The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

By 339 Comments 4,668 views

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.


There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.


Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

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

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

339 Responses to “The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms”

  1. 101


    @Scott in Oklahoma: @Scott in Oklahoma:

    Well i grew up in CT and i have close friends who are cops in CT, so yes I take offense. I try to give this guy CJ latitude because i guess a war hero deserves it but at the end of the day an Asshole is an Asshole and a moron is a moron and he’s proven himself to be both in spades. You have ducked my questions and it is duly noted. You can’t answer them.

  2. 102



    @Tom: Not only a hoplophobe, but an unintelligent one. I see how this game is played. You simply pretend you know people and then say, “I was told so.” Well, Tom, if that’s true, what is your CT police officer’s name? It’s not a secret since his name is listed on their website. I’ve been emailing back and forth with Commissioner Bradford, so I’m interested in your “inside information.” Or, just have you “friend” email me.

    Oh, and I bet YOU wouldn’t use that kind of mouth to MY face. I’m not calling your buddy a liar. I’m calling YOU a liar. The ball is in your court and your integrity is on the line now.

    And please don’t give me any latitude. I don’t need your pity and just because I can kick your ass doesn’t mean you need to play softball with me. Your names and petty writings don’t bother me in the least.

  3. 104



    What a shock. You physically threaten me. I didn’t see that coming. Do you really want to come kick my ass because I pointed out you disrespected every cop in CT because of your gun fetish?

  4. 106



    @Tom:I already know you’re a dumbass, but nowhere have i threatened anyone, least of all you. I’m not surprised you think you were threatened since everything else you’ve written has been about inventing threats where they don’t exist when it comes to guns. Try to stay on track and tell me who your fictitious CT friend is.

  5. 107


    watch your words, you might have had one too much under the collar,
    that’s why you are the only ass hole here,

  6. 108


    Do you really think I’d give someone like you the name of one of my friends? It’s bizarre that your reaction to this tragedy is to harass CT police for political reasons.

  7. 109


    ya, good idea, I can see TOM, trying to buy a gun;
    =and why do you want the gun for?
    -eh dunno yet.
    =what is your purpose in having a gun?
    -well to shoot, for fun, and I hate my rent collector,
    =oh ya, sign this paper, it says , you buy this gun , because you hate your rent collector
    – here done, give me my gun,
    =we’ll get back with you later,
    =wait for our call

  8. 113



    Wow! Tom. You have finally reached the pinnicle of hypocracy. You demand answers to your questions from others, but you dodged my questions which I ask you not just in one thread, but two. Double standard much, Tommy Boy?

    So why don’t you explain why you feel no need to answer the questions I posed to you, using the excuse that I had some nafarious reason for asking them, but you think you have the right to demand answers you pose to others.

    You claim to know two CT PD. Fine, great, whoopie. But their names are public information, so why don’t you back up that claim by saying who they are? Are you afraid that CJ (an honorable person) would contact them and report that you are a liar?

    Ironic that you would assume a conservative would resort to the low tactics of intimidation the left is known for.

    Now, when are you going to answer my questions that I asked you days ago in TWO threads?

  9. 115


    As Tom demands that others answer his questions, here are the questions I asked Tom, not on just one thread, but TWO, that he refused to answer:


    Do you support more restructuve gun laws?

    Do you support more restrictive vehicle ownership laws? (since in 2007, almost four times as many Americans died in vehicle fatalities than were murdered)

    Do you support more restrictive laws for the ownership of kitchen knives, pocket knives and baseball bats?

    Do you support the registration of hands which are often used as lethal weapons?

    Do you have any example of how more restrictive gun laws have prevented any crime, murder or otherwise, or how states that have enacted more restrictive gun laws have seen a reduction in gun related crime?

    Now, Tommy Boy, who is quite brave behind his monitor, will probably offer some lame excuse for not answering my questions, just as he has before when they were asked. You see, Tommy Boy is not interested in intellectual dialog, he simply wants to spew his hatred for firearms across the screen of your computer. He is a typical liberal who thinks a conversation is one where he says what he wants, and you’re supposed to sit down, shut up and not contradict him. And like all liberals, he is under the misguided conception that he can make claims and not have to back them up. He is, after all, a liberal and to believe him, you are to willingly suspect disbelief.

  10. 117



    Thank you, Bees. It was a great day where, thanks to the Lord, we had waaaay too much food. I will be eating turkey for the next week.

    We have a rought time ahead of us here in the U.S. I will spend the next week working my finances to avoid Obama’s oppressive taxes.

    I hope your Christmas was the best ever, Bees.

  11. 118


    I’m watching FOX NEWS and you all see the disaster for the end of the year,

  12. 119



    @Tom: no, you’re just a fraud and exposed yourself as a liar. You know that you cant back up your statement so you invent a collaborator and then try to pass your shame to me by inventing another lie that ive somehow “disrespected” police officers by calling you a liar and insisting you name the PUBLIC OFFICIAL from whom you claim the lie originated. See, i dont play your pathetic, liberal games. I just told you that I got my answer directly from the office of Commissioner Bradford so you can verify what i said. Now, if you have any credibility or integrity you will either withdraw your statement or divulge you fake source. I will send that person an email using the publicly available database to confirm your statement and either apologize for falsely accusing you of lying or expose you as the fake you are. You have nothing to lose for telling the truth. The problem is you DO have sometging to lose, which is why you are attacking me instead of defending yourself. I live in Texas. I am a badged and credentialed special agent. I am a part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. I’m an army Soldier. You think i would risk over 18 years of service to harass or threaten a police officer. Oh, by the way, I serve on the public safety board here in Temple, Texas and speak with Chief Smith often. Your statements are simply without fact and since I lead a much more honorable life of service and actively support police officers, firefighters, and first responders, i can understand how you would be jealous. Do not ever accuse me of disrespecting police officers I’ve never met. Doing so only sours your own failed arguments.

  13. 120


    we believe you and we have done so quite a while ago,
    but for TOM to be credible, I doubt if it will ever happen.
    he show his anger , maybe he is stucked in the bad weather in the MISSISIPI ICE PATCH IN THE RIVER,

  14. 122



    You claim I have no “proof” that Adam Lanza was the shooter and a Bushmaster AR-15 the primary weapon. That information is a matter of public record, released by the CT State Police in official televised news confererences which I watched.

    The weapon that was utilized most of the time during this horrific crime was identified as a Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapon,” said Lt. Vance.

    You have called this information into question and insist on having to contact directly one of my friends. Why? Either you accept Lt. Vance’s public statements or you don’t. Why don’t you come clean and just inform us all if you disagree with the information released by the CT State Police instead of pretending you are the gatekeeper of this information. You are not. It is on the public record.

    As for all the insults, if they make you feel better, good for you. They certainly don’t lead one to believe you are interested in an informed debate. To your detailed list of accomplishments, thank you for sharing them. I sincerely congratulate you and thank you for your service.

  15. 123



    Informed debate? Not YOUR forte, Tommy Boy. Your mind is locked into one opinion, no matter how many facts and how much data is presented to you. You hypocritically accuse others of refusing to answer questions, yet, for the third time, I pose questions to you that you not only refuse to answer, you simply ignore them, like the facts and data presented to you.

    Not many on this blog are as intellectually dishonest as you, Tom. It is not debate you want, it is the ability to lecture others on something that you fear; firearms.

    Honest law abiding gun owners provide you, when in their midst, the safety that you are not willing to provide for yourself, yet you slam them for that. Perhaps someone should throw you into the 9th ward in New Orleans around midnight, unarmed, and let you fend for yourself. How true is the saying that a liberal is simply someone who hasn’t been mugged yet. There would be no greater lesson for you that to get a real ass whopping by someone who wanted your wallet to make you into a true believer of CCW licenses.

    You condemn those who assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families; want to impose even more stringent laws that will be honored only by the law abiding and dump the responsibility for your own safety, that you are not willing to be trained to accept, on others. What a small and narrow man you are, Tom.

  16. 124



    I think I’ve become quite good at scanning your posts to see if on the off chance they contain a discussion point. This one scanned negative. Best of luck to those brave souls willing to wade into your interminable swamps of pompous pontification.

  17. 126



    When it comes to honest debate, you seem to only want to apply the “duck and hide” tactics employed by most liberals who are not interest in debate, just arrogant lecturing. You have ceased to be a funny, uninformed liberal, now you are just an internet joke.

    Three times, THREE, I have asked you the same questions as you demand answers from others. What is your response, beside insulting those that have the temerity, in your opinion, to take you, and your absurdity, on? Crickets churping as you act as if you never read my questions, or when you did acknowledge them, refused to answer based on your claim that I had some nefarious reason for asking them.

    Do I support gun owership for the 99% of law abiding citizens that have, and never will, point a weapon at another human being? Yes. Do I support the owning of those weapons for no other reason than to let you, and your ilk, know that a free people will never be submissive to any government, as was designed by the Second Amendment? Yes. My stand on that issue has never been unclear.

    But you are a radical, Tom, and as I said, you fear that which you don’t know about. BFD, so you shot a gun in the Boy Scouts. Whoop-tee-do. And now you are making the claim that you apparently have some kind of software that allows you to scan posts for positivity or negativity. What a LIAR you are. Add that to your resume right below COWARD and right above bullshitter.

