“Those arguments are phantom problems of statistically zero probability” <— Ummmm..abut the same as say… a civilian with a CWP and packing would stop a shooter? Same odds I'd say …. seeing as it also has never happened

Flashshill says — ” seeing as it also has never happened”.

You have no credibility on this board, Flashshill. Give it up.

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

From the article:
“One incident took place at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007. There were 7,000 people inside when an armed man came on the church’s property and began shooting, killing two people and wounding others. What stopped him was a parishioner who had permission to carry her permitted concealed weapon on church property”.

http://gunowners.org/oped0810612d.htm

Errr Davey…that “parishoner” was an off duty cop. A cop actually is never ‘off duty’ and is far from being a civilian.

Now..when has a civilian carrying a CWP and packin’ iron stopped a mass killing shooter ?

Don’t you think it’s better odds making an offensive mass killing weapon more diffiult of obtain ?

She was a Former cop, Flashman. But so what? The issue was that she stopped the gunman.

@Flashy: How many? Hundreds. The problem is the mainstream media don’t report them because they don’t want the idea that guns have good uses at crime scenes to get out there (the ration BTW is 5 crimes stopped for every 1 completed successfully with a firearm). Here are just a few school examples:

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

If you are truly interested in the true factual evidence, then read either of Dr. John Lott’s books (“The Bias Against Guns” and “More Guns, Less Crime”). The latter is in it’s 3rd edition, and was revised twice to update it with even more evidence that CCW is the best solution to violent crime if/when it occurs.

KJQ…i couldn’t find anything about the Santee apture…but the remainder were by off duty cops and one Marine Colonel (Reserves). The last one about the restaurant owner was after the shooter ran out of ammo and was then detained (a good example of limiting clip capacity)

Note i stated “civilian”. Ther is no such thing as an “off duty’ cop…and a marine is a marine. One doesn’t f*** with a Marine…not if they want to stay healthy….

Flashshill says — “OK Sparky”, and “Jeesh….think sometimes”.

Ridicule, the favorite adolescent manipulative technique of the Flashshill.

Do you really think that works on anybody intelligent, Flashshill?

Maybe you could try some factual or logical reasoning instead? That would be novel.

Flashshill says — “The last one about the restaurant owner was after the shooter ran out of ammo and was then detained (a good example of limiting clip capacity)”.

Yeah sure, 10-round clips will stop them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXVNypPUGto

davey…say people are in a cafe. An IHOP, Shari’s, Denny etc… and a shooter comes in and empties the 10 round clip. As he’s reloading, what do you think the people are doing ? Taking advantage of the intermission and asking the waitress to top off their coffee while they’re waiting?

You didn’t even watch the video, did you Flashman?
It puts the lie to your claims.

Dear Bob, I provide a case number with my statement,please provide a link the rewritten federal law. Otherwise, it’s just gratuitous assertion.

Dear Bob, I apologize for the last spotty reply, I wrote it from the email link which is a bit unnerving if one makes a typo. Now, in US v Lopez, the supreme court said congress does not have the power under the commerce clause to create the gun free school zone act. I doubt that rewriting the law all of a sudden gave them (congress) new powers under the commerce clause, because they are limited in their power by Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. Congress may not write any law that contravenes their limited powers. All such “laws” are not law at all and are null and void.

Gun Free School Zones Act—as reenacted
Originally enacted in 1990
(P.L. 101-647, Sec. 1702(b)(1))

Overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, April 26, 1995
Re: Federalism; Congress exceeded its authority under Commerce Clause.
(U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549)

Reenacted by Congress, Sep. 30, 1996
(P.L. 104-208)
http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

Following the Lopez decision, President Clinton’s Attoney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted (or “concealed” and “widely ignored” as one author put it) in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[5] These minor changes required that the firearm in question “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce”.[6]

As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.

From Wikipedia – Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

Dear roger,

I was about to respond but it seems JeffH has beaten me to the punch. I presume you are satisfied with the answer?

Best wishes,
Bob

Absolutely. What about my challenge to you that you try to disarm me yourself? I will be waiting. You lack the courage to try. You will have your SWAT teams attack me I am sure.

Argument by ridicule?
Is that all you have, Flashshill?

Um, the word “bear” as used in the amendment means “to carry”. The SCOTUS has ruled on this twice in recent years (regarding Washington and Chicago attempting to limit this right). If you’re at all interested in the truth, you can read the Federalist Letters which make it abundantly, absolutely, and unequivocally clear what the intention of the legislators meant by it.

Duh, yeah:
The Second Amendment:
“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”.

http://gunowners.org/op0848.htm

Davey…. read post above

“keep & BEAR”… Real simple Flashy

I think the end is near.

You just don’t get it, Capitalist…

In the bible I presume “sinners” should be stoned.

Well, we finally got it right. Same sex marriage is legal and so is recreational pot in a couple of states now.

The trend is finally going the right way.

Rob

Dear Robert Smith,

You write: “In the bible I presume “sinners” should be stoned.” Please provide book, chapter and verse.

Best wishes,
Bob

Mr Smith – you presume wrongly.

Although Homosexuals/lesbians having relationship in the biblical sense is against my beliefs, I wont try to stop them, nor would I try to stop a government contractual agreement that grants them the same rights as a hetro-marriage, what I do want to stop is the “MARRIAGE” under god in a church.

No church should be forced to marry gays or lesbians when it is against church belief, keep it with the state and stay out of the church and we can agree to dissagree about lifesstyle.

Your life choice is between you and god, I dont have to agree to it, like it, or condone it.

Just stay out of the church.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, “Freedom Fighter” – GREAT COMMENTS.

AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, RELIGIOUS HOMOSEXUALS ARE FIGHTING A BATTLE THEY CAN NOT WIN. ANYONE WHO IS ABLE TO READ UNDERSTANDS THE OPENING VERSES OF THE Book of Genesis STRONGLY IMPLIES AN ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

RELIGIOUS HOMOSEXUALS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY OWE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR PARENTS FOR INTRODUCING THEM TO CHRISTIANITY [OR, ANY MAJOR RELIGION] AS CHILDREN.

ATHEISM IS THE O-N-L-Y NURTURING IDEOLOGY FOR HOMOSEXUALS.

Bob Livingston,

Lev. 20:13
•”If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (NASB)
•”If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Falsy says ” And what is your primary responsibility?”

We all know what Falsy’s primary responsibility is…getting paid to spread lies and mis-information under the guise of multiple personalities…for the very same disconnected morons that support restricting or removing your inalienable rights.

Desperation set in.

Flashy says:
December 28, 2012 at 10:10 am
So taking your time away from doing the job you are hired to do…teaching…is OK with you? The additional hours and training involved…you wouldn’t want nor demand extra compensation? And what is your primary responsibility? Pretend you’re John Wayne or teaching kids?
______________________________________________________________________

And how about having the ability to protect the children a teachers is given custody of all day? I mean since we as parents are “by law” forced to send our kids to this glorified day care…shouldn’t we have some expectation that they will be safe?

ABSOLUTELY! let teachers who are willing get training and carry a weapon.
Be damned to the bed wetting “Flashy’s” of the world.

Oh wow flashy,
thats really low even for you.

Actually it was the privacy of each woman to decide about how her own reproductive system is going to be used.

BTW, if you had someone in your house, even if you invited them, and they absolutely refused to leave, what would you do?

Rob

Actually we have Unrestricted Concealed Carry here.
By the way, weren’t you saying just yesterday, Flashshill, that you didn’t want to ban guns?

Davey..yep. i believe a complete ban on guns to violate the 2nd. I believe one has the Right to own a gun if he keeps it on his property…heck, go outside in the backyard and use your tonsils for target practice for all i care. But i also believe that the 2nd may have time, place, and manner restrictions which would be used as the 2nd runs up against, and impedes, another Right.

Know how many explicit rights there are in the US Constitution as amended? Go ahead…count them. 6 (if you count the Amendments pertaining to voting Rights as one overall Right to vote).

Then there is the penumbra of Rights contained in the Ninth. Supreme Court Justice Douglas stated as to the Ninth “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep–rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth[p.1505]Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”

Rheinquist also mentions the Ninth in writing a plurality decision that Ninth Amendment is viewed as a “constitutional ‘saving clause”’ to efforts to establish the clause as a substantive protection of rights Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579–80 & n.15 (1980).

Now…we have solid caselaw and SCOTUS decisions that a Right or Freedom may be burdened as to time, place or manner when it runs up against another Right or Freedom. thus, the prohibition on yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is a legitimate burden to protect the Rights of the People to live in society safely. For a Right or Freedom to bear a burden the clash must” create a clear and present danger that they [acts] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

OK..so we have the Preamble to the Constitution, the First, the Ninth, and quite probably the 14th all pressing against the 2nd. it’s already an acknowledged fact the 2nd is NOT absolute. Is there any protest that prohibiting felons from owning a firearm is Constitutional?

We have a SCOTUS decision stating the government may ban sawed off shotguns. Is there any argument the betterment of, and safety of, society is achieved because of the ban on sawed off shotguns?

Do you think the 2nd allows a person to own a fully operational tank?

So we have severe restrictions already on the books as concerns the absolute of the 2nd. These restrictions differ from the Speech exception of yelling ‘fire”… that restriction was on content. The prohibition of felons owning a gun is a GROUP. it does not affect content, but rather a recognized class of the People which this Right does not apply. The prohibition on sawed off shotguns and likely a tank is TYPE of “Arms”.

Understand Davey, if you can … rights are inherent in Man. They are not ‘given’ by the State. That is the major difference of the US Constitution from any other.

Any government which ‘grants’ rights is the actual author of those rights; it is the power behind those rights. Those rights exist, then, only at the discretion of that authority. What the government gives, the government may take away.

The Bill of Rights is a permanent restraining order on the federal government. Rather than the government telling us what rights we have been granted, we (the People) are telling the government itself what it MAY NOT DO.

For every right, there are restrictions. The test for is whether or not the limitations are necessary for the safety of the public, public order, national security, and so on. The proposed action must be framed as to impose as little on citizens as possible to achieve legitimate aims, not merely to make it convenient to the State.

Do I believe assault type weapons should be banned from further manufacture and sale? Absolutely. They are not defensive weapons nor are they hunting rifles. They are for killing and offensive use. They are for battle.

Do I believe a Concealed Weapons Permit should be given only upon completion of intensive class, situational awareness, and live firearm proficiency? Absolutely. Walking around the public arena with a firearm should be done only by those who know what the heck they’re doing.

Do I believe each sale of a weapon should be recorded and the buyer background checked. Yep. I do not see that as an impermissible burden. The 2nd already allows groups of people [felons] from its absolute…and the background check and registering the sales ensure that burden is restricted to the group affected. That and it will allow backtracking to the suppliers.

So how’s that for ya’ there Davey boy?

For those who don’t know that Flashman has no credibility:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Flashman says — Let it snow, Let it snow, Let it snow.

The irony of your long-winded snow-job, Flashshill, is that the people who might be influenced by your double-speak wouldn’t bother reading it, and the people who you might wish to influence know better. Catch 22.

“For those who don’t know that Flashman has no credibility:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm” <— DaveH

Errr…Davey boy, I don't wish to cast aspersions…but you either never read the material you linked to (probably as it would be a "not usual" case with you) or you have no ability nor mental acuity to understand the debate framed.

I acknowledged what the material in the link argues. The 2nd allows weapons. OK…now just how exactly does that affect credibility? I acknowledge the 2nd, then go into detail how the 2nd may be burdened in clashing with the Preamble, the First, the Ninth, and probably the Fourteenth ?

Now..if it's over your head, then go sit in the corner and let the big guys do the work.

You went into length with the usual snow-job, Flashman. Anybody with a good education, knows that you are a double-speaking shill.
I have proved repeatedly, Flashshill, that you use big words or phrases in a pretentious manner in an effort to impress ignorant people who don’t know that you are misusing the words or phrases.
Your grandiloquence is obvious to those who really know the subject area, Flashshill.
Here is my most recent exposure of your double-speaking nonsense:
http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/28/should-we-arm-our-teachers/#comment-794948

Flashman makes his usual desperate attempt to denigrate me.
Flashshill says — “Davey boy, I don’t wish to cast aspersions…but you either never read the material you linked to (probably as it would be a “not usual” case with you) or you have no ability nor mental acuity to understand the debate framed”.
Notice his often-stated accusation that I didn’t read the article I linked to.
If I didn’t bother to read the article, then it would be very fair of me to post it — given that it would indicate no bias on my part.
I wish I could claim that, but I am biased (everybody is). My biases, though, are tempered with much education and a dogged determination to follow my own moral code religiously. If I expect other people to behave a certain way, then I certainly expect myself to behave that same way. For instance, I believe that it’s wrong to steal property from my neighbor. That belief isn’t cast aside by me just because millions of people vote for that theft. And I believe that it’s wrong to kill except in self-defense. That belief isn’t cast aside by me just because millions of people vote for the killing (as in the case of overseas wars against people who have not attacked the US).
I may not die monetarily rich, but I will die content knowing that I’ve been the best person morally that I can be.
Unlike Flashshill.

Same thing can be said about health care. Americans spend more than most, but don’t get as much value as other countries with universal health care.

How do we “educate” the dolts who don’t get that fact?

Rob

Suicide bomber instructor, “Pay attention, I’m only going to show this to you once.”

Rob

Shouldn’t our commander in chief know all about this already… this would be called “community organizing”.

From cpa: “they’re already paid the same salary”

Really… And do you expect the insurance to be the same price with teachers toting guns?

Can you guarantee there will never ever be any collateral damage?

Rob

Robert,

No. Can you guarantee there will never be another school shooting?

Let’s do a survey right here and now, DaveH.

Let’s presume no teachers volunteer to carry guns into schools.

Do you think more money should be spent in schools for trained armed guards or professional police?

Where would that money come from if you approve?

Rob

DaveH, are liberals or conservatives more likely to support the NRA position on gun control? 2. Are conservatives more likely to want to limit spending on education? 3. Are conservatives more likely to support the cost of armed guards at schools as a cost to education than using that same money to regulate the ownership of arms?

I asked for evidence, NC. You provided none, as usual.

I doubt you even know the difference between a Conservative or a Neoconservative. Most real Conservatives would not dream of creating a police state in this country. A real Conservative believes in the kind of Small Government that our Founders tried to instill in this country.

Whether particular school systems want to pay for an armed guard or allow their teachers to bear arms should be up to them, not the Federal Government or even the State Government.

Chainsaw, axe, machette,..hammer, pick, baseball bat – a fav of mafia types….ice picks… of course the list is as long as history…

crawl back under your progressive commi rock deerinwater.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Unek
The first rampage was with axe only and he killed 21 people

What did Cain use to kill Able?

What kind of a brutal god creates a kid who will kill his brother?

Rob

Robert Smith,
God didn’t create anyone to kill another, He created us free agents.Just like He created you free to believe or not believe in Him. Since you don’t believe in Him why are you always so mad at Him and bring Him up all of the time?

Warrior, you’re right. The core issue is about removing guns from our society, the final deterrent tyrrany, and replacing them with the umbrella of the nanny state…all about control and power over “we the people”. The bureacrats in our government have become the treasonous enemy of the people and this nation. Nothing will change until that is recognized and they are stopped…until then, it will continue to be status quo.

Not to mention the disrespect for the sanctity of life. Roe v Wade. Hmm?

Wow! An excuse for the same information twice in one thread.

Check out: Donohue-Levitt hypothesis

That’s the idea that because abortion stopped a lot of unwanted kids, particularly for economically challenged folks, from being born. The core proof is that in states where abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade the crime rate dropped more quickly.

The abstract for that is: “”We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.”[1]”

Rob

Hey rob smith your figures are leaving out all those murders, you know each aborted baby equals one murder. Have to count those or do you just pick and choose which figures make you look and sound good. TIME to make that popping sound.

up the hill
airborne

She taught you math too? Then you know it’s a bad idea.

Actually Sister Christine was my math teacher. For real.
We wouldn’t want her armed with a rifle. She was good with that yard stick though.
In 4rth grade we had Sister Marrietta.(and her berretta?) She may have been competent with one.

Yes, and with some of the disrespectful kids we have out there today, she probably had to be good with the yard stick.
Sounds like she was what you needed. I had a very tough teacher too and we all called her names behind her back, but boy did I learn under her. Later I got to know her as an adult and she was actually nice and loved each and every one of her students. She cared. She really cared.

Yes Jana, she could get your attention with that”board of education” of hers.
It’s been 41 years now. I don’t know what kind of leeway those Nuns have now.
I know when I recieved an attention getter, I didn’t run home and tell my parents. They would have asked what “I” did to get a Nun to hit me. They would have came down on her side. Rightly so.

JimH,
They probablydon’t have as much leeway these days. If they tried those tactics now the parents would come unglued and sue or the kids would retaliate and hit her back. It just isn’t the same world.
I won’t allow my kids to take matters in their own hands. i tell them that is what I am here for.

Hi Jana, You say “That’s what I’m here for”.
That is the key. You are here for them and they know it.
Many children don’t have that. Keep up the good work.

People also need to be aware of the difference between “school choice” and “education choice”:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-269.html

Everyone deserves an education. But parents should have the right to send their children to the school they wish.

CAH, I respectfull disagree. Gun bans, gun-free zones, gun laws, gun restrictions and gun regulations do nothing to keep our children safe. Criminals are called criminals for a reason, they don’t abide by the same laws that the rest of us do.

No one says it’s going to be simple…bureaucrats and the anti-gun zealots are totally disconnected from the reality of the situation and will only endanger our children further.

“JeffH,”

YES – ANTI-GUN PEOPLE WILL BE A PROBLEM. BUT, GOING TO SCHOOL IS A DAY-TO-DAY EXERCISE. LET US SAY, A “THUG” IN A SCHOOL IS APPREHENDED WITHOUT INCIDENT; THOSE CHILDREN WILL BE AFRAID TO GO TO SCHOOL THE NEXT DAY. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON LEARNING BECAUSE THEIR MINDS WILL BE ON THE NEXT “THUG” BURSTING-THROUGH THE DOOR.

AS I STATED IN ANOTHER THREAD, WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE WITH A GUN ON-THE-HIP, YOUR EYES ARE CONTINUALLY FOCUSED ON THAT GUN. WHEN PEOPLE STAND IN LINE IN A BANK LOBBY, ARMED SECURITY OFTEN STANDS NEAR THAT LINE. PEOPLE WANT TO “HURRY-UP” AND GET OUT OF THAT BANK IN CASE THAT GUARD ACTUALLY DID “SPOT” TROUBLE.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, “Kinetic1.”

LAST FRIDAY, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) AND Blumenthal (D-CT) MADE YOUR POINT AS A COUNTER-RESPONSE TO National Rifle’s Association’s STANCE.

I ASSUMED EVERYONE KNEW THE AVERAGE “THUG” HAS BETTER “FIREPOWER” THAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT. IN ADDITION, I ALSO THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT “STREET PSYCHE” IN RELATION TO SHOOTING. WHEN A PERSON SHOOTS “WITHOUT A CARE IN THE WORLD,” THAT PERSON IS OFTEN “DEADLY ACCURATE.”

Columbine Law Enforcement PROVES THE POINT I MADE IN MY EARLIER COMMENTS – MARKSMANSHIP IS A KEY; BUT, IT IS SECONDARY TO HAVING “BALLS” – i. e., “RAW STREET GUTS.”

I refuse to read any posts by people who insist on shouting by using all large case letters. I request that everyone else do likewise, and quit responding to their posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

I have to agree with capitalist. Hit the cap lock button you annoying schmuck.

Christopher says — “AS I STATED IN MY EARLIER COMMENT, SCHOOL BOARDS WOULD HAVE MIGRAINES TRYING TO BALANCE QUALITY TEACHERS WITH QUALITY MARKSMANSHIP”.
So you think the teachers are smart enough to train our children but not smart enough to learn proper defensive techniques, Chris? Please.

Christopher Allen Horton,
PERSONALLY I THINK YOU ARE OFF – - – A LOT! All that in caps to show you what it looks like.
You stated
AS I STATED IN ANOTHER THREAD, WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE WITH A GUN ON-THE-HIP, YOUR EYES ARE CONTINUALLY FOCUSED ON THAT GUN. WHEN PEOPLE STAND IN LINE IN A BANK LOBBY, ARMED SECURITY OFTEN STANDS NEAR THAT LINE. PEOPLE WANT TO “HURRY-UP” AND GET OUT OF THAT BANK IN CASE THAT GUARD ACTUALLY DID “SPOT” TROUBLE._____________

You are wrong. When I go in a place and see an armed guard, I am thankful there is someone in there for our protection. I am still on alert. He may need my help. There might be a coward like you in there who will muck things up for the good guys and end up helping the bad guys.
Actually, most of the time you don’t make a lot of sense in what you say and you are in true form today.

“DaveH,”

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO I GAVE YOU CREDIT FOR BEING THE “TECHNICAL GURU” ON THIS SITE. I THOUGHT YOU HAD GREAT COMPREHENSION SKILLS.

I AM THE FIRST POSTER IN THIS THREAD. IF YOU HAD READ MY COMMENTS, YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN I THINK TEACHER QUALITY WOULD SUFFER IN FAVOR OF QUALITY MARKSMANSHIP.

“Jana,”

I DID NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR FIRST SENTENCE. I ASSUME YOU UTILIZED SOME TYPE OF PROFANITY.

“Jana,” IF YOU LIVE IN A LARGE CITY YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE BEING IN A BANK LOBBY – YOU WOULD HAVE HOPES OF BEING ABLE TO WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR “IN ONE PIECE.”

Christofpher Allen Horton,
I never use profanity on line or in person! I said what I meant, that I think you are off, a lot!
You always have to shout, and you seldom make a lot of sense.

“Jana” – FAIR ENOUGH.

The rules of engagement were different both for armed guards and police at the time of Columbine, namely “isolate and wait for SWAT”. Now it’s essentially “engage the shooter ASAP”.

“We didn’t know who the ‘bad guy’ was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who ‘they’ were”.

Big guns? And they didn’t have a clue who they were? That’s ridiculous, Kinetic.
Big bombs? But the bombs which they planted failed to go off, so how did these guards or policemen know anything at all about them? Leave it to Huffington Post to print such garbage.

The story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Shooting_begins_11:19_a.m.

Kinetic says — “One account does not prove anything one way or the other”.
Especially if the account is fallacious.
Then Kinetic says — “but it should end this constant chant of “if only someone on site had been carrying this would never have happened””.
It doesn’t prove anything, but it should end this chant? Ahh, you gotta love Liberal Progressive Logic.

DaveH,
With just an ounce of reason you could see the point, but that’s not your agenda, is it? My point was, as I’m sure you are well aware, that this one case (Columbine) does not prove that no school shooting would be stopped by armed guards, but it does show that the assumption that an armed guard would can not be supported either.

You see, the problem is that I tried to be fair an honest rather than present my argument as an absolute. You, on the other hand seem to need to support a false sense of superiority by undercutting opinions that you do not hold, even if it means misquoting, isolating context or just plain lying about the writer’s intention. What a waste of time.

Kinetic says — “You, on the other hand seem to need to support a false sense of superiority by undercutting opinions that you do not hold, even if it means misquoting, isolating context or just plain lying about the writer’s intention”.
Show me where I misquoted anybody, Kinetic.
Show me where I lied about the writer’s intention, Kinetic.

I pronounce you to be the Liar, Kinetic.

Kinetic1 says “Columbine High School had an armed guard on duty. A motorcycle cop was also near by and was on scene in minutes. Neither was able to stop the massacre of 15 people at the school. As Deputy Paul Smoker said,
“… But in chaotic situations, it’s often impossible to identify the “bad guy,” “There was an unknown inside a school. We didn’t know who the ‘bad guy’ was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who ‘they’ were.”____________

The ones being shot at inside knew who “They” were. The ones hiding from “THEY” knew who “They” were. If some of the teachers had weapons and were in the right positions to fire back a lot of lives could have been saved that day.
The reason I carry a gun is because a cop is too heavy!

DaveH,
Per Webster, your favorite as I recall;
fal·la·cious adjective \fə-ˈlā-shəs\
1: embodying a fallacy
2: tending to deceive or mislead : delusive

Now, what about the article I linked do you find fallacious? Do you not believe that a guard was on hand simply because it came from The Huffington Post? How about the National Review?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336338/columbine-had-armed-guard-daniel-foster
Is it the idea that some have expressed that a teacher inside would have done the job the deputy didn’t? Same article, the guard traded fire with the shooter in the parking lot.

Maybe it was the quote that you felt soured the article. Maybe you don’t believe a Deputy would say such things. Well, here’s a blow by blow from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
“Smoker saw the glass windows in the cafeteria flexing with the reverberations. The bombs were shaking the whole cafeteria and the noise, he said, was “unbelievable.”
“This was not the dope deal gone bad,” he later recounted. “There was an unknown inside a school. We didn’t know who the ‘bad guy’ was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who ‘they’ were. But they were hurting kids. I couldn’t imagine something like this happening.”
Dave, wasn’t it you who said:
“Big bombs? But the bombs which they planted failed to go off, so how did these guards or policemen know anything at all about them?”
Were you lying or just misinformed? I don’t know what FOX was reporting, but here’s a piece from the Denver Post:
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0420a.htm
“Show me where I misquoted anybody, Kinetic.” In this case, you didn’t, but I’ll be happy to point it out next time you do.
“Show me where I lied about the writer’s intention, Kinetic.” Well, either you were lying about my intention or you failed to understand the obvious, your choice. And I noticed that you left out isolating context, which you did when you chose to omit the Deputies explanation:
“… But in chaotic situations, it’s often impossible to identify the “bad guy,”
And then you had the nerve to belittle and question the honesty of an armed Deputy who risked his life to help those in danger. Class act there Dave.

Gee whiz Rob…weren’t you the one who accused DaveH of not sticking to the subject? You’re nothing more than a progressive shill and a hypocrit.

Nothing to say about psycos, Rush, or the ACLU?

Thanks. I’ve made my point.

How consistent the right is. When they have no “argument” they attack the poster.

Rob

No Rob, there’s no reason for me to address any of those…that’s your game to play, not mine.

I do not know of any Capitilist. As for your question if you are attacking me or more importantly someone I love yes I will try and disarm you. If you are not threatening anyone I will leave you alone.

Who are you kidding, Jeremy (aka Flashman)? You would run away as fast as your legs would carry you.

Dave if my life is in danger its fight or flight. My first instinct is protect myself and run. But if I cannot I will fight to protect myself. I think anyone would.

“DaveH” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

YOU ARE WRONG.

“Jeremy Leochner” IS NOT “Flashy.” I KNOW BECAUSE THESE TWO MALES TREAT ME DIFFERENTLY.

WHENEVER I REPLY TO “Mr. Leochner’s COMMENTS HE ALWAYS GIVES A RETURN-REPLY, WITH KINDNESS. BUT, WHEN I REPLY TO “Flashy’s” COMMENTS HE DOES NOT GIVE ME A RETURN-REPLY.

IN ADDITION, “Mr. Leochner” SEEMS TO BE MORE CULTURALLY ADVANCED THAN, “Flashy.”

And since when did this conversation become about you??? Dude, get a life!

“rocquedog,”

I WAS NOT MAKING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT ME.

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE WHO “HANG ONTO” DaveH’s “EVERY WORD.” SO, IF “DaveH” THINKS “Mr. Leochner” AND “Flashy” IS THE SAME PERSON, MANY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE HIM.

BY POINTING-OUT THE DIFFERENCES IN HOW THOSE TWO MALES TREAT ME, I WANTED TO GIVE DaveH, “FOOD FOR THOUGHT.”

Christopher,
Flashman and Jeremy Leochner were revealed by Bob Livingston to be commenting from the same computer.
Here:
http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341969

There are only two possibilities for that to occur. Flashman and Jeremy are the same commenter, or they share the same computer, like they might in a shill Boiler Room. Yet, Jeremy has denied several times that he knows anything about Flashman or the other 6 people that were using the same computer. What do you think the odds would be for that to be true, Chris?

If you don’t learn to read between the lines with chronic liars, Christopher, then you will be their victim.

“DaveH,”

THEN, I SAY TO YOU I BELIEVE “Mr. Leochner” AND “Flashy” ARE SHARING A COMPUTER IN A BOILER ROOM.

AS A HOMOSEXUAL, I READ A MALE’S WORDS IN THE SAME WAY A HETEROSEXUAL MALE WOULD READ A FEMALE’S LOVE LETTER.

SO, I PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SYNTAX, PHRASING AND CONTENT.

I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH “Mr. Leochner” ON MUSIC, LITERATURE, AGNOSTICISM AND OTHER CULTURAL TOPICS. ON THE OTHER HAND, “DaveH,” “Flashy” IS THE LIBERAL VERSION OF YOU; “Flashy” DISCUSSES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, ETC.

I WILL NEVER BELIEVE ONE BRAIN CAN BE SO MALICIOUSLY DIVERSE WITHOUT MAKING A MISTAKE.

“DaveH,”

I LOOKED AT YOUR LINK TO Bob Livingston’s COMMENTS.

SO, I SAY – THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS SITE WHO PARTICIPATE DAILY FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME. SINCE MANY OF YOU ARE SENIORS WHO MAY RECEIVE Social Security Checks ONLY, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE FOR TWO [OR, MORE] FRIENDS TO SHARE A COMPUTER.

“DaveH,” A FEW YEARS AGO SOME ILLEGAL MEXICANS HIT MY MOTHER’S VEHICLE, WHILE ON THEIR WAY TO BUY BEER BEFORE THE STORE’S CLOSING TIME. SIX MALES WERE IN THE MEXICANS’ VEHICLE AND, THEY ALL LIVED TOGETHER IN A TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT.

Dave as I have said numerous times just because Mr. Livingston says I share an IP address with others does not make it so. There is another person on here who has the name dave. I think its Dave67. I could easily suggest that you and he share the same IP address and it might easily come off as credible since you share a similar name. Of course as we both know that is not the truth. Just because I say something does not make it so. Just because Mr. Livingston says something does not make it so. I would like someone to present to me this supposed IP address and provide evidence. Because as it stands right now the only way that someone else is using my PC is if they are breaking into my house and coming on this computer. Though why anyone would do such a thing and not attempt to steal anything is beyond me. So I am left to believe that Mr. Livingston was mistaken in saying I share an IP address with others. And with all due respect Dave I believe you are mistaken in believing it without any evidence.

So you would have me take the word of a Liberal Progressive, who shows low moral fiber by helping himself to other peoples’ money, by using Government to dictate peoples’ personal choices, and who shows all the signs of a chronic liar, over that of Bob Livingston?
Dream on, Jeremy (aka Flashman).

“DaveH,”

I FEEL COMPELLED TO CHALLENGE YOU.

IN ANOTHER THREAD YOU CHALLENGED ME TO REPLY TO YOU WITHOUT GIVING A SHORT AND VAGUE ANSWER IN REFERENCE TO WHY YOU CALLED ME A LIBERAL. I GAVE YOU AN EXTENDED ANSWER, BUT, YOU DID NOT RETURN-REPLY.

NOW, IN THIS THREAD, YOU ARE UTILIZING Bob Livingston’s COMMENTS IN AN INACCURATE WAY. WHETHER OR NOT, THE NAMES Mr. Livingston LISTED SHARE AN IP-ADDRESS IS NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS, CAN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SHARE AN IP-ADDRESS. SO, “DaveH,” YOU CAN NOT UTILIZE THE “IP-ADDRESS ANGLE” AS PROOF OF “Mr. Leochner” AND “Flashy” BEING THE SAME PERSON. I ACCEPT “Mr. Leochner’s” REPLY TO YOU. [By the way, if you look at how "Mr. Leochner" replied, he typed in a way which is different from "Flashy's" style of writing].

“DaveH,” OF COURSE, WE ARE FREE TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS – BUT, THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN A PARTICULAR VIEW “STRIKES A CHORD,” IN ANOTHER PERSON.

One problem Dave. I don’t help myself to others money anymore than you do. I don’t use government to control other peoples choices. And I do not show all the signs of a chronic liar.

In addition and again Bob Livingston has no evidence of his theory. I do not have the same IP address as anyone else on this sight unless its possible for two computers in two completely different places to have the same IP address. I do subscribe to the possibility that there is someone in my city who may also go on this site or that someone hacked my computer, in which case they will be found out, or that Mr. Livingston is either mistaken or made it up. I respect your right to trust Mr. Livingston and accuse me of lying about who I am. But I would ask that you present some evidence of your claim beyond further accusations. Mr. Livingston and you say I have the same IP address as others. Would you please let me know what that IP address is.

Jeremy says — “One problem Dave. I don’t help myself to others money anymore than you do. I don’t use government to control other peoples choices”.
Sure you do, Jeremy, every time you vote for a Progressive you’re voting to take other peoples’ money.
And don’t bother me with your denials about the IP address, because I know you’re a liar, and you know you’re a liar, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
Whether you use a different computer now than when Bob caught you is of no consequence.

Dave I do not vote for progressives. There is no progressive party. I vote for the candidate whose views are similar to mine regardless of party. Also I am using the same computer now that I did when Mr. Livingston made that accusation. Again I would like to see some evidence. You say I am a liar yet you have no evidence.

“Jeremy Leochner,”

IT SEEMS “DaveH” IS DOING TO YOU, THE SAME THING HE DID TO ME. “DaveH” SEEMS TO ENJOY TREATING ADULTS LIKE, CHILDREN; THEN, WHEN THOSE ADULTS CONFRONT HIM HE “RUNS-AWAY.” A MAN IS SUPPOSED TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS. I WONDER IF “DaveH” ASKED “JeffH” TO ATTACK ME IN A LATER DISCUSSION. ["JeffH" seemed to have "came from out-of nowhere." I believe he and "DaveH" are "tight"].

Jeremy Leochner says:
“There is another person on here who has the name dave. I think its Dave67. I could easily suggest that you and he share the same IP address and it might easily come off as credible since you share a similar name. ”

Not even remotely close. You do not have credible access to the IP addresses (and email addresses) of posters on this website. Bob Livingston does.

“Christopher,
Flashman and Jeremy Leochner were revealed by Bob Livingston to be commenting from the same computer.
Here:
http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341969

There are only two possibilities for that to occur. Flashman and Jeremy are the same commenter, or they share the same computer, like they might in a shill Boiler Room. Yet, Jeremy has denied several times that he knows anything about Flashman or the other 6 people that were using the same computer. What do you think the odds would be for that to be true, Chris?” <—DaveH

Christopher and jeremy…way back when, the claim i was one of six or seven arose in comments by Mr. Livingston. he claimed an IP address was identical and the six (or 7) he listed were all one person. Despite protests and denials by everyone listed..which was somewhat humorous as there were conservative and progressive writers in the group often times flaming each other in posts…Mr. Livingston had to stick with his claim or lose cred.

Davey boy, unable to converse intelligently, famed for pasting links he never reads (often stating exactly the opposite of what he claims the article/paper states), and known for being unable to comprehend anything more complex than a singular simplistic thought process … uses it often to denigrate and deflect.

Mr. Livingston cannot 9understandably) correct the claims..and I have never asked him to past that first day when i sat in utter amazement trying to figure out what the claim was based on…and Davey by doesn't count. just ignore his comments on the subject … it shows his character and minimizes what little reputation he has. I guess it makes him feel like someone of importance when he can belittle an argument with denigration and not by debate.

“Flashy” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW I AM AGREEING WITH YOU BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF “DaveH” AND “JeffH” PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT.

I HAVE NEVER HAD “ONE BAD WORD” WITH “JeffH,” UNTIL YESTERDAY. I THOUGHT HIS ATTACK WAS VERY STRANGE.

I HAVE BASICALLY “CALLED DaveH OUT” – STILL, NO RESPONSE.

AS I THINK YOU KNOW, “Flashy,” A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I STATED IN THE “1st Amendment” THREAD THAT I AM THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO MAKES EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS WITH PEOPLE I HAVE NEVER SEEN. THIS IS WHY I GOT ENGAGED IN THIS SITUATION. “Mr. Leochner” IS NICE TO ME. I APPRECIATE THAT. “Flashy” – YOU ARE NOT NICE TO ME. THAT IS FINE, YOU OWE ME NOTHING. I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT YOU – NOW – AS I DID THE FIRST TIME I SAW YOUR MONIKER.

BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION, MY PICTURE OF “DaveH” IS BECOMING MORE CLEAR AND I HAVE A “WAIT-AND-SEE” ATTITUDE WITH “JeffH.”

Wow, Flashman has the Screamer on his side. I’m not impressed.

Flashshill says — “Despite protests and denials by everyone listed”.
Now there’s another lie from Flashman.
Show us Flashman that everyone listed denied it.
Only 4 of the people who were on Bob’s list (out of 9) denied it. Those were Jovianus, Flashman, Mick, and Jeremy. Jovianus made one protest and then disappeared. Mick protested vociferously, kind of like Jeremy persistent repetitive comments, and we heard from him only once, months later and briefly, after a long period of silence.

And now the administration shill Flashman is also (in addition to Jeremy) calling Bob Livingston a liar. Funny isn’t it, that they would both be taking that rather extreme path on the same board? Imagine having these disrespectful people in your house? But what else do you expect from Liberal Progressives who think your property should be theirs for the taking?

There will be only one reason now for these defilers of civility to be allowed to remain on this board and that will be that Bob considers them to be harmless, since we have proved over and over again that they lack any credibility.

Those who would like to investigate can go here:
http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341969

Here is just one of many examples of Flashman’s lack of credibility.
He plagiarizes somebody else’s work, as if it is his own, in order to make himself look intelligent (his typical pretentious behavior), but unfortunately the article was full of misinformation that any real sniper would know to be Bull Scat. And more unfortunately, for the liar Flashman, I found the article and exposed him for what he is. Notice, if you follow the thread that he continues in his foolish defense for quite some time until I proved his plagiarizing beyond a shadow of a doubt:
http://personalliberty.com/2012/01/25/your-choice-ron-paul-or-a-wheelbarrow/#comment-517886

This is a guy who expects people to take his word over Bob Livingston’s word? Dream on.

“DaveH,”

YOU PROVE I AM RIGHT BY CALLING ME, “Screamer,” INSTEAD OF, “Christopher.” IF YOU CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH YOU RELATE TO ME – NOW – THAT TELLS ME A LOT ABOUT OUR PAST COMMUNICATIONS.

“DaveH,” IF I HAVE SOMETHING NEGATIVE TO SAY TO YOU, I WILL CALL YOU, “DaveH.”

CAH says “I WONDER IF “DaveH” ASKED “JeffH” TO ATTACK ME IN A LATER DISCUSSION. ["JeffH" seemed to have "came from out-of nowhere." I believe he and "DaveH" are "tight"].” As much as you’d like to think you’ve got it figured out, you ain’t even in the ballpark.

DaveH and JeffH have become targets of the progressive shills for one very simple reason. We have, especially DaveH, become a threat to the progressive messengers that do their best to disrupt and feed their mis-information to this website.

One fact is that JeffH and DaveH aren’t, nor have they ever been, co-ordinating nor communicating about making “secret” attacks on anybody here or anywhere else.

I’ve been posting here for 3+ years and DaveH was here when I started posting.

Feel free to pose these questions to Mr. Livingston or PLD…that is if you trust them.

He says he lives in Arizona and I know live in California. In that 3+ years time I’ve come to respect and trust DaveH for his honesty, integrity and morality.

I do not trust nor respect one word from the paid progressive shill calling himself Flashy and his proven multiple personalities. And yes, Flashy has admitted in the past that he gets paid to be here.

LMAO now! Paranoia mind destroy ya!

I’m rapidly losing respect for you CAH.

You may choose to believe or not believe what Falsy[Flashy] has to say, that’s your choice. Just be warned, he will take advantage of you and use you to his advantage if you let him.

Saul Alinsky wrote “Rules for Radicals” and had this to say:

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it”

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties….do and say whatever it takes to gain power.”

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with…”he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing”….To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….”

“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises….
“The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

CAH, I’ll add that because you decided to include me in your conspiracy I have taken time some to answer you, out of respect. I wouldn’t and won’t waste my time explaining myself to the progressives and their shills. They would like nothing more than to put someone in a defensive posture…I believe in a strong offense.

Make of it what you want…I know exactly where I stand.

“JeffH,”

I AM NOT TRYING TO FIGURE-OUT ANYTHING. HOW SO-CALLED “PROGRESSIVES” RELATE TO YOU AND “Dave H” IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, I PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO “TIME-AND-DATE STAMPS.”

AFTER I MADE THE COMMENT TO “DaveH” ABOUT NOT GIVING ME A RETURN REPLY ABOUT TEN DAYS AGO, I LEFT MY COMPUTER FOR AWHILE. WHEN I RETURNED, I SAW YOUR COMMENT, BUT, NO COMMENT FROM “DaveH.” ["DaveH" made a comment to someone else at 10:10 AM (this morning); so, I assumed he saw the comments I had typed.].

“JeffH,” IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY, YOU WIN BY DEFAULT. I HAVE TYPED EVERYTHING ON MY MIND IN REFERENCE TO THIS ISSUE.

Christopher,
I rarely read your all caps comments. And I don’t know what makes some of you people think I have to respond to your every question.

Jeff,
Thank you for your kind words. The feeling is mutual. I have nothing but respect for your intelligence, knowledge, and morality.

CAH, whatever floats your boat! It ain’t about winning or losing. Just leave me out of your beef’s with others, quit making your “thin skinned” assumptions and we’ll get along just fine, otherwise I will respond in kind.

I’m with you Capitalist at Birth; Most talk a good game but, when the chips are down, they are cowards who love living on the left wing plantation. If one of these cowards ever become men, they can try and take my gun and I’ll gladly give it to them, one bullet at a time. I spent 12 years in the Marine Corps defending the Constitution that the left hates but, like good little nazi’s and marxist they are blind to what is really going on. They kicked God out of schools and evil was waiting to take His place but, since they worship at the altar of atheist, homosexuals and the totally immoral, they will soon see a judgement that will drive them underground crying for fear.

Capitalist: You sound DANGEROUS, you take liberals too seriously, they will try to out run a bullet to no avail, then ask himself, (as he bleeds.)”Oh to have had a weapon!” The writing is on the wall, EVERYONE is arming himself. If a gun hater does not, then he may pay the toll. Check out the gun shops, pickings getting mighty slim. Let’s all go over the boarder and buy a “fast&furious” gun.

In a small town in my area, police tried to subdue a man with pepper spray, and he put three of them in the hospital, with nothing more than his bare hands. I guess the whackos would want to cut his hands off.

Larry pepper spray and stun guns affect the body the same regardless of weapon. Spraying peppery spray into someones eyes works the same if they have a knife or a gun. It blinds them and gives you time to disarm them or escape. If you are elderly perhaps a gun might be better though.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Larry pepper spray and stun guns affect the body the same regardless of weapon. Spraying peppery spray into someones eyes works the same if they have a knife or a gun. It blinds them and gives you time to disarm them or escape.”

Not quite but not surprising you think not of what you have no experience.
For your enlightenment I offer thus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri92rg22GnE
Go ahead run. You’ll only die tired.

Okay Vicki someone who is trained can handle it. However I will point out that the Sandy Hook killer had no such experience as far as we know. And if pepper spray does not work perhaps stun guns or tasers could be more effective.

Vicki,
good point, and for the stun gun, my husband had to have it used on him during practice and it didn’t work on him. He was able to overcome that thing like it hadn’t been used on him.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Okay Vicki someone who is trained can handle it. However I will point out that the Sandy Hook killer had no such experience as far as we know. And if pepper spray does not work perhaps stun guns or tasers could be more effective”

Do you really need me to provide you with the proofs of those failures?

Now show me a bad guy that can train to not suffer major central nervous system disruption from properly placed gunshots of sufficient caliber and placement.

Got any more red herrings or straw-men for us to amuse ourselves with.

Vicki if you have proof that the sandy hook killer was experienced in being hit by pepper spray or stun guns or tasers than I will admit I am wrong. If not I will continue to believe that such weapons in capable hands are just as capable of taking down an armed threat as a gun.

Jeremy (aka Flashman),
Vicki nailed you good, and your response was to try to equivocate you way out of it.
That is exactly the same kind of behavior we get from Flashman.
I’ve personally known three chronic liars in my lifetime, and they always did that same thing when caught red-handed. That’s the hallmark of a chronic liar — they never admit to their lies.

Here is one of a man overcoming a taser and still mounting a ferocious attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_iY

Does anybody think those or pepper spray (and both requiring relatively short range) would have stopped a well-armed rabid killer?

Dave I am not lying. I sincerely believe what I say. In regards to non lethal forms of defense, and I am not saying I am against carrying knives, I believe that if the killer is not expecting it or if he is not experienced it or if he is not trained to deal with it it can work. And I believe that something is better then nothing. Those teachers in Sandy Hook had nothing and several had to lose their loves as a result. I believe that if even one or two of the teachers had had tasers or pepper spray than maybe it could have turned out differently. I am not trying to equivocate out of anything. I sincerely believe that someone armed with both self defense training and pepper spray and or tasers or stun guns is much better off then someone armed with nothing.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“And I believe that something is better then nothing.”

So why then do you object to the something being a gun?

-Jeremy: “I believe that if even one or two of the teachers had had tasers or pepper spray than maybe it could have turned out differently.”

And if one or 2 of them had a firearm than maybe it could have turned out differently.

-Jeremy: “I am not trying to equivocate out of anything. I sincerely believe that someone armed with both self defense training and pepper spray and or tasers or stun guns is much better off then someone armed with nothing.”

And if they are armed with a gun they are MUCH better off then someone armed with tazers or pepper spray.

Evidence already submitted above.

The only question remaining is why you are against providing them with the BEST tools of self defense yet invented?

Speaking of uses of tools, here is pepper spray used to disable a store owner so the thieves could steal stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZ9gwGoJk0

Looks like if we are going to remove guns cause they are used in robberies we need to remove pepper spray too.

The reason for my statements Vicki as I have said elsewhere is having teachers carry guns will only encourage students too. I cannot accept that. And as I have said the chances of a student bringing a gun to school are much higher than the chances of a mass shooting. I would rather prevent the more likely problem than prepare for the less likely.

Your argument is bogus, Jeremy (aka Flashman), and I’m sure you know that.
We could make the same bogus argument — Letting the police carry guns only encourages the citizens to carry guns.

