It’s started, “Democrats against guns”

bad_ptc's picture

As all gun owners said, President elect Obama, et al, have already started up the anti-gun campaign.

Where should we draw the line on self defense?

South a top source for guns used in crime

“The mayors' group, co-founded by Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, is made up of more than 340 mayors from across the country, concentrated in the Northeast, Florida and California.”

Go here to see who “The mayors' group” really are.

Both of these articles were put out with the trash, late Friday news cycle, so there could be no chance of open rebuttal.

I love how the democrats think that having stiffer and more anti-gun laws will keep guns out of a criminals hands. Do you think they, the criminals, care what the laws are?

If you’re interested, keep an eye out for more and more articles like these to appear as the inauguration gets closer.

If you’re really interested, buy all the guns and ammunition you can before the laws get changed to the point that only criminals will have guns.

bad_ptc's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PTC Avenger on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 1:34pm.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-Thomas Jefferson, 1776

For many people the word “propaganda” evokes dark connotations of the Third Reich and swastikas along with fascist and communist regimes. Many hear the word and instinctively associate it with negative, oppressive actions. In order to understand where people get the idea that propaganda is an evil nemesis, let’s first define it. “Propaganda” is the spreading of ideas or information deliberately to further one’s cause or damage an opposing cause; also ideas, facts, or allegations spread for such a purpose, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nowhere does the definition describe propaganda as existing solely to coerce others to be mere myrmidons of the state. The reason many people think of propaganda the way they do is because of government indoctrination or, in other words, equivocations the government (and left) develops to taint the citizen’s view of politically motivated advertisements. Although this exposé will shed light on methods of left-wing distortion, I am not writing about the usage and influence of propaganda. This article will address the firearm issue and, as previously mentioned, uncover some of the equivocal techniques the left uses to push its illogical, shameful anti-gun agenda. Without a doubt, this writing will be labeled right-wing propaganda and be thought of as radical by certain people. Whatever sordid rhetoric and outlandish statistics the left utilizes to further its illogical belief, one can see past their omissions and half-truths by using simple logic and reasoning skills combined with the facts.

Guns are inanimate objects. In the world’s entire history, no inanimate object has ever done anything but obey the laws of physics. Thus, the phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is indeed valid. Crime is a people problem, not a hardware problem. To suppose that regulating guns will in turn regulate human behavior is ridiculous. Of course, the proponents of gun control sadly fail to realize the facts. They cannot deal with the logic of the matter; therefore, they hide from it and must resort to using half-truths and manipulative statements. Perhaps you remember Bill Clinton’s claim that guns kill more than a dozen children each day. Did you know that in that certain statistic a “child” was defined as anyone nineteen years old or younger? The reason the age is so high is because if it wasn’t Clinton and all his demagogues might actually have had to face up to the truth; if it wasn’t like that they couldn’t put on a frown and talk about how many “children” are killed everyday by guns. On another note, the majority (approximately 70%) of the “children” killed each day by people using guns are “gangbangers” or other criminals alike who commit crimes and denigrate our society on a daily basis. Do you really think a gang member is going to keep a lock on his gun and abide by the laws? I think not.

Let’s now move on to discuss Dianne Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein is a Senator from California; she is also a Democrat. One of the actions that gained her notoriety in the gun scene was her crusade to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. That idea of hers was based purely on cosmetic features. Despite media depictions, real assault rifles are extremely rarely used in crimes. Also, she has introduced a bill that would require all legal gun owners in the U.S. to be licensed, fingerprinted, photographed, tested, and forced to sign safety contracts with the federal government. However, the most horrific aspect of her proposal was that gun owners’ licenses could be revoked at any time if the owner ever became disqualified under any old or new federal gun laws. Basically, a legitimate gun owner’s license is on the brink of revocation at any time because the government says it is. Haven’t the citizens of California gotten sick and tired of this woman already? Mrs. Feinstein is quick to attack the responsible gun owners in America; however, she is also quick to buy and own a gun herself. In the past Mrs. Feinstein carried a concealed handgun. Let me see if I understand this: She does not want you or me carrying guns, but she (along with the rest of the government) can. What absurd hypocrisy.

Throughout all the gun hysteria you will constantly hear liberals refer to nonsense data and make statements that are completely devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. A column appeared in the Yale Daily News that confronted the gun control issue. The column, penned by Joni Kletter, was later reprinted in The Daily Oklahoman; it was in this periodical that David Deming read the column. Deming holds a Ph.D. and is a National Rifle Association (NRA) member. In Ms. Kletter’s commentary she concluded, “easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country, including criminals, youth, and the mentally disabled, to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want.” First of all, let’s examine as obvious lack of common sense displayed by this woman: Deranged killers with handguns would have a much easier time killing “as many random people as they want” if their victims were all prohibited from owning handguns. Secondly, criminals, children, and people with certain ailments are prohibited by law from obtaining handguns; if they were to procure a handgun it would be through an illegal means. Anyway, Dr. Deming decided he should respond to the column with a very valid point: “I just want to point out that Kletter’s ‘easy access’ to a vagina enables her to ‘quickly and easily’ have sex with ‘as many random people’ as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let’s hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs.” It is undeniably so that easy access to a gun gives a person the chance to use that gun and go on a killing spree; same thing with anyone behind the wheel of an automobile driving past a group of pedestrians. However, the very same easy access to a gun grants a person the opportunity to defend himself against a predator with unscrupulous intentions.

Hollywood, which helps to perpetuate many people’s fear of guns, is infested with quasi-communistic ideologues. Susan Sarandon, the tinsel town communist and speaker at the Million Mom March protest, is ignorant. Rosie O’Donnel, the homosexual, eccentric loudmouth who also spoke at the Million Mom March, is ignorant as well. Even the man who once portrayed the wise Atticus Finch is quite uninformed. Gregory Peck said, “Can anyone deny that there won’t be another Columbine?” Peck made that rather foolish statement at an anti-firearm rally that called for more gun laws. Guess what? Possession of a firearm by a minor is already illegal. What does he want Congress to do – make it more illegal? It is not surprising, though, to see some of these Hollywood-type thespians engaged in such lame ploys. Here’s a bit of extra information – when the Million Mom March was finished, Susan and Rosie went back to their expensive homes and high-rises, protected by none other than men with guns.
Speaking of the Million Mom March, it’s really just a publicity gimmick in disguise. These ladies are liars and inflate their “statistics” with deceptive features. Perhaps the best way to confront the Million Mom March is to just dive into their propaganda and show you how they’re not exactly telling you the whole story. They do not tell you that in 1998, while actually only 110 children aged 1-14 died from gunshot wounds, 200 suffocated on ingested objects, 570 died from burns, 850 drowned, and 2,600 died in automobile wrecks. Also, doctors in America are responsible for three times as many deaths due to medical mistakes than firearms are including homicides, suicides, and accidents. Contrary to the impression created by sensationalist media and the Million Mom March, firearm accidents are at their lowest level since the country started keeping statistics in 1903. The protest’s organizers report that “American children under fifteen are twelve times more likely to die from gunfire than children in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined.” They don’t tell you that they included Hong Kong and Kuwait, where gun ownership is absolutely banned, in their list of countries, but somehow failed to include countries like Brazil and Russia as “industrialized.” The reason? These countries have murder rates four times higher than the U.S. The Million Mom March says that the Brady Bill has prevented over 400,000 convicted felons from purchasing firearms. Simply not so. First of all, it is a federal crime for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a firearm. If 400,000 felons have violated this law, where are the prosecutions? In 1997 only thirty-six people were prosecuted and convicted of violating the Brady Bill. If these women really desired to reduce gun violence (or violence in general) they would be much better off spending Mother’s Day at home teaching their children values and how to be responsible, respectful, and honorable citizens. However, a good number of these women utilize the “hands-off” approach to parenting – they simply permit (and are content with) their children being raised and brainwashed by the public schooling system. In an effort to combat firearm ignorance and accidents, the NRA spent one million dollars to implement a program that would teach firearm safety in some public schools. The NRA then challenged the Million Mom March to donate one dollar each to match their contribution. Of course, they refused to participate, thus confirming that their true agenda has little to do with actually making children safer, and everything to do with prohibiting private firearm ownership. Oh, by the way, the Million Mom March’s parade permit listed an official participation of only 10,000 people. Seems these ladies just aren’t very good with numbers.

The mainstream media, a favorite tool of the left, greatly contributes to the brainwashing of society. Recently in Georgia it became easier for a citizen to obtain a permit for the concealed carry of a handgun. Needless to say, this upset many liberals, especially Cynthia Tucker. Ms. Tucker, an editor and writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote that it would be “open season” on police officers and that officers would die in large numbers due to the increased level of ease for private citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits. This is a perfect instance of the aversion to the facts most leftists have on the issue. The fact is that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in the United States where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit. What is frightening is that this woman controls what you read in the newspaper. How’s that for propaganda, or should I say the lack of and purposeful disregard for more rational newstories that show the positive use of firearms? Americans use guns to defend themselves over two million times each year – and 98% of the time the gun is merely brandished, not fired. Another startling case of anti-gun bias involves the 1998 shooting at a high school in Pearl, Mississippi. Upon realization that the students were being shot at, the school’s principal, Joel Myrick, headed towards his truck (which was parked a quarter-mile off campus) and retrieved his .45 caliber handgun. Using his gun, Mr. Myrick quarantined the perpetrator until the authorities arrived. This action quite possibly saved numerous lives. Thirty days after the incident, 687 pertinent articles were published, and just 19 (2.7%) mentioned the principal and his gun. Still, the liberals insist that there is no leftwards slant in the media. It’s no wonder the American populace cannot see through the sinister falsehoods and ideological propaganda spread by the anti-freedom media. Such sub par reporting is appalling. This is a truth of the present America. We have turned our minds over to the media. The cunning leaders will manipulate the citizens skillfully while maintaining their control over the people. Does this mean anything? Yes, we are not so different from 1930s Germany, except for lack of honor.

You have undoubtedly heard the phrase “gun lobby” before. The truth is that special interest groups (and mainstream media alike) constantly refer to Second Amendment supporters as the “gun lobby.” Remember, we’re in an era of government dominated by emotion, not logic, reason, or fact. People have a hostile emotional reaction to the word “lobby.” They view lobbyists as corrupt, money-wielding crooks bent on subverting the will of Congress. In short, people don’t like lobbyists. So, if there’s a cause or group of people the media doesn’t like, they just pin the name “lobby” on them and get an instantaneous negative reaction from many of the slower-thinking voters. Take a moment now and think about some phrases that could be used to replace the term “gun lobby.” Here are some suggestions: Second Amendment lobby, truth lobby, freedom lobby, right to self-defense lobby, Constitution lobby, fight back lobby, the I wish to protect my family lobby, the I don’t want to get raped and murdered lobby, personal rights lobby, et cetera. Furthermore, these slower-thinking voters are the same people who encourage the “sensible” and “common sense” approach to gun control. Before advancing any further, let’s first revert to the Million Mom March for a moment. They advocate the registration and regulation of guns, but did you see any marchers carrying signs detailing just how they are going to get criminals to obtain licenses and register their guns? No. So what would registration accomplish? One thing. It would make it easier for the government to seize guns when that order comes, as I believe it surely will. What do these women and all the other gun control advocates resort to when their idiotic proposals make absolutely no sense? They start tacking the words “sensible” and “common sense” in front of their ideas. Then, day after day, night after night, newscast after newscast, the people of this country hear the words “sensible gun control” from the news, from the myrmidons, from Susan, from Rosie, from Cynthia; sensible, sensible, sensible gun control. Repeat the lie often enough and soon people believe it to be truth. Ever notice that whenever a new piece of firearm legislation is introduced or passed the left refers to it as a good “first step”? First step to what? Make no mistake about it; their ultimate goal is to eliminate the private ownership of guns in the United States. They know they can’t accomplish this all at once in a massive takeover. So bit by bit, march by march, law by law, they work until their aspiration becomes reality. Many Americans will easily fall victim to the anti-gun crowd in today’s climate of incessant cries for more gun control. What these people don’t realize is that the unrestricted right of the people as individuals “to keep and bear arms” is absolutely essential to the preservation of both liberty and domestic tranquility.

Before I proceed, I’d like to clarify a vulgar generalization made by many gun control advocates and the liberal media. One of many popular misconceptions is that Japan has a very low rate of gun violence due to the fact that it’s nearly impossible to legally obtain a gun there. While it is true that Japan, in fact, does have a relatively small amount of gun related violence, the media fails to tell you that Japan is a police state. Another reason Japan has less crime than America is because the racial make-up of Japan is very cohesive, meaning that violent racial strife is far less common than it is in the United States. Furthermore, Japanese citizens have no protection from unreasonable search and seizure. If a Japanese government agent wants to enter someone’s living quarters he may do so without any prior suspicions, probable cause, or warrants. How do you think these conditions would hold up in America? Many people, especially women, would have no objections to it. One major problem facing the United States today is people voting for increased security over liberty. The news corporations and the government have people believing that psychotic murderers lurk behind every street corner, hackers and pedophiles sit behind every computer screen, and that the man living in some cabin in the woods somewhere is a gun toting extremist. These assumptions are simply not true. In essence, don’t believe everything you see or read in the news.

There is no denying that there is a serious crime problem in America, but gun control is definitely not the answer. Surely enough, the facts show that violent crime rates decrease when it becomes easier for private, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple and makes sense: Criminals do not like the idea that their victims may be armed. Still not convinced? Here are some facts for you to ponder: 99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year, and 99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year. Now that’s a fact that just screams for more gun control, isn’t it? How about some criminal control? Also, out of all violent crimes committed, ones where guns were used account for fewer than only 12%, and the vast majority of the guns used to commit those crimes were stolen. One more thing, instead of creating new firearm legislation, wouldn’t it make more sense to just enforce the current gun laws? Bill Clinton didn’t think so. During the Clinton-Gore administration, federal prosecutions for firearm violations declined 46%, yet they continued to call for more gun legislation. Clinton also suggested the mandatory distribution of both gun and trigger locks upon purchasing a firearm. Don’t get me wrong now, I am not totally anti-trigger lock; these devices could prove useful in certain scenarios. However, let’s imagine that a law-abiding citizen is walking down the street minding his own business. All of a sudden, a criminal approaches this man, batters him, and attempts to rob him. What does the potential victim do? He draws his gun for self-defense purposes, but wait. The predator notices that the man has a lock on his gun. The felon then rejoices as this man just elevated his status from potential victim to victim. Another blemish in the trigger lock debate is that people who know their firearm has a lock on it might be more likely to keep their gun lying around in plain view or otherwise act more carelessly towards it. Furthermore, yet another distinct flaw in the typical liberal ideology is blatantly contradictory and irrational. It basically adheres to this pattern: Most people cannot be trusted, so we make laws, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. Now if that isn’t a shining example of left-wing nihility then I don’t know what is.

As each piece of firearm legislation accrues on another, it is ultimately leading to the unilateral disarmament of private citizens in the United States. Socialists like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are set on this; they await the day when it is illegal for Americans to possess and use guns. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no obligation to protect and defend you from criminals – so why is the government attempting to deny you the most effective method of self-protection? If laws and police officers where the only two things needed to prevent crimes there wouldn’t be any crime statistics. It is up to you as an individual to protect yourself, your family, and your belongings – not the government. The fact of the matter is that guns are here to stay. Guns are a deterrent to crime. Otherwise why would police officers carry them? A nationwide confiscation of guns would solve nothing; it would only make matters worse. If guns were deemed contraband then only criminals and the government would have them. Is that what you want? A government that does not entrust the citizenry with adequate means of self-protection does not itself warrant trust from the citizens. The only two groups in America who use coercion as a means of accomplishment are the government and criminals. Criminals have zero regard for the law right now, why would that be any different once guns are outlawed? Criminals will always be armed, even if they have to smuggle, steal, or manufacture the weapons themselves. They will never buy firearms in ways that involve registration, background checks, waiting periods, or safety locks. So gun laws have no effect on true criminals; their only effect is to intrude upon your privacy and make it harder for you to defend yourself (which in turn translates into the “need” for more government). This is serious. If we remain on our current path, it will inevitably lead us to the day when it is a felony for a man to own a gun, to exercise his Second Amendment right. In case you forgot, the Second Amendment is as follows: 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. Some people interpret the Second Amendment as a method of enabling only the government to arm a government militia. This is an obscene misinterpretation. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to enable the government to arm a government militia, then this would be the only one of the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well regulated one, is not required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Our Founding Fathers had a distrust of any standing army. In fact, we did not have a standing army after the Revolutionary War, which is clear evidence that the Second Amendment was not meant to apply to an organized militia, rather it refers to the unorganized militia (“minute men”), which federal law still acknowledges to this date (10 U.S.C. 311, subsection B). It is therefore evident that the intent of our Founding Fathers was for the militia to remain unorganized and consist of the people themselves, as individuals, who would remain armed so that they would always have a means to resist tyranny. The Founding Fathers were rebels who had just fought a revolution, and they had no way of foreseeing whether another one would be necessary in several years, a few decades, or in future centuries. However, they did know that tyranny is always possible, and that liberty can best be safeguarded by arming the common man – and keeping him armed. As times changed over the years it became vital to America’s security and national interests to instate an organized, federal militia, the National Guard (which was created nearly one hundred years after the Second Amendment was ratified). The implementation of such a militia, however, does not and never has excluded civilians from possessing firearms. As for the anti-gun advocates who refer to the words “well regulated” as an indicator of the necessity for established gun control, we already have approximately 20,000 gun laws; so the gun business is already regulated. On the other hand, some people construe the Second Amendment as being out of context in this time period. Their argument is that back in the 1700s the people were an integral part of the country’s defense, and nowadays they are not. If that’s the card they elect to play, one could also argue that the First Amendment is out of context in today’s society. The Bill of Rights was officially ratified in 1791. Prior to that time and during the American Revolutionary War, many people were persecuted for expressing beliefs and ideas inconsistent with Great Britain’s. One could deductively argue that some motivation for the First Amendment was derived from past injustices committed by the British. Since Great Britain is no longer a direct threat to the sovereignty of America and no longer punishes Americans for having differing beliefs, should we repeal the First Amendment? Is the First Amendment out of context now? Of course it’s not.

Few people realize that the Second Amendment makes all the other amendments possible. You cannot just chisel one amendment away without weakening the entire structure of the Constitution. Once they take your guns away they can take whatever they want. Just remember, when they come to take your guns give them the ammunition first.

The propaganda is more powerful than the gun. A prime example of the systematic deterioration of our society’s view of guns lies within nearly every neighborhood and township in our country. Thirty years ago if someone saw a boy riding his bike down the street with a .22 caliber rifle slung over his shoulder, it would be assumed that he’s going target shooting or squirrel hunting. These days the police would be notified and he would be suspected of plotting to kill someone. It truly is a shame.

The handgun is somewhat of an “equalizer.” It allows a weaker person to properly defend himself from and combat a stronger, more violent aggressor. Guns helped us win our Revolutionary War. It is ironic that the very instruments that played a crucial role in our gaining of freedom and independence are now viewed as the tools which will ravage our society and lead to mayhem and chaos, as some people will have you believe. Also, the proponents of gun control will have you believe that guns cause crime. I suppose this is apparent in the nationwide epidemic of mass shootings at gun shows. The very notion that American citizens should not be allowed to possess firearms appalls me, and it should appall every single American as well.

Bill “The Era of Big Government Is Over” Clinton is a liar, crook, and a rapist. His wife is a liar and criminal as well; remember that. Don't even get me started on the corrupt Obama family. You can rely on the government to protect you and your family, but as for me, I will choose Colt, Glock, and Remington. They’re more reliable than the administration and more accurate than most newstories about firearms.

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 6:48pm.

Well said.

Having lived in England where gun ownership is almost nil I have seen their crime rise almost to the level of America. The fact that homeowners in England especially in London do not own guns has not stopped the average criminal. In rural England where many own guns for hunting, crime is still much lower than the US. You could try to explain this away in many different ways but the bottom line is if the criminal knows the homeowner can defend themselves they move on.
We have seen this in Kennesaw GA. once they developed an ordinance that required homeowners to own a gun for self-protection crime dropped by 79%. I don't think it was luck.

For those of you who think you are sooooo well educated, please put a "gun free zone" sign up on your property let's see what happens. I still have my NRA stickers on the alarm company signs and the no trespassing signs on my property......let's see whose home gets broken into first. I think it will be your home, not mine....if I'm wrong I'll buy you a drink if you are still alive. Deal?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 7:06pm.

For those of you who think you are sooooo well educated, please put a "gun free zone" sign up on your property let's see what happens.

You may be one of the "Nutty Ones", but at least you'll be one of the survivors. LOL!

Sheesh... more pompous arrogance from an foreigner outsider. It might surprise people as to just who all possess in this country.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 5:17pm.

Civilized nations, like Great Britain and France, to mention just two, do not countenance the routine possession and use of guns, especially handguns. The Second Amendment is a relic of another age. Ambiguous at best, it is also obsolete in the nuclear age. The abundance and easy availability of handguns provide an opportunity for crimes that would not be committed had the gun not been available in the first place. It is very very seldom that a gun is actually used “for protection.” Quite often, guns fall into the hands of children who accidentally kill themselves or a family member. Or they get stolen by people who then use them to commit crimes. Realizing the primitive nature of guns, the police is moving towards using Taser stun-guns.

It’s the nutty element of our population that clings to guns. Intelligent people are past that.

Submitted by PTC Avenger on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 6:03pm.

Unless you have 2000000000 SPF sunscreen, what isn't obsolete in the nuclear age? How is "shall not be infringed" ambiguous? "It is very very seldom that a gun is actually used “for protection.” You're right, 98% of the time the gun is not used, it is merely brandished. Read "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" by John Lott.

I rarely respond with such harshness, but you are an idiot. You're a pseudo-intellectual at best, hellbent on pursuing your disarmament agenda at whatever cost. I hope you get accosted and a responsible gun owner rushes to your defense with his evil gun.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:24am.

Unless he brings a gun.

Read about Plaxico Burgess’ recent adventures with a gun. (It’s only typical.)

Didn’t Brian Nichols shoot a deputy sheriff who was armed and also a federal agent who was armed (and better trained than Bubba)?

Concerning the slur on “foreigners,” consider that Einstein (originally German) is the one who enabled America to develop the atomic bomb, and Wernher von Braun (also German) enabled America to go to the moon. The French helped America win its Revolutionary War, and the Marquis de LaFayette (after whom Fayette County is named) helped.

Timothy McVeigh, no foreigner, takes credit for killing 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995. His motivation was typically Bubba-like.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 2:42pm.

....many of us Southerners take seriously attacks upon our kin. Bubba's are integrated into all facets of families across the south. Just because all of us don't quite dress like Larry The Cable Guy or drive large trucks with HUGE tires, doesn't mean that we haven't at one time. Further, nearly all of us have a "Bubba" or two as close relatives. I certainly have mine and have had my Bubba days as well-Quite proudly, I might add.

I would offer examples, but I would be less a southerner should I do so, most all of us readily claim our kin without being proded.

Your assertion that Timothy McVeigh's terroristic act was Bubba-like, nothing could be further from the truth. Bubba may well take his gun and shoot, but to kill innocent women and children-Not hardly! Bubbas across America have standards!

The last time I looked, it was the Bubbas who settled both our countries, established such fine cities as Montreal, Quebec, and Atlanta for Heaven's sake. I don't remember those places having already been established by native Americans.

How many signatures to the US Constitution belonged to men who had indoor plumbing? Leave Bubba out of this!

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 2:18pm.

So, if the guy who has been bothering me, should attack - what? I should just fight him off with my hairspray and a lighter?

As far as the French helping us win our Revolutionary war - I think we've repaid that favor.

It sounds like you may find Canada more to your liking.

TinCan's picture
Submitted by TinCan on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:45pm.

If a bit of salty language bothers you, don't bother to go there.

Gun Safety

Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 5:57pm.

Thanks I needed that. plaxico the idiot!

snappynappy's picture
Submitted by snappynappy on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 5:14pm.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 2:07pm.

That was hilarious!

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 4:18pm.

I'll second that. Too funny

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:52am.

If we were dependent on foreigners like you as Bubba-like Americans would be bowing down to a foreign queen whose country is being overrun and destroyed by Islamo Fascism. And if cowtow to your way of thinking this great country will continue to erode from it's grandeur of being the land of opportunity and the land of the free. No thanks Maple Leaf... you stay out of it and let us Americans take care of your gumament relying tail.

As far as the French go.... How many times have we repaid and bailed out their ungrateful and sorry derrières?

Timothy McVeigh got what he deserved. So what's you point? Are you comparing us so-called Bubba-like Americans to McVeigh?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 5:38pm.

Dear Maple Leaf,

Are you Canadian?

Git Real - Nutty Element

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 5:30pm.

The Second Amendment is a relic of another age. Ambiguous at best, it is also obsolete in the nuclear age.

Interesting. What other amendments can we just cast aside because they don't fit the "age"?

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 5:48pm.

The 18th Amendment.

But oops, it was repealed.

The 14th needs changing too. Not all persons born in the United States should be citizens. Babies born to illegal immigrants should not be citizens unless the government has failed to deport their parents by the time they reach a certain age (like 5). Article 2, Section 1, on the requirement to be “natural born” to qualify for the presidency should also be changed. (It was based on the fear some foreign king might appoint one of his relatives to rule us.)

Thanks for asking for my opinion.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 2:08pm.

Pink Pistols

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:12am.

Or is it doing something to prevent high speed lead projectiles from injuring and killing fellow human beings who do not deserve such treatment?

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 7:08pm.

is to keep us free. Think about it: why did the founders cite firearm ownership by the populace, as an inalienable right? Simply stated:

Its because they knew that there just might come, yet another time, when the tyranny, and oppression of an out of control big government raised its ugly, vile, despotic head, and we would then need our guns to remove and replace such government.

So you see, they don't really care how many people get killed with guns and their bullets. They want to make the guns illegal so we can't rise up and whip the government's collectve hindparts, or defend ourselves when the stormtroopers come to sack our houses trying to find some damning evidence that you are an enemy of the state, so they can (legally) haul you off to one of the deathcamps.

Hope this helps!

In Liberty,


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 8:18pm.

to determine, individually, who is not to have a gun, and to take reasonable steps to ensure this. This is also referred to as common sense, and this is not negated by the 2nd amendment.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 9:11pm.

Anti-gun laws DO NOT effect a criminal's ability to obtain a firearm. As a criminal they will always turn to black market sources.

Don't get me wrong, I want to keep guns out of the hands of clinically certified nut-jobs like at VT awhile back, that's fine, but that's not what Big Brother's endgame is. The Federal government would love nothing more than a disarmed mass of serfs to rule over.

The only reason this country hasn't already turned into the Fourth Reich, is that a pissed off, armed to the teeth middle class has kept the fascist Neocon elements in our executive branch wary of a bloody American Revolution II. They know if they mess with trying to impose martial law, secret police, and kangaroo courts we will kill them.
That is all.

In Liberty,


Submitted by skyspy on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 11:45pm.

always will. You are 100% correct. Now the citizens all need to have guns to protect their lives.

Let's use the city of Kennesaw and Pike County as examples. The city of Kennesaw developed and ordinance that REQUIRES every resident to protect themselves from intruders with a gun. They REQUIRE them to PROTECT their own lives. A month after this ordinace went into effect the crime rate in that city went down by 79%.

Criminals stay out of Pike County for the same reason. They know if they break into someones home it is a 98% chance it will be the last thing they do. Fayette County needs this same ordinance immediately. If criminals knew that it was a 97-98% chance that they would die committing a crime here most of them would move on. Even criminals as STUPID as they are, have some sense of self preservation.

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 4:15am.

The idea of guns as determent is effective.

A few months ago I had a regular customer @ the restaurant that became of increasing concern to me. He was caught in our bathroom ...ummm...making himself happy. Though I can not pin point why he made me uncomfortable, aside from the bathroom incident, there were a myriad of reasons for barring him from the establishment - which I finally did. He continued to come into the bar at least 3 nights a week for a while and each time I had to tell him he was unwelcome and to leave. He was often seen cruising the parking lot, called me at work several times a day often within minutes of the previous call. And on one occasion, called me at home although I don't know how he got my number.

The last time I saw him - approx. two months ago - he had again come in to the restaurant and was causing a huge scene. At that point I let him know with fierce resolve that "I will NOT be stalked. Let's get that much clear RIGHT NOW. There will be NO restraining order - the next time you see me, I'll be 'packing heat' and I hear hollow points can do alot of damage.". I haven't seen or heard from this man since. I guess, for him, self preservation won out over obsession. Hell yeah!! I won!!

Submitted by USArmybrat on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 9:17am.

You go, girl!!! Keep your "heat" close, just in case!

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 7:56am.

The idea of guns as determent is effective.

Without tipping my hand any further, you will get no argument from me on that point. I am not against ownership of guns by law abiding individuals who are interested in protecting themselves. I am arguing for a common sense approach that keeps those inclined towards violence out of polite society, and makes it more difficult for those thugs who are out and about to have access to guns. The black market for guns operates the same way that any other market does. The tighter the supply, the more they cost, fewer get sold, and less are used in a crime.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 6:22am.

Be careful.

I hope you filled out a police report on each incident. Get a carry conceal permit and carry a gun if you don't have one. Also Autreys has some other personal defense items, I love their police flash lights, and they have an NRA safety class. You work late hours you can't afford not to carry a gun. The next time he comes in take his picture and tell him you want the cops to know who is stalking you.

Be careful. This guy is probably laying low, so that you will let your guard down. Hopefully some of our finest will be in having dinner the next time he comes in.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 9:52pm.

I was not referring to anti-gun laws. I am referring to common sense approaches to keeping readily available handguns out of the hands of people who harm and terrorize innocent people. Closing the loopholes of gun shows regarding registrations of handguns does not strike me as being against the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment. One question I ask regarding these doomsday scenarios regarding "Big Brother" is: who is going to enforce these actions? Fellow Americans? Not a chance, that will not happen.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

Submitted by ole sarge on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 9:12am.

Even he most general reading of history will offer numerous examples of people rationalizing away their freedoms with intrusive "common sense" laws and regulations.

Your use of the gun show loophole is a prime example. Most firearms sold at gun shows are sold by licensed federal firearms dealers who are required to complete the same paperwork and conduct the same background checks as they do in their stores. Some guns, the private property of individuals, are sold to other persons who agree to the exchange. This is the same as putting a for sale sign in your car and selling it to someone who calls. These voluntary exchanges of property are prime examples of consumer economics, the basis of our free society. Why should a firearm be classified any differently than any other personal property?

As to your question, who is to enforce these actions? I will offer the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms,Tobacco, and Explosives is expanding each month at the rate of approximately 1,000 agents. These will be your well-trained American storm troops, rolling right over local law enforcement with the full power of the federal government.

The Second Amendment protects all of your rights.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 9:35am.

Why should a firearm be classified any differently than any other personal property?

Other pieces of property have uses other than killing creatures, or threatening to.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

Submitted by USArmybrat on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 10:51am.

That is the BIG difference between you and ole sarge, darth, and the rest of us. We see gun-ownership as a Constitutional right for the PROTECTION of our families and ourselves and have a patriotic duty to protect that right. We all want to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but I don't think we have actually found a way that does not infringe on our right to bear arms.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 1:23pm.

Man I love the fact that many of our politicians fear the fact that the citizenry is well armed. I hope it scares the hell out of them and that it also serves as a reminder as to whom they are supposed to be serving. Unfortuneatly is seems we may need to remind them in the near future as to who serves who.

DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:24pm.

Posse comatatis is a law forbidding US Military operations within US borders. This keeps the president from sending out federal troops to do his bidding within the country. It has been suspended by executive order(illegal) and NorthCom is now training its personel for domestic operations.

Obama calls for a civilian security force that smacks of putting law into the hands of vigilante neighborhood watch gangs. They don't have the restraints of police brutality laws to stop them from beating down anyone who they see as a threat.

We are entering dangerous territory: WAKE UP!!!!!

In Liberty,


Submitted by helpful lawyer on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 8:40am.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.

(from Widipedia)

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 12:53pm.

The statute GENERALLY prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

Does it not concern anyone that a lawyer would rely on Wikipedia to inform us little people about something of such importance as a constitutional violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

I don't think the Constitution "generally" suggests anything.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 1:13pm.

Wikipedia ain't no slouch of a reference. I hear it is edited by sure 'nuff experts.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 1:26pm.

Who have their own personal agendas to advance. LOL!

What is disappointing to me is the recent revelation that Snopes also has it's own personal agendas to serve.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:52pm.

Please do not mistake my meekness for weakness. I have faith in America as God's country, and I believe that our freedom of the press, such as The Citizen, is our main defense against the loss of freedoms that you describe, not houses full of guns.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 11:33pm.

And I'm sorry, but if this was God's country, all of us would be, prosperous. God does not favor one nation over another, and the last one He did favor, rejected His son, and they were destroyed by the Romans as sentence.

The press is nothing more than an unpaid public relations liason for the US government. The information they purvey is massaged, spun, and sanitized for the sheeple so they will continue to see the DC status quo as the answer to all their problems.

It seems that you know nothing of the situation mentioned in my previous post: Because you are not told what you aren't supposed to know by the "free" press.

In Liberty,


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:50pm.

ArmyTimes article describing US Army's active role.

"The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys."

"Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home."

Phoenix Business Journal

"The Washington Post recently reported the Pentagon plans to have up 20,000 U.S. troops ready to be placed in domestic locations with the charge of responding to security and safety matters."

The South may have to rise yet again and this time it could get ugly.

Submitted by skyspy on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 11:49pm.

There is a book that I just purchased that speaks to the South and why it will rise again.

JacquesMolay's picture
Submitted by JacquesMolay on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 10:49am.

Can you provide me with the name of the book? Sounds like it would be an interesting read.

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 12:17pm.

Go to There are 2 books actually that I think you will find interesting. The Politically Incorrect Guide to South and why it Will Rise Again. Also the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. I have enjoyed both books. The authors have provided references for their statments and so far the references check out. I'm at work or I would give you the names of the authors. Happy reading.

DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 11:37pm.

Amen brother man, amen. The press starts revolutions, we folks with our guns and ammo finish them.

In Liberty,


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:49pm.


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 9:09pm.

What you are describing is very close to majority rule, not subject to the constitution. Majority rule can trample individual rights. Interracial marriages, many discrimination laws, even Jim Crow could have been justified by the right of the populace. Do you want to take the good and the bad with this populace determination of a right? I am glad they were able to fight consitutionally in the 50's and 60's and not hoping for majority rulings.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 9:37pm.

The 2nd amendment in no way takes away the right of the populace to address the problem of gun violence in ways that do not limit the rights of law abiding individuals to own guns. As I said before, it is not the ownership of guns that is the real issue, it is high speed lead projectiles hitting fellow human beings that do not deserve such treatment that is the issue.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 4:00pm.

It's these same states that want to “prevent high speed lead projectiles from injuring and killing fellow human beings who do not deserve such treatment” who are also against letting law abiding citizens owning non-lethal TASERS.

BTW, who says they didn't deserve to get shot?

These 'officials', and I use that term loosely, are against any form of personal protection that allows the attacked any kind of advantage over their attacker.

"Bring a knife to a gun fight" is their motto.

Maybe New York and Mass. should make it mandatory that all households are required to have at least one firearm in working order at all times.

Once the smoke clears I’m confidant that the crime rate will have dropped significantly.

Until such time as the democratic thinkers in the northeast realize that they could be generating tax revenue from the legal sale of firearms they should stay in the northeast.

They should also understand that those of us that have guns and know how to use them will use them should someone try to deprive us of our life, liberty or freedom. That’s what guns are for.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 12:48pm.

How about we persecute and shackle the villains that injure and kill fellow human beings with those high speed projectiles. At least 70% of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders or pieces of human debris let out on early release. How about we control them? Puzzled

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 1:36pm.

Early releases of undesirables could be decreased by making more room in our existing facilities by not putting drug users, child support delinquents, and other nonviolent offenders in jails designed to keep violent citizens out of polite society. I also see no real harm in tightening the restrictions on handgun sales at gun shows, so these repeat offenders have a harder time getting handguns.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 4:15pm.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an overcrowded jail. If they have to sleep standing up, that's their problem.

Druggies and deadbeat dads make good girlfriends I'm told.

Bottom line is if you don't want to be there don't do something that will get you sent there.

There's a reason the sign on the front door doesn't say "Hilton".

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 1:51pm.

Early releases of undesirables could be decreased by making more room in our existing facilities by not putting drug users, child support delinquents, and other nonviolent offenders in jails designed to keep violent citizens out of polite society.

I agree. Let's create mandatory weekend and evening chain gangs and put these people to work for 12 hours on Saturdays and Sundays picking up trash, mowing public properties, raking leaves, painting public facilities, performing custodial work in public buildings and making them clean out drainage ditches, culverts, and storm drains. This along with any other undesireable tasks we can muster up. Then after the drug users test negative and the deadbeat dads catch up... we can turn them loose.

We can exempt child molesters from this program and make room for other violent criminals by simply hanging them in front of the Fayette County Taj Mahal.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.