherent Rights of Mankind
      Section 1.

      All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

      Right to Bear Arms
      Section 21.

      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

      Your comments , Sir

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      At the time of ratification the States DID have that authority. That is why all the States included a statement of Rights protecting our right to keep and bear arms. As the Penn example you cited.

      The Bill of Rights was intended to CONSTRAIN the Fed Govt. Unless a restriction on State power is explicitly mentioned the restrictions deal with FED power and its relationship to the States and the People in general.

      One other point when arguing with Federalists today. You will see quotes used from the Federalist papers to defend the entire Constitution today. But we must remember that the Federalists were defending the document proposed for ratification. That document DID NOT contain the Bill of Rights.

      In fact the provisions of the Bill of Rights were proposed by anti-Federalists and the Federalists agreed to address them in the FIRST CONGRESS if the opponents would agree to ratification.

      It was ratified and they kept their promise. Twelve amendments were offered and Ten passed. It is probably the last time that political opponents made an agreement and BOTH sides kept their promise without further condition or manipulation.

  70. Just A Citizen says:

    Followup on my Police State post the other day.

    The Govt now speaks out on their Federal Prosecution of what should have been a Contract violation.

    Hypocrisy Alert: I wonder why the Justice Dept doesn’t take the same hard stance on “enforcing the laws” when it comes to other things?

  71. Just A Citizen says:

    Before I forget I want to share a thought.

    The more the pro-gun folks argue about the safety or effectiveness of various gun regulations the more they make the case that the ONLY effective measure, with respect to safety alone, is to Ban and Confiscate ALL WEAPONS.

    So the ONLY thing left standing is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    Because you cannot rationally argue that eliminating guns will NOT reduce gun deaths. It almost certainly will.

    What the ant-gun side will not recognize is that “effectiveness” eliminates the “personal” nature of who gets killed. It moves us from INDIVIDUAL to GROUP safety.

    That is the consequence of accepting any argument based on Avg data for the population when making policy. You are in affect saying:

    “The sacrifice of the individual is needed to benefit society as a whole”.

    Now where again was it that I heard that concept described?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAc, the Progressives (communists) are that the left has to offer now. It’s total State control, that’s the goal. We are in there way 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        I do not agree that Progressives are “communists”. They are far more FASCIST while some are these hybrid Democratic Socialists.

        The “p” progressives mostly don’t understand either. So they are just going along thinking they stand for progress as opposed to going backward.

        But make no mistake, it is the “P” Progressives that are running the DNC at the moment. Despite the Progressives claiming otherwise. Those complaining are just a little more “Radical” than many of those in power.

        • “So they are just going along thinking they stand for progress as opposed to going backward.”

          So true. Know several that would describe themselves this way. Challenge them with a simple, “how?” and they get all flustered.

    • Greater Good!

      Greater Good!

      Greater Good!

      Eventually, you guys will fall in line…

      PS – Where’s Charlie been??

  72. Just A Citizen says:

    The intellectual depth of the LEFT is simply astounding at times:

    “the good news is the only people watching FOX “News” are sitting on their patched sofas on their front porch of their delapidated single wide trailer/homes waiting for their wife/sister to get home with their generic beer and non-brand smokes so they can have their nightly viewing of their favorite film, “Deliverance.”

    This was a comment to an article that Obama had snubbed Fox by calling on them less than other networks during Press Conferences his first term.

    • Obama snubs FOX because he’s afraid of their ratings. The trailer trash are watching Rachel Maddow & Lawrence O’Donnell….what does Rush call them..Oh yeah..low information voters!

      In other news..Obama phone lady says she won’t vote for Obama again 🙂

  73. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Now a gun related legal question for you.

    How can NY ban “internet gun buying” when this is clearly an Interstate Commerce function?

    • Actually I don’t believe NY can do this. (Which is why in the past the 2d Cir has struck down a NYS ban on the online sale of cigarettes and which is why there are ongoing cases about states attempting to prohibit the online sale / out-of-state shipment of alcohol).

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Except that the States ability to regulate alcohol is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

        In that case I do not think they can prohibit personal sales but they can certainly require a TAX on amounts that exceed the usual exempt amount hauled across state lines for personal consumption.

        Commercial quantities would be subject to the State tax as are commercial outlets within the State.

        I would think that the means of transport or sale is irrelevant when it is a personal matter. Same rules apply.

        On the bigger concept, it will be interesting to see how Govt continues to struggle with the Internet commerce. The freedom the internet creates runs in opposition to the institutions Govt has constructed. They keep trying to force the old regulatory model on a new system, failing to recognize that the paradigm itself is changing.

        I think Gov is going to be forced to focus its revenue sourcing at the individual level eventually. Because they are losing control over the flow of goods and services. The cost to control and monitor will soon exceed the revenue benefits.