  18. 128


    @Richard Wheeler: The point of that statement was whether Lanza used the Bushmaster that was found IN HIS CAR, not whether he was the shooter at all. The problem with this case is the conflicting information put out by the police. Initially, they released that only the two pistols were found in the school. Later, they changed their story to include the Bushmaster inside the school. A letter to the Commissioner where I asked that question confirmed that the rifle was NOT used inside the school. Not sure exactly who answered, but used his email address.

    The point is that the entire thing is suspect. Such an easy thing as whether or not the Bushmaster AR was used in the crime or not shouldn’t be difficult. However, I can’t help but wonder if the story morphed to support the idea that these weapons are responsible and further the gun control argument.

  19. 129



    Oh, and I don’t harbor any illusions I’m wrong. I’m actually reserving judgment becausr of conflicting information. In the end, it doesn’t matter if an AR was used or a kitchen knife. Neither are at fault for the choice Lanza made to kill those kids. We get all wrapped around the method and ignore the act itself.

  20. 130

    Richard Wheeler

    No CJ in #98 You directly questioned whether Lanza could be proven to be the shooter.Weapon used is another question. I ask again. Do you believe there is ANY chance Lanza didn’t SHOOT these 20 kids? A simple yes or no would suffice,then we can move on. Thanks
    A kitchen knife you say? C’mon CJ

  21. 131


    @CJ: That is a very confusing issue. First, I don’t question who did the shooting, BUT what weapon did he use. First it was reported he carried 2 handguns in and left the rifle in his car. Then I read that you can’t believe what you’ve heard or read. A check on the internet today and you can still find that ‘he did all the shooting with the rifle’ ‘the rifle was left in the car’ “all the people were shot with the rifle’ I understand the anti-gun nuts wanting to blame it on the ‘assault’ rifle, but what was the weapon used? Why can’t we know?

  22. 132



    @Richard Wheeler: Richard, are you slow, or is English your second language? I’m just asking because I never said or insinuated that Lanza wasn’t the shooter. Re-read my commeny in #98 and if you still need an explanation on the use of clauses or qualifying statements as separated by commas let me know. I only assume you know what a comma is, but I may be giving you too much credit.

  23. 133



    @Redteam: That is exactly my point. I can only assume that either the media or the police department is playing politics. It shouldn’t be that hard to answer such a simple question. Initially, it was always that the rifle was in the car. Then, as the gun control argument gained steam, the rifle miraculously was the main weapon used. Why would the commissioner’s office tell me the rifle was in the car and then LT Vance is quoted saying the rifle was the main weapon? It’s all suspect. That is why i wanted Tom’s “source.” Vance has not responded to my requests for clarification yet.

  24. 134


    on your 101,
    I don’t know who gave you a 2 likes, but I know it is a moron
    like you accused CJ OF THE SAME WORD,

  25. 135


    I think they had an order from the WH TO INCLUDE THE WEAPON IN THE KILLING,

    which will carry consequences even lost of more lives and theft from criminals, that is really dangerous,

  26. 136

    Richard Wheeler

    CJ ONE LAST TIME in #98 you ask Tom ” What proof do you have that Lanza shot the kids at all,much less in the face, with an AR-15″ Even a Marine Captain knows, in that statement, you are questioning whether there is proof Lanza shot the kids.
    Clauses,qualifying statements and commas be
    Per your #132 I’ll accept you do believe Lanza shot the 20 kids—–“with extreme prejudice”
    Lets move on..

    BTW I’ve noticed you’ve gotten feisty since, it would appear, the far right Christian Evangelicals once again failed to turn out for the Mormon nominee.

  27. 137



    Well, Tommy Boy, since your computer operates on software, and you claim to be able to determine negativity or positivity on your computer, obviously, you have a software program that allows you that capability. Or is that just more of your bullshit? Oh, well, since it is clear you are not the brightest bulb on the string, try post #115. There you will find the same five questions I have been asking you for days that you have been trying diligently to avoid with more bullshit responses.

    You want the questions AGAIN? Damn, man, how daft are you?

  28. 138


    @Richard Wheeler: Ok, I can see I have to educate you, Richard. I made this statement that you don’t seem to have the elementary education to understand. I can see how you would also have trouble understanding the 2nd Amendment if you can’t get this simple statement interpreted:

    “What proof do you have that Lanza shot the kids at all,much less in the face, with an AR-15?”

    Now, in my statement commas are used to set off expressions that interrupt sentence flow. The expression in this instance is “much less in the face.” This expression could be completely removed from the sentence and it would still be a complete sentence. However, I was pointing out a specific comment made by Tom to which I was responding. So, If could have very easily said, “What proof do you have that Lanza shot the kids at all with an AR-15?” but I added a specific item.

    However, in your ignorance, you decided just to ignore everything after the comma. Not sure if it’s cataracts or what that you decided to ignore the rest of my statement. You may want to check for senility while you’re at it. If I were to take your lame interpretation of my statement, the rest of the phrase would make no sense at all. There is no semi-colon which would indicate two separate lines of thought. Just commas, which indicate a continuing line of thought.

    It’s called grammar. You should look it up sometime the next time you want to accuse me of such an idiotic statement. You definitely don’t make Marine Captains look very intelligent, that’s for sure. Maybe there are different rules for gaining a commission in the Marine Corps, but we require that our officers have at least a college degree.

  29. 139

    Hard Right

    folks, tom is a radical left bigot, and a fascist wannabe. Notice rich has cheered him on in several posts in other threads. Tells you what we are dealing with when it comes to those two.

    I’m glad the actions of “people” like tom are causing a gun buying frenzy like nothing else in history.

  30. 140


    YOU TALK ABOUT GRAMMAR, that’s my strong point and the fact is to Richard Wheeler,
    is delicious for me to stick around,
    I won’t miss a word,
    CJ, you open a can of this.some will loose feathers on it. let the fun begin.
    lets entertain us all. the hollyday special at FA

  31. 141

    Richard Wheeler

    CJ What a load of horseshit. You could have said “What proof do you have that Lanza shot the kids at all” and still have had a full sentence. You seem to be taking the Romney defeat and the disappearing act of the Christian Evangelicals mighty hard. You’re becoming as insulting as they have been to Romney.Must be rubbing off on you.
    I’ve got a B.A. from Colgate U. and I’ll match a Marine Officer against you and yours anytime.

  32. 142


    @Richard Wheeler:You just did try to match us. And you came out lacking. The fact that you supposedly have a degree from Colgate University doesn’t say much for the quality of education coming out of that institution. Perhaps they have their accreditation looked at. Or they should just stick to toothpaste. I’ll have to remember that when I’m reviewing applications for employment that a degree from Colgate should be viewed skeptically, especially if English grammar is necessary to the job. And pesonally, I’m taking the Gary Johnson defeat harder than the liberal Romney defeat.

  33. 145


    So, I finally heard back from LT Vance who is oft-quoted as saying that the Bushmaster AR-15 was the main weapon used. I asked him,

    “LT Vance,

    I’ve read several reports where you are quoted as saying that a Bushmaster AR-style rifle was the primary weapon allegedly used by Adam Lanza to kill 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook.

    Earlier reports had that rifle found in his car and only two pistols recovered from the scene. Can you please clarify whether or not the Bushmaster was used or was located in his Lanza’s car?”

    Here is his complete reply:

    “Sir. It has been stated by me more than once that the Bushmaster was found at the scene and used to shoot the vicitms [sic]. ”

    In other words, LT Vance doesn’t even know except that what he’s heard “more than once.” I have since replied to him asking if he was on the scene and personally witnessed the rifle inside the school and will let you know once I have an answer. It seems to me that Vance probably shouldn’t be the guy out there getting quoted.

    This reminds me of a conversation I had with a journalist in Iraq in 2003 in Fallujah. We were slated to go home after having fought our way from Kuwait to take down Baghdad. Then, we were extended and sent to Fallujah to pacify that town. Again, we were about to head home when we were extended again to stay in the volatile city. While out on a combat patrol, a journalist asked me my thoughts on having to stay longer.

    “Well, it can be a little demotivating but we have a job to do and we’re going to do it until it’s over. We don’t know the reasons for why some units are going home and others are extended, so we’re going to keep at it until our day comes. We just have to have each other’s backs and perservere.”

    When the story hit the papers, I was quoted simply as saying, “We are demotivated.” That’s it. Three words with absolutely no context or even truth behind it. I never said we are demotivated. I said the situation can be demotivating, but the media crafted the story they wanted, not the one they were given. It seems the same thing has been happening with this issue at Sandy Hook.

  34. 147



    in 98 you said:

    @Tom: You’re like the king of hoplophobes, aren’t you. And an uneducated one. What proof do you have that Lanza shot kids at all, much less in the face, with an AR?

    and then you said to me:

    @Redteam: Reread my comment in #98 and tell me if, grammatically, I ever said that Lanza wasn’t the shooter please.

    My answer is that; No you did not say that Lanza wasn’t the shooter.

  35. 148


    @Redteam: Thank you. I thought that I knew what my position on the issue was when I wrote my position. I know that I’ve been in a few too many explosions which can affect my short term memory, but it hasn’t ever caused me to say something I didn’t mean to before. Thanks.

  36. 149


    @CJ: I believe that Lt Vance does not know the answer to the question, or is answering it in the manner he has been instructed to answer it.

    My suspicion is that since he did not definitively answer the question, that he is attempting to be misleading. The only direction that anyone would want to answer in this case is that while the Bushmaster was left in the car, the anti-gun lobby wants it to be the weapon used.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *