“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.
This 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.
Sound 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.”
[youtube]http://youtu.be/Hx0JzYcwUiY[/youtube]
And now for something completely different:
A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public that could fight its own government.
Excellent piece CJ, I am learning a great deal about the Second; Especially, obvious is the Left’s continuous effort to divert, deflect, and obfuscate the meaning and intent of the Second with their own excuses for totalitarian measures, designed to make the country safer for tyrannical statism.
Greg’s example above is a perfect example: to the casual observer, the author is allowed to imply that we want the right to engage our government with arms; however, this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth by rather clumsy manipulation of the writer’s pen. We and the founders want to be ready to confront tyranny.
A tyrant can’t impose his will on the people unless he ignores or alters the Constitution. When a leader bypasses our normal governmental procedures for the passage of laws to impose his will or personal ideas of how the country should be run, he has begun to implement the prerequisite for tyranny.
Presently, many of our legislative leaders tacitly condone the president’s overreach by not protesting such actions. While many of us, who are not struck with the silliness of celebrity, recoil with disgust and revulsion implied by one man ego who sees himself above and beyond the normal workings of our government and feels entitled to impose his own will on the people of our country.
Such attitudes by our leadership coupled with a populace who worships a strong leader, regardless of faults and corruption, is the impetus for tyranny. While some skip down the Primrose Path of tyranny with expressions of glee and wonder, there are many who step back into the shadows to make a more objective assessment.
This Constitution and this country wasn’t designed and maintained to be fundamentally altered and or destroyed by one man’s figurative pipe dreams. This country was meant to stand on the foundation of the Constitution, but when we have an adoring but uninformed public, the importance and relevancy of our Constitution can be eroded and neutralized by one charismatic tyrant who wants to “fundamentally” transform America.
To him, and his faithful followers, we the legitimate gun owners who understand the Second Amendment represent a major roadblock in the installation of a totalitarian form of statism of the benevolent dictator or tyrant.
America wants stronger regulation of the sale of firearms. That is not unconstitutional. Painting it as “taking our guns” is just evasive hysteria. Inventing a false argument to rage against is telling. If you had to argue against what’s actually being proposed, then you’d have to argue for something that does nothing but make our society a breeding ground for mass murder as the cost for granting the gun industy free reign to make billions fulfilling suburban Rambo fantasies.
Well done CJ, but it isn’t just the 2nd under attack. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th are also under attack, read them carefully and you’ll see what I mean. We cannot let these attacks go unanswered, I’m just not sure which angle we should take in defense.
@Tom:
Tommy Boy, just exactly where in the Second Amendment does it say the federal government has the right to regulate arms in any respect? The powers of the federal government are enumerated quite clearly in the Constitution, but since you seem to know that they have the power to do what is not written, I am asking you to show me where you found that rule.
@Tom: Gee Tom, 300,000,000 privately owned firearms were NOT used yesterday to commit crimes. And since we have something that resembles a free market system here, you know, that old supply an demand thing, do you believe for a minute the gun manufacturers would survive if people quit buying? Obviously, there’s a market.
Also, would you care to explain, in all your brilliance, how more laws and restrictions are going to stop people who, by the nature of the crimes they commit, could care less about existing laws? That is the arguement you have to win.
@retire05:
I never said “in any respect”. Nice try. If regulation was unconstitutional than all regulation would have been struck down, as indeed some was in Columbia v Heller. If you want to argue otherwise, best of luck. SCOTUS thinks otherwise.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
I’m sure there would be a market for sarin gas, Scott. Why isn’t that sold at Walmart? Or heroin? At least heroin doesn’t get away from its owner and slaughter twenty children. I’m 25 miles from Newtown right now, visiting relatives, and there is no logical reason for someone to have an AR 15 here. If your argument is “I want it because I want it” then say that, but expect that your neighbors might think their children’s lives shouldn’t be secondary to your gun fetish.
Tom: ” I’m 25 miles from Newtown right now, visiting relatives, and there is no logical reason for someone to have an AR 15 here.”
You being within 25 miles of Newtown has no more bearing on this argument as me being 25 miles from Fort Hood would make me an expert on Muslims in the military. My entire post explains the “logic” of why someone could and should have an AR.
“If your argument is “I want it because I want it” then say that, but expect that your neighbors might think their children’s lives shouldn’t be secondary to your gun fetish.”
I want it because I can and they are fun to shoot. Now, explain to me how my mere ownership of several ARs is somehow endangering my neighbor’s kids. I’m dying to hear that since you basically just called me a child killer.
@Tom:
Apples and oranges. I never mentioned SCOTUS. I referred to the U.S. Constitution, something SCOTUS oft times seems unaware that it is supposed to uphold.
Tommy Boy, you are the King of Obfuscation, aren’t you?
@Tom:
And there is no logical reason for anyone to own a Corvette which can reach speeds of 130 mph, but I don’t see you working to out law them or place governors on all vehicles which can exceed national speed limits.
Where does the Constitution state that our ability to own things is limited to only those things we need?
@Tom: The response from the Left on the restriction of weapons has been all over the board. There is a major problem with people who have little or no knowledge of firearms trying to regulate them.
I will give you an example: The AR15 is a major fly in the pudding for most people who know nothing about weapons. The reason is because of the look of the weapon. It doesn’t have the fine Walnut or Maple stock that characterizes antique and expensive hunting weapons. It is a bare bones weapon that to me looks like it was made in a maintenance shop by self-taught designer. It “looks” lethal; however, the standard round is the 223, a light weight bullet with fast velocity that is easily deflected. It is a semi-automatic weapon: meaning, you pull the trigger once and it fires once. Most hunting weapons use a bolt action mechanism; however, you can purchase much heavier weaponry, like the 30-06 ( a much more effective round if you are shooting big game moose or grizzly or men) with the same semi-automatic action with a walnut stock. The 223 can be deflected way off target by the smallest twig and the AR15 has limited ability at ranges over 300 meters: the 30-06 (06 refers to the year, 1906 the round was developed) can knock an animal down by shooting through a ten inch tree and is extremely accurate at a 1,000 meters. The hunting rifle with the walnut stock is beautiful, people can’t resist reaching out to touch the wood. The AR15 to me, a man who has been around weapons all his life, looks like a tool found in a plumber’s toolbox. I would prefer the 30-06 in a grim situation, because in my opinion, it is a much more lethal weapon, but if I need to carry 200 rounds for 60 miles a day for several days, give me that plumber’s tool.
It is the image of the AR15 that scares everyone, it is not a military weapon. Soldiers and Marines would be damn mad if you handed them such an inferior weapon and expected them to take it on patrol. A sniper would make do with the 30-06, for it is an effective weapon for his job.
We have the scary weapon and we have the lethal weapon, there are advantages and disadvantages with each one, but in the eyes of the public, the AR15 is evil. Yet to me, it isn’t a serious weapon.
Of course, my overwhelming experience has been hunting big game, animals that aren’t affected by images and animals that can sometimes be a lot more dangerous than men, especially when they are wounded.
@retire05:
The right to bear arms is not the right to bear whatever deadly projectile has been conceived in the past two centuries. Assault rifles may very well fall on the wrong side of that divide. Seeing as they serve no purpose but to efficiently kill people, the government would have good reason to consider testing that hypotheses. Like I said, just because you happen to like them doesn’t seem like much of an argument weighed against 26 murders. You can disagree with regulation, but you can’t disprove that it is perfectly constitutional. If you could, you would have made that point long ago, just like if you could prove that an AR 15 served any legitimate purpose in our society you would have made that point too.
Tom: ” The right to bear arms is not the right to bear whatever deadly projectile has been conceived in the past two centuries. Assault rifles may very well fall on the wrong side of that divide.”
By that logic, the Constitution does not protect Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses to worship freely since those religions weren’t around in the 1700s.
Retire: There are several cars sold that will do way over 130 and some that will do over 200, but they limit motorcycles to 185. Is this discrimination?
@Skookum:
Thanks for the information. I’ve said multiple times gun experts should be participants in any efforts to craft legislation to lend meaningful expertise. As for the AR 15, it seemed powerful enough a week ago to the lay eye, but I would submit it’s the capacity and rate of fire, not the gauge, that’s most concerning. If you can kill 20 plus people in five minutes I don’t think a potentially easily evaded guard on premises is going to make a huge difference.
@Tom: The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters. The Second is written to prevent tyrannical usurpation of our Constitution. Weapons are designed to be effective or lethal. Since the first crude weapons, the evolution of firearms has been a continuous effort to make the rifle a more effective weapon.
Sport hunting or putting venison on the table didn’t enter into the consciousness of the founding fathers, protecting the Constitution and our form of government was their only concern.
@Tom: The clips are misleading as well. A clip is basically a long metal or plastic box with a spring inside. The twenty or thirty round clip sounds impressive, but when you fully load that clip the spring becomes weak and tends to malfunction. We have read where these killers have had jams and malfunctions, it is probably a result of being unaware of this fact of weapons, especially when they are left loaded for extended periods of time. If you have a twenty round capacity, it is best to only load sixteen or seventeen rounds or you will have a jam.
The greater the capacity, the greater strain there is on the spring. It is much more effective to tape two clips together, so that one is upside down. This in effect allows you a 34 round capacity that can be rotated in the length of time it takes to get a sight picture.
If you notice, nearly all the killers have been dumb asses when it comes to the knowledge of weaponry (thank goodness) or we could have much worse disasters. They also fold when faced with the threat of real and intimidating resistance (armed); at this point they either surrender or put a round through their own gourd. In Washington, it was just the sight of a CCW man drawing a bead on the moron, that made the coward decide to end his own miserable life.
@CJ:
Does Adam Lanza’s mother bear any responsibility for what happened? I understand she liked to target practice. I wonder if she would have thought it was worth all the fun. We live in a society and there are reasonable expectations that we can place upon our neighbors for our common safety. Why is it guns are the one exception to this general rule of conduct? If your neighbor carelessly left his pit bull out and it attacked your child, would your first response be to congratulate him for exercising his right to own a dog? Gun owners use the Second Amendment as a shield to deny all responsibility for carelessness when it pays a price. What I don’t understand is why responsible owners don’t push for a higher bar. Why don’t they say: “if you can’t live up to my high standard, you don’t deserve to share this right i am responsibly exercising”? You’re a highly trained and educated person when it comes to firearms, yet you have no issue with anyone getting their hands on any number or make of guns with zero training. That makes sense to you?
@ CJ,
In this paranoid vision of tyranny where Obama declares martial law and orders the military to go house by house confiscation guns and shooting resisters, you would go along with this, if you are active duty? You really think the bulk of the military will? Look at the paranoia and fear that drives this insanity, really look at it, and tell me, is it real?
@Tom:
Do you have any experience with firearms?
@Tom: The government that bypasses normal protocol and legislates by Executive Order does nothing to alleviate the fear of encroaching tyranny. Overreach and bypassing normal procedures destroys the individual’s faith in the president. Starting a proxy war in Libya after consulting the UN and ignoring his own government is the type of overreach that makes a percentage of the public begin to question just how much power this president presumes he can take before he meets resistance.
The Lanza woman was an irresponsible gun owner. She did not keep her weapons secure. She also allowed her son with violent tendencies access to those weapons. Yes, she has a lot of blame in this tragedy. Taking care of family members with mental illness means you have a greater responsibility to secure your weapons. You secure them from theft: you should secure them from the unstable. It was a major error!
@Tom:
Actually, Tom, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address dog ownership. Now, perhaps it should have since I am sure there were mean dogs whose owners didn’t keep them penned up during the time when the Constitution was written. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution just figured that people would assume responsibility for their own actions, unlike today where we have a “victim” culture where no one is responsible for what they do, except for perhaps, gun owners.
I’m sure the Newtown shooter’s mother (I refuse to say his name any give him any print space) realized when her son murdered her that she was paying for any mistakes she might have made. But you make it sound like paying for her mistakes with her life was not a great enough payment. What would you have society do? Dig her up and put her on trial?
And would you also require training by a professional prior to allowing someone to get a driver’s license that puts them in a multi-ton vehicle capable of running a person over and killing them? How far do you want to take that? You see, Tom, not being a gun owner yourself, you are incapable of thinking like 99.9% of us. You fear what you don’t understand. And that is normal. But to constantly rail on those who do understand gun ownership, by making outlandish demands on them, and not the people who enacted laws that are not enforced, you place the blame on the wrong people.
Let me give you a senario: a shooter enters a mall and starts shooting shoppers. A shopper has a CCW and is armed. After the shooter is taken out, and the armed shopper is interviewed, does he say “Well, I saw him shooting people but I waited until he pointed his weapon at me and then I shot him. It really wasn’t my place to defend all those other people.”
You can’t comprehend what you don’t know or understand. Not once, never, has an armed citizen waited while a mad man killed others until the armed citizen thought he would be harmed. The entire idea is to end the threat, no matter who it is toward. You can’t seem to comprehend that. After the Killeen Luby’s shootings, Texas changed its law on CCW. And what happened, Tom? Crime went down. In just one year, 2010-2011, the murder by gun rate has decreased in Texas by 13%. In California, who has much stricter gun laws, the murder by gun rate is double what it is in Texas, although it does not have double the population, and has decreased by only 3%. The biggest threat to a would be killer is an honest, legally armed citizen who will most certainly muck up the killer’s plans.
If you were intellectually honest, which you are not, you would want to have a conversation about what works, and what doesn’t (like stricter gun laws that affect only law abiding citizens), and how the gun laws that are already on the books have done nothing to prevent bad people from getting their hands on illegal weapons to do bad things. Until you can enforce the laws already on the books, more laws is just hyperbole.
@Tom:
No, the fear comes from an administration that willing allowed guns to be placed in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, all the while trying to blame that action on gun dealers who were ordered by the ATF to allow straw purchases. Do you think all those weapons have remained in Mexico, and will never make their way north to your area? I think Brian Terry’s family would disagree with that premise.
And who will protect you if a bad guy with a F & F gun wants to take your stuff? The police? What is the response time in your area (be sure to name your area so we can keep you honest)? A bad guy, with a F & F weapon, can kick in your door and make you dead as a rock before you can dial 9, much less 911.
There are bad people who want to do bad things to good people. But good people who own firearms intend to make the playing field just a bit more level.
I just have a minute… Skook, you and others might be a little premature throwing the shooter’s mother under the bus. I have yet to hear how she chose to secure (or not, fair enough) her weapons. I don’t have a gun safe, nor is it likely that I’ll buy one just for that purpose. I do have a garage full of tools, with some of those tools I can defeat any safe in short order; yeah, serious tools. So regardless of how she secured her guns, the possibility exists that he just broke in to get them. I won’t pass judgement on her until I hear how she kept her weapons.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
The problem is that when a tragedy like Newtown, or Columbine, or Aurora happens, the knee jerk reaction is to find someone/something quickly to blame. Here is the bottom line:
you can’t predict evil, and yes, evil walks among us, and you can’t second guess someone who is mentally unstable. And you can’t legislate away evil doers or their deeds. Laws are, for the most part, reactive, not proactive. So a tragedy happens, legislatures react, and most of the time their cure is worse than the illness. Our laws on the rights of those mentally ill are so absurd that it is almost impossible for a school official, boss or anyone else to warn others of potential danger.
Don’t believe me? John Hinckley, Jr. shot President Reagan and Jim Brody. No, Hinckley didn’t kill them, but it was not for the lack of trying. Now, Hinckley is released to visit his mother, allowed to freely walk the streets with no physical monitoring, and the authorities rely on a cell phone GPS tracking system to know where he is. One man, a forensic psychiatrist, has deemed Hinckley to no longer be a threat to society, and has recommended he be released from St. Elizabeth’s permanently. Insanity, pure insanity. Hinckley should never see the light of day unless it is through the window of his cell.
Tom wants to dump all the responsibility on gun owners for the shootings that are committed by those with illegal weapons. Frankly, that is not just wrong headed, it is dangerous. What about the courts, and the politicians who lobby for laws, that let dangerous people out on the streets of our nation on a daily basis? Do they really think that 30 years in jail and a few sessions with a shrink makes those evil people less evil?
@Scott in Oklahoma: It’s true, we don’t know what measures she took to secure the firearms, and there is no way to stop a guy with good tools. However, she had a potential problem, and refused to face up to the possibility of hat could go wrong. Either way, she played the odds and many people lost.
If you have a mentally unbalanced person in the house, it is time to either have the weapons secure enough or kept away from home. That includes drug users and drunks. We as weapon owners have responsibilities, and one of those is to make sure our weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. Most weapons are stolen to either sell or commit crimes.
We don’t have in the info because of the MSM’s efforts to make this into a political agenda; consequently, we have been fed an enormous amount of lies, not bogus information, just outright lies to mount this crusade against weapons. Every instance of a gun owner having weapons stolen is a black mark against us.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, no-one has released any official information that the victims were shot with a rifle. I have read that the shooter had several pistols along. I have also read that the rifle had been left in the Mother’s car. A rifle is only of more use at distance while a pistol is a much more efficient weapon at close quarters.
It’s also possible that the goal of the shooter was to inspire just the reaction we are seeing today from the silly socialists who propagandize here. He was, after all, a vegan who hated his survivalist mother enough to shoot her in the face multiple times. If the FBI investigation into his background and browsing habits uncovers a moonbat loonie, it won’t become public knowledge. Bet on that.
Think about that. The leftist stooges may be helping the child killer realize his dreams! Who knows?
@Scott in Oklahoma: The 22 nd will be under attack within three years.
@DaNang67: I have contacted the Connecticut State Police about this. There are now reports saying he used the .223 rifle to kill those kids. Those stories didn’t surface, of course, until AFTER the gun control argument started gaining steam. Earlier reports were that the rifle was found in his car. So, I’ve sent media inquiries to the state and local police for a clarification just on this issue. So far, I’ve been passed off to two separate agencies and I’m waiting on the response from the third.
While some focus on the errors made by the mother, where the hell was the father? We have heard about the mother, and her life, watched as the media accused the brother of being part of the shooting rampage, but nothing about the father, and what role he played in his son’s life. Where was the man who was tasked with being a role model for his young son?
Have fathers become so inconsequential in our society that we are not questioning his actions, his handling of his responsibilities? Surely, he knew his son was mentally unbalanced and on medications. Surely he knew that the shooter’s mother was having a hard time with him. So where was he? I don’t see the media digging around trying to find out where he was when his son planned such carnage.
DaNange67, the shooter was not stupid. He was crazy. He destroyed his hard drive before he started his killing spree. Apparently, he took a simple hammer and trashed it into pieces. I read one report that the FBI is concerned that they will not be able to retrieve any information from it.
@Greg: Every man is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to make up facts out of thin air to support it.
The antis always seem to have one fact in common – they’ve never read more history than will fit on the back of a cereal box. EVERY tyranny in the world has come about (and is maintained) because the people were reduced by the masters to physical impotence. Does ol’ Tommy know that the two worst mass murders in the modern world, (outside of wars), were committed by policemen? No, he doesn’t, because he can’t see beyond his own nose, and doesn’t care to. Tommy, if your home and family someday need defending against a howling mob, carrying military weapons gifted to them by corrupt army officers, and acting under the protection of crooked politicians, and I promise upon my honor that I will not use my M4 to help you. Will that satisfy you? Think it can’t happen? That’s parts of Mexico today.
@Wm T Sherman:
I fired guns in the Boy Scouts and they gave us, as you can image, extensive safety training, much of which I recall, although we’re talking over 25 years ago. There are likely people buying guns as i write this who haven’t a tenth of the training I possess and i have not handled a gun in decades.
@Tom:
Unless you are an over-the-road trucker with a CDL, can you tell us what extensive training, taken from a professional, that you have in order to be able to drive a multi-ton vehicle? What training have you received in order to use a hammer, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, an axe or any other tool that can be, and has been, used as a weapon?
Because with all the stabbing deaths that occur in this country, I think you should refrain from using a knive unless you have been properly trained by a professional knife handler.
@Greg: Greg – That is exactly what our forefathers meant… EXACTLY!
This all boils down to control. One segment of our population believes we should have one set of beliefs, those being theirs. Be it gun control, raising taxes on one group to redistribute their wealth to another, telling you what you can and cannot say (i.e. being PC), telling you what can or cannot eat and drink, telling religious groups what their birth control positions are to be, etc. etc. The government is their means to force their beliefs onto the rest of us. History is ripe with examples of one group trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. In many cases it doesn’t turn out so well.
@Skookum: When you think about it, muskets were the “assault weapons” of the Revolutionary War. They weren’t as accurate as the rifle but they had a much higher rate of fire. Same goes for the Sharps in the CW. The argument that “assault weapons” weren’t around back when the Constitution was written isn’t valid.
That should read:
“Today’s
progressiveOPPRESSIVE movement”To be truthful about them.
@Tom:
Gee Tom, you’re the greatest.
Your contempt for the average American often seeps through, but not usually so clearly. Perhaps the idea that the knowledge could be passed down or acquired without a centralized formal organization escapes you. I learned on my own by reading, discussing with others, and familiarizing myself with the equipment. For general safe handling of a rifle or shotgun that can be quite sufficient for a motivated individual. If I were going to carry a concealed handgun I would consider getting formal training, but that is not absolutely necessary either.
People handle other things competently without formal training: chainsaws, gasoline, pesticides, power tools…
There are a lot of people out there that have no idea what an assault rifle is or is designed for. As a collector, I have a M-1 with the original stock, that I have never shot. It is the equivalent to a 308. It’s primary purpose was a sniper weapon. Didn’t have a large clip, if you were good, didn’t need one. Designed to take out the enemy at 100 yards plus. The new sniper weapons are good for 3000 yards or 3/4 mile or better. My M-1 is perfectly suited for hunting and looks like a normal hunting rifle. MOST OF YOU would not call it an assault weapon. The second amendment gives me the right to protect all our rights from a government that would take over our citizens. It has happened in other countries and could happen here except we are protected by the second amendment, “The right to bear arms” not to hunt bears. I will continue to hold my weapons as a symbol of our right to a free society. We have enough laws on the books to regulate guns and immigration, we simply do not enforce them. To write more laws will only serve to make the do-gooders feel like they have accomplished something. Why not take on the first amendment and shut down Hollywood glamour of 1000 deaths in 2 hours or video game that reward mass killing? Do you know that Hollywood lobbies spend twice the money that the NRA does? Oh, well your mind is made up and nothing will change it. So is mine, except our forefathers saw fit to allow me to protect the second amendment. If I give it up, then you too will suffer the loss of the first.
@Wm T Sherman: Good point, other than military training, I’ve never had one-second of training, but I feel confident and have built my own bows, crossbows, rifles, pistols, shotguns, black powder weapons and knives. The military no longer has training in bows, crossbows, and black powder weapons. I also reload my own ammo, but I don’t consider myself to be a gun aficionado.
@Wm T Sherman:
Contempt? If you think it’s contemptuous to believe that people handling dangerous tools that can harm others should have training, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and get on a plane piloted by someone whose knowledge of flying was “passed down or acquired without a centralized formal organization”? Oh, I forgot, one can’t pilot a plane without a pilot’s licence. Damn oppressive government. It won’t even allow a man the freedom to buy his own plane and fly it, perhaps occasionally into an elementary school. Don’t blame the plane, and don’t blame the untrained fool. Blame the fact that you’re not flying too. Anyone who isn’t flying a plane has only himself to blame if he’s earthbound and something just happens to crash into his house.
What about that contempt I keep reading about for those who don’t have guns, or in your parlance, those who refuse to defend themselves? Is that your point, that the cannon fodder doesn’t really rate an opinion?
This massacre was the result of a “Perfect Storm” of events coming together uncommonly. From the son’s limitations, to the mother’s decisions including her decisions on guns and gun-training of her son, to other facts yet revealed.
No one can legislate against a “Perfect Storm,” and no amount of rights restrictions, or policies, or decrees will ever prevent that Perfect Storm. Still, it is no surprise that progressive statists use the event to stomp on individual liberty and freedom, pushing for government overreach – damn the consequences.
@retire05:
Don’t ask these progressives to hand out serious jail time to criminals. Liberals are a criminal’s best friends.
Folks, tom is just another hate filled bigot who wants to decide what rights people he hates should have.
On a previous thread he stereotyped gun owners as “Rambo” wannabes and nutty in general.
He is your typical leftist wannabe fascist, blind to what drives him. He tells himself his desire to violate you right is driven by “what’s right” as opposed to bigotry. He also justifies it further by pretending it isn’t a right you have.
The left always justifies it’s fascism.
BTW tom, repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make things a fact. On three threads now your claims have been destroyed. You are fooling no one but yourself.
If I have the time, I will write up the left’s attempts at banning guns over the last 30 years. What you will see is that they come up with proposal after proposal that is a Trojan horse. It sounds reasonable, then you learn how it is really meant to ban very large numbers of guns on false pretenses.
@Ted C Burhenn: I trained with and carried both of these rifles, and I consider them to be among the best rifles ever made for precise shooting at long range. However, the M14 is the 308 and the M1 Garrand is the 30-06. Can you check the stats on your rifle.
I would love to pack either one as a hunting rifle. It would take me back to another day and age.
The 14 replaced the M1 in the mid 60’s, but it is heavy at 11.65 pounds if memory serves well. The 308 was the size cartridge adopted by NATO to have a common round to fit our allies rifles. It is more commonly called the 7.62 NATO round.
@Tom:
They should have knowledge. Your contempt lies in assuming that typically, the knowledge is lacking because ‘that sort of people’ must be reckless and ignorant.
Apples and oranges. It takes years to become a competent pilot, hours to learn the basic principles of proper gun safety. People who own guns legally generally understand them. I asked earlier if you had any experience with firearms, because you tend to express naive sentiments such as thinking it’s as difficult to learn gun safety basics as it is to fly a plane. And as a matter of fact a great deal of formal training does take place — performed in many cases by organizations such as the scapegoat du jour, the NRA. The non-formal gaining of knowledge I referred to is an aspect of another Leftist boogeyman – the so-called gun culture, which is largely based on exchange of knowledge. Like people who care about computers or any other specialty, people who are interested in guns tend to talk to like-minded people — a lot.
I’ve written absolutely nothing about people who prefer not to own guns. It’s their business and they have nothing to explain. Perhaps you are having trouble telling people apart, or perhaps you detect one or two indicators in someone and then think you know everything else about them. Which is, wait for it — prejudice.
You really are a silly paranoid little man. You’re worried about the wrong things. And apparently you think you can read minds. You can’t.
Cannon fodder: the people killed in gun free zones, the people killed by Operation Fast and Furious guns, the State Department employees sacrificed in Benghazi, the people who are going to be killed by Libyan weapons distributed to Islamic extremists, any Christian or Jew in a ‘liberated’ Arab Spring country, anyone attacked by a ginned-up mob in our deliberately balkanized nation…
You denounce us as callous and cold for favoring pragmatism and facts over emotions. But nobody’s colder than a Progressive. To them, the accumulated and future dead are “bumps in the road.”
How corrupt and ridiculous is the Progressive establishment? This much:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229718/hurricane-west-cornel-west-and-american-radicalism/david-horowitz#
@Wm T Sherman:
And they sure know how to use them. 32,000 people killed a year by guns in the US. Is that the deep understanding you speak of? Oh, I forgot, guns don’t kill people.
Point our exactly where I specifically accused you of writing about people who don’t own guns. When you can, perhaps the rest of your rant will have meaning.
You’re right. We should probably shut up about all those children who were murdered. What a waste of time, trying to figure out how to prevent that in the future. Some idiots keep linking all those gun murders in America to guns, while pointing out that industrialized nations that don’t have guns, don’t have children shot in the face. No one wants to think about that while they’re polishing their favorite piece in anticipation of the annual Christmas moose hunt.
@Wm T Sherman:
You mean those facts like nations with strong gun laws have remarkably lower gun deaths than the US? Not “sort of lower”, remarkably lower, like over 100 times lower. Or states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence than states with weaker gun laws? What exactly is this “pragmatism” you speak of? Unless of course you own stock in both the gun industry and the funeral industry, then I can understand. That is pragmatic. Great business model.
@Tom:
That is also the total number of suicides by any method. About half of suicides use firearms. There are about 10,000 homicides per year that use guns. Accidents, which would tend to indicate your assertion of poor training, are a realtively minor contributor.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Here:
My parlance, you say. I wrote no such thing.
Nobody on this side of the argument wants the conversation suppressed. It has been discussed at length and you are no doubt perfectly aware of that. We disagree about how to prevent it in the future and would like to see reasoning, facts, and empirical evidnce applied to the problem, and not your preferred mode: emotion, hysteria, and demonization of people who have reached a different conclusion from you.
Incorrect. European nations with strict gun control laws have had mass murders with firearms. You must be aware of that. Switzerland, which requires men of military age to keep military assault rifles in their houses, is so far not among them.
Countries like Mexico for example.
The author states:
Remember that.
I’ll put your study up against this one, which reaches a different conclusion: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
That gun free zones do not preserve life, they get people killed. That stricter gun control laws, in this country, do not save lives. That mass murderers like the individual in Connecticut almost always surrender or commit suicide when confronted with deadly force, whether it’s the police or a civilian concealed carrier – they do not fight it out. That someone who refuses to even consider the possibility of a paradoxical or unanticipated empirical truth in conflict with what they call “common sense” is not pragmatic, and actually lacks common sense as well.
@Wm T Sherman:
Is that it? Since you claim to want to have a fact based discussion, how does that compare to other industrialized nations? Is it not an egregious total by any measure? Yet you find my suggestion that regulation of who might own a firearm is spurious, as if there is no basis for questioning the wisdom of the current arrangement.
Fair enough. My apologies for that characterization if you feel I’ve misrepresented you.
You’ve (plural) been given the empirical evidence on gun deaths in the US, and you’re (plural) response is a resounding “Second Amendment”. I’ve had this discussion for a week with people, and I’ve heard every possible reason against gun control, from the Second Amendment and freedom from tyranny, to they’re “fun”. Those aren’t arguments how to stop mass shootings, they’re arguments how to stop gun control. Tell me how I should view the fact you (plural) can’t offer one sensible suggestion on how to regulate guns better?
Shoot this suggestion down: No gun shall be sold in this country, by licensed dealer or private citizen, without a background check performed. If one is sold without a background check, and that gun ends up being used in a crime, the seller will be held responsible (whether criminally or othewise is up to further debate).
@Scott in Oklahoma:
I highly recommend that all gun owners do exactly what Julian Heicklen has done (JURY RIGHTS ACTIVISM), repeatedly, in defense of proper jury trials. Jury trials have been slowly degraded and eroded, just like every other protection of individual rights, but jury trials are the most extreme limitation of government power. To get a proper jury trial, only ONE person on the jury needs to be informed. Read about the historical loss of jury trials here, and
Understand this: the 2nd Amendment has been eroded as well, but ultimately, its practice can still be both USEFUL and OPTIMIZED.
Example of USEFUL: You can go out and buy a handgun, and then you’ll be much safer than someone who is disarmed, when it comes to defense against rape and assault. When it comes to an unconstitutional stormtrooper telling you to fetch your wife and kids from inside the house, and line up on the sidewalk, you’re not in a good situation, but you’re in a far, far, far better situation than someone who is completely disarmed. (The Jews in the warsaw ghetto uprising first used crappy little black market revolvers to shoot guards, and take their rifles. In that case, their possession of black market revolvers saved their lives, and they held off an entire German army division for longer than the entire nation of France did. Untold lives were saved by that fact: they occupied the time of murderers of men, women, and chilren, so they could not be murdering others who were entirely disarmed, for this entire three month period.)
Example of OPTIMIZED: Even though you cannot be equally armed to the general infantry man as Federalist Paper #46 (Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment) indicates (for that to happen, you’d need to be able to own a select-fire AR-15, a fully auto BAR, etc…), you can own something close: a semi-automatic battle rifle, which you have practiced with to proficiency at up to 300 yards. Even if you live in IL, you can buy such a tool, and practice at Maxon’s gun range in Des Plaines. Further, you can own several revolvers, enough for each family member, so that noone in your family needs to “get on the truck.” “Useful” is at the beginning of the scale, the end of which is “optimized.”
It might seem “far fetched” or “paranoid” to the emasculated, whiny, unphilosophical, uneducated, whimpering fiat-currency serfs (socialists who, not knowing the history of the word liberal, call themselves “liberals”) who are now bleating to be rendered completely defenseless. But SCREW THEM. They’re too uneducated to know that “gun control” is already responsible for over 4,000 murdered (“lynched”) blacks in the South –the first “Jim Crow” law passed in the South (in several states, immediately following the civil war) required a Sheriff’s permit to carry a firearm. Guess what race got permits from the (always) white (often) KKK-member sheriffs? Whites only! Guess what turned the tide in the battle for civil rights in the South? White, liberal, anti-racist “civil rights attorneys” who all carried guns, came down South from the North to protect black families. Don Kates, a white, liberal lawyer states that “We all carried guns.” (See: “In Search of the Second Amendment” by David T. Hardy Without guns, those civil rights attorneys simply would have been lynched as well.
The pathetically-misinformed gun grabbers never got an education in history in the government youth propaganda camps, and they’re too dishonest and stupid to have read the Federalist Papers, or to have watched David Hardy’s documentary “In Search of the Second Amendment.” So, they are bleating to be stripped of a right they don’t understand, and to be stripped of tools they know nothing about, and they are bleating to strip those who do understand these tools of them as well. That’s the same kind of mindless evil that sent 6 million innocent Jews to their deaths, before and during WWII. If the USA hadn’t entered the war, it would have been many millions more. (Good thing the Jews weren’t negroes, like the Tutsis in Rwanda! The USA under the gun-grabber Clinton administration didn’t give a rat’s ass about them. Also, he didn’t want to get sucked into another Somalia. So, when we could have at least spoken up about the genocide, and placed pressure on the world to disallow the genocide, the USA was silent and uninvolved. Moreover, the USA’s anti-gun policies made it impossible to send private relief and private defense to Rwanda. But the US knew what was going on –they had very accurate reports of the genocide as it began, and as it unfolded. When the “Hutu Power” majority enacted a universal gun ban against the Tutsis, those who obeyed the law were all murdered by the Hutu “soldiers.”)
What Bloomberg is championing is totalitarianism: a government with absolute power. I’m amazed he defends that position (albeit lyingly and inconsistently) in public.
Here’s another example from history: In the early 1970s, my father’s draft number came up. But he understood the appeals process. An army truck appeared one day, in Charleston, IL ( Where Eastern, IL University is, and where Lincoln once gave his famous racist speech, stating that his goal was not to make negroes equal under the law, but to “preserve the Union”), and a military man in uniform told my father: “Get on the truck.” Several people already on the truck looked on in disbelief as my father refused to board the truck, destined for bringing newly-aquired military slaves to a military induction center.
My father had done more research into his rights, and he knew that he had yet to exhaust the appeals process. So, to his immense credit, he didn’t get on the truck. And he THEREFORE wasn’t sent to Vietnam. Because the USA was nation with a solid gun culture at that time, he also wasn’t summarily executed in front of the other draftees. He certainly would have been shot dead, or imprisoned, in Soviet Russia (where private ownership of guns was banned at the same time period) for a similar refusal. He certainly would have been shot dead, or imprisoned, in communist China (where private ownership of guns was banned at the same time period) for a similar refusal.
Now, morons will miss the point and take this as their cue to defend the Vietnam war, and that’s their right. But I didn’t mention my father’s unwillingness to “get on the truck” to argue against the Vietnam war. I mentioned it to note the difference between what happens to someone in a country of gun owners who disobeys an unlawful order, and what happens to someone in an unfree country of disarmed victims who disobeys an unlawful order.