        • …but they can certainly require a TAX…

          Agreed. And they can certainly require registration of the seller within NYS and that the seller abide by NYS laws in relation to any sales to NYS residents. But no, they can’t prohibit.

  74. Just A Citizen says:
  75. gmanfortruth says:

    Took my dogs for a nice long walk, seen a nice big bodied buck cross the powerline out in front of us 🙂 While I was walking, I was thinking about Buck’s response to V.H. about being attacked . His reply (assumption) was : if god forbid you are suddenly attacked by some 250-lb thug as you walk down some alley at night, having a pistol in your purse probably isn’t going to help all that much.

    That seems to be a common type answer from the left. Why not let teachers carry? Oh NO, they might miss and hit a child, they answer. Based on the answer, my impression is that the left and Buck would rather V.H. get raped instead of having a gun to fight back, and would rather a sick twisted whackball kill another 20 kids instead of giving the teachers a fighting chance.

    Buck, please explain why you would rather V.H. not carry a gun, a be unable to fend off a large attacker and get raped, because YOU think the gun wouldn’t help anyway? I’m curious as to your answer.

    • I most certainly would not rather have VH raped. The gun might help, true, but it also might not. Can we stop this continuous assumption from the right that the more guns the better already?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, I know you don’t want anyone harmed. I’m making a point that given a fighting chance, it could be avoided. But many people on the left, and maybe you too, would rather take that fighting chance away from her. I also believe that carrying is an individual choice, but where concealed carry is very common (like where I live), violent crime is unheard of. So here’s a straight up question for you, do you want people to have a fighting chance against a violent criminal or do you just want the criminals to have their way? It’s an honest question. V.H. can fight back, given the tools to do so or she is subject to the whims of the violent criminals with no chance at all to fight back. So which is it?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd, You can take a stab at this question also. I doubt you will, but the door is open 🙂

        • You are still living in the fantasy land where the more guns the better, where the only thing that can stop the big scary bad guy is a good guy with a gun. The world just doesn’t work that way, hate to break it to you. Perhaps having a gun could save VH’s life in that situation, but perhaps having that gun could also wind up with VH dead. But you only see it one way — with VH heroically pulling out her gun, shooting her attacker and avoiding rape and injury.

          • Alright, this is kinda creepy-but since V/me is the intended victim in this conversation-I’ll take the chance of death over being defenseless, thank you!!!!! Death is not the worse thing that can happen to a person!!!

        • And G, as I made clear, I am not proposing a federal law banning concealed carry nationwide. I’m not even proposing a law in NJ banning concealed carry in NJ. My only argument in terms of concealed carry is that States have the ability to restrict concealed carry if they so wish and doing so would be in keeping with the 2d Amendment.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buckster, I never said that her having a gun would save her. All I asked was about giving or taking her best chance at fighting back. I hope she never has to find out too! So let’s look at the Pennsylvania Constitution that I posted above, it is pretty clear that denying the right to carry would violate one or both of the provisions. Now, use your lawyer knowledge. I will get away from moral issues 😉

            • IF restricting concealed carry would violate the PA Constitution, then clearly PA cannot impose such restrictions.

              BUT, and here’s my point, that doesn’t mean another state can’t take such action.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Outstanding, now, the laws that D.C and Chicago were struck down as violating the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t that kinda say that the 2nd is the law of the land (which the Constitution is). State do not have the authority to violate anything in the U.S. Constitution and more than the Feds do. However, I see your point, that it restricts the Feds from any action.

              • SCOTUS wasn’t so unequivocal in its decisions….and, had they been, since when do you go by what 9 random people in black robes happen to say? I’m sure you would say something entirely different had SCOTUS upheld those laws…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think you know that I would prefer NO government over what we have. But for the sake of the discussion, do you believe that the right to keep and bare arms (the same handheld type weapons that govt has, not talking about nukes and fighter jets here, although I’d love to have an F22 Raptor parked in the yard 🙂 ) is a natural right? Soory, in short, is the right to have guns a natural right?

              • You can’t simply divorce handguns from nuclear weapons in terms of the ‘right to keep and bare arms’ — though I’d be interested to know how you have come to the conclusion that you have a natural right to one, but not the other…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I don’t think any country should have a nuke(s). Why anyone thinks that having weapons that could destroy the human race if they were used is beyond what I would call, logical thinking. Criminals, like those in DC don’t want people armed, ask a petty thief or a rapist if you get a chance. My natural right is about personal responsibility, defending myself, family and property. I don’t see how having a nuke could be used to do that, because too many innocent people would be unnecessarily killed. I have no right to kill, outside of self defense, therefore, a nuke is not part of “to keep and bare” in the term of natural rights. How does that sound 🙂

              • I fear now it is you who is reading language and meaning into the 2d Amendment. Nowhere does the 2d Amendment restrict your right to own a nuke…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Fair enough and I agree. It doesn’t define what an “arm” is, but I can’t have a case of TNT, hand grenades or several tons of that fertilizer used in OK city bomb. Has anyone ever challenged that in court? But for now, OK, I can have one, but, I don’t want one. You can have one if you want too, but just be careful not to hurt yourself. LOL, I really don’t think we can have a nuke, I’m sure you would agree that a nuke is NOT a defensive weapon.

              • So you are ok with certain restrictions on your right to keep and bare arms then?

              • So you are ok with certain restrictions on your right to keep and bare arms then?

                Looks like someone walked into a trap of his own making… 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                NO, I am not. Feel free to own a nuke! I want some grenades, but not the troubles from the govt. Plus I don’t have the funds to fight it legally all the way to SCOTUS. You lawyers cost too much, LOL. I’m happy with my guns, I sure eat good and have lots of fun with them. I sure hope it stays that way, but I’m just not very confident it will. 😦

              • No, you’re not ok with certain restrictions? But you just said, and I quote…

                “I really don’t think we can have a nuke.”

              • Step 1) Get a nuke.
                Step 2) Get arrested.
                Step 3) Raise the 2d Amendment as your legal defense.
                Step 4) Lose.
                Step 5) Appeal.
                Step 6) Lose.
                Step 7) Appeal again!
                Step 8) you can see where this is going….ok you’re right, this would be pretty expensive. But I’m sure you can raise the funds — get the NRA to back you! 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          V.H. Sorry to use you as the person in the example, I can use Anita instead if you like and she says it’s OK. 😉

        • Gman,

          Todd, You can take a stab at this question also. I doubt you will, but the door is op

          do you want people to have a fighting chance against a violent criminal or do you just want the criminals to have their way?

          I want people to have a fighting chance. Simple enough?

  76. gmanfortruth says:

    Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, 1788

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Patrick Henry

    I do recall asking Charlie why he continues to rant about slavery. Buck or Todd replied “because history repeats itself”. Remember that when you engage a person who wants to disarm the people. Buck is off the hook today 😉 :):

  77. Just A Citizen says:

    God made men the same, but Mr. Colt made them equal.

  78. Buck,
    You beat-down all the conservatives today – just you and me left. I guess we’ll have to argue amongst ourselves! 🙂

    • What can I say…work’s been slow today…

      Anything you’d like to argue about??

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think your mistaking the silky pink panties you just put on for a lame claim of a beat-down 😆 For the record, I don’t want a nuke, but you can have one if you want. Todd, your answer above was simple enough, Kudo’s! 🙂 Buck, you did well today, I wish you could explain why some on the left use the answers I used as examples above. Just letting people die, as they would insist, does not compute, so to speak 🙂

  79. Looks like I have been missing a lively debate.

    @JAC………I never said that Texas was a perfect handgun state……it is a perfect shotgun and long rifle state, which does not make sense. We are working on the handgun part of it though.

    You can have a loaded shotgun or rifle in any car at any place you want…but no handguns…..like a school, for instance. It is not an unusual sight to see weapons racks and guns in pickups at college or high schools. An establishment that has a prohibition on handguns, does not have one on rifles and shotguns. You can open carry shotguns and long guns almost anywhere.

    We also have a TCLEOSE license that allows some to open carry a handgun anywhere at anytime. That includes Federal Buildings, State Buildings and banks, etc. Do you have that one?

    But give us time….when the next legislature meets, Texas will be open carry.

    But one thing that Texas does is respect freedom…..but also recognizes that freedom carries responsibility.

  80. At Buck………The Remington Fire Arm MFG…..appears to be moving to Plano, Texas. There was a blurb about it on the news this morning. They said that Cuomo successfully killed 1000 jobs and a 200 year business. On the same news was a blurb about blocking the move through some sort of emergency regulation…..have you heard any of this?

  81. gmanfortruth says:
    • Objection: Anecdotal.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        HEHE, Yes, like some of your replies? In all honesty, Enjoy your night with the family and go have some fun with your young’un. They grow up too fast and one day you’ll find yourself meeting a young man who is courtin your daughter, and you’ll tell when to have your daughter back home and remind him that you’ll probably be up cleaning you new Glock 23 🙂

        • True, I’m really hating myself for still being at the office right now…

          And yes, I may threaten in such a manner, but we’ll all know I don’t actually have a Glock…

          Have a g’nite G.

  82. gmanfortruth says:

    Everyone, Has anyone else seen the AR magazines made from a 3D laser printer? The same company also make AR lower receivers the same way. Just curious.

  83. Just A Citizen says:

    Why is it that we can’t pass a law prohibiting the killing of babies because the Supreme Court decided we have an absolute Right to Privacy,

    BUT…………

    The Fed Govt can force us to register our names and personal data in order to buy a gun?

    The first, protected by our right to privacy, is certain to result in death of a human being.

    The second, can result in a human being killed only under a set of circumstances that are unlikely to occur.

  84. I’ve open a new page.

%d bloggers like this: