I’m still suffering from my 3:00 am worknight two nights ago.
So, I’m unlocking the door and I wave you all in the general direction of the Comfy Couch.
Make your own damn tea. I’m getting some aspirin.
I have to get my head straight before getting up in front of 50 teenagers tonight.
Wednesday “Hangover” Open Comments
by
Tags:
Comments
-
#1
GMH! -
#2: The first loser 😉
-
Drats, let’s let sleeping winners and losers lie today.
-
#72 Shannon says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:31 pm
They still don’t let her have scissors.Hey, once I grew up, I had my own sewing scissors. Pinking shears too. That early foo paw was totally due to being an unsupervised toddler and the scissors left out where I could reach them. In my experience, children don’t begin to develop judgement until maybe age 12.
-
This might come as a surprise to you, but that Texas Republican who’s threatening legislation to jail any gun-grabbin’ federales with a mind to violatin’ the Second Amendment in the Lone Star State actually has history on his side. Here’s the story:
snip
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013/01/15/on-civil-disobedience/?singlepage=true
-
This might come as a surprise to you, but that Texas Republican who’s threatening legislation to jail any gun-grabbin’ federales with a mind to violatin’ the Second Amendment in the Lone Star State actually has history on his side.
Had more people gotten on board with Legislative action at the State level to express displeasure and even defiance against Federal over reach, we might not have the problem we’re having now.
Personally, I have always favored such action—even if people in control think it stupid—when the issue is small and the exercise is one merely to demonstrate adherence to and support of a principal or defence of Liberty against a small encroachment rather than wait until a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom is in jeopardy.
The only satsifaction I am getting at present is that the folks in charge have been revealed as the real asses here, it only remains for those that support them to admit to themselves that such is the case and action needs to be taken. -
#5 TexCan: from your linkie comments:
6. Libertyship46
Well, maybe the government in New York State can’t roll over fast enough for its masters in Washington, but we’ll see if the people in New York State will jump like trained seals. It’s one thing to pass a law, quite another to enforce it. I wonder if the local police in upstate New York will even bother enforcing this new law, let alone put people in jail because of it. I really don’t think Obama and Biden fully understand that they are literally shoving this country towards another civil war. I guess that’s the only environment liberals can function in, one that is designed to divide this country rather than unite it. But I think the American people are a lot tougher than that and I would really recommend that the Feds to not try to enforce unconstitutional laws in places like Texas or Oklahoma or South Carolina. It won’t end well.I think the OJugEars and company are doing this because they want to start another civil war. All they need is one example of civil unrest, an armed insurrection, etc for them to declare martial law and then O will be dictator for life.
-
then O will be dictator for life.
Many would be dictators suffer early terminal illness.
If the feds were to try to confiscate firearms the simple solution would be to inform your local elected law enforcement officials that they will be up for re-election and to strongly suggest that they ignore those confiscation orders. A sheriff’s deputy is paid near enough to go to someone’s home and attempt confiscation and the fed’s don’t have the manpower. -
Sarge
#6
Yup and YUPHad more people gotten on board with Legislative action at the State level to express displeasure and even defiance against Federal over reach, we might not have the problem we’re having now.
Here is the prollem as I see it. Because the Fed takes our money and then returns it back to the state and our people have to grovel for it, they do not want to make the Fed mad. So getting on board of anything that loosely supports the Constitution or doing the right thing……. well they just cannot do that. He who controls the money has the power.
Example in point might be when Perry declined the school funds with all the Obama strings attached. Even many Republicans rear ends puckered over that decision. WHAT ya gonna turn down the “funding”? was the cry heard from here to Ft Sill. -
Subject: My trip to Cabela’s
There was a bit of confusion at the Cabela’s Sporting Goods store this morning.
When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said, “Strip down, facing me.”
Making a mental note to complain to the NRA about the gun registry people running amok, I did just as she had instructed.
When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out that she was referring to my credit card.
I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.
They need to make their instructions to us seniors a little clearer! -
I see from Drudge that the White House is releasing letters from little kids about guns. I have a couple of questions:
1) Were these letters generated by the kids, or highlycoercedencouraged their teachers/parents?
2) Are we allowing children to determine law now?
Exactly who ARE the parents in this society now? -
#8:
Many would be dictators suffer early terminal illness.
Frequently at the hands of those who are supposed to protect them. I do not think the plan is viable but the pursuit of the plan will cause mass chaos, bloodshed and misery. The end result will likely be destruction with no winners except the evil one.
-
G’Morning All
#10 texanadian
🙂 -
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” ~ John Quincy Adams
The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.Note: The following is the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What John Quincy Adams is stating is:
A right is fundamental:
1. It cannot be infringed because you have a majority willing to do so.
2. It cannot be infringed by subjecting its exercise to a “needs test” where those wishing to exercise the right must placate bureaucrats to do so.
3. It cannot be infringed by subjecting it to a “balancing test” where exercise of the right is “balanced” against other societal goals.
4. It cannot be infringed by imposing “prior restraint” where the right is limited out of fear of how it might be abused.
This means:
Under the First Amendment:
1. You cannot be gagged in advance to keep you from voicing an opinion.
2. You cannot be compelled to submit to interview by government agents before voicing an opinion.
3. You cannot be required to undergo fingerprinting before voicing an opinion.
4. You cannot be subjected to punitive measures in advance to cover the possibility of others maliciously voicing an opinion.
You can only be punished after the fact for any real injury done by a malicious declaration.
The same is true with the right protected by the Second Amendment.
Under the Second Amendment:
1. You cannot be arrested in advance to keep you from owning a firearm.
2. You cannot be compelled to submit to interview by government agents before using a firearm.
3. You cannot be required to undergo fingerprinting before using a firearm.
4. You cannot be subjected to a punitive measures in advance to cover the possibility of others maliciously using a firearm.
The same validity test can be applied to the rest of the Bill Of Rights. -
#14 OTL:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The wholesale abandonment/refusal to defend this amendment each and every time it has been trampled has led us to the dismal state we find ourselves in today.
For example:
Education: There is no provision in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in education, therefore the very existence of the Dept of Education is, IMHO, unconstitutional on its face. That they would dictate in anyway to the states is even worse.
There are other examples, such as Welfare, EBT, and the plethora of other give aways designed for no other purpose than to buy votes for Ds, that can and should be fought on a 10th Amendment basis. -
Finally! Some fun news from Flarda. Scroll down in story for short video.
-
Please — anyone know where I can find that Russian train movie with Bronco pasted in?
-
#8, #12
Be very careful. There’s a fine line and you’re toeing it pretty darn close. I’m not down with a warrantless search today. -
Here is the prollem as I see it.
The problem as I see it is that the Republican Party is committed to politics and appearances, not Liberty and changing government to better suit it.
The “TSA Bill is stupid” vs “Gun Grab is bad and we’re right in there eith you” issue illustrates that superbly. -
I see from Drudge that the White House is releasing letters from little kids about guns.
He’s also surrounding himself with those
kidshuman shields for his dog and pony show today. -
#16: That dude is both patient and clever.
-
Has anybody heard about this anywhere but here?
HEADLINE:Possible nuclear disaster in Esfahan Iran
Read the article, then ask the question: Why has this not been in the news?
-
“Over the last few years, Al Qaeda’s leadership ranks have been decimated. This includes the loss of four of Al Qaeda’s five top leaders in the last two and a half years alone — Osama bin Laden, Sheikh Saeed al-Masri, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman and Abu Yahya al-Libi,” Panetta said.
“We’ve decimated Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is gone,” Rice said Sept. 16 on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“We decimated al Qaeda central,” Biden declared during Thursday evening’s debate with Republican Paul Ryan, echoing a talking point oft repeated by Obama and his campaign surrogates.
“Al Qaeda has been decimated,” said President Obama. “Osama bin Laden is dead.” -
Not to change the subject BUT doin it anyhoo …. this will improve tedtam’s disposition.
CBS Sports has released its 2013 preseason rankings, and there’s a shocker at No. 1 -
#24
GIG ‘EM!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP! -
#23 Hamous: France has to be careful to avoid mass riots in Paris, due to the number of mooslimes there. From what I have read, most are unemployed radicals and the French police don’t even bother to go into those regions anymore. France’s policy of being nice to the animals is about to bite them and big time.
-
I just found out that my daughter, Heartcrusher, has been published on a study of female rats to meth exposure.
Yes, I am one proud pappa :>) -
Sarge
The problem as I see it is that the Republican Party is committed to politics and appearances, not Liberty and changing government to better suit it.
Heh
That too. -
#18: Sorry about the encroachment, I will be more careful.
-
24 & 25
Don’t forget, USC was ranked #1 in the preseason polls last year. They ended up 7-6.
And Lil’ Johnny seems to be getting a big head. Luckily someone has sat him down and explained things to him before he ends up following the “Honey Badger” into obscurity. Hopefully he listened. -
I understand the names are Bobba Pitch and Bobba Catch
-
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy.
Ronald Reagan
But Broncobama did. -
Just watched to news conference, such that it was. Some executive orders and some recommendations to congress. 23 in all. No real specifics except assault like rifles are bad, it’s common sense and for the sake of the children.
-
Did anyone watch Bronco’s speech?
-
Here is list from Drudge
The entire list of the actions Mr. Obama is taking comprises:
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/16/obama-using-gun-issue-advance-health-law/#ixzz2IA13ZrY3
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter -
#10 Texanadian 😀
-
While I am pleased on one level that there is increase attention to mental illness, on another level it is distressing given the history of the USSR. My understanding is that when they needed to “disappear someone” they simply claimed he was mentally ill and shipped him off to the mental hospital (in Siberia) and he was never heard from again.
What will be the defense/recourse for those whom are targeted for whatever reason as being mentally ill? We all know how flexible the definitions of mental illness are, so who is to say that anyone who claims that the 2nd amendment actually means what it says won’t be redefined as an illness? -
#16 mharper42 😀
-
This one really bugs me:
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
How will they maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and what all does that entail? That is so broad it could be construed to mean anything, including door to door searches looking for firearms, because ifn you don’t have one you can’t commit a crime with one.
-
Still more underhanded sneaky crapola from the Ds.
HEADLINE: How President Obama’s inaugural app mines data for Democrats
This is a Politico story and they are less than complimentary about the issue. Can you imagine the catterwalling ifn an R admin had finagled such a thing?
-
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
The NRA already promotes this and it does not cost the taxpayer a dime.
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
This one worries me because I am sure they will promote futuristic technology that does not yet exist and/or would raise the price point of all firearms to absurdly high levels. On that note, Dad went to the gun show in Stafford this past weekend and confirmed that the prices for semi-auto rifles have doubled to quadrupled based on features, etc. Nothin’ like a good gun grab to boost short term revenue for the gun industry.
-
Bonecrusher, congrats on Heartcrusher’s name appearing in print.
-
#24 CbR
I think Manziel will get his bell rung real good sometime next year. He still thinks he’s bulletproof and hasn’t fully internalized the risks of playing like he does.
When he gets knocked out of his cleats by some huge linebacker,he’ll start thinking a little more. -
When will we do something to reduce tire-iron / baseball bat violence?
This has gone on long enough. -
Bad lip reading at the NFL
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/funniest-yet-bad-lip-reading-people-release-hilarious-nfl-video/ -
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
With many of our veterans being diagnosed with PTSD or on drugs prescribed by military doctors I wonder how many of them will suddenly lose their right to own firearms? Your ex-wife thinks you’re crazy, your firearms are gone.
And didn’t they just change to book of official mental disorders to make it easier to diagnose someone as having a mental disorder? -
An idiot in New York managed to mistake this
for one of these
and called 911. A school was locked down for several hours while police searched for the gun in question. It was found in a student’s locker and will be returned to the parents of the student. -
#42 TexMo: Thanks dude. I am very proud of her, getting published and she does not even have her undergrad degree yet.
-
fixed
-
#47: Waddya ‘spect?? They live in New Friggen York and keep re-electing slime like UpChuckie Schumer.
-
I started watching a car chase while home for lunch (I was repulsed but yet I could not look away). Bank robbers started in Pasadena, East Loop North, drove through my hood, south on 45 through downtown, ended up driving around in circles around OST and Scott. He drove on the passenger side rims for about 20 minutes until the hubs finally fell off. The passenger got out and immediately surrendered. Fat boy driver tried to make a run for it but didn’t get far. At one point during the chase one of the Channel 11 braintrusts said “We have confirmed that there is at least one suspect in the car!” That’s some fine detectivin’ right there.
-
A second Republican congressman is suggesting that impeachment should be an option as President Barack Obama takes executive action to enact gun control measures.
In an interview with Florida’s “The Shark Tank,” Florida Republican Trey Radel addressed Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman’s statement that he might seek impeachment if Obama goes forward with executive action to bring about gun control measures.
“All options should be on the table,” Radel responded. -
read the comments on the link in #51.
-
I predict Bronco’s “We the people” petition site will be quietly removed in the very near future.
-
President Barack Obama’s deputies have quadrupled the number of signatures that petitioners on the administration’s “We the People” website must collect to get an official response from the White House, following a series of popular, provocative and disrespectful signature drives by his critics.
…
“Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration,” said an early evening Jan. 15 statement from Macon Phillips, the White House’s digital strategy director. -
56 Hamous says:
January 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Here’s the first sign:
President Barack Obama’s deputies have quadrupled the number of signatures that petitioners on the administration’s “We the People” website must collect to get an official response from the White House, following a series of popular, provocative and disrespectful signature drives by his critics.
…
“Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration,” said an early evening Jan. 15 statement from Macon Phillips, the White House’s digital strategy director.The NRA should try and get all 250,000 new members that joined last month to sign a petition.
-
Google denies Street View car ran over donkey, adds to intrigue.
According to the News.com.au report, Google says its car drove up to the donkey while it was lying on the dirt road, and as the vehicle got close, the animal got up and walked away.
The scene that has gone viral shows it in reverse, making it look like the car struck the donkey before the animal is shown on the ground, Google contends.
But the Australian website’s technology editor, Claire Porter, who reviewed the images, said the pictures and Google’s story don’t quite add up.
“The problem with this version of events is that — based on the images — it appears as though the donkey is walking backward,” she said. “This version of events seems to make no earthly sense.”
To further make her point, Porter quotes Roger Short, a zoology professor from Melbourne University, who insists donkeys don’t walk backward.
And that’s been enough for some on the Web to continue sharing the story and question Google’s innocence.
“Do no evil, unless it’s a donkey,” one user on Tumblr posted, linking to an article. “Apparently this donkey sacrificed his life so we can have Google Street View.”
But in all likelihood, Google is telling the truth, and there’s a few reasons why.
As some on Reddit have pointed out, the donkey probably was lying on the road, giving itself a dust bath, a grooming behavior in many animals in which they roll around on the ground in sand or dirt. You can see videos of other donkeys doing it on YouTube.
Another item that support’s Google’s story is Botswana’s driving practices. In that country, you drive on the left side of the road, which would match up with Google’s story.Be sure to go backward and forward, you can tell that the donkey was rolling in the sand.
-
Post in the “Spit Bucket” And now I know why,…. my copy and paste copied every dang thang on the page!…..Sorry 😳
-
Hey, some nice Blog Monkey fixed #58 for me! 😀
-
Wonder what donkey tastes like.
-
How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.
You’ll prolly get all of them right, I did.
Correct! (12 of 12 correct) 😉 -
Found it on line. Anyone wanna go in on a 20 ft. container? That’s the minimum order.
-
Wonder what donkey tastes like.
horse?
-
I expect it would be a little gamier than horse.
-
#62 SD: I missed the one about does the 2nd amendment prohibit fully auto guns, etc., my answer was impossible to tell at this point. I missed one other but can’t remember what it was about. Having to repage twice for every question is absurd.
-
my answer was impossible to tell at this point.
I missed that one too. But let’s pose that question: should citizens be able to purchase shoulder-fired missiles?
-
But let’s pose that question: should citizens be able to purchase shoulder-fired missiles?
Let’s refine the question just a bit: Should law abiding citizens not having been previously convicted of a felony and otherwise ineligible to possess a firearm be able to purchase a shoulder fired missile? YES with restrictions.
I would say that the restriction should be similar to that to purchase and possess fully automatic weapons. This is nothing more than a figleaf for the gun grabbers because we all need to remember that the 2nd has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING OR SPORTING PURPOSES. The sole purposes for the amendment are to allow the citizenry to defend thier country from foreign attackers and to overthrow a tyranical govt.
The state of the art weaponry when the amendment was written consisted of muzzle loaded rifles, pistols and cannons; there was parity between the govt and the citizens. The same rules should apply today. -
Tactical nukes?
-
Should law abiding citizens not having been previously convicted of a felony and otherwise ineligible to possess a firearm be able to purchase a shoulder fired missile?
That’s what I meant. Someone legally capable of purchasing a firearm now.
-
62 Super Dave says:
January 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm
How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.
You’ll prolly get all of them right, I did.
Correct! (12 of 12 correct)You should have gotten two, and possibly three of them wrong.
10. Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own fully automatic military-issued combat rifles, heavy machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?
The CSM says the answer is “Probably not” which is absolutely incorrect. US v Miller ruled that any weapon useful to a milita was legal to own (the issue was about a sawed off shotgun), and they further ruled that certain weapons that were useful to a milita were legal to own but could be restricted. It is perfectly legal to own machine guns in this country, a concept which the ruling in Miller codified into law. It is also reasonable for the government to restrict them as they were not prevalent in the Army at the time. It further ruled that cannon and grenade launchers were legal to own as well, but could be even more highly regulated. Thousands of people today own fully automatic machine guns and sub machine guns and fully operational cannon, many of whom I consider freinds that I met while reenacting and associated with several military museums.
11. Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own semi-automatic rifles that resemble the fully-automatic military versions of the same firearm?
The CSM says that the correct answer is “Not clear at this point.” Any adherent to the Second Amendment knows that the answer to this question is crystal clear.
-
But let’s pose that question: should citizens be able to purchase shoulder-fired missiles?
Its already illegal. Its a trick question that libs and gun grabbers like to ask because they think your answer will make you look like an extremist.
-
I called my doctor to tell him what kind of guns I have and he told me piss off.
-
#69: I recognize that my position leaves a sticky residue in this case. The real question would be what is reasonable and by whose standards? A shoulder fired missile can be pretty darned accurate and if used responsibly, the collateral damage can be minimized, with a tactical nuke. . . .not so much.
What would likely be reasonable to most on the couch would be classed in the same category as a tactical nuke by the gun-grabbing NAZIs, so we are still back at the point to determine objectively what is reasonable, a concept which is almost by definition subjective. -
#72 Sarge: Wouldn’t Miller permit shoulder fired missiles, with restrictions, as they are extremely useful to a milita?
-
And yes, it should be illegal for citizens to own shoulder fired missles, and that should be your answer when talking to a gun grabber, particularly if there are any undecideds listening in.
Its already illegal for any person to own any cannon, grenade launcher, or other destructive devices that fire ammunition currently produced for the military or in stock. Persons may posess these devices if rendered inoperable. Such devices that have outlived thier military usefulness may be in the posession of individuals as curios, relics, and collectors items and may be fully operational provided they are properly registered with ATF. -
Its already illegal. Its a trick question that libs and gun grabbers like to ask because they think your answer will make you look like an extremist.
I know it’s illegal. My question was should it be? And I’m definitely not a lib or gun grabber.
-
I called my doctor to tell him what kind of guns I have and he told me piss off.
Were you lacking in quality, quantity or caliber to cause such a reaction?
-
75 Bonecrusher says:
January 16, 2013 at 4:41 pm
#72 Sarge: Wouldn’t Miller permit shoulder fired missiles, with restrictions, as they are extremely useful to a milita?No. Emphatically no. The current laws covering possession and use are sensible and reasonable and we don’t want to give anybody any reason to change them.
-
-
I know it’s illegal. My question was should it be? And I’m definitely not a lib or gun grabber.
No, it should not be legal.
-
Listen:
Whatever you personal opinion on the matter of shoulder fired missles might be, the answer should always be “The current law governing posession of destructive devices are sensible and reasonable, and they make it illegal for persons to own such items.” -
Miller reasoned that any firearm or destructive device whose use could be sustained by an individual independent of government provision and support and can be useful to a militia can be owned by an individual. It also allowed for the posession of curios and relics from past miltary eras as collectors items.
You can own an AR15 because you can go down to Gander Mountain and buy ammuniton and parts for it. You can own an M16 if you have $14,000 and are willing to pay the tax and abide for the restircitions for use and storage imposed by current law. You can own a 37mm anti-tank gun from WW2 because the military no longer has it in its inventory and nobody makes ammunition for it—but you can make your own. You can’t own a shoulder fired missle because you can’t get ammo for it anywhere else but the military. You can’t own a battleship because it takes hundreds of people to operate and government facilities to maintain. -
The principal about a militia and weapons that would be useful to a militia pretty well indicate that they should be legal for legal citizens to own. Do I think it is a good idea for the average joe six-pack to have shoulder fired missiles in thier living room. . . H3!! WISSIN NO!
OTOH, if the civil war starts all over again, how are you gonna fight back against an attack helicopter unless you have something like that? Given the direction this country is headed, that is not an unreasonable question to ask. -
so we are still back at the point to determine objectively what is reasonable, a concept which is almost by definition subjective.
I don’t think it’s at all subjective among supporters of the 2nd. And I wasn’t trying to “trick” anyone with the question. Most of us agree there is a reasonable line. I’m simply trying to define that line as best as possible.
-
The interpretation above is that which has been sanctioned by the NRA in the past. It is reasonable, logical, and completely supports an individual’s right to bear arms that can be used to fight off a tyrannical government, while at the same time addressing concerns of individuals who don’t have a dog in the hunt and completely shuts down the gun grabbers who will try to make gun owners and patriots look like crazed killers living in a Montana cave.
-
It is reasonable, logical, and completely supports an individual’s right to bear arms that can be used to fight off a tyrannical government,
This is true if and only if the feds choose not to use more sophisticated weapons against the citizens, like attack helocopters. The fact that it is currently illegal for the feds to use attack helocopters against the citizenry is irrelevant, laws do not stop criminals.
-
86 Hamous says:
January 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
You can drive a tank.You can own as many tanks as you want.
I know the guy who owns that museum. His business is restoring tanks and other military vehicles. The museum, and others like it, are basically tax avoidance measures and a means to write off upkeep expenses. -
This is true if and only if the feds choose not to use more sophisticated weapons against the citizens, like attack helocopters. The fact that it is currently illegal for the feds to use attack helocopters against the citizenry is irrelevant, laws do not stop criminals.
Yah. That’s the same argument that idiot Piers Morgan made in order to justify his arguement that individuals don’t need semi-automatic weapons.
So, go ahead—–make Piers Morgan look like a smart guy and reenforce the argument he’s making.
That’ll help a LOT. -
And yes, it should be illegal for citizens to own shoulder fired missles
Sniveling Liberal.
-
Most of us agree there is a reasonable line.
That is true, in a reasonable world run by reasonable people, in the academic discussion taking place, a reasonable person would state that it is unreasonable for an average legal citizen to possess a shoulder fired missile. What to do when the gov’t starts behaving in an unreasonable fashion, and if they choose to be unreasonable what can reasonable people do to defend themselves?
We don’t have a problem if everything is reasonable, problems never happen when everyone is being reasonable. -
The state of New York passed a law that outlawed magazines of greater capacity than 10 rounds, further for magazines 10 and under, the law stipulates that you can not put more than 7 rounds in it. Does anyone here on the couch consider that to be a reasonable public safety measure or is it more an infringement on the citizenry being able to protect itself? Does anyone really believe that it will stop with that restriction?
-
Well, we can take one idiot out of the running for the Heisman next year.
-
#73 Shannon
Good one.
😀 -
Ann Coulter is late on her weekly article. I wonder what her take on “the 23” and the actions of NY are gonna be.
-
#71 Sarge on #11 I answered, Yes and it was scored right, I even went back and retook the test and got it wrong?!
-
#94 Hammy
Bizarre story. But does being a moron, a con artist, or both, automatically disqualify you from a sports trophy? -
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.
-
100 Woo Hoo
-
Bonesy, lets get real.
If it ever comes that the United States starts using attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft on its own citizens, it will have gone long past the point where a certain number of persons serving at the time will have taken such weapons and devices under thier control and gone to the other side.
Whereinell do you think the guns that fired on Fort Sumter came from? -
97 Super Dave says:
January 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
#71 Sarge on #11 I answered, Yes and it was scored right, I even went back and retook the test and got it wrong?!Yah—and the answer to Question 12 is kinda messed up too.
Anytime anyone answers a yes or no question with “maybe” its because they don’t like the answer and are trying to convince somebody of something and the correct answer is inconvenient to that end. -
Well if she wants to see me
You can tell her that I’m easily found
Tell her there’s a spot out ‘neath Abram’s Bridge… -
Tell her there’s a spot
out ‘neath Abram’s Bridgejust outside the Main Gate at Fort Sill…
Fixed it for Bruce
There.
Fixed it for me too. -
And I’m definitely not a lib or gun grabber.
yer a commie
-
#101 Sarge: 1) Do you think that the feds will ever turn as I have suggested?
2) Do you think that this admin wants an armed insurrection so that they can declare martial law?
I think that under D control, unfortunately the answer to both is yes. -
106 Bonecrusher says:
January 16, 2013 at 7:07 pm
#101 Sarge: 1) Do you think that the feds will ever turn as I have suggested?If I had powers like that, I’d be buying lottery tickets and looking at Polynesian real estate.
2) Do you think that this admin wants an armed insurrection so that they can declare martial law?
No. I think there is a very intense difference of political opinion, and that they are wrong on almost everything—that’s the same thig they think about me.
Any conjecture beyond that is just. plan. silly.I think that under D control, unfortunately the answer to both is yes.
Yah.
Folks have said that about every Administration since Washington. -
Heh.
I wandered over to Big Jolly’s today and noticed that there’s a commenter over there named “William Vining”
For the record:
1. He’s not me.
2. He’s my brother—the one who worked for the Howard Dean campaign and was a delegate to the State Democrat Convention that year.
3. He’s not using his full name, just his middle and last name.
4. He has only one friend on Facebook and likley only has the account so he can make comments on Conservative sites and stories. -
As might be expcected, Ann Coulter’s newest column deals with gun control.
Loughner also had run-ins with the law, including one charge for possessing drug paraphernalia — a lethal combination with mental illness. He was eventually asked to leave college on mental health grounds, released on the public without warning.
/snip
James Holmes, the accused Aurora, Colo., shooter, was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater. According to news reports and court filings, Holmes told his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, that he fantasized about killing “a lot of people,” but she refused law enforcement’s offer to place Holmes under confinement for 72 hours.
However, Fenton did drop Holmes as a patient after he made threats against another school psychiatrist. And after Holmes made threats against a professor, he was asked to leave campus. But he wasn’t committed. People who knew he was deeply troubled just pushed him onto society to cause havoc elsewhere.So we have obviously deranged, dangerous psychopaths being released on society with no warning because people are afraid of the ACLU lawsuits. This behavior is analagous to the Catholic church transferring known pedophiles to other parishes once they became known as pedophiles. In both situations those who had the responsibility should have taken the more difficult path but for political or other reasons chose to “bury” the problem. Please do not think that I am bagging on the Catholics because that is not the point at all. We all know that is what happened with the Catholics, (and I believe that nonsense has stopped) and it is still happening with law enforcement, psycho-therapists and the education institution. The Catholic church (some parishes, bishops, priests etc) got sued for thier dereliction of their oversight responsibilities and rightly so; shouldn’t the same thing apply to the others? It should not be an insurmountable burden to have the psychotic institutionalized against their will for more than 3 days when many indicators point to the fact that the person is out of touch with reality.
I say this with great caution, as I indicated earlier today or yesterday, it does not take much imagination for there to be those who are unscrupulous who will point the crazy finger at the innocent so that they can further their nefarious goals; kinda like the Salem witch trials. -
BTW
Have as much fun with him as you want, but don’t let him know the source of the info. In both temperament and politics he makes Shamaal look like a cross between William F. Buckley and Mother Teresa. -
I really hope that I am wrong about what I wrote in #106, really I do, I just don’t think I am.
-
In both temperament and politics he makes Shamaal look like a cross between William F. Buckley and Mother Teresa.
So he’s Wil Barnes?
-
109 Bonehead,
You said:I say this with great caution, as I indicated earlier today or yesterday, it does not take much imagination for there to be those who are unscrupulous who will point the crazy finger at the innocent so that they can further their nefarious goals; kinda like the Salem witch trials.
This was actually the case in Texas in the sixties. We had a neighbor who was an officer at the local bank who was committed by his wife in this manner. His behavior was certainly strange and erratic at times. Later, we found out that she had been spiking his food and drink with sedatives and who knows what else. An alert Doctor noticed the miracle recovery once the guy was removed from his home and the influence of his wife and got him released, but the damage to his life and career had been done.
I have great misgivings about tossing folks into institutions without due process. I do not see this as a liberal or conservative issue as much as basic civil rights. Regrettably, I think the gold standard will have to be has the individual harmed someone? Can we incarcerate
(a jail or institution is the same thing) someone for refusing to take their anti-psychotic drugs. Do we put them on a IV drip and pump the drugs into them against their will?
Preemptive action sounds great with the insane and may be possible in some limited cases, but as you pointed out…this is a process that will be abused by individuals and the state.
Simple -
Sarge, RE your brother, I don’t see any postings on Jolly’s FB Group, just his website. Does William live in Texas too?
-
I have to get my head straight before getting up in front of 50 teenagers tonight.
Why? What could possibly go wrong? 😉
God bless ya’, Tedtam -
#110;
In both temperament and politics he makes Shamaal look like a cross between William F. Buckley and Mother Teresa.
If only he’d invest his twenny bux wiser. 😉
-
110 Sarge
I’ll pass.
I don’t do psychopaths anymore. -
but don’t let him know the source of the info
Ha, you’re so busted. I’m totally telling, “William, Sarge said…” 😉
btw, I know I knew your first name but I forget it. In case you forgot mine, it’s Darren. 🙂 -
I don’t do psychopaths anymore.
Shannon starred in dirty movies? Who knew?
-
#112 😀
-
100 Woo Hoo
Hey, congrats. mharper. For once you got 100. 🙂
-
You can drive a tank.
-
And I’m definitely not a lib or gun grabber.
-
Has Steve Stockman filed those impeachment papers on Bronco yet?
-
make you look like an extremist
-
I called my doctor to tell him what kind of guns I have and he told me piss off.
-
So he’s Wil Barnes?
Wil Barnes with an attitude and further Left.
-
I expect it would be a little gamier than horse.
Definitely gamier. 😉
-
114 mharper42 says:
January 16, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Sarge, RE your brother, I don’t see any postings on Jolly’s FB Group, just his website. Does William live in Texas too?Clear Lake.
Its not enough to say that Thanksgivings are interesting—-we just don’t do Thanksgiving. -
Figures blockquoting something from Shannon would place my post into the spit bucket.
/sigh 🙂
(Once out it should be #126) -
124 mharper42 says:
January 16, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Has Steve Stockman filed those impeachment papers on Bronco yet?Nope.
But if you haven’t had any experience with Steve Stockman you’re going to find out soon that he’s the Alan Grayson of the Republican Party. -
(Once out it should be #
126127)
Mine should come out first, around 8:45? -
Yours got dumped because you linked to the site that shall not be named.
-
Looks like T’eo was just a sucker. I feel sorry for the kid.
-
i#5 – hey if I can get a copy of that I’ll revamp it in 72 point font and afix it to my front door with good ole 200 mph tape!! 🙂
-
OH! …..greetings from beautiful crime ridden downtown Tallahassee FL
after near freezing temps with rain to 60s & 70s with more rain during 16 hours and 754 miles since 0300………I’m drowning my sorrows with room service linguini plus meat-a-balls & marinara – washing that down with some frosty Busch beer (the only AB product that doesn’t give me a big headache long before any buzz) -
It’s good to recharge one’s cell phone.
-
Katfish #138;
Ya made it!!! -
We had our class on sacraments tonight. Lots of handouts this evening, including one on marriage that I may turn into a post.
I had a parent tell me that I “turned her son around” when it comes to coming to church. He said he really got interested after the class I had on learning to think on their own. She said he could not stop talking about it. It turns out that this kid, who entered the room with a crappy attitude and skipped a lot of classes at the beginning of the year, is an honors student that just gets bored easily at school and had a boring class last year in faith formation. He only attended one of my classes at the beginning of the year, and then skipped until just a few weeks before that class. Mom told me that they had a heart to heart about the effect of not going to church and his behavior, so he came back. Since then, he’s actually been attending mentally as well as physically. Mom said she wanted him to keep going, and the response was “Not a problem, I LIKE her class!”
That Holy Spirit thing is awesome. Sometimes I go to class and wing it (I was skating a little tonight, thank goodness I had my handouts ready), and sometimes I’m amazed at how well I’m able to answer their questions and react to their little verbal outbursts. I have NO idea where the responses come from. That’s when I know I’m not driving.
Again – awesome. -
Here’s a good piece on Reagan supporting the 1994 assault weapons ban:
Moreover, as Buzzfeed has documented in a longer piece exploring the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, Reagan’s influence over the debate about that bill amounted to more than just one form letter. He actively sought out support from Republicans and defied the NRA, and may have been the person who was ultimately responsible for the passage of the bill by getting two former opponents to back it:
As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.[…]
Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.
”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”
”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.
Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his vote.So not only did Reagan support the assault weapons ban, but he actively campaigned for it and made sure to get his fingerprints all over it. Obama’s reference to the previous President is undeniably correct.
The article gives two reasons why Reagan would support such a ban. The first is obvious. He was shot. But the second was revealing to me. As California’s governor, he wanted to take on the Black Panthers Party and their open use of guns in protests. This resulted in the Mulford Act.
What was the Mulford Act? Nothing less than an outright ban on carrying guns in public places, a law that would today sound draconian in general, let alone a piece of legislation with support from the NRA. Yet at the time, the law had support from the NRA and was signed by Reagan without any hand wringing whatsoever. What gave?
Quite simply, the law was being passed to target a group that many of today’s conservatives would find just as noxious as they did then – specifically, the Black Panthers. At the time, the Panthers had deep roots in Oakland, California, and were engaged in “safety patrols,” described this way by PBS:The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.
This arguable vigilante justice quite understandably unnerved more than a few people, especially when the Black Panthers began rallying and openly protesting police behavior in the aftermath of the shooting of African-American man Denzel Dowell. The Mulford Act, dubbed “The Panther Bill” by the California press, was meant to ensure that such rallies would remain free of gun violence, and also to disarm the Panthers themselves, thus keeping what many people saw as a group of heavily armed, paramilitary street thugs from effecting civil war with the police. And indeed, its passage saw a massive protest from the Panthers at the California State Capitol. PBS again:
Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the Assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn.
Huh. I never knew this about Reagan.
-
TT #141;
That Holy Spirit thing is awesome. Sometimes I go to class and wing it (I was skating a little tonight, thank goodness I had my handouts ready), and sometimes I’m amazed at how well I’m able to answer their questions and react to their little verbal outbursts. I have NO idea where the responses come from. That’s when I know I’m not driving.
Isn’t it great when God is your autopilot?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.