Jews who didn’t obey nazi orders to get on the cattle cars were promptly shot, or forced onto the cars to be murdered at their destination. Their lives were over in an instant, and their public murders were a message to anyone who might be likewise tempted to resist. That message was “The government holds absolute power. Disobey us, and you will be murdered. The individual is nothing, the collective is everything.” They openly said as much, once the public was disarmed. (“Du bist nichts; Dein Volk ist alles.” Translated: You are nothing; your people is everything. German Nazi Führer (Leader) Adolf Hitler. Note that this core premise, collectivism, is the opposite of the American premise, individualism.)
…One might expect the legal heir of Ayn Rand to comprehend this fact. He wrote an eloquent and 100% truthful book about how the decline of the Weimar Republic (in 1920s, and 1930s Germany) is similar in many ways to the decline of our own Republic. That book is called “The Ominous Parallels,” and I highly recommend it. However, he later agreed with the US government’s massacre of a church of innocent people in Texas, when the BATFE massacred the Branch Davidians, in Waco Texas. He bought the government’s story, hook, line, and sinker, with seemingly no investigation into the legitimacy of the warrants. On a radio show, he repulsively agreed with their massacre (even of the innocents who the government was allegedly trying to save). You can read all about it at ARI Watch
What am I getting at here? Why mention “The Ominous Parallels” and then criticize Peikoff for his “about-face” support of the Branch Davidian massacre?
Authorities, even legitimate ones, sometimes come to the wrong conclusions about what is best for INDIVIDUALS. They have a wrong opinion, and, when they’re siding with collectivism, and government over-reach, their opinions can have disastrous “unintended consequences.” Authorities have the microphone, and they can direct hordes of uncritical thinkers to that same wrong conclusion. In Germany, those who sympathized with the ostracism and legal inequality of the Jews were wrong, and evil. But those championing “the final solution” had the microphone. They had the political power. …And the German citizenry went along with the 1938 Nazi Weapons Act, which disarmed the Jews, and Germans who were not members of the Nazi Party. In America, where the public had a right to keep and bear arms, the individual decides for himself what path he’ll follow.
Here in America, we have not made the FATAL MISTAKE of ceding individual choice to the government. Here in America, we own the weapons necessary to say “No. …I refuse.”
So, my father can be a “peacenik.” He can refuse to go and die for a bullshit false cause, when his country wants him to make a fatal mistake. He can disagree, and he can LIVE TO TELL THE TALE. Any criticism of the USA must note its superiority to a nation where there are only disarmed subjects. Because, even though the promise of America may be false, America retains its ability to back away from the precipice of total destruction —so long as it retains its right to private firearms ownership and target practice. With a restriction of either of those rights, the gun culture and American freedom with it, are only temporary. With a restriction of firearms ownership, there can be no reliable gun culture. With a restriction of “backdoor” firearms bans on shooting ranges, there can be no reliable gun culture. America’s gun culture is what ultimately guarantees our individual freedom. America’s gun culture is the ability to say “I insist you leave me alone,” after the “Please leave me alone” is ignored.
I never use the term “gun control,” and I correct people who do use it. I say “Do you mean ‘gun chaos’? …Or do you mean ‘slave control’?” Because the phrase ‘gun control,’ as you’re using it, contains two false premises. The first false premise is that government restrictions on firearms ownership results in increased control of firearms. That’s not true, it’s never been true, and you cannot factually point to any instance in the history of mankind where it has been true. In 100% of the cases where private gun ownership has been restricted, those who have refused to give up their firearms (the police and the criminals) have increased their illegitimate power over the law-abiding citizens who had given up their firearms. In the best examples, this has made the Yakuza superior in power to the average japanese civilian. It has lowered japanese women under the power of male rapists, and allowed rapists to accurately and correctly predict that Japanese women are inferior in power to them, increasing rape and sexual assault. It has resulted in humiliation and defeat for women who were put in a position to be raped. Similarly in the UK and in Australia, criminal aggression, rape, and assault all skyrocketed after the bans on firearm carry and ownership. (Watch the movie “Romper Stomper” for good examples of the kind of grotesque violence of white supremacists and other street thugs that resulted from their victims being disarmed, and law-abiding citizens being cowed into inaction. It’s the same kind of violence that now emboldens street thugs in Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C.) In cases where a dangerous snake was in someone’s house, or a razorback was menacing someone in Australia, it lowered the citizen in power below even the wildlife. This disgusting lowering of human integrity, the debasement of man to dangerous animals, further empowers the government: they want you to be defenseless. Rather than being able to shoot a coyote that attacks your child, they’d prefer you call 911, or “animal control.” After all, that makes legislators and bureaucrats important. Legislators and bureaucrats are as important as a case of athlete’s foot to an armed and independent free man. This is what really galls people like Bloomberg: the idea that we’d be able to solve our own problems without their regressive social engineering.
Governments like a nation of inferior humans, disarmed and begging to be kept safe. It’s a power trip for them. It’s a power trip for disgusting bullies like Bloomberg, who don’t go anywhere without an armed escort. (“For me, but not for thee!”) And the net effect is to make every law-abiding individual in the entire USA less capable of defending themselves from armed aggression. How much less? Let’s hope we never find out.
Hitler steered clear of Switzerland, and the nazis laundered their money in the Swiss banking system. Many Swiss were appalled at the nazis, but they remained neutral, and capable of defending themselves, and never had to deal with them. So are we to believe Hitler avoided Switzerland because he didn’t want enough gold to arm every regimen in each of his occupying forces to the hilt? Are we to believe that, when photos of camp guards towards the end of the war show that many of the guards’ rifles are UNLOADED, due to lack of ammunition, that Hitler wouldn’t have wanted to confiscate Switzerland’s gold? That’s simply not credible. Hitler avoided marching into the Swiss Alps because snipers armed with automatic weapons from Cantonal militias would have safely turned his troops into Swiss cheese from mountainous cover positions.
My father was appalled at the North Vietnamese. …But he knew better than to put his life under the control of someone else who might not value it as much as he did. He knew better than to surrender autonomy over his own destiny. He lived to raise a family, and lead an enchanted life in a relatively free market economy. 58,000 of his fellow citizen-peers (young men) were not so lucky, and perished in Vietnam, for a war we didn’t need to win. Now, we trade with Vietnam, and they can honestly claim to have fewer people, per capita, in prison than the USA does. Do they now have a right to march into Chicago, and liberate Chicagoans from an oppressive regime? No. …But the Vietnam war was still a pointless, foolish sacrifice of American life. And my father was right to avoid it like the politicians’ plague that it was.
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR FIREARMS. YOUR FIREARMS ARE YOUR FREEDOM. EVEN IF YOU ARE A DEFENSELESS COWARD, OTHER PEOPLE’S FIREARMS HAVE BLESSED YOU WITH A HIGH STANDARD OF LIVING. GUN RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE, BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM, THERE IS GOVERNMENT-ENACTED TOTALITARIAN CHAOS.
Which brings me to the difference between “control” and “chaos.” In the roaring 1920s in the USA, there was “chaos.” The mob had a lot of machine guns, because owning one only required paying a $200 transfer tax, and a “lawful” registration. This situation continued even after the supply of machine guns was limited by the “Gun Control (Gun Chaos) Act of 1968.” After the GCA 1968, there was a one-month amnesty registration of all machine guns, and buying a new machine gun became illegal for everyone besides the police. (So, the police have new automatic weapons, and the submitizen slaves have automatic weapons that get older, and older, and older, and eventually fall apart or are bought by collectors. This is creeping, incremental gun prohibition of weapons that make the individual equal to government soldiers.) It was still possible for anyone who wanted to buy an old machine gun to do so, if they agreed to submit 14 sets of fingerprints, and register themselves as the machine gun owner. Many otherwise law-abiding citizens were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for such violations, as were many violent criminals (who had a greater “every day” need for extreme firepower). Later, the mislabeled “assault weapons ban” (signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush) banned semi-automatic rifles that that were cosmetically different than other weapons that had the exact same functionality. For instance, if a rifle had a flash suppressor (which makes it easier to shoot in low-light) it was mislabeled an “assault weapon” and banned. This introduced confusion and chaos among law-abiding people who owned rifles that were cosmetically different from a normal .30-o6 hunting rifle. For several years, those who owned such weapons were technically felons, even though very few people (to their credit) turned in their “scary looking rifles.” When George W. Bush allowed this onerous ban to expire, those felons once again became regular old law-abiding citizens. Would we have been better off if the police were able to perfectly enforce that ban, and send those 300,000 (estimate) Americans to prison? We already have more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the entire world. (…But we’re a free country, right?) So, a whole bunch of otherwise non-criminal Americans were branded felons, and some of them had their lives ruined, because of a law that later wasn’t deemed worthy of keeping on the books.
OK, so that’s what “weak firearm restrictions,” mislabeled “gun control” look like, and this is what is labeled unacceptably “chaos” (the opposite of control) by the establishment. This situation is deemed so chaotic that further government controls, including possible confiscation, are necessary. What about stronger gun control? What does that look like? Well, the Nazi Weapons Act forbade anyone who wasn’t a Nazi Party member from owning weapons. The result of the Nazi Weapons Act was 6-8,000,000 innocent Jews murdered during peacetime, not including battle deaths. Another 10-12,000,000 innocent German civilian dissenters, gypsies, homosexuals, artists, and other non-party members were also murdered while there was “100% gun control” in Germany. In Russia, where non-police were banned from gun ownership, 50,000,000 innocent civilians were murdered, with 20,000,000 of them murdered because Stalin’s military carted off the food they needed to survive the harsh Ukrainian winter. In Mao’s China, a similar 60,000,000 innocent civilians were murdered, and in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, over 95% of the entire country’s population was murdered, for offenses such as “wearing eyeglasses.” You can get all these statistics and more at the website “The Democratic Peace” website of Professor R. J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii
So, if we have a moderate amount of “gun control” we can expect, at minimum, rapists and violent criminals to be emboldened, and for assault, robbery, and rape levels to increase (as they have in all areas of the USA where guns are banned, such as Chicago and Washington D.C.). Moderate levels of “gun control” have the opposite effect of passing a “shall issue” concealed carry handgun permit law, as several States have done over the past 20 years. Each time such a “shall-issue” law is passed, rape, assault, and robbery rapidly decrease, and unoccupied car theft increases, because unoccupied cars can’t shoot back (According to the landmark study of county-by-county violent crime data by sociologist Gary Kleck). I don’t know about you, but I’d rather that my car was broken into, than that a woman in my family was raped by a rapist who presumed that she was law-abiding and therefore not carrying “the great equalizer.”
So we can encourage rape, if we give Bloomberg and his regressive gun-grabbers part of what they want. We can confuse people who want to own rifles that are cosmetically different than normal hunting rifles, and that will result in some of them being caught by the police state and prison system, their lives ruined for no good reason. We can further embolden cowardly, ineffectual young male murderers, by posting signs on our schools that say “gun free zone,” which is interpreted by them as “welcome to the shooting gallery.” Such signs indicate, to the deranged multiple murderer: “If you want to kill us, we have call 911, and wait for the police to get here, while you shoot us. We are defenseless victims, and even if you only have a pump shotgun, you can kill us as fast as you can reload. We’re a shooting gallery of defenseless targets. So, if you have a deranged hatred of all teachers, or feel they have wronged you, you can take away the one thing that is precious to them: the lives of the children who they are entrusted to protect.”
That’s a moderate level of “gun control,” and a level that totalitarians like Bloomberg might actually succeed in enacting into a law that contradicts the highest law of the land, the 2nd Amendment. This would then result in the legal chaos that we’re experiencing right now, where the Supreme Court and States have made it clear that gun control is unlawful, but the regressive socialists in the Federal Government and various regressive socialist cities now contradict the law, and enforce self-contradictory statutes, rather than obeying the law of the land. (Guess which law the police –who all took oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution as the highest law of the land– will enforce? That’s right: the kind of person who signs up to be a cop will typically follow whatever law their watch commander says will result in them getting another paycheck. Otherwise, no cop could ever write a victimless traffic ticket, confiscate and arrest people for drug possession, arrest people for tax evasion, etc.)
And if we allow Bloomberg and his regressives to win? To enact sweeping gun control? An extreme level of “gun control” results in mass murder of innocent civilians by a totalitarian government. Of course, mass murder of innocent civilians by all-powerful uniformed bureaucrats might seem like “order” or “control,” but it really is CHAOS. It is chaos to have an unpredictable environment, where at any time, a few armed stormtroopers can begin ordering your neighbors onto trucks. In Rwanda, many Hutus –who were not subject to gun control– objected to their Tutsi neighbors being ordered out of their houses, and shot to death, or hacked up with machetes. They objected to the systematic rape and then genital mutilation of Tutsi women (so they couldn’t reproduce). But the bands of armed “Hutu Power” uniformed thugs knew that those Hutus were in the minority, and they killed them, too (Such Hutu voices of dissent were labeled as “traitors” and executed along with the Tutsi minority). Those unelected government thugs had been shipped rifles, machetes, and uniforms by the United Nations’ former leader, Boutros Boutros Ghali. Those thugs were “the law.” Now, they weren’t the legitimate law. There were laws on the books forbidding murder in Rwanda. But once the guns were confiscated, and the orders were given, the Tutsis and their few Hutu defenders didn’t have the ABILITY to fight back.
The lesson history teaches us is this: Legitimate laws create predictability and emergent order (true “gun control,” because individual law-abiding citizens are then, except in limited cases of theft, in control of their firearms). The supreme law of the USA, the 2nd Amendment, has prevented the total centralization of power in the USA. Therefore, even though a moderate level of gun control has made us much more of a police state, there is still a fairly orderly and fairly controlled society. The fact that power is still more or less decentralized has not created the chaos of mass murder. It has not created an environment where US civilians would be forced to sit by while their neighbors are ordered onto trucks for “orderly” deportation or murder. (Forced government deportation and murder is closer to chaos than millions of law-abiding citizens being armed, and this would be true even if one in ten of them was a psychopath, since even psychopaths are disincentivized to act out their psychopathy if it will mean their death at the hands of law-abiding gun owners.) There are simply too many guns in the hands of private citizens for “democide” (mass murder by government during peacetime) to be possible.
The US government, cannot, tomorrow, order all negroes to report to the local trainyard. The US government cannot send trucks full of uniformed “homeland security” agents to our neighborhoods to collect all firearms, and shoot all dissenters in public, as a message to the general public. Although the US public stupidly has allowed door-to-door searches in black neighborhoods, for “drugs,” the government cannot treat all civilians this way. …It would result in a successful armed rebellion against the incumbent government.
BACK DOOR GUN GRABS:
So, crafty totalitarians like Bloomberg and Obama are pursuing a different strategy. They are trying to make gun ownership appear “uncaring” and “indifferent” to the murder of innocents. The opposite is true, of course. …But there are millions of “fairweather” friends of individual freedom. There are millions of civilians (voters) whom libertarian legal philosopher Lysander Spooner termed “dupes, knaves, and cowards.” Such people wrongly assume good intentions when government trots out a new policy that is horribly mislabeled. They are duped into thinking “It’s just what they say it is. It’s a ‘middle of the road’ compromise that doesn’t really hurt anyone. I can still have a gun, I just can’t have a gun that makes me equal in power to a soldier.” Others are the knaves, such as people who work for homeland security, or have other bureaucratic posts with the government. They think to themselves “Well, this ‘gun control’ stuff is going to be bad for the gun owners, but who cares? I’m not one of them, and I can carry a gun while I’m at work. Plus, it’s a guarantee that I’ll have job security, processing the paperwork of all the poor bastards I’ll be helping to send to prison.”
Which brings us to the last category: the cowards. The thinking of the cowards is much the same as the first two groups. But they know in their hearts that when they try to write off gun control as “harmless” that it’s enabling future Newtown shootings, or far worse. They say to themselves at work: “I better not let my political views be known. My boss might fire me, or someone might report me to the ‘Department of Homeland Security’ which seems to have more power and unconstitutional authority as every day passes. How did things get this bad? Oh well, I guess I’d better not make waves. I’d better not raise a stink in public. I might be one of the poor bastards they retaliate against.”
Nazi Germany had those kinds of cowards, too. Here’s a quote from one of them:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller said this. He was sent to a death camp, but managed to survive the war. Do you think he would have described the bombing of Dresden as “controlled” or “orderly?” What about the rape of disarmed German women by Hitler Youth soldiers, who were encouraged to “Get women pregnant so that Germany would have an strong, increasing population of Aryans”? Would that be considered “order”? What about the disarmed, starving Jews who were shot in public by strutting totalitarian sociopaths, or pushed into mass graves? What about the parents who had to whisper around the Hitler Youth (their own children!), lest they be reported as “unpatriotic.” (Much like the DEA and ONDCP encourage American kids to turn in their parents for drug use! Such kids are the USA’s own “Hitler Youth.” The twisted grotesquery of uneducated children ruling adults on behalf of a police state.) All of the prior represent “chaos” in my mind. Yet, each one of the prior cases is a case created by lawmaking! Could it be that the results of laws don’t live up to their promised effects? And who is promising all the wonderful effects of enacting gun prohibitions? It is career politicians, the economically uneducated, and the tools of the central bankers. …All groups whose paychecks rely on your continuing ignorance!
What about you? Are you smart enough to see that legislative attempts at centralized control do not increase control, but instead, result in first pushing market behavior into uncontrolled and chaotic “black markets,” and later, into uncontrollable government-orchestrated devastation?
Mass impoverishment, and laws that have large rates of disobedience, do not result in “control.” Such “gun control” laws are only the COMMAND of control. They are not the control itself. In fact, such laws result in an imbalance of power that encourages death and destruction, to the extent they are implemented and enforced. The more strictly they are enforced, the more disordered chaos results.
In the USA, we are now creating our own generation of future murder victims and future Martin Niemollers. In one possible future, the dupes, knaves, and cowards of America allow the government to pass sweeping “slave control” laws. After the slaves are brought under control, as the German population once was, the government will then have the power to pass “gun chaos” laws (a complete ban on effective defensive weaponry that can be used to resist groups of armed soldiers). If we allow this to happen, and we survive, we might be able to write our own version of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous quote:
First they came for the unlicensed lawyers,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an unlicensed lawyer.
Then they came for the drug users and dealers,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a drug user or dealer.
Then they came for the rifle owners,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a rifle owner.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
If you’ve read this entire post, thus far, then congratulations! You’re a truth-seeker. You’ve found the truth on a dusty corner of the internet. Although I’ve said that we shouldn’t accept tyranny in this post, I haven’t given too many alternatives. But I did give the most important first step possible: learn your rights and responsibilities as a jury member. Understand, that, as soon as you are seated on a jury, you are SUPERIOR in power to the judge, according to the successfully appealed verdict of “Kriho v. Colorado.” (Read the book “Send in the Waco Killers” by Vin Suprynowicz, for more on this subject.)
Laura Kriho was a jury member who was punished for not volunteering information that would have prevented her from being seated on a jury in a drug case. Laura was a strong-willed American with a backbone (amazing how few of those are men, these days! Marcy Brooks is another, who refused to convict Illinois resident Whitey Harrell for income tax nonpayment). Kriho refused to convict one of her fellow Americans for a drug offense. She had read the Bill of Rights, and the 4th amendment, that says we have a right to “be secure in our persons, papers, and effects” and the 9th and 10th amendments which reserves those rights not enumerated in the Constitution to the people. She reasoned that without property rights, there are no rights of any kind. …And she didn’t take the grotesque imprisonment and punishment of a fellow American lightly. Moreover, she had once been the victim of a drug prosecution as well, so she understood the injustice they were asking of her, and she didn’t comply. She resisted! She didn’t bow down to the unconstitutional and thus unlawful instructions of the prosecutor and tyrant judge (himself a former government-licensed prosecutor). She voted “not guilty” and refused to change her vote, even under the pressure of the brainwashed jurors the prosecutor and judge had selected to sit with her on the jury.
The defendant went free. The benevolence of one single juror saved them a terrible government punishment (for owning plant products that were legal 100 years ago).
SO WHAT IS THE JURY? …WHAT ARE JURY RIGHTS?
The jury is the entire body of the American people. Unlike what you may have “learned” in your “government” class in highschool, the jury is not a group of people that “blindly obeys the judge.” Nor is the jury “a part of the judicial branch.” Nor is the jury subject to the balances of the other three branches of government.
The Jury is the 4th Branch of Government, the supreme branch of government. The jury is “We, the People.” The Jury includes every gun-owner, pot-smoker, and tax resistor in the USA who is a part of the voter rolls. The jury box is the final line of defense against injustice, before the cartridge box. In the USA all juries have a right to vote their consciences, even if their consciences be in direct disagreement with the law. (In fact, the prior sentence was read to jurors all across the nation, prior to 1895.)
Now, if you stand in front of your local courthouse disseminating this truth, the prosecutors and judges inside the courthouse will send out a bailiff or cop who will threaten you with arrest for “jury tampering.” They’ll be operating under the incorrect assumption that not every person in the potential jury pool is a member of “The Jury, The Fourth and Superior Branch of Government.” For their purposes, they’ll assume that you’re there to influence a specific court case (which is illegal, even though such illegality amounts to a ban on speaking the actual truth in public). In short, they will threaten you with arrest, for simply telling people the plain truth, in front of the courthouse. They may even violate your First Amendment right to free political speech, especially if they profile you as someone who cannot afford a solid legal defense, as they did Frank Turney, in Alaska. Of course, as evidence in your case, they’d be forced to hand the jury copies of your pamphlets, so ideally, you’d have pamphlets that taught the history of jury rights, and how juries are currently hand-picked by the prosecution, against the letter and intent of constitutional law.
SO, HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO GUN RIGHTS?
It makes gun prohibition unenforceable. …Frank Turney, a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke the truth to incoming jury members in front of the Fairbanks courthouse, and a man accused of unlawful possession of a firearm was acquitted by an informed jury.
Frank was arrested for “jury tampering” even though he only told those jurors the truth about the power they possessed. He was prosecuted under Alaska’s unconstitutional “jury tampering” law, and found guilty by a jury that was hand-picked by the judge and prosecutor during the unconstitutional pre-trial practice of “voir dire.” The jury that sentenced him was comprised of obedient, mindless conformists who believed that “the judge and prosecutor wouldn’t lead us astray” and “they do this for a living, they must know best.” (The opposite is true. Those prosecutors, and prosecutors with black robes have sought careers of collectivist political power in a time-degraded democratic republic. They are the very last people whose opinion you should trust.)
Frank served his prison time, (about half a year), and then went right back to speaking the truth in front of the courthouse. He refused to be dominated by injustice. ..And they refused to arrest him again.
The same resistance to unlawful arrest and prosecution is true of Julian Heicklen, whose many videos of civil disobedience and jury rights activism are posted on youtube. The same is true of Julian’s young friend, activist Antonio Musumeci. In Chicago, liberal jury rights activist Mike Kalas and his friend have been informing the public of their jury rights in front of the Cook County Courthouse (Video available at the Fully Informed Jury Association website). They were also threatened with arrest, and they also ignored those threats and continued their outreach. They were not arrested, the threats were a bluff (perhaps one that will be acted on in the future if they continue their activism). The point is this: all of these people risked imprisonment to uphold the supremacy and literacy of their local Jury. They decided not to accept the universal miseducation being taught to our children in the grotesque and unenlightened government propaganda camps that the bureaucrats and politicians lyingly call “public schools.”
There are a growing number of these jury rights activists in the USA. They are the ones who are saying “YOU CANNOT TAKE MY FREE COUNTRY AWAY FROM ME WITHOUT A FIGHT.”
They are liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. They are politically involved, and (otherwise) politically uninvolved. They are not from any one single Political Party. They are all AMERICANS who understand that the government has gotten too powerful, and it is abusing its ability to punish innocent people. They are the people who, whatever their opinions on social order, or organization, disbelieve in the punishment of innocent people for victimless crime offenses. They are the people who believe that if a jury believes a punishment is not deserved, then THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR, SINCE THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR ARE PAID AGENTS OF THE STATE, AND ARE THEREFORE CORRUPTED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
In the recent past in Montana, 40 people called for jury duty stated that they would refuse to enforce the state’s marijuana laws (the defendant was set free with only a slap on the wrist, rather than risking the judge calling a mistrial, and ordering a new trial date). In other cases, rather than be kicked off a jury, individual jurors kept their mouths shut until they were on the jury, and voted NOT GUILTY and refused to change their vote to one that would fill another tax-financed prison cell.
We’re all paying taxes to the government-connected prison profiteers for prison cells. Those cells contain conservative gun owners, and conservative tax resistors. Those cells contain liberal drug users, and liberal drug dealers. Those cells contain libertarians and other people like marijuana seed seller Marc Emery, who dared to criticize the DEA and ONDCP. (At first, just to show you how evil the prohibitionists are, they were seeking the death penalty for Marc Emery, for selling marijuana seeds that are now perfectly legal to own in Colorado and Washington States. Would the USA have been better off with Marc Emery being murdered by the government? Are we now better off with him in prison? Only a pig-headed conformist could answer “yes” to those questions.)
If you want to prevent the system from further decaying, you should buy at least one rifle and one side-arm, become skilled with their use, always make sure you have more than enough ammunition for both, and make an oath to yourself: “I will never allow my government to arrest or kill people in my neighborhood during door-to-door warrantless searches.” This is a good “line in the sand.” If the civilians in Nazi germany had taken such a stand, the democide (mass murder by government) of late 1930s and early 1940s Germany might have been entirely avoided.
If you want to IMPROVE or RESTORE the system, then the methods used by Julian Heicklen (libertarian), Frank Turney (conservative libertarian), Antonio Musumeci (libertarian), and Mike Kalas (liberal) are leading the way. They are the ones who said “To hell with sitting by and watching the destruction of America, the transition of a free country into a police state populated by prisoners and overseers.” Maybe you can’t put in as much time to such outreach as these (true) patriots have, but you can do something to educate your local jury. …Even if you only educate one person, if you educate them fully, you will have taken one small step. If you take to the courthouse steps or door-to-door canvassing, you will have taken one large step. My point here is only to show you that there is more that you can do than sitting passively by while your American heritage is stripped from you by an army of faceless bureaucrats.
You can still speak the truth in public. You can speak in defense of those who are being maligned, not because they are irresponsible and don’t take personal responsibility for the defense of the innocent, but because they DO take responsibility for their own defense and the defense of the innocents around them. You can explain that it would be morally wrong to send someone to prison for a victimless crime offense (including a gun offense), if there was no clear individual victim whose rights had been violated by that “offense.”
You can speak out to your family, your friends, or random strangers in front of your local courthouse. You can carry a notebook with you, for when you meet like-minded people who want to join you.
BUT ISN’T THIS ENCOURAGING LAW-BREAKING? ISN’T THE APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CHANGING THE LAW TO LOBBY LEGISLATORS?
Well, no. Legislators have figured out ways of winning the allegiance of interest groups, many of which are bought-off by unconstitutional government largess. Many legislators are licensed lawyers, who support the unconstitutional licensing racket that puts their free market competition out of business. They are corrupted by unconstitutional power. (Neither Abraham Lincoln, nor Lysander Spooner were licensed lawyers, but both were practicing lawyers.)
The government schools encourage the view that electoral participation and lobbying are the only proper way to influence the law. But this view makes legislators all-important to the process, when it is supposed to be “We, The People” who hold the right to determine when government has become destructive to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If that’s the case, the Declaration of Independence (the document that told the colonists why they were rebelling against British rule) states that we have the right to “alter or abolish” our government. Our only means of altering a government that has become unconstitutional is to prevent it from enforcing those unconstitutional laws. The legislators, government bureaucrat school administrators, and others who are politically-connected like to encourage you to “get involved in politics” because they know that that doesn’t work. They know that interest groups of bought off voters determing the outcome of elections.
Moreover, jury supremacy is THE LAW. It is 100% legal to ignore judges’ instructions, and return a verdict in accord with your conscience. If it were not legal, you could be punished for the verdict you return. This is not the case. Moreover, to make it the case would be to throw out the Supreme law of the land, the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution. The politicians and legislators make millions of unconstitutional laws, and they rely on the ignorance of the general public to enforce these laws. Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
The Founders of America predicted that government would eventually overgrow the limits they had placed upon it. This is simply what happens when legislators have time on their hands. They figure out ways to trick the public into parting with their freedom, for personal financial gain. Also, legislators, being self-interested have a “first rule” that makes the expansion of government unavoidable: don’t oppose the overreach of other lawmakers, and they won’t oppose the overreach that you propose. It’s an unwritten law of (sociopathic) legislative action. Maybe one day, we’ll figure out a way to keep sociopaths out of the legislature. Until then, our primary protections are: free speech, jury trials, and gun rights.
In India, during Gandhi’s civil disobedience campaign, once the crowds of people listening to Gandhi became large enough, the British oppressors simply gave up and withdrew. The vocal pressure, the media pressure, the public civil disobedience, showed the world that their rule was illegitimate, and wrong. Gandhi learned his methods of organization from reading Henry David Thoreau, who counseled individuals to “cling with your whole weight against the system.” I’ll leave you with a quote from Gandhi.
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
——-Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition)
(Note: Gandhi did not believe in violence, even for resistance to abject tyranny. He even counseled that the Jews should nonviolently resist the Germans, even if it resulted in their slaughter. …But he knew that when power is centralized, those who lack power will be murdered and oppressed. His path was similar to the jury rights activist of the USA: to resist actively, but nonviolently. Moreover, this presents a pathway away from tyranny, since the more the authorities crack down on jury rights activism, the more they call attention to the truth that the system no longer functions as designed. The author does not share Gandhi’s dedication to nonviolence, but I do share his belief that if nonviolent methods can be used offensively, those methods are far better than being forced to resort to even justified and defensive violence. For more on nonviolent political organization, read “The Politics of Nonviolent Action: vol I-III” by Gene Sharp)
In Pursuit of Freedom,
Jake Witmer
2012-12-24
Jake Witmer
like other so gifted here give us so much,
this is complete and so interesting to read,
how can one be not inform with what people like you give us free,
just to educate the mass of civilians, who don’t want to be educated in schools
because they find it too boring,
thank you for all you put in without any restraint.
you are giving us a must read
@Tom:
You made the claim that about 32,000 people are killed a year by guns. I would certainly like to know where you get your information since you are so far off the mark. According to the FBI web site, the number of firearm murders per year are:
2007 – 14,916
2008 – 14,224
2009 – 13,752
2010 – 13,164
2011 – 12,664
Do you see a trend there, Tom? In spite of record gun sales for the last four years, homicide by gun incidents are trending downward, not upward.
Now, let’s look at another comment you made:
Your quoted source is The Atlantic that for some reason, while it is a recently written article, written after the Newtown tragedy, used 2007 stats. Why is that, Tom? Could it be, perhaps, because the latest stats didn’t hold with the agenda of the author? California has strict gun laws, yet in 2010, there were 1,257 gun homicides there, compared to Texas, which would be one of those states you would claim has lesser gun laws, with 805 total gun homicides. The population of California is not that much greater than Texas to make up for the wide spread in gun-related homicides between the two states. Never mind that if you take the number of murders in California that were committed by the use of a rifle, shotgun or “other” (unspecified gun) the total comes to 354, compared to those murders committed using knifes, “other” (which would include any weapon such as a baseball bat, a hammer, a chain saw, an axe or any other item that can be used as a weapon) at the rate of 570, 60% more than long barrels or “other” guns.
It is quite obvious that you have no intention of being honest in your argument against people being armed. You want to make gun dealers responsible if they sell a product that is used in a murder. Do you want to apply the same standard to knife makers, automobile makers, baseball bat makers? Do you want everyone to register their fists since there are many murders committed where a person is beat to death by someone using their fists, hands and feet?
As I said; you fear what you don’t understand or know about. But instead of educating yourself about firearms, you go off like a cheap one, generally firing blanks. You are a gun grabber, someone who wants the rest of the nation to be responsible for your safety, because you lack the courage to learn how to defend yourself, and reducing the ability of others to defend themselves. You have no argument, only hyperbole, spouted by the rest of your left wing crowd.
Funny, it is well known that in California, there are few who are allowed CCW permits. One author claims that in order to get one you have to be white, wealthy and politically connected. Perhaps that is why Dianne Feinstein has a CCW permit. She is white, wealthy and politically connected. Odd that Ms. Feinstein feels the need to be able to protect herself, yet would deny others that right. She is, and always will be, a typical lefties who thinks her life is more valuable than mine.
No one is responsible for your safety, Tom, not even the police, according to the SCOTUS. And your bigotry is not going to protect you against a bad person who wants to harm you or take your stuff. That is up to you; but if you decide to remain unarmed in a society that is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket, don’t blame anyone but yourself if you are injured, or even murdered.
You blather on how we want to maintain the Second Amendment. That is very true, because without the 2nd, all other amendments are useless. You rail on gun owners, the NRA and states with “lesser gun laws” yet say not one word about the trash that comes out of Hollywood, or the video game makers, as they demand their First Amendment rights. Why don’t you hold them responsible for the violent trash they produce? Or did you not know that the Columbine shooters referred to themselves as “NBKs”, taken from the movie Natural Born Killers?
What about the guns that our own government was running? Do you think those guns are not going to make their way into El Norte via the same drug cartel members they were sold to? Where is your criticism of that? Seems your beloved Obama is the biggest gun runner in the western hemisphere. Yet, you are mute about that.
You need to deal with reality, not how you want things to be.
So according to tom, FIREARMS cause violence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
All that gun control sure prevents mass shootings eh?
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
There were over 118,000 automobile deaths (including those that died of injuries related to automobile accidents) last year; let’s ban cars.
There were over 4000 drowning, mostly of children; let’s ban water.
There are approximately 250,000 deaths each year due to hospital and doctor mistakes; let’s ban hospitals.
There were over 15,000 deaths because of aspirin or ibuprofin overdoses; let’s ban them both.
There were over 20,000 deaths from prescription drug overdoses; ban prescription drugs.
There were approximately 38,000 deaths from illegal drug use; ban illegal drugs. Oh wait….
@CJ:
As noted multiple times, those are all false analogies: accidents do not equate to homicides. Do you think if this was just about gun owners accidentally shooting themselves, as tragic as that is, that we’d be having this conversation?
You bring up cars, but are you willing to have a conversation about car regulation vs. gun regulation? Cars are safer now than ever, much safer than they were even 25 years ago, and that’s largely due to government regulation. Do you think your car would have an airbag now if it were not for the government? By the way, what’s the last significant, universally adapted safety measure taken by the gun industry? Don’t bother trying to dig too hard for gun safety data though. The NRA has effectively fought against that research to take place. What fighting against safety research has to do with the Second Amendment, I have no clue, but it’s nice to know they’re looking out for you and your families’ interests.
CJ
yes that is quite a research to be face with,
why is that so many died of all those friggen things,and it all goes
in the same box of excess from the citizens, the so call good citizens
who make fits for gun legally own by the responsible citizens,
wile they are responsible for killing those multi thousands citizens,
thank you for those infos which are priority for OBAMA TO LOOK IN AND FIND A PREVENTION WAY
TO FIX IT. THAT IS 400,000 DEATHS TO PREVENT
Yeah, salon is such a reliable source. (Roll eyes.)
I saw the studies the NRA had a problem with, and they were right to. Shoddy science and conclusions that were arrived at first, then had data created to support that predetermined conclusion. Much if not all of it done with taxpayer money.
That is what it has to do with gun control, but we know you know that.
And since you seemed to miss it, European massacres. They have far stricter gun control laws and THEY can’t stop them from happening either.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
@Tom:
Background checks are performed by all licensed dealers, including at gun shows — did you not know this? For sales by non-dealers — there are already laws about providing guns to felons. These are ignored by other felons. Change the law for all the good it will do. As far as holding individuals responsible for future problems caused by products sold in good faith — do you support holding gas station owners liable for acts of arson committed with legally sold gasoline? If so, why? I really want an answer.
I see that you had no response to the Harvard study that I linked — the one that concluded that gun control does not reduce crime. Completely ignored it. Explain.
William, I’ve noticed tom ignores that which proves him wrong and repeates the same things over and over. I’ve told him 2-3 times about backround checks and gunshows. Either he’s gone completely mental, or he’s trolling.
Here’s a good quote from AOS
http://minx.cc/?post=335922
tom has done the above in spades.
@Wm T Sherman:
Evasion and misrepresentation. I think you know I’m referring to the 40% of guns sold without background checks. I’ll make it very simple. Do you support mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes or no?
I will get back to you on Harvard when I have time to give it the attention it warrants (travelling today). I think that’s more respectful than the non-response you just afforded me.
Speaking of evasion tom…
Mass shootings in Europe
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
Ooops.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/history-gives-mixed-grade-to-impact-assault-weapons-ban/
Hard Right
I have that feeling of the MUSLIM KILLING ,
SPECIALLY ON YOUR LAST LINK
we know their death wish on the JEWS, SINCE THEIR BEGINNING, STILL
WELL ALIVE.
and they might be screwing up the young minds
with their propaganda in the schools,
which is the first one to be ban,
forget the guns, they only are tools in the hands of humans,
for two different causes,
the good and the bad causes.
and we know their causes already, even if they try to hide it.
@Tom:
Any sale whatsoever between two private citizens? Between me and my neighbor? Not necessarily. It’s open to discussion, but you have to demonstrate that it’s an actual significant source of crime, not something you imagine to be a problem. Facts.
Show me a mass murder committed by a perpetrator who would have been prevented from such a rule. In every case I am aware of the perpetrator either passed a background check or broke an existing law. In the case of Jared Loughner he should have been barred from his legal purchase but his decidedly alarming record was cleared, apparently as a favor to his mother who worked for the Sherriff’s Department.
According to the ATF about 95% of criminals caught with weapons obtained them by violating the law. You are proposing another law that will affect me and not them. They don’t obey the law. They’re criminals.
Again –give us some reason to believe that this is a real problem. Given the lack of evidence it comes across as just another leftist talking point intended to create the impression that law abiding gun owners created a problem.
Ted C Burhenn
hi,
interesting and your type of weapon is as far as giving you the ability to shoot
a pack of wolfs attacking your animals which ever you would have, and from a distance far enough to prevent even one loss of them,
also if you had some employees working in the field far from voice range alert,
again you have a chance to protect them or what ever one or more so to warn them of danger, farther on the 300 feets distance you see, and again this before a kill.
that weapon is handy in my mind for sure.
and more of,
there are illegals hiding in wide space area, and they won’t hesitate to kill you if discover, they also can fake a wound to get the rancher close enough to shoot him.
as it was told by other ranchers, and too bad for the one rancher with compassion to be shot in the back
by the fake wounded illegal hiding the drugs on his land
@Wm T Sherman:
Thoughtful response, which I appreciate. I unfortunately cannot at this time respond in kind as i’m about to board a plane and on my mobile. Would like to pick this up again after the holiday. I wish you a merry Christmas and my thoughts will be with Newtown.
I think I’m going to start a website called “Diary of an AR.” It will only have one page which will have a live webcam feed pointed at my AR. Next to the video will be a counter that records every person it runs off and kills while I’m not looking. Viewers will be able to keep track of my AR and let me know when it tries to slink off and commit mass atrocities. What do you think?
@CJ: heehee… good one CJ… Should you ever find yourself in Oklahoma with some spare time, first round is on me.
Tom
have a good trip and MERRY CHRISTMAS, HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE
BEST TO YOU,
BY THE WAY
WHERE ARE YOU GOING LIKE THIS?
CJ
DON’T VIEWERS GET KILLED BY THE AR?
WHAT IS A AR?
AREN’T YOU COMPLICATING OUR LIFE OR DEATH?
WITH YOUR AR
MERRY CHRISTMAS SIR,
I SUPPOSE WE BETTER START TO BE POLITE WITH YOU OR ELSE.
AR= arm, armony, arithmetic, arrival, aryouwithme, around
areo chocolat bar,
I give up
@CJ:
CJ, I keep my Chinese AK locked up tight. Can’t risk it going out and killing hundreds, now can I?
Merry Christmas.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Thanks bees. Having my holiday in southern Illinois, right along the majestic Mississippi.
Tom
I know you will make the best of every second of it.
@CJ:
If my sense of humor could take a time machine back to the 1950s I’d congratulate you on your tasteful and hilariously innovative comedy stylings. It really begs the question why there aren’t more famous conservative comedians.
Most of these people are living in the 18th or 19th Century. I don’t feel like reading through the diatribes on gun rights, and the usual invalid reductio ad absurdums, in respect to autos, for example—if guns were actually used everyday, like cars, then there would probably be even most gun deaths than those resultant from cars. Did anyone give a solution to the problem of gun violence? That’s the problem with the right-wing: They don’t care that people are being killed needlessly. All they are concerned about is some trumped up conspiracy of government against them. No need for a solution—just let the continuous distrust of government.
But this situation is understandable. I distrust government when there is a conservative government. But, until this bifurcation is lessened—and a new social contract is agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the members of this schism—then there will continue to be conflict, impeding progress.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): I gave a partial solution in another post, I’ll let you hunt for it.
Merry Christmas.
@Tom:
Why not just pass a law that prohibits persons from using them to commit a crime? That’s what we’re after isn’t it. It should be okay to sell one to a person that is not going to use them to commit crimes. Anytime one is prohibited from selling to a law abiding person, the constitution is being violated.
@Redteam: heh heh… made me spit beer on my laptop…
@Jake Witmer:
Witmer, this didn’t happen:
At that time, anyone failing to report as ordered would be arrested by civilian police, they would not have been rounded up by the military. I don’t know what point you were trying to make by this misrepresentation, but truth is more important than ‘points’ at times. I didn’t read much after that point because you comment was way too long and rambling.
@Redteam: Thank you, it’s hard to fool people who lived through the era, but I wasn’t up for raining on his parade. Like you, I was confused as to motive and objective.
I’m glad to see a ton more morons got their hands on AR-15s this holiday season. Thank you, NRA, for keeping the bar so low thus protecting us from tyranny!
http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/look-all-these-guns-people-got-christmas/60306/
@Tom: And what does the NRA have to do with the sale of guns Tom? They aren’t a manufacturer or a retailer. Being a member of the NRA isn’ a prerequisite for gun ownership, for example, I own guns and am not a member. Do you have a legitimate complaint, or do you just like to bitch and troll?
@Scott in Oklahoma: @Scott in Oklahoma:
What do they have to do with…. Well let’s see, their primary benefactors, funding wise, are gun manufacturers. They fight all gun laws, regulations, mandatory training, etc. regardless of merit. They fight against research into gun safety. Basically all they do is promote gun sales for their masters regardless for public safety.
Stick around. This conversation will continue but I cant do it on a moble. Merry Christmas.
@Tom: I disagree with your statement. I am a life member of the NRA and the only purpose I’ve personally observed is the preservation of your constitutional rights.
@Redteam:
I respect your opinion. So please point out any law the NRA has supported that regulates sales for the expressed purpose of increasing safety. More simply, has the NRA ever supported any measure that would negatively impact the sale of firearms?
@Tom: You have still failed to answer my question. You still haven’t explained how the NRA is directly involved in the sale of firearms. The have pushed for firearms safety and protection of our 2nd amendment rights, that is thier primary mission.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
:
They are the gun industries’ top lobbyists and work on their behalf. Do you deny this?
@Tom: To the point Tom, first you refer to a large number of people buying AR-15’s as morons, when you have no real way to qualify that statement. Then you insinuate that the NRA was directly responsible for the sale of said rifles. When cornered and asked directly to qualify your statement, you choose to twist your answer around the supposed role the NRA has in the frearms industry, then you say you cannot answer right away because you are on a mobile. Then you post a few more time, trying to get distance from my original questions. And now you ask me to verify something that while being pretty much common knowledge, which still doesn’t show the relationship between the NRA and retail sales of a particular firearm.
If you cannot answer my question clearly and honestly, that’s fine. An indicator of strong character and strength of princilples is having the ability to admit you cannot answer a question. Your inability to do so is quite telling.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
Yes, i am jerk. You win on that point.
So lets talk about the NRA. Are you willing to answer the questions i posed now that you made your point about me?
@Tom: You seem to have reading comprehension issues as well, I believe I already agreed with the NRA role as you described. I’m not out to win anything, I just don’t like it when people say things that are patently not true. When you finally get around to thinking up an honest answer, let us know.
Scott, while we’re waiting for you to answer (duck, ignore) the questions in post 87, let me ad – again – the unanswerable question: when has anyone needed an assault rifle to repel a home invasion?
@Scott in Oklahoma:
If you have no point to make, don’t add static. Sad to hear you have no conviction.
@Tom: I thought you were directing your question to someone else in post 87… that said, I don’t know the answer to your questin as I am not a member of the NRA. As for my convictions, no doubt a lot stronger than yours, and I have a proven track record.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
You’re a brave man. It makes you feel tough to chuckle along with CJ when he mocks the destructive power of an AR-15. One that’s shot children in the face, but when asked direct questions about it, you feign ignorance. You’re a fucking coward
@Scott in Oklahoma:
@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?
@CJ:
So CJ is calling CT State troopers and local law enforcement into question.i guess my buddy who is a CT cop is a liar because CJ says so. All those cops in CT are liars. Say it to their face, Asshole. Fucking NRA zombie.
It appears Tom gets “brave” behind a keyboard after a few drinks, then he likes to call people names. Tom, you’re a piece of shit troll, no crediblity, no character, and I will no longer waste time with your crap.
@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.
@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.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
87 and 93, Scott. Answer the questions and join the discussion.
@CJ:
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?
@ CJ ,
You know I own no guns. I know you own many and love to brag about them. You must feel pretty tough threatening me.
@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.
Tom
watch your words, you might have had one too much under the collar,
that’s why you are the only ass hole here,
CJ IS ONE OF THOSE SAVING YOUR ASS
@CJ:
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.
Redteam
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,
-when?
=wait for our call
CJ
do you think TOM would be trusted to walk in front and look for IEDS in AFGHANISTAN?
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THE BRAVES, IN AFGHANISTAN AND ALL OVER THE WORLD,
WE THINK of you all, clean them up and come back soon after,
@Tom: I’m sure the answer is no.
@Tom:
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?
retire05
best wishes for you and your family,
for the NEW YEAR,
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:
Tom;
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.
CJ
HOW CAN TOM physically be threaten in the cyber space?
watch him he sound like HOMOPHOBIC THERE,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
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.
RETIRE05
I’m watching FOX NEWS and you all see the disaster for the end of the year,
my it coulf flood the CLIFF, SO THE FIRST TO FALL DOWN BETTER KNOW TO SWIM IN THE MUD.
BYE
@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.
CJ
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,
TALKING TO A BEAR CUB,
WITH A MAMA BEAR ON HIS TAIL
WHILE TEXTING ON HIS MOBILE
@ilovebeeswarzone: I’m sure that’s it.
@CJ,
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.
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.
@Tom:
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.
@retire05:
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.
C.J. # 98 says “What proof that Lanza shot kids at all” Are you serious? You’re the author. Got another possibility?
Semper Fi
@Tom:
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.
@retire05:
Where did I claim to have “software”?! Lol.
Now what question is it you want me to answer?
@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.
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.
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
@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?
@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.
@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.
Tom
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,
BUT YOU ALSO ARE A ONE FOR SURE
CJ
I think they had an order from the WH TO INCLUDE THE WEAPON IN THE KILLING,
LIKE YOU MENTIONED THEY WANT THOSE BAN, THEY NEED CLUES EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO FABRICATE IT, LOOK AT FAST AND FURIOUS,
AND WHAT IS HAPPENING MIGHT BE THE OTHER SAID THE TRUTH THAT IT WAS LEFT IN THE CAR,
BECAUSE HE REFUSE TO LIE, OR DID NOT GET THE ORDER.
BUT THE ONE FROM TOM DID GET THE ORDER AND SAID IT WAS THE ONE USED BY THE KILLER TO PROTECT THE LIE
JUST LIKE AN OBEDIENT LIB FOLLOWING THE OBAMA ORDER.
THE NEW YORK NEWS PAPER STUPID JOURNALIST GIVING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF GUN OWNERS,
THAT IS APPAWLING IN AMERICA, THEY SHOULD BE SUES
FOR ALL THEY HAVE. THIS IS A BLATANT BREACH OF PRIVACY
which will carry consequences even lost of more lives and theft from criminals, that is really dangerous,
AND JUAN IS LIKE A DEAD FISH SINKING AT FOX TRYING TO TAKE OBAMA CAUSE. ON GUNS
BYE
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 damned.lol
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.
@Tom:
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?
@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.
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.
CJ
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
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.
@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.
@CJ: If either of you need a grammar judge, I’ll volunteer.
CJ One thing is certain. You don’t have what it takes to replace Aye or Mata.
Gary Johnson?? There it is
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.
@Redteam: Reread my comment in #98 and tell me if, grammatically, I ever said that Lanza wasn’t the shooter please.
@CJ:
in 98 you said:
and then you said to me:
My answer is that; No you did not say that Lanza wasn’t the shooter.
@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.
@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.
LT Vance is also just a public affairs officer and not involved in investigations.
Redteam In my mind CJ is questioning whether there is PROOF that Lanza is the shooter. That should be the debate based on that singular question. Of course, we can also debate WHERE they were shot and by what type of weapon. Those are separate questions.
@Richard Wheeler: “In my mind…” Nuff said.
CJ Didn’t you question whether there was proof that Lanza was the shooter?
Fortunate that I didn’t get too close to exploding IEDS. Arty and mortars—yup.
@Richard Wheeler: No, I never did.
CJ
I MUST SAY THAT SENTENCE AGAIN TO MAKE SURE, I UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY BEFORE
I say anything I think of it,
LT VANCE SAID,
SIR IT HAS BEEN STATED MORE THAN ONCE BY ME, BY ME BY ME
THAT THE BUSHMASTER WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE AND USED TO SHOOT THE VICTIMS.
I LT VANCE
SIR IT HAS BEEN STATED[ BY WHO ?] MORE THAN ONCE BY ME, [ STATED BY WHO? BY ME,
SO HE IS THE ONE WHO STATED MORE THAN ONCE,
HE IS THE ONE WHO SAID THE GUN WAS USE,
CJ #154 OK. Would have been crystal clear if you’d simply said. ” what proof do you have that the kids were shot( in the face)* with an AR-15?
* in or out.
Richard Wheeler
no CJ did not say that
Richard Wheeler
you misunderstood the 98, CJ WAS ONLY QUESTIONING TOM IF HE KNEW THAT
IT WAS THE GUY BECAUSE TOM DID NOT KNOW,
HE WAS REPEATING WHAT WAS TOLD TO HIM,
SO CJ wanted to know if the facts where coming from himself, where he got it, was it a credible source ecetera
lay off that, get lost
Richard Wheeler
you and TOM should apologyse for using bad grammar,
to CJ
AS A GENTLEMAN YOU PRETEND TO BE, AND A MARINE TO AN ARMY TOP HERO
BEES #158 I readily admit I rarely have a clue what your gibberish is about.
I do believe you’re right of Atilla the Hun and that provides some comic relief.
Richard Wheeler you should read in between the lines,
that’s why words where invented,
C J can read between the lines
I guess it’s part of his experience,
I’m personally sure that Lantz went in the school and shot 26 people and killed them. I don’t think it matters much ‘where’ they were shot. I think it is still questionable whether they were shot with handguns or rifles, but that only matters to the anti-gun people. I’m sure it’s not an important question to the relatives of the people that were victims.
Redteam
yes of course
Redteam Never questioned YOUR statements or beliefs on this issue although I don’t think you can speak for the relatives.
Your thoughts on my #151 and #156
Bees says Between the lines? That’s the ticket.
Got a response from Colonel Danny Stebbins, Commander of the Connecticut State Police.
“The Bushmaster was the primary weapon used based on casings found on scene.
Additional crime scene investigative results are still pending.”
I’m confused by these responses. So far, no one has told me that the Bushmaster was at the scene. How is it they can tell me that “casings” were found, but not the weapon. Did the shooter kill those kids, run the rifle back to his car, then go back and shoot himself? Something isn’t adding up here.
CJ
YOU ARE SO METICULOUS we get lost behind your probing on all the minute details,
the casing was found on the scene, and from LT VANCE the bushmaster was used to commit the crime,
AND WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE ALSO
we know that right?
where are the guns?
NO, I don’t think he went back to his car,
it doesn’t make sense, leaving the scene before he shot himself with what weapon did he shot himself?
he might have had his two guns in his pockets,
it was two guns right?
@Richard Wheeler:your 151:
your 156:
151:I don’t think CJ was questioning whether Lanza was the shooter.
156: CJ never question IF Lanza is the shooter.
I sure don’t claim to speak for the relatives. But I will say that I had a son that got killed in a car wreck. There was a question as to whether alcohol was involved (there were no other persons in the accident) the coroner asked me if I wanted to know the results of his blood test. I said no, it wouldn’t make any difference. I don’t think minor details will matter to these parents either.
@CJ:
CJ, my interpretation is: IF he had used the Bushmaster, the answer would be. He used the Bushmaster.
since they are parsing their words and answers about casings, etc. he likely did not use the Bushmaster.
That’s kinda like the Warren Report. If Lee Harvey Oswald were the only person involved, every record, every piece of evidence would have been published immediately. Sealing the records for 75 years kinda tells you they are hiding something. But that’s a different subject.
Redteam
so sorry about that hurt you had lived,
Redteam
but LT VANCE SAID ; THE BUSHMASTER WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE AND
USED TO COMMIT THE CRIMES
@ilovebeeswarzone: yes, I agree that he said that, but the problem is he has said other things also. Initially, for 2 days or so, they repeatedly said that the bushmaster had been left in the car, only the handguns were used, but the story changed as time went on. I don’t have a clue what the truth is.
yes it’s another BENGHASI? SAME STYLE FOR A PURPOSE RIGHT?
@CJ:
Perhaps there are other communications between you and Lt. Vance, but based on what you have shared that is a mis-reading of his statement. He informed you that he has publicly answered your question more than once, the possible implication being why are you asking again.
Furthermore, if you are insinuating there is a conspiracy or cover up, you are therefore calling into question the veracity of the CT State Police, the very thing I pointed out previously that you took such offense to. I am not aware of the CT State Police ever stating on the record the AR was in the car. That was a media report, and the media got a lot wrong. Do you have a link to the State Police stating the AR was in the car?
@Tom:
I see you’re still dodging my questions in post #115 on this thread.
Although you continue to be nothing more that a sick joke, you have ceased to be amusing.
@retire05:
Did I not request exactly what question you are so desperate to have answered?
CJ
do you think we can hit the 200 comments before the end of the year?
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17973836
“According to sources, Lanza shot his mother in the face, then left his house armed with at least two semi-automatic handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, and a semi-automatic rifle…The rifle was found in his car.”
an old movie, glenn ford , barbara stanwick, brian keith, and more,in the violent man,
on turner movies
oops EDWARD G ROBINSON IN THERE
@Tom:
Listen, asshole, I’m getting tired of your game playing. My questions, ALL FIVE OF THEM, on in my post #115 on this thread. If you’re that stupid that you are not able to read them, just say so.
CJ
YOU’RE RIGHT THEY ARE PLAYING A GAME TO CONFUSE US THE PEOPLE,
NOW ABC WITH THE SEMI AUTOMATIC IN THE CAR,
what do you think of it?
@ilovebeeswarzone: IlovEBEeswARZone, I think the rifle was left in the car.
Redteam
very confusing, who else will come out with another take,
the more I think of it, the more I believe the rifle was used because of so multiple shots on each one,
that is the one I keep in mind , the vision torture me each time it come,
so in order to do so many of them, he had to have the riffle,
or am I wrong
@CJ:
Sorry, CJ. That doesn’t cut it. That is not an official CT State Police statement, which I’m sure you are well aware of. The CT State Police spokesman, Lt Vance, definitively stated for the record that the AR was found on the person of the shooter and that it was the primary weapon used in the shooting. What you are attempting to insinuate, that the official CT State Police story regarding the weapon has materially changed over time, is simply not true. You seem to not be convinced that the AR was the gun used. That leaves two possibilities: either the CT State Police are mistaken about which weapon was used, which seems highly improbable, or they’ve released false information, perhaps, as you’ve theorized, to advance a pro-gun control agenda. Why don’t you just tell us all in plain English which it is that you believe?
@retire05:
That is not a question.
For the 3rd time, do you have a question for me?
@Redteam:
The rifle was not left in the car according to the CT State Police.
CJ
I GET IT NOW,
your link give us ABC on december 15 story,
they where still mixed up then,
so the rifle is not credible to be in the car, because of older news,
we stick with LT VANCE, AND THE OTHER YOU CAME WITH LAST REFERENCE,
THAT IS THE RIFLE commit the crimes,
am I right?
@Tom: Oops, i forgot that only you are allowed to have fake sources, not ABC News.
@Tom:
OK, Tom, so you are trying to prove that you are a border-line disfuntional idiot. What is it about “see post #115” that is beyond your comprehension?
@CJ:
I never stated I had a secret source of insider information. That is something you misunderstood. I simply stated that I find it offensive that you are calling the veracity of the CT State Police into question. You continue to sow suspicion regarding the weapon used in the massacre, even though publicly, and through private assurance to you, they have confirmed it was the AR. I asked you to clarify your position, rather than make insinuations. So far, you refuse to do so. So how exactly did I mischaracterize your position on the public statements made by the CT State Police?
@retire05:
There is nothing about it beyond my comprehension.
Are you finally satisfied now that I’ve answered your question?
@Tom:
You never answered my questions, posted three times, and number #115 on this very thread, no matter how you want to obfuscate and pretend you did. You are a smuck, Tom. With a capital S. You play dumb, but it has become obvious, it is not an act on your part.
So, why don’t you take all my questions from post #115, one at a time, and answer them? Or are you still playing your game, wanting me to repost the questions, so you can ignore them for the fourth time?
You really are a jerk, Tom. No surprise you’re a liberal.
I believe there was an question earlier posed to prove that an AR was ever used in self defense.
http://youtu.be/XMg0FQS6Fqo
@Tom: You stated that you’ve personally spoken with CT police officers and when I questioned your secret source, you assumed I was disrespecting the force as a whole. You never did divulge your mysteriously fake source. Try to keep up. May need to be checked for senility or testosterone.
CJ As an F.A. author please do us all a favor and cut the personal B.S. about senility,testosterone etc.
Conduct unbecoming.
Appreciate your research on this tragedy.Do you have the straight scoop on the A.R?
@CJ:
You have things very confused. I stated that you disrespected the CT State Police when you called their veracity into question regarding the weapon, and even the killer. Of course you have yet to show us any evidence that they changed their story, although you continue to push that incorrect angle. The CT Police NEVER stated for the record that the AR was in the car. If you can disprove this, I invite you, again, to do so.
The fact that I was born in CT and know police is merely context for why I find your pro-assault weapons political agenda in the face of a tragedy so disgusting.
@Richard Wheeler: Don’t lecture me on conduct unbecoming until you set a standard across the board. I’m not your child and I don’t work for you.
That said, I use a Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50mm scope on one and an EOTech holographic red dot scope on the another. I also have one with straight iron sights.
@Tom: Don’t cloud the issue. The claimed to have spoken with CT police friend(s) which constitutes inside information. You can’t reinvent the past and pretend that a later issue answers my criticism of an earlier one. I once lived in Alabama, but that doesn’t make me an expert on the civil rights movement just because I know people in Selma.
@Richard Wheeler:
I agree with your sentiments, but it would be dishonest if I did not point out that i am equally responsible for the at times ugly personal nature of the exchanges between Cj and myself.
Richard Wheeler
before you tell other to cut the bulshit. TO COVER ON TOM
you better check on TOM BULSHIT ATTACK ON C J,
AND RETIRE05,
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST YOUR OWN BULSHIT ATTACKS,
@Tom: Thank you, Tom. That shows true character. That is exactly the point I was trying to make in my reply to him.
@CJ:
You continue to make assertions that are untrue. Where did I state I spoke to anyone off the record about this and have inside information? Where? Can you supply a post number?
In 98 you questioned two settled issues: the shooter and the gun. By claiming these aren’t settled issues you are calling the veracity of the CT Police into question. And you have not backed off on that. Either you are wrong and they told the truth, or they lied.
Jeez, CJ. Where did I say growing up in CT makes me an “expert”? As i just clarified, again, I offered it as context to my emotional response.
Tom I agree with CJ. that you show true character.
C.J Do you believe the AR-15 was used in the slaughter of these 26? Was it used to kill his mother?
Has anyone noticed that we are over 200 comments?
Redteam No big deal.We’ve done 6 or 7 hundred. Right Bees?
But let’s not start on Tim Tebow again.
Go Irish
@Tom: I’m done playing silly word games with you.
Redteam
yes nice of you to say it ,I’M JUST COMING AND HAVE NOT NOTICE IT,
and I check it up , C J YOU HIT THE 200, THAT IS WORTH A CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE,
A CYBER ONE, WON’T MAKE YOU DRUNK.
so Richard no 700 comments on this one from you?
remember it was at this time last year,
well we’ll see how far we can go on this one,
I’M WILLING TO DO MY PART.
THE TEBOW 700 IS THE ONE WHICH GOT CURT TO DIVIDE THE LONG POSTS IN PARTS OF 50 COMMENTS, AND IT’S BETTER, BECAUSE I remember having a slow computer every time
I wanted to get in. especialy at the end, the click would roll all the way to hundreds of comments so to reach the last space to answer,
@Richard Wheeler: “C.J Do you believe the AR-15 was used in the slaughter of these 26?” No, not yet. Too many inconsistencies in what has been released so far. Until the autopsies are done and read the nallistics reports, all i know is Lanza killed them, not the weapob used. “Was it used to kill his mother?” No one knows.
C J
my news paper write SPENGLER THE KILLER OF TWO FIRE FIGHTERS AND WOUNDED TWO MORE
ON CHRISTMAS EVE, NOT ALLOW GUN, IT’S NOT KNOWN HOW HE GOT THE GUNS
3 GUNS, A MILITARY STYLE BUSHMASTER .223 CALBRE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE,
ANOTHER 12 GAUGE SHOT GUN, AND A 38 CALIBRE REVOLVER,
THE RIFLE WHICH HAD ACOMBAT STYLE SUPPRESSOR IS THE SAME MAKE AND CALBRE AS ONE
USED BY A GUNMAN TO MASSACRE 20 CHILDREN AND 6 WOMEN, AT A NEWTOWN, CONN. ELEMENTERY SCHOOL EARLIER THIS MONTH,
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES CONFIRM YESTERDAY THEY HAD TRACE THE SALE OF THE WEAPONS,
DID NOT RELEASE DETAILS THEY SAID HE USE THE RIFLE TO ATTACK THE FIREFIGHTERS
BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE INVOLED,
BYE
The Constitution was written to make it mandatory that the government could not make a law infringing on your right to own and use a firearm to prevent the government from intruding on your property, person or possessions. Make NO LAW means just that.
C J
hi,
I found another clip to tell about guns,
in the case of the RUGER MINI 14, KNOWN AS THE POOR MAN’S ASSAULT RIFLE BY OPPONENTS,
LEPINE A MASS KILLER OF STUDENTS IN A UNIVERSITY, HE USED 30 ROUND MAGAZINES
THAT ARE NOW BANNED IN CANADA, TODAY THE LARGEST MAGAZINE ALLOWED HOLD 5 ROUNDS,
THE RUGER MINI-14 was one of the weapon legaly obtained and used by ANDERS BREIVIK
TO KILL 77 PEOPLE IN NORWAY LAST YEAR,
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF POLICE BOARDS PASS A RESOLUTION EARLYER THIS YEAR TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN FIREARMS INCLUDING THE MINI14 RUGER AS RESTRICTED,
THE BERETTA CX4 STORM USED IN THE DAWSON SHOOTING [CANADA UNIVERSITY] IS A LESS
POWERFUL WEAPON CALLED A SEMI AUTOMATIC CARBINE WITH A TRIGGER ressemble one
on a pistol, it is more compact than the RUGER, AND THE CARTRIDGE RELOAD BEHIND THE TRIGGER.
CANADA DID NOT FOLLOW UP IN DEMANDS TO RESTRICT GUNS ANY ONE,
EVEN THE BUSHMASTER AR-15 RESTRICTED IN CANADA TO GUN CLUB ENTHUSIASTS
with tight licensing requirements only look more menacing than other weapons that are unrestricted,
the ability to do a lot of damage with a firearm exist even with something
as archaic as the OLD WEST DOUBLE BARREL SHOTGUN WHICH IS LIMITED TO TWO SHOTS,
SAID ONE OF THE ANTIGUN OPPONENT, IT’S ABSOLUTLY UNBELIEVABLE HOW FAST A SKILLED
OPERATOR CAN SHOOT AND LOAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THE NUMBER OF SHOTS
THEY CAN FIRE IN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND A SEMI AUTOMATIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF MASS MURDER
IS INCONSEQUENTIAL.
I though it would interest you to know,
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THE BRAVES FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AS YOU SIR,
I cut the story shorter, for you.
@ilovebeeswarzone: And therein lies the fallacy of the gun control movement. History has proven that gun control only works in favor of two groups: criminals and government. Okay, those are both sects of the same group, but you get it. Before so-called assault weapons there were mass killings, so it isnt the weapon.
What i take most insulting is this idea that keeps getting spread that I “have no business” owning one of these weapons. If I’m not using these weapons to break any laws, what does it matter what kind or how many I have?
C J
yes sir, did you read the criminal who shot the FIREFIGHTERS,
HE HAD AN ILLEGAL WEAPON AND THEY FOUND THE WOMAN WHO GOT THE WEAPON
AND ILLEGALLY ALSO,
I guess money can buy an illegal gun too,
how about the GOVERNMENT CONCENTRATE ON THEIR JOBS OF CLOSING THE BORDERS, BEFORE PICKING ON THE GOOD GUN OWNERS
Richard Wheeler
slowly but surely we are heading for another 700 comments here
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOU’RE LOVED ONES,
wishing you turn CONSERVATIVE IN 2013
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL HERE,
HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE FOR YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES
Bees Thanks and good wishes to you and yours.
As mentioned, the Conservatives on here who most influenced me, are long gone.
Best recent news is one trick pony and ultimate Obamaphobe Hannity has lost approx. 30% of his rabid audience since Nov.
Aqua Noles looked great.
J.G. and Larry Tough,hard fought loss for Wolves.
Go Irish Epic battle for National ChaMpionship 1/7/2013 8pm EST
Richard Wheeler
you force me to BABLE CONSTANTLY. JUST TO SAY,
DON’T WORRY ABOUT HANNITY, HE IS RESTING AFTER HE HAS DONE EXCEPTIONALY
PROGRAMS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT WHICH THEY TRY SO HARD TO CONCEAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE
THEY DID SUCH A BIG EFFORT BEFORE THE ELECTION IT WAS SO OBVIOUS TO US ,
BUT REGRETABLY MANY LIKE YOU HAVE THOSE LEATHER THING LIKE HORSES
ON A RACE TO WIN POWER, WITHOUT SEEING THE EACH SIDE OF THE FAILURES OF LEADERSHIP,
THE HORSE RUN AND RUN ON ONE STRAIGT LINE, AND DUNNO NOTHING ELSE ALL THEIR LIVES.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Ms Bees That ” horse running in one straight line ” sounds like a self description. lol Try being a little more open and flexible.
As I learned from folks like Aye and Mata you may learn from people like Larry,Tom and Greg.
On Fox I feel O’Reilly fair and balanced. Keep an open mind.There is much to be learned.
Semper Fi and Happy New Year
Richard Wheeler
I happen to be the most open mind you ever encounter in your life,
and I know it,
SO IF YOU HEAR ME SAY SOMETHING, YOU BETTER KNOW IT COME WITH AN OPEN MIND.
I cannot say the same for you,
how about 23millions not working beside those who gave up,
because there are no jobs, because of the intitlements choking the companies what ever how small or big they are,
if you are so cozy with OBAMA, TELL HIM TO GET OF THE AMERICAN’S BACK, TELL HIM THIS IS NOT HIS INDONEZIA,
HEY TELL OBAMA TO PROTECT THE YEMEN AMBASSADOR
BEFORE HE GET KILL AND ALSO THE MILITARY,
BEFORE MONITERING THE DANGER. RECALL THEM,
BECAUSE HE HAS SHOWN TO BE TOO SLOW IN MONITERING SITUATIONS
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, Obama is absolutely the worst politician ever occupying the White House. About Hannity or O’Reilly losing audience since November, that’s normal, the side they were predominantly supporting lost, so the folks watching them are tuning out politics because they don’t want to have to watch the celebrating by the Democrats. That’ll soon be over and it’ll be back to normal
Redteam
yes you make a lot of sense, that is it,
there was a push, a tremendous effort to educate the people on the truth accompany with facts,
no bulshit at all from HANNITY, HE IS A PASSIONATE LOVER OF AMERICA, THE AMERICA HE KNOW
THE RIGHT AMERICA,
HE WORK SO HARD AT IT, HE GAVE IT ALL NO RESTRAINT,
OF COURSE HE SLOW DOWN AFTER SAME AS THE ONES FOLLOWING HIM,
HE HAD CAPTURE ALL OF US BECAUSE HE WAS GIVING SO MUCH,
AND YOU SAID THE OTHER PART, IT WILL
AS A REGULAR PROGRAM HE WILL EXPOSE THE FAILURES AGAIN AND HE IS GOOD AT IT.
BYE
HOPE YOUR NEW YEAR BRING YOU THE BEST
Anyone that knows anything about guns would know that the weapon in the trunk of the vehicle in the first video is NOT an AR. The only “assault rifle” if could possible be would be an AK based on the way the officer is trying to clear the weapon. However, what ejects is not a 7.62x39mm round. It looks like a shotgun shell, which leads me to believe that the weapon is a Saiga semi-automatic shotgun or something similar. When you look at the preponderance of the stories from this, one can see that the story has been deliberately changed to suit an agenda.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340113
@CJ:
Thanks for the posting, CJ. It helps immensely with a point I was making to someone on another topic.
I also recommend subscribing to Senator Feinstein’s updates on her gun control legislation:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
C J
SO IN YOUR 207 YOU HESITATE TO BELIEVE, THE BUSHMASTER,HAD BEEN USED,
YOU EVEN MENTION OF THE KILLER MIGHT HAVE GONE BACK IN THE CAR,
SO YOU WHERE RIGHT ALL ALONG TO DOUBT THAT WEAPON
@ilovebeeswarzone: I bet that after this issue dies down a bit over the next year, they release information that blows the lid off their scam in the hopes no one notices.
C J
YES THAT’S WHO THEY ARE,
HIDING BILLS UNDER THE PILE FOR REPUBLICANS TO PASS BLINDLY,
BUT THEY HAVE REACH THEIR SPENDING LIMITS
and no matter how they want to slip away from their mistakes,
they are now being caught, their hands in the bag,
bye
C J
I should have also said you’re 165 comment along the other
207 on my first previous comment on 224 saying how right on the case you where from the beginning as it seems they where trying to confuse the people on the BUSHMASTER, BEING IN THE CAR, NOT BEING IN THE CAR, BEING IN THE CAR,AND SO ON.
I did blame you to be so meticulous on details,
and you did figure their mess,
BYE
yes, this is very interesting and fits with what we were discussing earlier, that he only used 2 handguns in the school. So if the students were shot with 90 bushmaster type cartridge bullets, who did the shooting. Obviously Lanza did not. Was the report of 90 223 casings found true? who is lying in all this?
It is the truth that eludes the government and its state directed media; actually, it doesn’t elude them, they have no use for the truth. Everything thrown to the public is programed toward promoting an agenda. They are liars and whores all of them.
TOM
hope you are still in the MISSISSIPI, because there is no flue in there,
only one of 3 states without flue and this flue is a killer.
take care
C J
one thing after the mother who went hiding with her two twins, when a guy broke in.
he went to ramsack the house and end up in her hideway crawling space
where he broke in with his crowbar, last week only, she had just learned from her husband to use the gun ,
a 38, she had her husband on the phone, and he told her to shoot, and she empty her barrel on him,
still alive begging her to stop, he didn’t know she was empty, the 911 was on the way, the guy ran away
with those bulletin his face and neck. they found him down on the ground further down asking for help,
he had previously tried to rob another place but was confronted by the owner,
imagine he was really out to any crimes he could do, and the woman with her 38 did not kill him
with all those bullets, so I really don’t have any confidence at a 38 after this,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Well, Mississippi does have flu, it’s just not quite as widespread as other states. It will be within a few days though. Don’t breathe in those germs and you won’t get it. I had flu shot, so I shouldn’t get it.
Redteam
thank you,
I heard on FOX ABOUT IT being spare,
maybe it’s now started to grow,
oops IT occur to me just now, it might be because of TOM WHO LEFT THE VIRUS THERE,
WHEN HE WENT ON VACATION,
SOME PEOPLE DON’T CARE ABOUT OTHER, THEY CANNOT KEEP THEIR VIRUS TO THEMSELVES,
YOU CAN BE ASSURE THAT if I meet with one virus, I sure won’t breathe, even if it choke me,
but where I am, the virus are frosen and buried under 5 feet of snow now
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yes, Tom should be prohibited from going back to Mississippi if he left his flu there. (unless he’s going there just to catch it)
Redteam
do you mean to say HE WANT TO CATCH HIS FLUE BACK?
he want and excuse to stay in vacation and call sick,
what a lazy character, does he think we will supply his expanses,
YOU NEVER KNOW SOMEONE UNTIL YOU SEE THAT, WHAT A BUM TOM
@ilovebeeswarzone: No, I don’t think he’d want to catch it back.
Redteam
what make you so sure, do you pretend to know him that well,
Reteam
HI’
yesterday I saw on tv a small zoo, had two old orangotans,
they where together for many years, and one die one day of old age,
the other is showing so much sadness, the owners couldn’t believe it from an animal,
they decide to give him a baby cat,
it took a while to distract the old red orangoutan,
but it happen and he got attach to the small cat and came back to his previous self,
liking the cat and bonding with to protect it,
that was very beautiful to follow the story.
bye
Wow, we’re still going strong on this one. I did write a new one to continue the discussion. Thank goodness for Friday.
C J
hi, we still have 562 to make 700,
stay awake , you never know what will come from the free that’s us
bye
Well, then. Let me just add one more comment. 😉
@ilovebeeswarzone: No, I don’t know him at all. You said he left the flu in Mississippi. I guessed he wouldn’t want it back.
@Redteam: and that gets us one more comment closer.
@Redteam: I read that Chuck Norris almost caught the flu, but the flu caught Chuck Norris instead.
C J
NO NOT CHUCK, I am sadden by the news
Redteam
455 to go, we are speeding now,
let’s find something to say
C J
do you mean to say that the FLUE is faster than CHUCK NORRIS
MY FLUE IS A FEMALE THAT’S WHY SHE HAS A E AT THE END
I was watching a golden eagle, spectacular flight coming down on his dinner, at night
THE EYE IS EXTRAORDINARY MADE ESPECIALLY FOR HIS LIFE NEEDS,
I wonder if one day there will be transplant of eyes of EAGLE AND WING ON HUMAN, which make the eagle superior than human in that particular gift of nature,
and what would we benefit from it.
JUST SAYING
that remind me of a few years pass and I saw 3 eagles eating a young deer, and then
after a while, there came 5 coyotes to claim it and the EAGLES CHASE THEM AWAY,
AND THEY ATE AND LEFT AFTER AND THE COYOTES CAME BACK AND ATE FROM IT AND ONE OF THEM BIGGER IN SIZE LOOK LIKE THE CHIEF, PICK UP ONE WHOLE LEG AND LEFT WITH THE OTHER FOLLOWING HIM THEY HAD FAR TO GO TO REACH THE WOOD, HE NEVER STOP AND KEPT
THE LEG IN HIS MOUTH FOR QUITE A GOOD 10 ACRES IN WINTER,
QUITE AN EXPERIENCE TO SEE ALSO, ONE ONLY IN LIFE,
Bees Looks like no NFL team wants Tebow and he’s expected to play in the Canadian Football League (CFL) next year.lol 449 t0 go
@Richard Wheeler: Nope, Bees, don’t listen to him, Tebow will be in the NFL next year. you’ll see.
Richard Wheeler
did you mention that TEBOW HURT HIS CHEST CAGE BADLY AND WAS OUT FOR TRYING TO HEAL THAT VERY PAINFUL ACCIDENT,
I would have not known if he hadn’t been in a commercial
Bees Tebow is fine and played in Jet’s final game. Many great QB’S have played in CFL. Maybe you’ll get to see him play.
Richard Wheeler
I’m glad to know he’s fine
thank’s for the info,
we can do it, we need us all together,
CJ
what do you think of my choice,
M 16, FOR ME, and for the women of this country who want to be able
to defend them and children, against evil,
HEY, I WANT MINE WITH A CROSS CARVED IN IT
NOTHING WRONG WITH AN EXTRA PROTECTION,
yes POWER IS MINE SAID THE LORD
@ilovebeeswarzone: Everyone should have an M16 or M4 style rifle. It is the duty of every citizen to possess the means to defend their homeland from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
C J
coming from a HERO,
WE BETTER BELIEVE IT,
THANK YOU
Redteam
have you ever heard of an underground deep in,being an airport very busy,
connected with ALIENS, LANDING AND GOING, COVERED BY A BUSY MILITARY
AIRFORCE, THE NAME OF FRESNO IS THERE AT THE UNDERGROUND FACILITY,
THE PROGRAM ON TV IS ; CHASING UFO. AND THOSE 2 TEAMS ARE SERIOUSLY CHECKING IT
WITH TALK WITH ON LOOKERS EXPERIENCES,
VERY INTERESTING
@CJ:
Let’s not leave out the AK-47 or versions thereof.
🙂
If you want to know what happens when people are disarmed, and it becomes illegal to sell them firearms, ask the Cherokee…………………..or the Apache…………………….or the Navajo………….or the Creek……………or the, oh well, you get the drift.
@Hard Right: oh yeah. Since I have several versions of both and love shooting both.
retire05
hi,
the INDIAN CHIEF OF A TRIBE IN WESTERN CANADA
went on hunger strike so to get PRIME MINISTER TO GIVE A MEETING ABOUT TREATYS she is a woman of strong character.
TO BE DISCUSS, HE FINALY AGREED FOR THE 11 JANUARY,
AND IN ALL THE PROVINCES THERE ARE THE MULTIPLE TRIBES DOING STANOFF SO TO SUPPORT HER,
as we know the INDIANS TREATYS have been not well met and obeyed,
she want to seriously discuss it where she find it threaten and overlook,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
ilOVebEEswARzoNE, no, have not heard of it, but I will check it out, sounds interesting.
@ilovebeeswarzone: found the series, set it to record on the 15th on Showtime.
I found it on my shaw satellite space channel,
you might find it interesting,
I stayed a bit on the next show also about a man come back on earth after millions of years,
I learned the whole CONTINENT WILL HAVE MERGE TOGETHER,
CAN YOU BELIEVE HAVING TO LEARN ALL THOSE TONGUES
bye
retire05
they are afraid of the people with guns, instead of focusing on criminals
trying anything to get guns,
that ‘s hiding their intent to control all the people and it’s the wrong intent hidden
under the NEWTOWN MASSACRE, they even where not happy about the teacher armed,
mean again their intent is not for helping the school children and teacher,
no it’s control definitely, you see the TSA IS BIGGER THAN STARTED AND MORE ROBUST,
WHERE THEY KNOW THAT THE TRAVELERS HATE THEM,
but they won’t change any thing, their intent is not on the people’swish to have it gone,
it only serve the intent of OBAMA to give it to his union’s brotherhood, LOOK HOW FAST IT HAS BEEN UNIONYZE AFTER IT STARTED, AND THEY EXPANDING TO TRAINS AND OTHER SOON.
Bees #256 says “want my rifle with a cross carved in it” You can kill in the name of Jesus. Righteous.
Richard Wheeler
not exactly, I would have kill criminal and find strength from JESUS,
because I’m not a killer like the one I would have been force to kill,
like all the gun owners are not killers, but they can kill the criminals
if attack or see it happening, to save lives, as a MARINE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN
@Richard Wheeler:
There was a time, and a president, who was not afraid to ask for God’s protection as he sent soldiers into battle. How is that any different than asking for God’s protection against any enemy that would want to harm you? Do you think those soldiers were going into battle with Welcome Wagon gift baskets, or the best firearms thast our nation could build?
I suggest you read FDR’s public prayer, given on the radio, on June 6, 1944. We were not always the Godless nation, with Godless men running it, that we are now.
“Oh, but that is different” you will say, “We were at war.” Well news flash, Richard, anyone who tries to harm my family, or me, is at war with me and I will use whatever means I can to defeat them, and I will pray that God makes my aim true.
retire05
wow that was so well express,
thank you
Harken we beseech Thee, O Lord, to our prayers and deign to bless with the right hand of Thy Majesty this
swordassault weapon with which They servant desires to be girded, that it may be a defense of churches, widows, orphans, and all Thy servants against the scourge of pagans, that is may be the terror and dread of all evil-doers, and that it may be just in both attack and defense.RETIRE05
WHAT A NICE PRAYER, ESPECIALLY MADE FOR IT THE GUN OWNER,
THANK YOU AGAIN
I really like it
Bees Are you really concerned about someone attacking you or are you just puffing your chest and flapping your wings like some others on here? Do you live in fear because you are not armed? Seriously.
Richard Wheeler
I am feeling what the good people are feeling,
I was attack about 3 times some pass years, so I know the feeling , the fear was there too,
WHO KNOWS IF YOU’RE SAFE, BUT TO BE PREPARE GIVE YOU A CERTAIN SECURITY,
SO I’m projecting my views and feeling.
Bees Do you plan to purchase a rifle and learn to use it? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
@Richard Wheeler: Here’s a concept that may be foreign to you Richard… I carry a gun nearly every time I leave the house. Not for my own protection, not because it might make me feel like a bad ass, and not because of any kind of paranoia. I carry a gun just on the off chance that I find myself at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and see the need to step up to the plate to stop a violent attack from continuing. Like the armed civilian in the Oregon mall, who stepped up and probably saved many lives by confronting an armed assailant. The thought of going through the rest of my life knowing that had I been adequately prepared (armed), people would not have gotten injured or killed is not something I want to live with. The Lubby’s incident in Texas changed my life and the way I feel about carrying a firearm and having the ability to head off a tragedy. It’s not fear that causes me to be armed, it is a genuine concern for the safety of others.
Scott in Oklahoma
thank you, for making it precise to why we want to have a weapon,
that is the right why.
Richard Wheeler
I just notice the black MOON
JUST BE CAREFUL, SHE CAN BRING BAD THINGS,
I always notice it. many times, the mentaly ill get influence by that MOON.
Scott Whatever floats your boat. I get pleasure in feeding the homeless and volunteering at Wounded Warriors.
Bees Do you plan to buy a rifle so you can protect yourself and others?
Semper Fi
Richard Wheeler
it ‘s in my mind yes
Bees Let me know when it becomes reality rather than fantasy.
@Richard Wheeler: You really don’t understand Richard. My being armed has nothing at all to do with being getting pleasure. You, on the other hand, have mentioned before your feeding the homeless and the WWP. Here’s the difference; I do what I do out of my self imposed obligation to others, hence my 35 years of public service. You, on the other hand, volunteer mainly out of selfishness and your ability to brag that “you serve others less fortunate”, making yourself look superior in your own eyes. I have known many people like you, who get great pleasure out of belittling others to make themselves look better. That obviously floats your boat.
Scott Plain and simple I help those in need and less fortunate almost everyday. You’re in some macho fantasy which is substantially less likely to transpire than you being hit by lightning.
How am I ‘belittling’ wounded Vets by helping them out as needed?
Semper Fi
Richard Wheeler
don’t you ruffles your feathers,
Scott is one of us, we like him too
@Richard Wheeler: You seem to have a comprehension problem, or maybe I’m just not clear enough. The wounded vets are not the ones you belittle, anyone who doesn’t meet your “standard of giving” are your targets. Your little comments about my supposed “macho fantasy” are a perfect example. If you knew me, and knew my history, you would realize how far off the mark your opinion of me is. But hey, it’s your world too, and you are not significant enough in mine to have the ability to insult or belittle me. And I now believe any response to you will be a waste of time, so I won’t bother anymore.
@retire05: FDR was pretty much a phony. He got the US into WWII to improve the economy, mostly his.
Scott This started with me asking Bees if she planned to purchase and learn to safely use a rifle.
You jumped in and accused me of belittling people.
On this beautiful Sabbath I remind all of Christ’s message to help “the least ,the lost and the lonely.” Have a blessed day.
Redteam FDR into WWII to improve the economy.You think it better if we’d stayed out?
Hope only the bad guys are killed by guns in the hands of civilians. That’s an understatement.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, I’d like to know that each family in the US has a rifle in their home (with the exception of felons and nuts) and I’d like for every criminal to know that every home has firearms. I hope only the deserving ones get shot with them.
@Redteam: Amen to that! May more violent criminals find the business end of an AR.
Redteam
regarding the ‘FELONS’ IT’S NOT RIGHT TO PUT THEM ALL ON THE SAME LABEL,
SOME ARE NOT A DANGER TO SOCIETY
as a matter of fact most of them are not even deserving the name so easily spread,and they have paid
their debts to society who still call them felon no more should be attach to them,
they are AMERICANS, THEY ARE UNABLE TO FIND WORK BECAUSE THEY MADE ONE MISTAKE AND
REGRET IT,AND PAID FOR IT,
THEY SHOULD BE PART OF THE SOCIETY AND ACCEPTED IN THE WORK PLACE,
THERE IS MANY HUNDREDS THOUSAND OF THEM, RENDERED MISERABLE, SOME MORE WHO CANNOT RECOVER FROM HAVING BEEN SO REJECT BY SOCIETY who for many are worse and corrupt
who get away with it, and by measure would not compete with many felon as far as decency.
that felon label must be out of the society and given to only the dangerous people who deserve it,
the other must be rid of the label anywhere it is found by a company, so to give their life back to AMERICANS WHO SUFFER FOR A LIFETIME BECAUSE OF ONE MISTAKE
@ilovebeeswarzone: Well, I do agree it should be on a case by case basis. But if the crime involved the use of a deadly weapon, it would be a ‘no’.
Redteam
yes if the person has use one of those to commit the crime he is accused of,
I agree to that, and I like the case by case instead of the word
branding them all in that word as one homogenic group
bye
Redteam
there could be exception if they have join the MIITARY,
but I HEARD THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED IN THE MILITARY,
THAT IS TROUBLING, BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WOULD BE VERY GOOD TO THEM.
@ilovebeeswarzone: No, Bees, I’ve been in the military and one thing you do not need is a lot of felons. I wouldn’t want to have to bunk next to a rapist or child molester, or murderer
Redteam
why did you pick those, my pick is not those,
it’s for example one who beat up a pervert friend of his divorce wife who try to rape his son,
why in the hell was he convicted, another at 17 rob a bicyle, another made an error
on a cash return change, and was accuse of doing so willingly, at a young age he was mix up by a customer big mouth, another was sending a collector sword to his brother at the mail box place, he did not know it was illegal, another for being caught with drug small amount for himself,
thing like that where they end up in prison and rehab for a year, there is a post full of those
and they are the one I think where over accused
@Richard Wheeler:
Macho fantasies?
Says the guy who’s challenged others to meet him face to face. Talk about suffering from delusional macho fantasies.
Scott has you pegged. You help others strictly to feed your oversized and unearned ego.
You are a hypocritical and narcissistic P.O.S.
Hard Right
hi,
I would like the rifle that the wife of DR POL USE TO SHOOT
THE CANTALOUP ON THEIR PROPERTY.
H.R You’re a sad, lonely and frustrated old fool.
Semper Fi
Richard Wheeler
okay same to you
semper fi
@ilovebeeswarzone: all those you mention would be ok
Redteam
yes
did you visit the POST OF ; DO FELON DESERVE….
RIGHT HERE ON THIS FLOPPING ACES,
VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW MORE, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE REAL AMERICANS
ARE GOING THROUGH FOR MANY IS ONE MISTAKE, AS TEENAGE STUPIDITY DECISIONS.
BYE
@Richard Wheeler:
Well, lookie here; Richard Wheeler, one of our resident leftists, wants to drag the Good Lord into his argument. Nevermind that Richard supports the administration that wanted to prevent FDR’s June 6, 1944 prayer to the nation from being put on the WWII memorial in Washington, D. C.
See, the left has progressed to the point where it no longer believes this nation needs God in it, and God, like all things with the left, is only used when He suits their purposes. Then they drag the Good Lord out, dust Him off and use Him to give credence to their talking points.
Sorry, Richard, you are exactly what H.R. called you.
@retire05: Zing.
C J
HI,
YOUR ZING BRING US TO 304
you never thought a zing would go so far out
Life is about having loving relationships and being able to help the less fortunate.
It’s certainly not about concern over paying 37% or 39 % in taxes,or having enough firepower to kill the bad guys or overthrow the govt.
Christ reminds us “It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle:” help the least the lost and the lonely.
Bees That’s 306 Tebow A good Christian but a lousy NFL QB
http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com
–It is absolutely vital to get the above video shown in highschool history classes. Watch the video yourself, and then make the attempt. Do it for the kids. Do it for the women and minorities who will pay the ultimate price if you don’t. One would think that all liberals would be arguing for gun rights, to the maximum. That they are not, only indicates how far liberals have fallen in intelligence and education since the time of Hayek.
All conservatives and liberals should read Hayek’s “Why I am Not a Conservative.” It’s free online in many places. Google it, and get the education you deserve. 🙂
Really, only racist retrogrades can be anti-gun. The entire purpose of the Civil War was to allow blacks to own and carry arms.
Jake Witmer
thank you for the link,
it will be educative also, for all the people
there won’t be no more excuse to be ignorant
of the most important document, written for AMERICANS ONLY,
IT IS THE TREASURE OF AMERICA,
best to you
Richard Wheeler
good to know and we have more help than expected to get to 700
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Well, I certainly am working on getting the number up
@Richard Wheeler:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in Heaven.
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the snyagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have not receieved their reward. But when you give to the needy,do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Matthew 6:1-4
Apparently, Rich, you seem to think that your bragging about what a charitable person you are makes you blessed in the eyes of the Lord. It does not. I makes you only the “hypocrite” as spoken about in the Bible. Christ’s instructions are clear; keep your charitable works private. Do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Your boasting of how charitable you are is simply a facade to puff your own self-importance up, not for the glory of the Lord.
Yet, you would not raise your sword against those who would take away the rights granted us by God. Instead, you support those who would remove those rights, and chastise those who would lift their swords in His name.
As to your comment about taxes: the Bible is quite clear, you should pay your taxes. But taxes are to be equal, not progressive. Each man is to pay one shekel, be he rich, or poor, and the Bible is also quite clear that a man is to leave an inheritance for his sons, not to be stolen by the “prince” (i.e. the government). And why, in your liberal mind, should a person be required to pay more in taxes than the 10% the Lord ordered us to tithe? Is the “prince” (the government) more needy that the Lord’s Church? Does the “prince” have a right to demand more than the Lord?
You on the left love to use the ‘eye of the camel’ parable, but sadly, you don’t understand it. Instead, you brag of your charity, which gains you nothing and support those (Democrats) who would remove all signs of Christian faith from the public view.
Instead of being, as the Lord spoke of, a hypocrite, and dusting Him off, trying to use Him for your own nefarious means, I suggest you dust off your Bible and learn the real meaning of His words.
Retire 05 ” Using The Lord for my own nefarious needs” What a crock..
@Richard Wheeler:
The only crock is how you liberals, who constantly tell us how God must be removed from all public view, seems to be quite willing to drag God into the debate when it suits your agenda.
I posted you should read FDR’s June 6, 1944 prayer, asking God to guide our soldiers as they went into war, yes, Richard, with guns. There was no doubt in FDR’s mind that we, the Americans, were on the side of rightousness in God’s Name. Yet, you back a party that didn’t want that prayer on the WWII memorial because, well, I can’t really think of a good reason except that again, you prefer a secular (i.e. Godless) nation so you had no comment.
So please, don’t insult those of us who do think that God stands on the side of rightousness and that we can declare war, be it on the Nazis, or the criminals who would harm us, in His name, asking for his protection. And frankly, for you to even try to pretend that you are a religious man, when you vote for the party that supports the murder of millions of children who are literally ripped from their mother’s womb by disreputable doctors, you take hypocracy to a new level. And please, don’t come back and tell me that crap about how you “personally” don’t believe in abortion but you vote for those who do. That dog won’t hunt. When you vote for those that promote infanticide, you support it.
The Bible is clear; your good works should be done in secret, not blasted all across my computer screen as you brag what a charitable man you are. So before you start spouting about doing “God’s” work, perhaps you should learn a thing or two about His rules and reguirements.
So, want to talk about what a leech you are as you benefited from taxpayer dollars when you “refinanced” your $625,000.00 home? And what a liar you are when you claimed to have been able to have a conversation with your elected Congressman within 28 minutes of one of my posts?
Your resume is growing, Richard, and none of it is good.
retire05
yes the DEMOCRATS SHOWED IT ON THEIR CHARLOTTE ASSEMBLY,
BY ASKING THE PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE GOD,
AND THE ARAB LEAGUE CLAP AND YELLED LOUD, THEY ARE THE ONE LOBBYING
FOR GETTING GOD OUT, JOINED BY THE ATHEIST WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MUSLIMS TO GET THEIR GODLESS AGENDA IN , WHICH THEY NEVER DID BEFORE,
BUT AS TIME FLY, THEY ARE BRINGING MORE OF THOSE AGAINST GOD IN AMERICA,
AND THEY ALREADY HAVE PROVEN TO CHASE GOD FROM SCHOOL AND PUBLIC PLACE ALONG WITH THE AMERICAN FLAG, NOW IMAGINE THE NEXT DEMOCRATS ASSEMBLY HOW MUCH MORE NUMEROUS THERE WILL BE MORE VOCAL, AND THEY HAVE THE AGREEMENT
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, SO DON’T BE SURPRISE THE NEXT TIME SOON COMING , THE BALANCE WILL HAVE GAIN WEIGHT,
how can one say; SO HELP ME GOD? and not believe it,
is it treason?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Remember, Bees, Richard Wheeler supports the poltical party that booed the name of God at their last convention. End of story.
Retire 05 I know it’s tough for you to accept the Dems.have won the Presidency in o8 and 2012 and continue to hold the Senate. Conspiracy and voter fraud claims not withstanding.
I respect the honest zeal of those on the right who want to bring a change and I’ll say again I’ve learned much from authors like Word,Aye and Mata.
For the record I refinanced my home, like many Americans, at terms suggested by my lender Wells Fargo based on appraised value,verifiable income and good credit.
My Republican Congressman Ken Calvert,who I voted for and contributed to, has been VERY accessible. Probably a reason he continues to get re-elected.
Bees 316 Keep pushing I’ll be on an Anniversary trip with my better half for the next 12 days.
Expect 500 + when I get back—Semper Fi
Richard Wheeler
have yourselves a beautiful trip vacation,
don’t waste any second on it , just go on a spending spree like a good liberal do including OBAMA,
WHO NOW WARN THE REPUBLICANS AGAIN OF CUTTING THE MILITARY’S CHECKS IF HE DOESN’T GET
HIS MONEY, HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE DEBTS, HE KNOWS HE’S ON HIS WAY OUT,AND
SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE STUCK WITH IT, WHO HAVEN’T BEEN BORN YET,
@Richard Wheeler:
While I admit that I am disappointed in the fact that the nation decided to re-elect a man whose first term was a miserable failure (just check the unemployment rate) and who cannot seem to accept any blame for his failures, choosing to continue to “blame Bush” for the fact that he is inept at his job, I also understand that the pendulum never swings just one way and then stops. The political pendulum will swing back again and when it does, it will be in the way of conservative values as the way of the liberals continues to be failed policies.
You refinanced your home on money that taxpayers gave to Wells Fargo. And I damn sure wouldn’t be bragging about that, just like you shouldn’t be bragging about your charitable work. There are three reasons you would have refinanced your home: a) you couldn’t make the payments b) you did not want to honor the contract you agreed to c) you knew you could scam the system so you went for it. Which is it, Richard?
You utilized a program that cost other taxpayers, who were being faithful to their legal contracts (their mortgages) paid that tax money and received no benefit from. So much for equality from the left. Frankly, I would be ashamed to admit that I reniged on a contract that I agreed to simply because I could scam the system. You seem to have no problem with that. I guess that whole “Honor” thing the Marines subscribe to held no meaning for you.
So enjoy your 12 day vacation that you can afford partly due to other American taxpayers.
You have no shame. No wonder you are a liberal.
Retire05 I was a mortgage banker for many years and helped hundreds of people refinance to lower their payments and or take out equity. The banks do not make loans they feel are detrimental to their best interests at closing. My refinance was beneficial to me and to Wells Fargo who was happy to assist a borrower who had never been late on a payment,had verifiable income and Fico scores over 700. Contracts are between a willing lender and a qualified borrower.Obviously a contract can be changed or re written if both parties so agree.
I will enjoy my vacation—-Thanks
BTW The Repub. Party needs to do much soul searching if they intend on being a viable alternative to the Dems anytime soon.
Richard Wheeler
do you have any suggestion to your notation about the REPUBLICANS?
BRING IT ON
@Richard Wheeler:
Really, Richard? I guess since you are a jack
assof many trades, you were not a very good mortgage banker if you did not understand that the CRA put pressure on banks, and other mortgage lending agencies, to hand out loans that were doomed from the start to be foreclosure candidates? It was those mortgages that created the crash of mortgage backed securities in 2008. Or did you think you could throw that b/s out and I would just accept whatever you said because you claim to have been a mortgage “banker?” Odd, you seem to support the very party that has demonized mortgage bankers instead of accepting that designer mortgage rates, created to fulfill the CRA requirements, was the problem.Yes, contracts can be renegotiated, but yours was renegotiated at the expense of other taxpayers. And why did you feel the need to renegotiate your loan? You said you were making the payments. You said your credit rating was 700. Did you just want to take advantage of taxpayer largess? If so, that makes you blood sucking scum.
Wells Fargo took a $25 billion bailout from the taxpayers. They used that money, interest free, to help pay for their CEOs tony salary increases. Yeah, they returned the money, but only after they used it to make even more. But the problem is, they paid that money back before they became financially solvent, consequently, the chances are they will have financial stability problems in the future. That makes them, and you, bedfellows to the core.
Nothing has changed. The CRA is still in effect and it will eventually cause another financial meltdown. People, like you, buying homes that you later decide you don’t want to pay for, at least not according to your initial contract. I hope your wife has more security than you give to your fellow taxpayers. And how nice that you can now afford a lengthy vacation, helped paid for by other taxpayers.
You are a dispicable person, Richard.
Retireo5 You needn’t worry about the solvency of Wells Fargo. CK their stock and earnings.
It seems the only thing you’re good at is calling people vile names
I know you’re a sad frustrated 75 year old woman but you’ll live longer and healthier if you lighten up a bit.
I’m on vacation—-ramble on.
Bees With ranting old ladies like o5 as the face of the Repub Party the Dems. are in good shape for ???
Keep pushing.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Your ability to guess my age is as deplorable as your lack of honor. But then, you seem to have something against senior citizens. I guess someone like you would support euthanizing them so there would be more for a greedy liberal like you.
As to Wells Fargo stock, it was at 39.80 on 9/15/08 but cratered to 8.61 on 3/02/09. Guess being paid $1,000 a pop to refinance the loans of dishonorable people like you paid off, so what if the taxpayer took it in the rear for you? Today, it’s at 34.78 so four and a half years later, it has not fully come back.
Ranting old ladies? You really are an asshole, aren’t you, Richard? Weren’t you the one that was just complaining (post #322) about being called vile names? Project much, Richard? Or is it just your normal double standard that all socialists, like you, have?
@retire05: 05, I’m not sure the nation chose to re-elect Obama. I believe the numbers now show that Romney won every state that requires voter ID and Obama won all the states that illegal aliens and dead people can vote in. when someone gets 175% voter turnout, there’s something at work there besides voters. I’m not sure how or when we’re going to actually go back to ‘electing’ people.
@retire05: 05, one other thing about this mortgage bit. I have been requested by my mortgage holder several times to ‘refinance’ my house. Here’s the deal, they actually send me the requests by special overnight UPS delivery. Refinance it at ‘no charge’ to me. Apparently one of these ‘stimulus’ deals includes a provision where your mortgage lender can refinance your home if you are current on payments and do not increase the principal. They pay (or the government does) 100% of the closing costs. Absolutely no cost to mortgage holder. Government (that’s us) pays it all. I have not chosen to do it, but I’m sure a lot of people will. Main reason I don’t is I owe only a small amount, so it’s not worth my time to do it. But it is ‘free money’ and the socialists, deadbeats, freeloaders love that ‘free money’. (I’m not saying Richard is any of these)
@Redteam:
I get letter in the mail all the time asking if I want to “finance” my home. Why would I? I paid if off early, honoring the contract I signed with the bank.
And yes, Richard is a freeloader, as are all those who reduced their mortgages on the backs of other taxpayers. But then, Richard IS a liberal so he is not required to have any honor. But he will preach to you about what Jesus wants. “Hypocrite” doesn’t begin to describe Richard Wheeler.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I missed that one Bees. Was it an AR-15 or a shotgun?
Hard Right
if you mean the one I was hold up with, I SAID A SHOT GUN ,AND afterword
SHOULD HAVE COME BACK TO RETRACT AND SAY A CUT OFF RIFLE,
THAT’S WHAT I MEANT, AND THOUGHT IT MEANT THE SAME THING. in ENGLISH,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone:
That’s ok.
How do you know when someone who knows nothing about guns is talking? They call semi-auto rifles “high powered assault rifles”.
They are neither assault rifles or high powered. Anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or ignorant.
Hard Right
yes I am ignorant myself, I only know of the that cut off rifle, and the 2 other guns pointed at me
on 2 other incidents,
it made me think that I was a good target for the killers or thieves at that time,
funny that I never thought of having me one gun, maybe I was stupid enough to think that only
criminals and law enforcement officer had gun,
another encounter when I was 7 years old,
I WAS AWAKEN BY A NOISE ON THE window of my bedroom IT WAS OPEN BUT
THERE WAS WOOD SLAT SHUTTLES OVER IT, I see a shadow thru it moving,
I runn to my aunt tel her that , she come and yell get out or I shoot,
we where on a second floor, and that was the back long porch narrow,
then A NOISE OF RUNNING , AND DOWN THE STAIRS, SO FAST,
MY AUNT SHUT THE WINDOW AND LOOK AT ME SILENT, SHE LEFT TO HER BED,
AND ME TO MINE, SLEEPING ONE EYE OPEN FOR MANY NIGHT AFTER,
SHE DID NOT HAVE A GUN, JUST A BIG BUTCHER KNIFE
C J
I Saw a very disturbing news on FOX, IT WAS A COUNT OF THE MILITARY WHO KILLED THEMSELVES IN AFGHANISTAN, I copied it but can’t find my paper, I think it’s shocking,
about 140’s for ARMY, AND IN THE 50 S FOR OTHERS EACH, MARINES, AIR FORCE,
THAT’S OVER 250 SUICIDES,
THIS CAN’T BE CONTINUE, THOSE BRAVES ARE OVER WORK, DEPRESS TO THEIR LIMITS,
HURT SO BAD, THEY CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE,
WE MUST GET THIS NON WAR, WORSE THAN WAR, ENDED SOONER,
AND TOMOROW,
OBAMA PUTTING THE BRAVES IN DANGER, THEY TURN ON THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THEY ARE FORBIDEN TO KILL THE ENEMY, IT’S AGAINST THEIR NATURE OF WARRIORS THOSE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY.
AMERICA DON’T LET THE BRAVES KILL THEMSELVES OUT OF DESPAIR, THEY RETURNED SO MANY TIMES, THEY HIT THEIR LIMITS AND DESTROY THEMSELVES,
GOD IT HURT TO HEAR SUCH A NEWS,OBAMA HAS REACH THE BREAKING POINT OF THE BRAVEST,
DAM YOU.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, it is terrible that the numbers are so high, but I’m not sure that ‘not killing the enemy’ is what the problem is. I was in the Navy, and I was never trained to ‘kill anyone’. Yes, actions taken as a result of me doing my job might could cause the enemy to die. but it would be at long distance, and I wouldn’t know much about it. Having said that, I don’t know what is behind the people being frustrated enough to take their lives. I hope they figure out what the problem is and fix the problem. We need good military people.
The problem is here. We have people who put their lives on the line for months and years, to come back and find a population wrapped up in Kardashian Crap and American Idol. This nation is silliness personified.
@Skookum: Sadly Skookum’s I think you’re probably right. Hope we get that straightened out.
Redteam
hi,
this is not the only number, there where more before,
I heard of that problem a few years ago, they provide counseling on the stage of the war,
maybe you said never killed the enemies, is the problem
they put them in prison and eventually they escape to kill the troops again,
OBAMA SAYS TO KEEP MORAL, he means not kill them, that could be the cause of the suicides,
when you see your buddy being blown into pieces, moral my foot, you want to kill them,
and prevented to do so.
I bet KARZEI CAME IN PERSON because he had to tell himself how the talk to TALIBANS WHERE,
IT WAS TOO SECRET TO SEND THE MESSAGE ON OTHER WAY, FOR PUBLIC NOT TO KNOW,
THAT’S WHAT I THINK.
SKOOKUM
HI,
I think anything OBAMA will sign as law, won’t change the angry
mentaly negative person to seek VENGANCE AGAINST HIS TARGET,
DOWNTOWN ST LOUIS, STEVEN SCHOOL, A YOUNG 23 YEAR OLD
IS SHOOTING THERE,
ALREADY 2 WHERE SHOT.
C J
I strongly believe that SARGENT BANE SHOULD NOT FACE DEATH PENALTY,
HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY MURDER,
he was on a stage of WAR, with the mindset from his training as a WARRIOR,
MEANT TO KILL HIS ENEMIES,
HE WAS PUT IN THIS SITUATION BY AN ORDER, AND EXECUTE THE ORDER WITH THE BEST OF HIS KNOW HOW CONSIDERING THE THREAT HE WAS ORDER IN.
IF HE EXECUTE THE PEOPLE IT WAS BECAUSE THEY PROJECT A THREAT TO HIM ,AS HE CONCLUDE THE SITUATION, AND ALL THIS TIME IT WAS DONE ON THE STAGE OF WAR,
BY THE WAY, WOULD THE JUDGE AND PROCECUTOR HAVE PREFER TO SEE THE OTHER CONCLUSION WHICH IS FOR HIM TO KILL HIMSELF? AS IT IS DONE QUITE OFTEN BY THE NUMBERS COMING,
SO FORGET THE DEATH PENALTY TO A BRAVE SOLDIER WHO FOUGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING HIM.
why does AMERICA BUT GAS FROM QUESTIONABLE COUNTRIES?
WHEN THE CAN BUY IT AT THEIR CLOSEST NORTHEN NEIGHBOR, WHO ARE MOST THRUST WORTHY DEPENDABLE
Quality articles or reviews is the secret to invite the people to
pay a visit the site, that’s what this web site is providing.