The Usual Democrat Hypocrisy – “We can, you can’t! – Because we said so…..”

LEFTY MINDLESS DRONES READ THE ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE REGURGITATING YOUR DUMBED DOWN TALKING POINTS!!!

This needs no further explanation.  This latest politicizing of a mental midget, who goes on a shooting rampage, by the left is typical of the Democrat playbook.

“Don’t let a crisis go to waste.”

Here are two of the biggest anti-gun zealots in the Senate, who, of course, make exceptions for themselves.  They feel the need to carry, while they want to deny us our 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!

First up: Diane Feinstein: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

Next: Harry Reid:  http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/12/18/democratic-senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-in-2010-extolled-the-virtues-of-guns-i-carried-a-gun-every-place-i-went-but-for-me-guns-are-more-than-that-about-self-defense-video-2010/

More to come….

It is amazing that these same people promote “reasonable” waiting periods (minimum 7 business days) for purchasing of a gun – our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED and EXPLICIT 2nd Amendment right. BUTFEEL THAT A WAITING PERIOD (1-2 days) FOR AN ABORTION IS AN UNREASONABLE INFRINGEMENT ON A WOMAN’S “RIGHT” TO CHOOSE (and of course they are not worried about the lives of innocents then).

To quote, the Joker, aka Jack Nicholson, (on DC): “This town needs an enema!”

Update: Interesting perspective from a former burglar:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

Imagine the whole country a gun free zone, if very short sighted proggies like bloch has their way.

Update 2: What would the forker and mitchie do in this situation???

Intruders enter your home because it is a gun free zone.  You call 911 the police do not show up.  Intruders still in home and have found you….. then what.

The following cases are all the reasons you need to arm yourself for your and your family’s protection.  The proggies can whine all they want “you don’t need a gun(s).”  But as shown above, Feinstein and Reid were armed ready to protect themselves, but still want to deny your RIGHT to protect yours and your family’s.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Warren v. District of Columbia

Update 3: According to mitchie, bloch and co, this woman should have done nothing while waiting for the police to arrive, after all there is no need for her to defend herself.

Georgian Woman Hides Her Children and Shoots Intruder.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “The Usual Democrat Hypocrisy – “We can, you can’t! – Because we said so…..”

  1. sarahbloch January 5, 2013 / 10:50 am

    The two issues private firearm ownership and abortion have nothing to do with each other. One is a private medical decision and the other is not an individual right in the Constitution. Conservatives interpret the Constitution to suit their needs in regard to the 2nd amendment. America has a well regulated militia in each state– they are called the National Guard. Personally, I believe like many of my colleagues the only people who should own firearms are law enforcement and the military, period. While I doubt the US government is willing to confiscate guns they will make the effort to ban assault weapons and clips that can hold more than ten rounds and such a first step would be very positive.

    Moderator: your post, while grossly ill-informed, is not polluted with with your usual bigoted and anti-religious screed. That is the only reason why your post is allowed to remain.

    • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 12:08 pm

      syroupblatch

      as usual you know nothing about the constitution,

      PS
      your abortion mills have MURDERED more children in the last 60 years than all the guns in two centuries.

      however speaking of “assault rifles” you may want to talk to these sellers of murderous assault hammers….

    • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 12:44 pm

      clips ********MAGAZINES******** that can hold more than ten rounds and such a first step would be very positive.

      PS

      L-E-A-R-N what the heck you are talking about before opening yer pie hole and proving your ignorance…….

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 12:45 pm

        or here…….

    • tiredoflibbs January 5, 2013 / 12:51 pm

      As usual, the Forker can’t think for itself: “The two issues private firearm ownership and abortion have nothing to do with each other.”

      Uh, Forker, they are related only in the subject of “rights”. We have an explicit right to bear arms while proggies infringe on that right at any turn, but they are obsessed with protecting a non-gurantees and implied “right” through judicial opinion. This shows their hypocrisy and their agenda to take away more power from the people.

      The Nation Guard and militia are not the same thing. As usual, proggies get the 2nd Amendment wrong, “the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed”. The founders are referring to the PEOPLE and not limiting gun ownership to only those of the militia. The people are not limited to the militia. The militia are the PEOPLE.

      “Assault weapons” – you have that mindless talking point down pat. A hammer is an assault weapon. Any weapon is an assault weapon. The military have assault weapons, while the people have ASSAULT STYLE. Civilian weapons LOOK like military weapons but function very differently. At this country’s founding, military and civilians weapons were one in the same. However, what you proggies define as assault weapons is based on looks only. What weapons proggies consider that are not assault weapons function the exact same way, but only differ in looks.

      Your “colleagues” are just as ill informed as you are. We should not be surprised since you are from the mindless echo chamber of the Pitchfork.

      • sarahbloch January 5, 2013 / 5:00 pm

        The 2nd amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        What needs to be understood here is the definition of militia:

        Definition of MILITIA

        1
        a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
        b : a body of citizens organized for military service
        2
        : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

        Had the Framers felt that everyone should simply have the right to bear arms that entire portion about a well regulated militia would have been omitted. If Americans want to own guns they should get military training and subject themselves to call up. Well that has happened over time and become the reserves and national guards. There really is no reason for Americans to own firearms other than to hunt which I think is a perfectly sound reason. One rifle and one box of ammunition per year should serve that purpose. I don’t feel Americans are rational or secure enough in their overall mental health to own handguns or any weapon that can hold thirty or more rounds in a magazine.

      • tiredoflibbs January 5, 2013 / 6:13 pm

        Forker you still can’t process order stand the written word ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the right of the militia. Words means things…. too bad you are semi-literate.

        As I said, at the time of the writing, the militia were the PEOPLE. The militia were not armed with weapons provided by the government, but were armed with their PERSONAL weapons.

        “There is no reason for Americans to own firearms…”. Fortunately, the BILL OF RIGHTS is not the “bill of needs”. History is a great teacher. The problem is proggies ignore history and its context and revise it to suit their desires.

        You are insecure in your mental health, but I am SECURE in mine. If you are scared of people with guns, then stay in your basement. Notice these are killings performed by people with mental problems. There are already laws on the books disallowing them to own or purchase firearms, ammunition and to bring guns to a school.

        Columbine happened during the first “assault weapons” ban. That shows you how ineffective those laws are when it comes to individual who are determined to commit a crime.

        Fortunately more intelligent people than you saw the necessity of an armed populace to protect their freedom from oppressive individuals and even governments. The colonists in some areas were not allowed to own firearms. Their subjugation by the English military was the result.

      • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 6:38 pm

        Sarah, you did exactly what any good little Lefty would do and ignored everything that does not fit into your canned rhetoric.

        You ignored the very valid commentary on the role of understanding the rules of English grammar to understand how two clauses in one sentence, divided by punctuation, refer to two different things. But I expected that.

        You even added two extra commas, which indicates to me an awareness and even agreement that the version ratified by the states and approved by Jefferson NEEDED additional punctuation to make it closer to what you want it to say.

        You also ignored the contemporaneous commentary of the people who WROTE the Constitution, and their vivid and unmistakable determination that the people of the United States have the absolute right to own guns. As I said, if there is genuine confusion about the intent of the Founders, the best way to resolve it is to see what they said in other contexts, outside the actual wording of the document.

        What did they say?

        “…… all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; “
        —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

        No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
        —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

        “The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
        James Madison

        “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms..
        Samuel Adams

        “of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
        James Monroe

        And so on. Yet you, a 21st Century biased Liberal, presume to state with authority that these men, and the others who have made such statements so many times, AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITING THE CONSTITUTION did not mean what they said, but meant something utterly different.

        You say “Had the Framers felt that everyone should simply have the right to bear arms that entire portion about a well regulated militia would have been omitted.”

        No, if they had not intended that “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed they would have stopped with saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Two statements, either of which could have stood alone, in one sentence but separated by a commonly understood punctuation mark to denote that they are in fact two separate statements.

        “If Americans want to own guns they should get military training and subject themselves to call up. ”

        Says you. But then you claim that the taking of a human life because a female finds it inconvenient is nothing more than a “medical decision”. Clearly you have a distorted thought process, in which you freely invent definitions you want to support your personal biases.

        “There really is no reason for Americans to own firearms other than to hunt which I think is a perfectly sound reason. ”

        Again, says you, and in direct contradiction of fact.

        “One rifle and one box of ammunition per year should serve that purpose.”

        Well, you ARE consistent, in your belief that some people are quite justified in imposing their will upon others. You will be quite at home in a society where the government makes other decisions about what is adequate for the populace—how much food, what kind of food, how much room a person needs to live in, etc.

        ” I don’t feel Americans are rational or secure enough in their overall mental health to own handguns or any weapon that can hold thirty or more rounds in a magazine.”

        And there you finally come out with it—-the belief that The People are simply not qualified to make decisions for themselves, but that some Very Special People ARE, and should be in charge. The People are “not secure enough in THEIR overall mental health..” but those in the Ruling Elite ARE, and therefore should be the ones making decisions for the rest of us.

        And just look at who feels secure enough in HER mental health to declare that it is rational, and consistent with mental health, for a woman to kill her child.

        You people never cease to amaze…………..

    • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 12:59 pm

      “One is a private medical decision …” which is to end the life of an inconvenient human being, and the other “… IS an individual right in the Constitution” .

      Doncha love the new pro-death meme, which is that abortion is really nothing more than a “private medical decision”? Well, it is “private” only as long as it involves only the person making the decision, and abortion by definition is the violent imposition of the will of one person upon another, who is defenseless and not given a say in the matter. It is “medical” only because it is performed by people violating their oath to “first, do no harm” — that is, people who have graduated from medical school.

      And now the RRL mouthpieces are claiming that there is no Constitutional right to bear arms—in spite of the wording of the 2nd Amendment saying that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”

      I know that most people today are ignorant not only of the rules of punctuation but of the reasons for having rules of punctuation. Our Founding Fathers, however, being much better educated and much more aware of the importance of precision in speech, DID understand not only that there were rules but the purpose of those rules.

      From Wikipedia:

      “There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.”
      As passed by the Congress:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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

      The change to only one comma, separating two clauses in the sentence, is significant, because it clearly indicates that there are two separate parts to the sentence. Thomas Jefferson was quite insistent on clarity of language and thought and he revised the original wording for a reason—a reason clear to people who understand that grammar plays an important role in language, that of traffic cop, organizing words into coherent groups.

      In the original, the intent is rather muddled. By capitalizing Militia, there is the implication that the sentence refers to a specific, named, formal entity, and by capitalizing State there is the implication that a specific, formal Militia is necessary to the security of a free government entity, the State. The possibility that the Amendment might be construed to mean a right only to a formal Militia, for the purpose of defending a government, or the State, was not acceptable , so the Amendment was changed to read that a militia, in the most general term of being a collection of citizens, was necessary to the security of a free state—not necessarily a government, but a state or condition of freedom. And then, when that part of the sentence was clarified, the second part followed, separated by a comma to indicate a distinction between it and the first.

      But if one is either ignorant of the rules of formal grammar, or the reasons for those rules, or is unconvinced that the writers understood those rules, one can look to the contemporaneous writings of the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to see if their statements at the time are consistent with the interpretation of the wording.

      There are far too many references to the need and desire to assure the absolute right of the citizens of the United States to be armed to list them all, so I will stick with a few from the most recognized names of the era. Emphasis is mine.

      “We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
      —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

      No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
      —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
      Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

      The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46
      James Madison

      “[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
      – Thomas Paine

      “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
      – Patrick Henry

      “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…”
      – George Mason

      (Note the use of the semi-colon between the first clause of the sentence, “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms…”, and the remainder, thereby setting apart the right of the People to mass and to bear arms from the reference to a militia.)

      “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
      – Patrick Henry

      “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions.”
      – Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

      “… whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
      – Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

      “… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
      – James Monroe

      “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
      Thomas Jefferson

      “Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”
      Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775)

      “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
      Samuel Adams “The Father of the American Revolution”

      “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
      President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

      *************************************************

      It is true that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and then of the Bill of Rights, the United States was not allowed to have a standing army, which was seen by the Founders as the greatest threat to liberty, so the right to be armed was also—but not exclusively—associated with the right to form and regulate militias to provide protection from power grabs by the government.

      Again, one has to read the contemporaneous writings of the Founders, which includes many whose names are not commonly associated with the actual writing of the Constitution but who participated in the spirited debates on what the Constitution had to say and why, to put the entire concepts of both being personally armed and being able to form armed militias into context.

      The anti-gun people just ignore the comma in the middle of the 2nd Amendment and think they have made their case.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 1:08 pm

        Ama

        laid out perfectly……as usual 🙂

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 1:24 pm

        The American Left, which thoroughly dominates the mainstream media, no longer believes, if it ever did, in the concept of reasonable and respectable people disagreeing in good faith on core issues; it increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated. Its opposition is never to be engaged on the level of ideas, but only ridiculed and held up as evil. The Left has done nothing but demonize its opposition for years. Organizations like Media Matters routinely repeat remarks made by conservative politicians and commentators as if they were obviously risible and/or morally offensive, without ever bothering to explain why or to offer a substantive refutation of any kind. They and others like them never debate or discuss issues, but only deal with their opposition with endless games of “gotcha” and searches for “gaffes.”

        After the Left has played such games for so long, this new level of savagery was perhaps inevitable. For the Westchester Journal News, owners of legal guns are evil, and thus have no rights they are bound to respect. For the Left in general, their opponents are evil, and so can and should even be put in physical danger if that is what is needed in order to bring about its silence and submission.

        This savagery grows more common by the day, and doesn’t extend only to gun owners. I myself have been on the receiving end of this thuggery because of my work in opposing the global jihad and Islamic supremacism — as has my colleague Pamela Geller and other defenders of the freedom of speech and equality of rights for all people. A Leftist journalist named Nathan Lean, the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media, who has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and New York Daily News, has sent me several tweets and emails containing personal information about myself: where he thinks I live, who he thinks my wife is, and
        more.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/outing_the_gun_owners_and_the_lefts_new_savagery.html

      • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 1:39 pm

        “….. it (The New American Left) increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated.”

    • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 1:36 pm

      “Assault weapon”—-a firearm which looks scary.

      Remember, one of the criteria for an “assault rifle” in one proposal was a barrel shroud. That’s right—-the addition of an extra layer of protection between the barrel, which becomes hot when rounds are fired, and the hand of the person holding the gun, is suddenly a contributor to the lethality of the weapon. I wonder if a silicone glove worn on that hand by the shooter would also make this weapon miraculously morph into an “assault rifle”.

      Well, let’s apply what passes for logic on the Left to this consideration. A black glove might look scary, but a pink glove would not, so one should be banned but the other would be OK because it didn’t give some quivery-lipped Lib the heebie-jeebies.

      Folding stocks? Just how do folding stocks contribute to the lethality of a weapon?

      Ahhhh…. but you see, in some movies some bad guys carried weapons that were, to the untrained eye, scarier and more dangerous because of their cosmetics—so the problem is the cosmetics. I suppose if Rambo had killed the entire North Vietnamese Army with a 22 with a skull and crossbones painted on it, we’d be holding hearings on gun decals—because they look so scawwwwwwyyy!

      (When I consider the bleatings of these people, based upon the perceptions they have been fed by Hollywood, I am reminded of the TV ad in which the young woman assures a man that “you can’t lie on the Internet”. To the weak-minded, if they see it on a movie screen, it is automatically real and valid. The good guy carries a pretty, shiny, stainless steel revolver—doesn’t it look CLEAN??!! —- and the bad guys carry black rifles with barrel shrouds and folding stocks. So black rifles with barrel shrouds and folding stocks are, by definition, more dangerous.)

      Another claim seemingly made by these perennially fretful hysterics is that the amount of time it would take to pop out a 10-shot clip and pop another one in is so significant that many lives would be saved during that interval. I haven’t done any shooting for years, but when my husband and I did go to a gun range, even I, an absolute novice, fumble-fingered and at the beginning of a learning curve, could replace a clip in two to three seconds—hardly time to be rushed by a group of first-graders or for terrified people to launch themselves off the floor of a movie theater, over rows of seats, and onto a stage to overpower me.

      As these “assault rifles” require the trigger to pulled for every shot fired, I am guessing that the lag time taken to pop out a clip and pop in a new one might—MIGHT—-take up the time it would take for two trigger pulls, or two shots, in the hands of an experienced gunman.

      The only—ONLY—advantage to public safety in limiting the size of clips is that an armed civilian could take advantage of that second or so, during the exchange of clips, to fire back at the gunman. But, funniest thing, that is not an argument made to promote limiting the size of clips.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 1:55 pm

        ONLY M1 Garand’s have ***CLIPS***, ALL the rest have MAGAZINES!!

      • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 4:50 pm

        neo, thanks for trying to set me straight. I am picky to the point of being pedantic on proper terminology in areas of my own knowledge and/or expertise and I appreciate the same trait in others.

        In reality, whether accurate or not, the terms “magazine” and “clip” have become mingled. I learned that a repeating weapon has a magazine, or chamber, in which the ammunition is stored till it is fired. That is to say, is an integral part of the weapon. That’s just where I was coming from, as this was part of my introduction to firearms. I have heard the term “magazine” AND “clip” used to describe what is, I suppose, technically a “removable magazine”. While technically a clip does not have a spring to advance the shell into the chamber, it is still a term used to describe a removable magazine, and is less cumbersome a term than “removable magazine”.

        I have no problem using the term “removable magazine” but many do understand the use of the term “clip” as shorthand for a removable magazine, without the technical detail that a clip does not have a spring to advance the shell. To me, it is less confusing to think of the integral chamber of the weapon as the magazine and the removable magazine as the clip. And I have never had personal experience with a clip that merely holds shells without advancing them, so I didn’t have a comparison.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 5:58 pm

        ama

        I did not want you to unknowingly sound like the libs who know no better…….like s. blach….(ugh) 🙂

    • M. Noonan January 5, 2013 / 4:40 pm

      What is the militia? Here ya go:

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…

      That is from the Militia Act of 1792 – now, we progress and so also included in the militia are all non-white men as well as all women. So, all of us are in the militia, or supposed to be (well, I’m not – I’m over 45, but you get the picture). And as militia members, we’re supposed to – per the act – not only have our rifles ready to hand, but also have artillery available for our use. There is no provision in the Militia Act for the government to arm the people; they are presumed to be already armed, including with artillery.

      If the citizens are not armed then they can’t very well form a militia, now can they?

  2. Cluster January 5, 2013 / 11:48 am

    Speaking of hypocrisy – how about Al Gore’s sell of Current TV to the oil funded Al Jazeera group, and his rush to complete the sale before higher taxes kicked in? It doesn’t get anymore blatant than that.

    Or how about Mr. Obama’s campaign rhetoric of a “balanced approach” to the fiscal cliff issue, then his 180 on any serious spending cuts? Just another day in liberal land.

    • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 12:29 pm

      Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera ?? where have I heard that name??

      OOH riiiight, they are associated with osama bin laidenout, and the muslin bro hood.

      nothing like refusing to sell to an American patriot, then sell to one of our ENEMIES, way to go al you Fn Moron.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 12:55 pm

        OT

        but good news…..Chávez near death…

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 1:18 pm

        Why doesn’t the Oppressive Left care about protecting the Children?
        N/A ^ | Jan 2013 | Anonymous

        What is it about the Gun-grabbing ghouls and their BSMedia minions with protecting themselves and not our precious offspring? They lost their collective cookies over the mere suggestion that armed police offices keep kids safe. In part it could be their Dracula like aversion to guns in the hands of individuals not of their security details. But you have to ask yourself why is the oppressive left so adamant about not protecting the Children?

        There has to be something else at work here – some other reason than Hoplophobia in the extreme – but what could it be? Why don’t they want someone – either uniformed officer or a CCW person in the schools to stop the next maniac?

        Ask yourself – why would they be against a proven security measure they employ for themselves?

        Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best – they simply don’t want children protected because that doesn’t further their socialist nation agenda.

        We might as well just come right out and say it: They don’t want the children protected because they want more massacres.

        They WANT to see wall to wall coverage of dead bodies and screaming parents. The WANT to see days of coverage as the BSMedia milks ever last bit of agony from these Serious Crisis that they see as prime opportunities to further their destruction of the Constitution.

        Just look at how they almost can’t hide their giddiness over the news of these massacres.

        Look at how they can’t wait to seize upon these “Crisis” with declarations about how other innocent gun owners are somehow guilty of the crime just because they exercise their God-given and Constitutionally affirmed right of self defense

        They recently put in place legislation to further restrict our rights – taking the advantage of the deaths of young children to enhance their power grabbing agenda. Problem is, the emotional groundswell from Sandy Hook has subsided so they can’t “Use” it as a means to deprive the innocent of their right of self-defense.

        Now, like the death vultures that they are, they are just waiting for their next “opportunity”. They’re patiently waiting for the first reports of a shooting in school or some other ‘Gun-Free’ zone to spring into action.

        But now, someone comes along and makes the very practical suggestion of protecting the children and they go Ballistic.

        http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2975208/posts

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 3:35 pm

        I like it…

        we petition the obama administration to:
        Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

        Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

        https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK

      • sarahbloch January 5, 2013 / 5:05 pm

        Neocon it’s high time the entire United States became a gun free zone.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 5:51 pm

        syrupblatch

        YUP, just like we are DRUG FREE and ILLEGAL ALIEN free……

      • Retired Spook January 5, 2013 / 6:11 pm

        Neocon it’s high time the entire United States became a gun free zone.

        Sarah, if all men were angels, that might work, but since they’re not, it won’t.

      • tiredoflibbs January 5, 2013 / 6:19 pm

        Forker, if you want to live in a gun free zone, put a sign in front of your home indicating that it is a gun free zone. Criminals would favor that over a home with an armed owner.

        Since the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens do not have a right to police protection, then the job of protecting our persons falls on us.

      • Retired Spook January 5, 2013 / 6:28 pm

        Forker, if you want to live in a gun free zone, put a sign in front of your home indicating that it is a gun free zone.

        Tired, Sarah can have a gun free zone sign in her yard. I’ll take this one.

  3. Jeremiah January 5, 2013 / 5:52 pm

    Be careful what ya wish for, Sarah.

    • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 6:00 pm

      Jer

      yeah
      hitler, mao, fidel, pol, joe all showed us what a weapon free paradise was like.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 6:03 pm

        “Those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.”

        Ben Franklin

      • Jeremiah January 5, 2013 / 6:13 pm

        Yes, Amen, Neo.

        And George Washington….

        “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Washington

        Not only that, but gun control advocates have never seen the American people mad.

      • Jeremiah January 5, 2013 / 6:21 pm

        I’m savin’ up…I’m gonna get me one of these, go elk and moose huntin’. I want a big 6×6.

      • neocon01 January 5, 2013 / 6:37 pm

        hell of a weapon jer

      • Jeremiah January 5, 2013 / 7:10 pm

        Yeah, if my shoulder can take it. LOL 😀

        And I don’t shoot my eye out. lol

        Do they make scopes that present the shooter with good eye relief?

  4. dbschmidt January 5, 2013 / 6:31 pm

    Probably not worth the effort in an attempt to educate Sarah but here are a few quotes and some additional information I just happen to know of. Here’s a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey: “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. … The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

    A little additional information from Bob Owens;

    We could easily spend the rest of the day (and much of the next) merely listing the governments in recorded history that have used that “monopoly of legitimate violence” to oppress their subjects and commit the occasional genocide against their people. We could point out that this precise mindset is one shared among the educated men of Parliament and the British Monarchy in the 1770s towards upstart Colonials in the New World.

    Such an opinion was held in the head of General Thomas Gage when he ordered Royal Marines and Regulars rowed across the Charles River in the dead of night on April 19,1775 to conduct gun control raids from Lexington to Concord. A perversely rewritten history taught by liberal academics in schools these days suggests that the cause of the American Revolution was “taxation without representation.” A reading of original sources puts that lie to rest.

    The proximate, immediate cause of the first American Revolutionary War was an attempt to capture powder and shot, cannon, and community food stores that supplied not just the organized militia of their day immortalized as the “Minutemen,” but the unorganized militia of those too young, too old, and too female to be part of the organized militia of their day. These were the “alarm listers.”

    The youngest of the estimated 14,000 that turned out against the Regulars that April morning and fired shots was just 13 years old. The oldest man to fight that fateful day was an alarm-lister named Samuel Whittemore, a 78-year-old veteran of three American wars in the King’s service.

    –Of tyrants and dangerous old men; Bob Owens; http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/of-tyrants-and-dangerous-old-men/

    But as a Cajun friend said today; “Yes. In the convoluted logic of the Left, Prohibition might not have stopped alcohol, and criminalization might not have stopped drugs, but confiscation will DEFINITELY clean up the ‘gun problem’.”

  5. Cluster January 5, 2013 / 6:39 pm

    I don’t feel Americans are rational or secure enough in their overall mental health to own handguns…… – sarahbloc

    I feel the same way about their right to vote.

  6. dbschmidt January 5, 2013 / 7:03 pm

    Here is Sarah’s mental issues showing up in reality;

    Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer

    “That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

    or other titles from the Drudge Report like: Prison inmates using map to threaten guards…

    But I know–blame the messenger

  7. Cluster January 5, 2013 / 8:07 pm

    It’s weapons that are for war whose sole purpose is to kill humans on a mass scale that are going….GOING… to be banned.

    They have been mitch. In fact, Clinton signed one of the first assault weapon bans in 1994. And Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, yet one of the highest gun violence rates. So tell us all again how your new law will save lives. Can’t wait to hear this one.

  8. Cluster January 5, 2013 / 8:09 pm

    Neocon it’s high time the entire United States became a gun free zone. – sarahbloc

    This statement is just marvelously naive, ignorant, and delusional. It’s the trifecta of liberal mindlessness.

  9. Cluster January 5, 2013 / 8:17 pm

    Of course Mitch, you might be on to something. Obama may as well kill (no pun intended) the gun industry since he is destroying so many others. Just think of all those new unemployment checks that will stimulate the economy!

    Good times indeed.

  10. tiredoflibbs January 5, 2013 / 8:24 pm

    “It’s weapons that are for war whose sole purpose is to kill humans on a mass scale that are going….GOING… to be banned.”

    Wrong mitchie, what the libbies and proggies are proposing are assault STYLE weapons that they are looking to ban. They LOOK like military weapons but function very differently.

    BTW, bows and arrows, spears and knives were weapons of war whose sole purpose was to kill. Your kindergarden mindless talking point arguments have no affect against cold hard facts.

    Also, automatic weapons are already illegal in most states and severely restricted across the country. AUTOMATIC weapons were not used at Columbine, Aurora or in Connecticut. Again, you are mindlessly regurgitating dumbed down talking points.

    When the 2nd amendment was written the civilians had the same weapons as the military. The 2nd amendment does not define ARMS nor does it limit them. For once you need to pay attention to the silly crap you write.

    And please, show us the specific right in the Constitution that give women the “right” to an abortion. We have shown the specific right OF THE PEOPLE to bear arms. I brought up abortion because the left defends a “right” against infringement that does not exist in the Constitution and they infringe on rights that are EXPLICITLY detailed in the Constitution. To the proggies, waiting periods for guns are OK, while waiting periods for abortions are an infringement. I showed the hypocrisy of the left. You only show your ability to regurgitate dumbed down mindless talking points for the ignorant masses.

  11. mitchethekid January 5, 2013 / 8:50 pm

    OK Mitch you got to come back for a while and it took you only a post or two to revert back to your bigoted attack mode. //Moderator

    • M. Noonan January 5, 2013 / 9:41 pm

      As much a share of the popular vote as any President since Eisenhower?

      Obama: 51%

      Johnson: 61%

      Nixon: 61%

      Reagan: 59%

      George H W Bush: 53%

      You really don’t know what has happened in the past, do you?

  12. Jeremiah January 5, 2013 / 10:11 pm

    In our colleges and universities are the Mitchie’s of the world made.

    “What is heathenism all about?

    Heathenism occurs following a long period of time after people have heard but have rejected the truth of God’s Word. Negative volition toward Biblical truth creates a vacuum in man’s soul, and teachings that produce evil or worldly thoughts and teachings that produce liberalism. Both the mechanics and results of a liberal or heathenistic society are clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-32. When enough evil is sucked into the soul, the result is blackout of the soul and scar tissue of the soul, making it difficult for a person to desire or receive God’s truth. Both theological and political liberalism exploit the ignorance of men without Biblical truth by appealing to their emotion, their revolt against established authority and their lust for power and self-gratification. Liberals seek to satisfy people in the age in which they live by encouraging personal satisfaction of their ego. Liberals attempt to use legislation to judge and to change people, but they have neither a Godly system of doctrine by which to so, nor do they have the mentality or morality to make it work. Therefore, their ideas can only result in a manifestation of heathenism which has a veneer of human good. Heathenism always tries to find a substitute for TRUTH, so both theological and political liberals attempt to create a pattern of human good through the use of the Social Gospel in the theological realm, and Socialism, Communism or some other kind of welfare state in the political realm in their attempt to make people depend upon the government for their needs rather than upon God.”

    http://heathenism.blogspot.com/

  13. Amazona January 5, 2013 / 10:23 pm

    Oh, mitche, get a grip. No one is talking about starting a revolution in the streets. Those voices in your head are doing you no favors.

    Weapons “whose sole purpose is to kill humans on a mass scale…” Well, hardly any of the so-called “assault weapons” freaking out the freaks have been military weapons, and even those that were also have other uses, including sport shooting and self defense as well as hunting.

    Too funny that you are bleating about someone else being “insane” and a couple of lines later carrying on about deer hunting with automatic weapons. In point of fact, automatic weapons have been illegal in EVERY state since 1937. The only way to legally own an automatic weapons is to get a federal firearms license.

    What is the difference between listing the names of those who have taken advantage of their constitutional rights to own weapons and those who have used a Supreme Court ruling to kill their children? Both are legal. Get over it. The big difference is no one is ashamed of owning a gun, but evidently a lot of females are ashamed of killing off their defenseless young.

    Whether or not automatic weapons did or did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written is, as the rest of your blathering, irrelevant, because they are illegal now—and no one is arguing that they should be legalized. So what’s your point?

    Go change your panties and sip some chamomile tea and have a nice lie-down, and give your overheated imagination a time out.

    • tiredoflibbs January 5, 2013 / 10:33 pm

      Ama, I think mitchie needs a bubble bath as well.

      It is amazing that these mindless drones continue to regurgitate the same easily refuted crap time and again.

      Hunting with automatic weapons? Is mitchie serious? Who does that? IF he had an ounce of sense and could think for himself he would realize that is so counter productive to the act itself in hunting game for food, much less be able to hit a running animal in full automatic mode.

      Mitchie, you need to do some actual research before posting again. It would make you far less foolish.

    • Amazona January 5, 2013 / 10:42 pm

      Not to mention that you can’t buy an automatic weapon and haven’t been able to for about 75 years, that you are not allowed to hunt deer with certain weapons (such as shotguns or .22s) and that even OWNING a fully automatic rifle is a federal offense.

      mitche is constantly reminding us that he never feels constrained by fact or reason when the urge to emote comes upon him.

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 8:20 am

      Amazona
      January 5, 2013 at 10:23 pm #
      —————————————-

      The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, Amazona, but, hopefully, in addition to reinstating it, other sane measures will be implemented, as well…

      —————————————————————————–

      “The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

      A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.”

      ——————————————————————————-

      As difficult as it is for gun-loving Americans, such as yourself, to accept further restrictions on firearm ownership, I believe the majority of law-abiding citizens are so sickened by number and scope of these massacres that they want to see more stringent measures put forth and enforced.

      All the NRA blather about the need for individuals to be armed for their own safety is now being seen for what it is; just another ploy to increase profits. Wayne La Pierre’s inane response to the murder of innocent school children and their teachers was beyond ridiculous and resulted in making his organization a laughing stock.

      It would be refreshing to have a reasoned response from you, Amazona, but, I expect it will be your usual snippity and personal attack. Sigh…

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 8:43 am

        co: “All the NRA blather about the need for individuals to be armed for their own safety is now being seen for what it is; just another ploy to increase profits.”

        Uh, co, obviously you did not read the portion of the thread where the Supreme Court has ruled that we have no right to police protection. The police have no obligation to protect the citizens of this country and cannot be held accountable if citizens are denied protection. The onus of protecting oneself and their families falls onto the individual. The FACT that persons, who live in our nations capitol during the time of strictest of gun control laws, were brutally attacked and sexually assaulted in their home with several calls to the police were unanswered (NO ONE SHOWED UP) and you expect the victims had to rely on police protection only shows the folly (and utter stupidity) of your argument. These victims would not appreciate your “another ploy to increase profits” dumbed down talking point.

        How can anyone present a reasoned response to your complete and utter stupidity that you present? The NRA was a laughing stock only to mindless drones such as yourself. Time and again, his comments were proven correct and the Supreme Court decision, stating that law enforcement do not have an obligation to protect citizens, only gives FACT and reinforcement to Lapierre’s comments and slams your complete mindless regurgitation of dumbed down talking points. You will recall that Columbine happened DURING the “assault weapons”.

        With the Supreme Court decision, it is a FACT that citizens have to rely on themselves for protection. It is not blather but a PROVEN necessity. Perhaps if you or your loved ones are subject to what the victims suffered in the cases listed you would feel differently. If not, then there is no hope for you – a permanent victim in a society where you have traded freedom for what you believe is security.

        Pathetic.

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 10:37 am

      Sigh. Siiigggghhhhhhh. Gee, I hope you feel better now that you have had a good sigh.

      Tell me, CO—-what IS an “assault weapon”?

      Is it something with which you assault someone? An Assault Rock, for example, or an Assault Baseball Bat, or an Assault Knife?

      Or is it a moderately powerful rifle with some accoutrements that make it LOOK, to the uneducated eye, kinda scawwwwy?

      How does a barrel shroud make a rifle more easily used to ASSAULT someone? A folding stock? A flash suppressor? How do they change the USE of the weapon? How do they make it more lethal?

      You see, while you were sighing your Liberal little heart out, you also dodged every FACT I presented. Too busy expelling some of that hot air, I guess.

      And what does the expiration date of the much-loved but wholly symbolic BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS have to do with anything I said? Are you conflating them with automatic weapons? I noted that automatic weapons have been illegal for about 75 years and you popped up with a date of the expiration of a ban on a completely different class of weapon, which does indicate befuddlement on your part.

      And what the hell is “high capacity ammunition”?

      I don’t doubt that some in the administration are running around in a frenzy trying to control it, inhibit it, restrict it, ban it, or in some way feel that they have done something about it. But what IS it?

      Is it that “little thing by the shoulder that pops up” that a Congresscritter felt defined a scawwwwy ASSAULT WEAPON? (And yes, folks, she WAS allowed to vote—-now THAT is scary!)

      No, the NRA was not made a laughingstock, though I am sure that you and your fellow toffee-nosed fairies out in Keh-bec all had a good titter. Odd that you would consider a reasonable and serious suggestion about how to actually PROTECT our children to be “inane” while, evidently, thinking a sign saying “please don’t shoot our children” (or its equivalent) is somehow serious.

      No, you guys just keep fluttering and whimpering and having the vapors, and the adults will keep on keeping you safe, with our big bad scawwwwwwwwwwwy guns. You don’t have to like it. It’s just the way it is. There is a lot that people like you don’t like—-our Constitution, education, understanding our history and that of the Left, freedom, capitalism, etc. It’s what makes you what you are.

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 10:41 am

      “On Sunday December 16, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater.

      The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

      Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

      There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media are treating it like it never happened.

      Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.”

      Source:

      http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

      The average number of fatalities when law enforcement had to stop a shooter: 14-plus
      The average number of fatalities when an armed citizen on-site stopped a shooter: 2.5

    • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 11:08 am

      I believe the majority of law-abiding citizens are so sickened by number and scope of these massacres that they want to see more stringent measures put forth and enforced.

      CO, what “more stringent measure” would you suggest that would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre?

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 12:18 pm

      Retired Spook
      January 6, 2013 at 11:08 am #

      CO, what “more stringent measure” would you suggest
      —————————————————————————–

      For a start, Spook, there should be a four-week waiting period with proper background checks and at least two signatures for references before you can take possession of a registered firearm. If you are a legitimate gun owner with no intention of taking out as many of your fellow citizens as your weapon will allow then you should have no problem with this ‘stringent measure’.

      (crude reference to male sex organ deleted)//Moderator

    • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:32 pm

      For a start, Spook, there should be a four-week waiting period with proper background checks and at least two signatures for references before you can take possession of a registered firearm.

      Wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook, CO. Try again.

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 12:50 pm

      Retired Spook
      January 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm #
      ——————————————————————————-

      Don’t know if it is possible to legislate irresponsible actions of gun owners, Spook. Seems this particular killer had access to his mother’s arsenal and was able to massacre 26 innocent people due to her negligence. How do you prevent stupidity like this from happening? I think it would be an impossible task to monitor whether or not gun owners are keeping their weapons under lock and key.

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 1:14 pm

      So now our little Canuck fella is knowledgeable about Nancy Lanza, so much more than those who knew her:

      “Russ Hanoman, a friend of Nancy Lanza, said she was the “epitome of responsibility.”

      “They’ve painted her as some irresponsible gun freak, but she wasn’t,” he said. “She was a paragon for gun safety. She taught the boys how to use the guns responsibly.”

      But CO declares that in fact she was “negligent”. Guess dying is pretty careless, eh, CO?

      Oh, he also characterizes her as “stupid”.

      Her son had no prior indication of homicidal tendencies, or so say those who actually KNEW him—perhaps there is some psychic hot line up to the Great North that feeds CO different information. Based on CO’s history of irrational ranting here, I’d say he would be identified as a future killer much more so than a quiet kid sometimes described as a “genius” and noted for his shyness. An obsessive need to attack strangers in another country because they have different political beliefs is hardly an indicator of mental stability.

    • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 1:23 pm

      I think it would be an impossible task to monitor whether or not gun owners are keeping their weapons under lock and key.

      CO, I think you’re right. And, of course, for anyone whose primary reason for owning a firearm is self-defense, a gun that is kept under lock and key is next to worthless. When my kids were little, my self-defense weapon was a Browning Hi-Power 9mm. It held 13 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber, but it had a unique feature that I had not seen on any other handgun at the time: the round in the chamber could not be fired if the magazine wasn’t in the gun. So I could leave the gun with a round in the chamber in my nightstand, and keep the loaded magazine in a location that my kids didn’t know about but was easy to access. If I heard an intruder in the house, the Browning was loaded and ready to fire within a few seconds. I also had a concealed carry permit, and twice in the late 70’s and early 80’s the mere presence of the handgun thwarted assault attempts on me — without firing a shot.

      The best potential solution I’ve ever seen to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook is smart-gun technology, and it’s one of the few areas where I disagree with the NRA. Smart-gun technology has been around for years, and if it can ever be perfected and made economically feasible to convert existing handguns, it would make more sense than any other solution.

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 1:37 pm

      Amazona
      January 6, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

      ——————————————————————————

      The killer still got his hands on his mother’s arsenal, Amazona, and was able to shoot 26 innocent victims before taking his own life. Nancy Lanza also had fears for her son’s mental health so you think she would have been extra diligent in keeping guns out of his possession. She may have been a wonderful person but when it came to responsible gun ownership she, sadly, failed.

      ————————————————————————————–

      From the UK Guardian:

      According to reports, Nancy Lanza was a so-called ‘prepper’, a part of the survivalist movement which urges individuals to prepare for the breakdown of society by training with weapons and hoarding food and other supplies.

      “She prepared for the worst,” her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza told the Chicago Sun-Times.

      “Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?”

      Marsha Lanza described Nancy as ‘self-reliant’ and said she repeatedly talked about her preparations for the economic and social meltdown.

      It has also emerged that Mrs Lanza had spoken of her fears about her son Adam’s behaviour less than a week before the attack.

      According to reports she told a friend that she feared “losing” her son”, that his state of mind was “getting worse” and that “she was having trouble reaching him”.

    • Cluster January 6, 2013 / 1:54 pm

      According to reports she told a friend that she feared “losing” her son”, that his state of mind was “getting worse” and that “she was having trouble reaching him”. – Canadian

      And the conservative position is to identify and institutionalize people like Adam Lamza. Liberals have prevented those efforts.

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 2:26 pm

      Well, CO, you have no idea how “diligent” Nancy Lanza was. You know that her son got his hands on at least one gun, which he used to kill her, and then her negligence in dying after being shot while she slept meant her “diligence” was diminished.

      I note the glee with which you carrion eaters of the Left pounce upon the dead with your pronouncements of “negligence” and “lack of diligence”.

      And since when does concern over a child’s mental state mean concern he will become violent? Since when does the comment that a mother feels she is “losing” her son mean she thinks he is going to snap and kill her and several others? When a child is autistic and already rather emotionally isolated and withdrawn, “losing” him is much more likely to indicate that he is becoming even more withdrawn, not that he is going to go on a killing spree.

      By all accounts she did what any loving, concerned, intelligent, involved parent would do when faced with a child who has the kind of problems Adam had since birth. By all accounts she was a responsible gun owner who worked with her son to establish a sense of accomplishment and responsibility in him.

      I also note your preoccupation with what you seem to think is a significant claim about Nancy Lanza—that she was a “prepper”. Your bigotry is always there—oozing out, spurting out in vile attacks on the character and intelligence of a dead woman, smeared all over your posts, it is always there.

      And I repeat an observation made many times here—your obsessive snouting through conservative blogs in another country, to target and attack strangers just because they have a different political opinion than you do, even though their political beliefs are not even related to your own government, is quite indicative of mental and emotional imbalance. By all accounts, until the day Adam Lanza snapped he was a kind, sweet, shy boy trying to deal with a debilitating condition, whereas you are aggressive, belligerent, hostile to strangers you pursue online to attack and insult, intolerant, judgmental and quite smug in your nastiness. As I said, up until a certain date you would have been the far better candidate for close observation and diligence.

      • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 2:42 pm

        Amazona
        January 6, 2013 at 2:26 pm #
        .
        You know that her son got his hands on at least one gun, which he used to kill her,
        ———————————————————————————————————

        So, where did that gun come from, Amazona? Was it under lock & key as all guns should be?

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 5:20 pm

        co: “Was it under lock & key as all guns should be?”

        Aaaaah yes. Everything that is under lock and key is always 100% safe!!!

        Grasping at straws aren’t you?

        With every post you undermine your position even further.

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 2:34 pm

      Cluster
      January 6, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

      And the conservative position is to identify and institutionalize people like Adam Lamza. Liberals have prevented those efforts.

      ———————————————————————————
      Is this a supposition on your part, Cluster, or do you speak from personal experience?

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 2:42 pm

      Meow.

      Thanks for yet another example of what passes for rational discourse from our little northern sniveler.

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 2:53 pm

      “Was it under lock & key as all guns should be?”

      I don’t know. Was it?

      Do you assert that the same precautions must be taken in a household with an 18-year-old trained in the responsible use of guns as in a house with small children?

      Do you claim to have knowledge that Nancy Lanza was so in fear of her son that she should have locked up her guns to keep them from HIM instead of just taking normal precautions to keep them from being stolen by intruders?

      At what point do you decree that a young man old enough to vote, who has accompanied his mother to firing ranges and been carefully trained in the use of guns, MUST have the location of those guns in his own household, or the location of the key to the gun storage, kept a secret from him?

      In a household with adults, with no small children, it is common to secure weapons only to prevent their theft, and not to hide them from other adults in the family. You seem to feel that this does not meet your own high standards of gun security.

      Tough.

      If you find this unacceptable, no one cares.

    • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 4:51 pm

      Wow CO — four week waiting period ~ I like that but let us apply it to the 1st amendment at first. So, starting today, you, Mitchie, Sarah and the rest of the “low information” persons can only place a dated marker on the blog when you will be able to actually comment on the thread after four weeks. That should give you enough time to educate yourself before typing and filter out those not always relevant comments.

      Sounds good–see you next month when you could once again post something on this thread.

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 5:18 pm

      dbschmidt
      January 6, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

      ———————————————————————
      Are you suggesting our remarks may cause fatal results? Didn’t realize the powerful & dangerous effect that unfiltered and irrelevant comments would have on this body of august intellectuals. Who would have thought that our words have the same capacity to inflict death or injury as a firearm? Amazing!

    • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 5:50 pm

      tiredoflibbs
      January 6, 2013 at 5:20 pm #
      ——————————————————————————
      So, tired, are you saying that even when firearms are under lock & key, it still isn’t enough to prevent some lunatic from getting access to weapons with the intention of using them to kill as may innocent individuals as he can before he can be stopped. Is there no way at all to ensure that guns belonging to responsible owners never end up in the hands of the criminally insane?

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 8:55 pm

        co: your shortsightedness could even see that removing the lunatic and the criminally insane from the civil society would be more beneficial than removing ONE of their instruments to commit murder. Stabbing deaths are far more prominent than gun violence.

        Another interesting phrase you use is “before they can be stopped”. Again, the police cannot be everywhere at once and it is the onus of the individual to protect themselves.

        Your “solution” has been tried several times. In the cities with the strictest gun control, there are far more crimes period. There are far more murders, theft and other violent crimes. I have showed this several times. All you have done is regurgitate dumbed down talking points. You regurgitate the removal of one instrument while allowing the offender or potential offender to remain on the streets.

        Interesting world you want to live in – creating an atmosphere that increases the number of victims rather than letting the potential victims protect themselves.

      • neocon01 January 7, 2013 / 1:35 pm

        zeroKinuck

        lock and key???
        only when you lock ALL these up also……..

      • neocon01 January 7, 2013 / 1:48 pm

        Dont you just love that some FOREIGN LEFTIST STOOGE comes here to lecture American citizens on OUR LAWS and constitution???

        ribit ribit ribit

      • Amazona January 7, 2013 / 3:43 pm

        neo, all this time I thought that the supposedly Canadian non-observer was a snot-nosed kid full of himself and trolling the internet looking for places to regurgitate the crap he had just chugged down in school, The posts all had that smirky smug tone you get from kids who are convinced they know it all.

        Now we know that this person is really a 66-year-old with an odd personality disorder that compels him to troll the internet to look for people posting ideas he finds offensive, so he can then attack and insult strangers safely without the reaction he undoubtedly gets if he tries this face-to-face.

        Now we know it’s not just juvenile cockiness, which is annoying but can be excused on the grounds of callow youth stretching his wings, but a supposed adult who just sounds juvenile. And the second is far creepier, especially when factoring in the snide smug snottiness that this person seems to think is so clever.

        What we see now is a craven coward, who has to vent his frustrations and bigotries and impotent anger anonymously. He does not come here to discuss ideas, but merely to spew the distasteful contents of his psyche. And although I have used masculine pronouns, I see either a sour woman or a very unmanly man, given the bitchiness of the snarls.

        Annoying to creepy—a short journey and not one to be proud of.

        (To get an idea of what I think he might sound like, check out the youtube video of Randall talking about the honey badger—it’s how I imagine CO sounds when squealing about guns. “Eeeuuwww!!”)

    • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 6:41 pm

      No CO–if you understood anything about our Constitution is that all of the Amendments are equal in Nature so you are wanting a four week wait on firearms (not in the Constitution) but have issues with curtailing the 1st. BTW, there have been several convictions for manslaughter after bulling on-line or in person so words can be as dangerous. No need to look further than some cults that have all killed themselves following a cult leader to see how “dangerous” (or a Constitutional Conservative speaking the truth) the 1st Amendment can be.

      Now you you have your four week waiting period–go review how well disarming all of the people of the UK or Australia has worked out. You do realize for every murder / manslaughter committed with a firearm–there are 2.5 reported uses saving someone (a great majority of women) from rape or other violent crimes.

      Please–speaking of free speach–don’t you have something to clean up there in the Great White North? Mainly, the Canadian “human rights” regime & Warman’s shakedown racket. Said it before but worth repeating but as a Cajun friend said the other day; “Yes. In the convoluted logic of the Left, Prohibition might not have stopped alcohol, and criminalization might not have stopped drugs, but confiscation will DEFINITELY clean up the ‘gun problem’.”

    • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 6:55 pm

      BTW, just as a statement of fact. I have a S&W Model 29 (.44 cal) revolver which I have owned since I was 18 years and 5 days old. Even though it is unlocked in a holster near my bed and I even take it out as CC some days–it has never made even a rude remark towards anyone, never snuck out at night to stick up a gas station or liquor store. Yes, I have a large safe for everything else.

      It is an inanimate object–just like a great deal of other items I own (exception might be the cat which I do not think can be owned even if I have to pay tax on it every year). When will Liberals and Progressives learn that it is the individual that causes the problems and even registration is the first step every government has taken. Someone once mentioned that the only movie he has ever seen where one side had all the guns was called “Schindler’s List.”

  14. Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:25 am

    Ya gotta love Ann Barnhardt’s simple take on things:

    People are emailing me desperately asking me to write something on the move to ban and confiscate weapons, particularly Diane Feinstein’s bill. Sorry, but I don’t waste my time on such stupidity. Nothing and no one can take away your right to defend yourself, your family and your property. If you STILL don’t get that, then I really can’t help you. They can pass whatever horseshit laws they want to, and my response, and the response of every thinking person should consist of two words: seven letters, three “f”s. If there is any lesson in the fact that you people know who I am in the first place and read everything I write, it is the fact that if you go on offense and bayonet charge these S.O.B.’s, they’ll fold. Burn a koran, and GIVE THEM YOUR ADDRESS. Charge!

    Remember, there is no such thing as coercion. The government CANNOT disarm you. Only YOU can disarm you by capitulating to them. Buy a flag with an AR-15 on it and fly it outside your house. Post pictures of yourself with your weapons on the internet. QUIT COWERING. The fact that you people cower is the one and only reason these assholes in D.C. have any power at all – you GIVE IT TO THEM.

    • Cluster January 6, 2013 / 10:53 am

      Ann is my new hero. I hope she doesn’t mind but I am stealing her line that my response will be “two word, seven letters with three F’s” – love it.

      I saw that Canadian in his comment above, claimed that the NRA was trying to drive profits by promoting gun ownership for protection, obviously not realizing that the NRA is a membership driven organization and doesn’t gain any profits from gun sales. Just another one of his mental lapses resulting from his allegiance to a party and doctrine dependent on mental lapses.

      • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 11:09 am

        “I saw that Canadian in his comment above, claimed that the NRA was trying to drive profits by promoting gun ownership…”

        Yeah, but for a radical Lefty like the supposedly Canadian non-observer, this is a bonus—a twofer. He gets to flap his hands at both capitalism AND gun owners at the same time, and what can be more gratifying to someone like CO than a good hysterical hand-flapping?

        And sighing. Don’t forget sighing. Mournful sighing, resigned sighing, frustrated sighing, and of course the perennial favorite, sad sad oh so sad sighing.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 6, 2013 / 11:18 am

        Perhaps our observer from the north should visit a place like this and learn a little about guns. I’d advise taking along a change of underwear.

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 11:22 am

        obAMATEUR and the scared excrement-less proggies have done more for gun sale profits in December than the NRA has.

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 11:35 am

        Tired,

        Witness the open letter to their customers from CheaperThanDirt.com, one of the most widely known on-line sources for shooting gear and ammunition:

        Consumer reaction to the political rhetoric after the shooting in CT caused a rush of online orders at Cheaper Than Dirt! which led to the largest backlog in the company’s history.

        Cheaper Than Dirt! management had no choice but to suspend firearm sales while examining ways to meet customer demand and maintain the careful and lawful processes established.

        Firearm sales require a significant amount of individual attention compared to the automated system for non-firearm products. Firearm orders were being placed faster than the inventory system could update, potentially leading to an overselling situation and cancellation of orders on a very large-scale.

        Ammunition and shooting accessories orders more than tripled, resulting in week-long shipping delays. Since firearms sales are a much smaller portion of its sales and require more resources, the decision was made to utilize personnel in areas that would make the most impact servicing customers.

        The past three weeks have been spent catching up on the tremendous backlog of orders, training additional staff and increasing inventory back to acceptable levels.

        Firearm sales will resume on a limited basis beginning Tuesday, January 8, based on available inventory. The selection will increase as more firearms become available. Specifically, firearms that are in high demand are not currently available from manufacturers due to the lack of inventory. This includes most modern sporting rifles.

        Cheaper Than Dirt!’s goal is to maintain the level of service customers have come to expect.

        Almost anyone in the firearms business will tell you that Obama is by far their best salesman — BY FAR!

      • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 7:02 pm

        Wish I had seriously thought about it years ago because my last review (month or so ago) Ruger firearm’s stock is up over 822%.from when President Obama first took office to today . Might be too late now but the Dems are making me look again.

  15. Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:10 pm

    One of the funniest understatements I’ve ever seen in an AP article on my home page this morning:

    Four years and one re-election after Barack Obama became America’s first black president, some of the thrill is gone..

    • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 12:12 pm

      Do ya THINK !!????

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 12:16 pm

        Happy Birthday to Meeeeeee

        🙂

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 12:18 pm

        zeroKanuck

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:36 pm

        Happy birthday, Neo. Mine’s coming up in a couple weeks.

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 12:59 pm

        Spook
        Obama inauguration left over 100 tons of trash on the ground:

        One looks like Somalia
        One looks like suburban USA

    • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 12:29 pm

      Spook

      the thrill is gone……………YUP!!

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:42 pm

        Neo,

        The question is, will a smaller crowd leave a smaller mountain of trash.?

  16. Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 12:45 pm

    From third update:

    Georgian Woman Hides Her Children and Shoots Intruder.

    Tired, as the old saying goes, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

  17. Amazona January 6, 2013 / 12:48 pm

    Happy Birthday, neo. Guess you’ll never see 29 again, eh?

    A few years ago I stumbled upon a series of books—– “Emberverse, or Change World, is a series of post-apocalyptic alternate history novels written by S. M. Stirling. The novels depict the events following “The Change”, which caused electricity, guns, explosives, internal combustion engines, and steam power to stop working…”

    I like good science fiction and alternate history books every now and then because they depend entirely on the imagination of the author to create not just characters and plots but whole new worlds in which to place them.

    In this series, it was basically impossible to create an explosion–gun powder would ignite but just smoulder and then go pffft. Without an explosion there is no gunfire. What was so fascinating was the quick change from guns to other weapons, to dominate and conquer others, to kill, and of course for self defense. And the message was that it is not the weapon, it is the person.

    In this series, bows and spears and swords are the weapons of choice, just as they were up until a couple of hundred years or go, give or take a few decades.

    The silly fluffy fantasy that if we could somehow just wave a magic wand and make all the guns in the world disappear then everything would be hunky-dory, peace and love, sweetness and light, giving-the-world-a-hug, is not only determinedly oblivious to human nature, it is historically illiterate. We’ve had guns for such a short period of human history, yet our carnage against each other has gone on since the first human picked up a stick or a rock and thumped someone with it. In two of the worst atrocities in human history, the Nazi-led Holocaust and the Stalinist extermination of tens of millions of undesirables or political opponents, guns played a very minor role related to the number of human lives lost.

    In our own country, right here and now, guns play no role in the butchery of millions of future Americans every decade.

    BUT—as much of the nation has decided that the ability to pretend to be someone else is proof of intelligence and political savvy, let’s let our Hollywood elite lead the way. Instead of lip-quivering sniveling about the need for SOMEONE ELSE to DO SOMETHING !!! about guns, let the Jennifer Anistons step up proud and loud, and publicly announce that their bodyguards will now be armed only with little cards they can hand out to potential threats reminding them that Ms. Aniston or whoever is in a gun-free zone and that attacks are simply not permitted.

    A stern look might be allowed, but certainly nothing as harsh as a sharp reprimand.

    • Cluster January 6, 2013 / 1:02 pm

      My birthday is this Saturday. Are we all January babies? Obviously a great month – LOL

      • Cluster January 6, 2013 / 1:02 pm

        Happy birthday Neo and Spook

      • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 1:19 pm

        Well, happy B-day to you, too, Cluster, and ahead of time for Spook.

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 2:37 pm

        Cluster,

        I suspect I’m the senior member of the January b’day contingent — 68 on the 18th. OK, cue James or one of our other snotty Leftists to make some ageist comment.

      • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 2:50 pm

        Retired Spook
        January 6, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

        OK, cue James or one of our other snotty Leftists to make some ageist comment.
        —————————————————————————-
        Even though you are my senior by two years, Spook, you’ll not hear any ageist comment from me. I have the greatest respect for my elders, haha.

      • Amazona January 6, 2013 / 2:58 pm

        CO, you are 66? Wow, was I ever off on my guess—by about 50 years.

        Guess the cold retards mental growth and intellectual activity…………

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 3:04 pm

        Spook, you’ll not hear any ageist comment from me. I have the greatest respect for my elders, haha.

        Yeah, CO, your respect for us, whether senior or not, just oozes from each of your posts, haha.

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 3:25 pm

        ZeroKanuck

        but how do you account for the retardation of mental growth and intellectual activity of old codgers like neocon who live in the balmy temperatures of Florida? What stunts their mental capacity?

        This old codger could run circles around your frog azz,……
        next to you I look like a world renowned brain surgeon.

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 3:34 pm

        Fn LIARS LIE

        At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans’ guns away.

        “When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’

        You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it.

        I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

      • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 4:00 pm

        neocon01
        January 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

        —————————————————————-
        If you are the legal owner of your firearms, the President will not be pounding at your door and confiscating your current gun arsenal, neocon; just making it a bit harder for you to add to your stockpile. If you don’t feel safe with the stash you’ve already acquired, I don’t know how far additional firepower will go in easing your fears of becoming a victim of criminal attack by a gun-wielding maniac. Since you are a seasoned war veteran and sharp shooter you should have no problem taking the fellow out with one bullet.

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 5:07 pm

        zerOKunuck

        how many weapons I own are my business not the governments.
        al Ubama will come for nothing himself, he has UNION GOONS with guns to do his bidding.

        I do not know which “fellow” you are talking about and if that were so then why do we have SWAT teams dressed like ninjas for one fellow?

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        zeroKanuck

        make NO MISTAKE/our GUNS are to PROTECT us and our neighborhoods from THIS

      • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 5:18 pm

        geeeee imagine that!!

      • 01canadianobserver January 6, 2013 / 5:34 pm

        neocon01
        January 6, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

        ———————————————————————-
        You seem to live in a dark and scary place, neocon. I hope your religion and your firepower give you at least some relief and a bit of comfort from all your fears. The idea that there are so many enemies who are out to get you must be an unbearable burden to carry day after day. It must exhaust you. Talk to someone; perhaps your pastor could help; it certainly couldn’t hurt.

      • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 7:15 pm

        No CO, what the Government wants is fingerprints, a photo (mug shot) and registration. Not going to happen. First step to confiscation is registration.

      • Amazona January 7, 2013 / 11:32 am

        I see our supposedly Canadian observer-of-nothing is still sniping in his oddly catty and snide manner, this time about neo’s religion.

        Again—what a strange mentality, to search the internet for people with different views, so you can attack them, ridicule them, and in general display your disdain for them, though they are strangers and in no way a part of your life.

        What a strange and disturbing mentality…………

      • neocon01 January 7, 2013 / 1:43 pm

        zeroKanuck

        I hope your religion and your firepower give you at least some relief and a bit of comfort from all your fears. The idea that there are so many enemies who are out to get you must be an unbearable burden to carry day after day. It must exhaust you.

        ROTFLMAO………
        .I am at peace with my God, and I FEAR NO MAN.
        I do understand violent feral mobs who have rampaged, looted, murdered, burned every large US city in the US since 1960.
        Like the Koreans, there are those of us who understand this culture and have made preparations for the defense of our neighborhoods during a government disruption.
        Something a COWARD would never understand……..

    • neocon01 January 6, 2013 / 1:18 pm

      Happy Birthday, neo. Guess you’ll never see 29 again, eh?

      Hell, I’d take 65 again LOL 😦

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2013 / 1:30 pm

        Hell, I’d take 65 again LOL

        Me too.

  18. Jeremiah January 6, 2013 / 4:44 pm

    Happy Birthday Neocon, Cluster and Spook.

    I have a birthday after you Spook.

  19. mitchethekid January 6, 2013 / 8:12 pm

    Submitted on 2013/01/05 at 8:50 pm

    OK Mitch you got to come back for a while and it took you only a post or two to revert back to your bigoted attack mode. //Moderator

    This means we are tired of you using this blog to insult and attack people and call names. It does not mean one or two posts will be deleted and then you can come back. //Moderator

    • dbschmidt January 6, 2013 / 8:57 pm

      It is my Constitutional right (upheld by the Supreme Court) to own everything that is included in the modern day military arsenal. That is not what we are asking.

      Your comment ” You all should be ashamed for even suggesting that your rights are being infringed upon. No one should have the right to have a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill humans on a mass scale in a short period of time other than if you are a participant in a war” should make you ashamed that you have joined the “low information” crowd. IIRC, Shapton and others of your leftist ilk are already looking at banning kitchen (oops, Chef’s) knives. Too dangerous and scary looking I reckon.

      You, government or anyone else comes for my firearms–it is my duty to put them 6 ft under. The first revolutionary war started when the British tried to confiscate our guns and so will the second. Feinstein, other CongressCritters, and Obama have all sworn to uphold the Constitution–they should be removed for treason just for putting forth these unconstitutional documents. Grow up & learn something before posting. Put on some diapers if you cannot handle the real world without peeing on yourself. You will need them if you try to interfere with one of my Constitutional rights.

      • mitchethekid January 6, 2013 / 9:12 pm

        Submitted on 2013/01/05 at 8:50 pm

        OK Mitch you got to come back for a while and it took you only a post or two to revert back to your bigoted attack mode. //Moderator

        This means we are tired of you using this blog to insult and attack people and call names. It does not mean one or two posts will be deleted and then you can come back. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 9:23 pm

        mitchie who cannot connect the dots: ” This is not 1770. Or 1776 for that matter. It’s 2013 and we are all US citizens.”

        At the time in 1770 or 1776, they were all ENGLISH CITIZENS until the government got too oppressive….. and we see how that turned out didn’t we? You would be calling them insane, paranoid and delusional too! The difference is that they had the guts and courage to throw off their oppressors while YOU, a coward who will trade freedom for believed security will rollover and show your oppressors your soft underbelly.

        You are just pissed that your arguments are so easily refuted. We have facts, history and common sense on our side while you have childish emotion. Yes, childish. The only think you have not done is cry and take your toys home because you cannot have your way.

      • tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 9:32 pm

        mitchietheignorant: “These constitutional rights that you are so up in arms about (no pun intended) have nothing to do with keeping weapons as a means of self protection. Or to hunt. Or to participate in target shooting for sport. ”

        Really? then what is our 2nd Amendment right for then?

        If you were able to comprehend the written word, we have shown several times with quotes from the FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEIR INTENTIONS CONCERNING THE 2ND AMENDMENT – primarily for SELF-PROTECTION!!!

        Self-protection against foreign enemies as well as domestic ones INCLUDING AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. An oppressive government who keeps seizing more and more power while diminishing the freedoms of their citizens and disregarding the rule of law and their limits on what they can and cannot do. That is what happened in 1770-1776, the English government became oppressive to their colonies and their colonial ENGLISH citizens rebelled.

        History is a great teacher, mitchie. Too bad you are too ignorant and unwilling to learn from it.

        Again, we have facts and history on our side. You have childish emotion.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona January 7, 2013 / 11:55 am

        I see that mitche is being mitche again. He seems to be deconstructing even faster than usual—-he is usually capable of reining in his rampant rage and hatred for at least a post or two before lurching back into his comfort zone of nonstop mindless attack and insult mode, but evidently he can’t even do that any more.

        Did he actually say ” “These constitutional rights that you are so up in arms about (no pun intended) have nothing to do with keeping weapons as a means of self protection. Or to hunt. Or to participate in target shooting for sport. ””

        Really? Oh, my—that really is a remarkable thing to say, even for mitche. Do you think he refused to read my quotes from the Founders about the need to be able to be armed, for defense? Or did he just drop a mitche and pretend it was not there?

        Kinda makes you wonder what kind of fantasy world mitche has created for these Founders and the others who inhabited this land in the 18th Century. With no need to hunt, and no need for self protection, it seems that he envisions a world much like his own, with a supermarket on the corner, everyone tucked into little urban or suburban enclaves with no bears or mountain lions or other predators. No need to hunt for food—–just pop into the corner market. No need to worry about critters lurking about—–they have somehow just disappeared. No need to fret about government oppression—the English monarchy never posed a threat to liberty, no sirree.

        And,of course, the well-established police force of the King guaranteed safety from human predators as well.

        What a lovely, idyllic existence these forefathers had! Not a care in the world, nestled in the bosom of a benevolent government assuring all of complete safety, food readily available without the fuss and bother of gutting and skinning, etc.,—why, I am becoming quite nostalgic for the perfection of it all.

        Too bad the people who actually LIVED there, in that place, in that time, did not have mitche’s miraculous knowledge of their reality. No, these silly bunnies actually thought they would go hungry if they did not hunt for their food, and might get chomped by wildlife looking for a meal of its own. And when the Brits tried to take away their means of survival and self defense, they saw THEM as threats to their liberty.

        Too bad we don’t have a time machine—we could send mitche back to set them straight. I am sure his charming personality would win them over, as he set them straight on their sanity and intelligence and explained the real facts of life to them. He could explain to them that all they needed to do was curl up and let the government take over. Feed them, house them, clothe them, chase off the bears and big cats, arrest the criminals, and see to their every need—-because isn’t that what government is SUPPOSED to do? And he could explain that the government really ought to be able to determine what citizens can find entertaining—-such as target shooting.

        But, as they lacked the guidance of such as mitche, what they DID do was decide to form a new government, which included the specific RIGHT to be armed—and then they went on to put this in writing, make it a part of the actual law of the land, and explain it far and wide. They made this a part of their discussions on how to form the new government, they talked about it, and —thankfully—they WROTE about it. So we have their own words, saying what they thought and why.

        All of which is irrelevant to mitche, locked as he is in his own fantasy world in which the written statements of the Founders mean nothing because he, mitche, knows they didn’t mean what they said.

    • neocon01 January 7, 2013 / 1:44 pm

      Bmitch has left the house…..AGAIN.

  20. tiredoflibbs January 6, 2013 / 9:06 pm

    mitchiethekid mentality: “What I said was that assault-type military weapons with multiple round clips should not be available to the general public.”

    Mitchie, mitchie, mitchie…. when are you going to learn to read? Several have already pointed out that military weapons are not available to the general public. It is illegal for a civilian to own a military weapon.

    mitchiethenaive: “No one should have the right to have a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill humans on a mass scale in a short period of time other than if you are a participant in a war.”

    Your Glock 9mm can kill humans on a mass scale in a short period of time if it were used in a “gun free zone” such as a school or other area. Gun free zones (Sandy Hook and Aurora Theater) create the atmosphere for huge numbers of victims and the perpetrators know that it would be easier to kill in a gun free zone than an area where citizens are allowed to conceal carry.

    Your glee at the continued attacks on the 2nd amendment blinds you to the fact that if that right goes the others are soon to follow. History is a great teacher and you are too naive to believe otherwise. Movement liberalism and progressivism is for the weak minded who trade freedom to security. You are just too ignorant and ill-informed to see than.

    “Movement conservativsim is dead. Laughed at and disparaged. Move on to something else.”

    Only in the carefully crafted world of the propagandist mainstream media who are ensuring obAMATEUR gets positive coverage. Goebbels had the same job and was just as successful with his batch of weak minded drones.

    Pathetic.

    Time for your bubble-bath mitchie.

  21. mitchethekid January 6, 2013 / 11:19 pm

    Submitted on 2013/01/05 at 8:50 pm

    OK Mitch you got to come back for a while and it took you only a post or two to revert back to your bigoted attack mode. //Moderator

    This means we are tired of you using this blog to insult and attack people and call names. It does not mean one or two posts will be deleted and then you can come back. //Moderator

    • Cluster January 7, 2013 / 9:01 am

      Mitch is just following his Presidents lead by trying to “punish his enemies”. That’s who they are.

  22. Jeremiah January 7, 2013 / 9:49 pm

    Take the citizens guns away, and the criminals will hunt them down.

Comments are closed.