When you Force people to be disarmed and they become victims, their blood is on your hands, Jeremy. You are nothing better than the typical Liberal Progressive Forcer who will whine that people should have choices, but only in the case of killing unborn children.

Whether those teachers arm themselves or not is none of your business, Jeremy (aka Flashman). If you don’t like that, then vote for school choice and send your children to the helpless schools.

DaveH says:
“Your argument is bogus, Jeremy (aka Flashman), and I’m sure you know that.
We could make the same bogus argument — Letting the police carry guns only encourages the citizens to carry guns.”

I don’t know about citizens in general but criminals are certain to be encouraged to carry guns. Thus we should disarm the police. Ask England how that’s working out for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9553111/Do-we-really-want-to-arm-our-police.html

Jeremy Leochner says:
“The reason for my statements Vicki as I have said elsewhere is having teachers carry guns will only encourage students too. I cannot accept that.”

Proof by bald assertion. Just stop asserting it and you can stop having to accept it.

-Jeremy: “And as I have said the chances of a student bringing a gun to school are much higher than the chances of a mass shooting.”

Indeed there is evidence that more students bring a gun to school then mass shootings or even shootings happen. This however helps OUR point that guns do NOT cause crime.

-Jeremy: “I would rather prevent the more likely problem than prepare for the less likely.”

False assumption that students carrying guns is a problem.
Here is just ONE example of a student who demonstrated the ability to properly handle a gun. (This was not at school but that is not the point either)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw

Here is another student demonstrating real “gun control”. Good thing his parents didn’t lock up their safety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

And here is another. This child is 10 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhB0G-k3Y2k

And another
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrESAKfGmmM

And another
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz3VX1ZAqoA

Pray tell DaveH… Just what does your comment have to do with the discussion? Is your implied accusation going to impact gun control at all?

Oh, and thank you for yet another example of a cheap shot from the right.

Rob

Listen to that. The Robert Pot calling the Kettle Black.

Actually Dave I did this crazy thing. I spent most of the last few days with my family for Christmas. And when I decided to come on this site I saw an article that I wanted to comment on. I imagine for you it was a similar story.

With all due respect Dave are you suggesting that someone like say a drug dealer is less likely to need a gun in case of danger then say someone in a small sub urban town. A criminal often involves themselves with other criminals depending on the crime. And some do carry weapons around that they do not necessarily use for crimes. As you said they often do not care whether their weapons are legal or not. However sometimes its the very illegality of their weapons that is a give away to police. Laws involving gun control such as registration of gun owners are not simply to prevent insane people from getting guns. Its to help law enforcement to find and catch criminals either before they commit their crimes or at the least catch them once they have committed them.

Jeremy, do you really believe criminals are going to use a registered weapon? If it is registered they probably stole it or bought it on the black market.

Criminals do sometimes. And even if they stole it and left it it can provide a clue to law enforcement. Criminals obtain things illegally because it is easier to do so then legally. If there was no registration of gun owners I would imagine fewer criminals would have qualms about purchasing weapons legally.

Jeremy says — “With all due respect Dave are you suggesting that someone like say a drug dealer is less likely to need a gun in case of danger then say someone in a small sub urban town”.
With all due respect, Jeremy (aka Flashman), you can read my comment to see what I was saying. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Jeremy says — “However sometimes its the very illegality of their weapons that is a give away to police. Laws involving gun control such as registration of gun owners are not simply to prevent insane people from getting guns. Its to help law enforcement to find and catch criminals either before they commit their crimes or at the least catch them once they have committed them”.

The very illegality of their weapons is a give away to the police? What kind of illogical double-speak is that?
Registration laws help law enforcement to find and catch criminals? More nonsense.

For those with some common sense. This is what registration leads to:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

But thank you, Jeremy (aka Flashman), for being my Foil. Without you it would be less likely that I’d spend the time presenting people with the truth that they won’t get from you Liberal Progressive shills.

As to your first post Dave I completely misread your statement. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I am sincerely sorry for my mistake.

In regards to your second post. When police are investigating a suspect that suspect being found with an unregistered weapon is a dead give away to the police that this person has something to hide. Just as a fake license can help identify identity thieves so unregistered guns can help identify criminals.

Jeremy says — “If more people were allowed to carry concealed guns legally it would make it just a smidge easier for criminals to hide their weapons”.

And it would make it a LOT harder for criminals to use their weapons. What was your point?

That criminals would be better able to conceal their weapons Vicki.

Jeremy, their is absolutely no sound logic in your inference that legal issued concealed carry weapons permits in the hands of law abiding citizens make it any easier for criminals to conceal their illegal weapons. That’s absolutely ludicrous!

Where does that logic come from, certainly not from a logical mind.

“That criminals would be better able to conceal their weapons Vicki.”

Just how does that work Jeremy? Lets say I have a concealed permit. Just how does my permit make it easier for someone else (a criminal) to conceal his weapon? Please tell us how that works.

hahahaha, I was wondering the same thing. I think maybe he thinks they have more places on their bodies that they can hide a gun than a person with a concealed weapons permit does. ??????
He either needs to explain a whole lot better, or that was definitely not one of his brightest comments. Still laughing over this one.

Jeremy Leochner says about his point:
“That criminals would be better able to conceal their weapons Vicki.”

So that is your point. Now what argument or evidence do you want to supply to try and prove your point.

Note that your point is irrelevant as we have already ascertained that even if it were true the about of “better” is massively overridden by the deterrent of more law abiding citizens being armed and able to stop the criminal’s use of their weapon.

If a criminal has a concealed gun permit he cannot be stopped or questioned should his gun be seen by anyone. It allows him to hide in plain sight. Where as without a permit a criminal would need to be more careful in concealing his gun till just the right moment or if it was noticed that he was carrying a weapon by say a cop than he would probably be arrested or cited. At any rate it would be more difficult for him than if he could just whip out his permit and be allowed to go on his merry way.

Jeremy says “If a criminal has a concealed gun permit he cannot be stopped or questioned should his gun be seen by anyone.”

Criminals can’t get “concealed gun permits” Jeremy…DUH, they’re criminals.

Jeremy, please take heed…”Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
-DAL

Jeff just because someone is a criminal or intends to commit crime does not mean it is obvious and known. A criminal does not walk around with a big sign that says “I commit crimes and intend to commit more”. We have to find them out before we can stop them.

Thank you for posting, Jeremy (aka Flashman). How else can we expose the Liberal Progressive lack of moral and logical integrity to the readers?

Jeremy, your reasoning is circular at best. I realize I’ve wasted my time and yours(or Falsy’s). You said a few days ago, I believe, that you are 23 y/o…you obviously haven’t any clue about guns, gun ownership, criminals, law abiding citizens, gun laws, gun permits, concealed carry permits other than the propaganda you’ve swallowed.

Grow up and smell the coffee Jeremy…you got a lot of learning to do before you become an adult.

Jeff Everyone who believes strongly in their argument will always try to come back to how right they are. I am not a very good debater I admit that. And I admit I have a lot to learn. With respect I believe anyone could be accused of having circular logic if they continue to support their argument and come back to it. You pointed out a flaw in my argument and I responded by saying it is not in fact a flaw and proposed an example of why it is not. You then said I have circular logic. Are you saying it is circular logic to support your own argument and defend it when people try and poke holes in it if the holes may not be there.

Also Dave don’t judge liberals on me. Just as I don’t judge conservatives based on you. Judge individuals by their own actions.

I’ve seen no Liberal Progressives on this board yet, Jeremy, that don’t share your penchant for dishonesty, lack of logic, lack of facts, and theft of other peoples’ money.
The NeoCon Progressive Leaders are not good people either, but at least their Followers on this board haven’t shown an inclination for denial when they’re caught with their pants down, like you Liberal Progressives do.
It seems that the smell of other peoples’ money makes you guys a little loopy.

How do you know they are liberal progressives Dave. Do they identify themselves as such. And even so you cannot generalize about an entire ideology based on a few people who claim to or appear to adhere to it. Not all conservatives or libertarians are like the ones on this site. Like wise so not all liberals or progressives are like the ones on this site.

Actually, yes you can. Progressives believe that they are not responsible for themselves. That others owe them things – not that they have the right to earn thsoe things for themselves. That it is okay for others to tell them what to think, what is important and rarely question .and they stand for most of the groups that have “isms” added to the name. Green energy is usually a euphorism for Agenda 21, 98% of the time.
Regulations is UN”s Agenda 21 also (communism, fascism, socialism) all “regulate” everything.

They want everyone disarmed, because then if they do not obey they are more easily “depopulated”.

Actually both the “conservatives” and “libertarians” today are progressive – read communist, socialist, fascist. What they both espouse in government is BIG government controlling everything. Very NON American. Treasonous even

Jeremy Leochner says:
“If a criminal has a concealed gun permit he cannot be stopped or questioned should his gun be seen by anyone. ”

What is the property of a concealed gun permit that protects the holder from being stopped and or questioned should the gun become visible? or at all.

The reason I ask is that these concealed gun permit holders want to know so they can avoid the hassle of being stopped by the police to see their “papers” (Carry permit).
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/07/21/video-canton-police-officer-goes-crazy-during-concealed-carry-arrest

Jeremy Leochner says:
“How do you know they are liberal progressives Dave. ”

We know by what they say. Either they are or they are shills being paid to say liberal progressive ideology.

Well Vicki the whole point of a concealed gun permit is to show proof that you are permitted to carry a concealed gun. If a policeman sees someone carrying a concealed weapon and they are doing something suspicious, I will admit suspicious is an ambiguous term, they can ask to see their permit. I do not want people to be hassled. But whats the point of people having concealed gun permits if they do not have to show them if asked to. You can’t just let someone drive without a license.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Well Vicki the whole point of a concealed gun permit is to show proof that you are permitted to carry a concealed gun. If a policeman sees someone carrying a concealed weapon and they are doing something suspicious, I will admit suspicious is an ambiguous term, they can ask to see their permit.”

Your statement (December 29, 2012 at 1:32 am) was
“If a criminal has a concealed gun permit he cannot be stopped or questioned should his gun be seen by anyone. It allows him to hide in plain sight.”

So precisely how is a policeman going to stop or question this person since you clearly stated that he can not be stopped or questioned? (Note that “policeman” is a subset of “anyone”.)

I do not think that you have explained how a concealed carry permit will allow a criminal to hide in plain sight. (We are ignoring for the moment that it is not possible because criminals can’t get them)

Yes Vicki I did stick my foot in my mouth with that statement. I will try not to this time. A person can commit crimes and not get caught or identified. As such it would be possible for them to get a concealed gun permit. If such a person is carrying a gun that they intend to use in a crime and they are stopped for whatever reason and their gun is discovered they can simply show they have a permit and they will be permitted to continue on. And as a result even though the police may know this person has a gun they will not stop them. In that sense a criminal can hide in plain sight. On the other hand if concealed gun permits were not allowed or not given in certain cities or areas than the criminal would not have any excuse to be carrying a weapon. And if they were stopped for something not directly related to the crime they either had or intended to commit and their weapon was discovered it would be enough for the police to do something. I admit its a long walk and a lot of mights and maybes but are there not some mights and maybes when it comes to personal protection or law and order. I guess for me I want to find a way to protect people that does not require them to protect themselves. I do not want people to have to walk the streets thinking they need a gun to be safe. So where do I turn too. I turn to the police and the legal system. And I try and consider how we can reform and improve it.

Kansas Bright (apparently not so) says — “Actually both the “conservatives” and “libertarians” today are progressive”.
Do you even know what a Progressive is KB?
Do you even know what a Libertarian is KB?

Read this, because you don’t:
http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.pdf

Yes, Dave, I do know what a “progressive” is – the ‘new’ ones and the original onews here in the USA, plus the differences between them. Do YOU?

I even know what a Libertarian is – surprised? Again, the older Libertarians are much different then the ones today.

I have a few questions for you. Do you know what was done in “Hitler’s” Germany that is being done here in the USA today? Were you aware that the takeover of the legitimate constitutional government in Germany was done over decades, like here? Let me know if any of this sounds familiar to you.

The chief instrument of keeping cohesion in plan and action was the National Socialist German Workers Party. First they were to infiltrate the legitimate government and from within bring about “change”.

Some of their (NSGWP) declared purposes sounded good to many good citizens, such as: “profit-sharing in the great industries,” {Very similar to “Take from the 1% and share with all”}

“raising the standard of health.” {Obamacare}

The Party said that a “strong centralized government” was needed. {Same as they are currently saying we need here in the USA}.

and a “reconstruction” of the educational system. {Same as they are saying we need here in the USA}.

The Nazi plans were for the overthrow of, and then the “capture” of the legitimate central government so they could change it to what they wanted. {Happening here – how much of our Constitution, our legitimate government is now being followed? Is Obama following the blueprint for the Executive branch? Did Bush or Clinton follow it?}

The Party was organized to take over power in the German State by creating the appearance of the support of a majority of the German people

There was practiced violent interference with German elections. {New Black Panthers – Washington Post: The lawsuit was focused on the party and two of its members, who stood out front of a polling place in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008 wearing military gear. They were captured on video and were accused of trying to discourage some people from voting. One carried a nightstick.}

There were reports of the SD describing in detail how its members later violated the secrecy of elections in order to identify those who opposed them. {(2008) Election Fraud – Fox News: The Democratic presidential primary petitions that put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the 2008 primary ballot in Indiana are the focus of a criminal investigation. There are allegations that numerous signatures and names on the petitions were forged, so many in fact, that questions have been raised as to whether now-President Obama even qualified with enough legal signatures to get on the primary ballot in the first place. Don’t forget that The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?}

A separate government was set up within the legitimate government within the Party to exercise outside the law every sanction that any legitimate state could exercise and many that it could not {Obama’s “Czars”, TSA, DHS}.

The Party had its own secret police, its security units, its intelligence and espionage division, its raiding forces, and its youth forces {DHS, TSA, look up “Obama youth”, etc on youtube.com}.

It also established administrative mechanisms over time to identify those who supported the legitimate government {Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless searches, warrantless spying, TSA, etc}.

They “encouraged” the populace to inform on their own neighbors, friends, family {“See Something, Say Something”, and other videos the DHS put out here in America}.

“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.” Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials

Eventually they organized and dominated every phase of German life {as is being tried here thru the UN laws, and executive orders, bills, laws made here}.

They created a “Party” police system, which became the pattern and the instrument of the police state, which was the first goal in their plan. {DHS and TSA – starting to arrange themselves throughout our nation to control our every move and where we can go: at airports, bus stations, train stations, even on our own roads. The conscription of the media was done here first because they learned from their pst mistakes}

A presidential decree was created suspending the extensive guarantees of individual liberty contained in the constitution of the Weimar Republic. Those decree’s were restrictions on personal liberty,
on the right of free expression of opinion – including freedom of the press,
on the right of peaceful assembly, the right of association,
and violations of the privacy: postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications;
and no need for warrants for house-searches,
orders for, confiscations as well as restrictions on property, etc all taken away under the guise of “keeping the people safe”. {much like what is happening within the USA today, as all of the “restrictions” on our freedoms are “for our own safety”}

Many were arrested as “belligerents” – no real crime committed, just disagreeing with the destruction of their legitimate government.

But not this suspension of the Weimar Constitution – this action left the Nazi police and party formations (already existing and functioning under Hitler) in control – completely unrestrained and irresponsible. {DHS, TSA, etc}

Secret arrest and indefinite detention; without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, and no court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men who wanted to rule the world. {NDAA, Patriot Act, various executive orders, warrantless arrests, New World Order, etc}

Question: The concept then was to “control the world”; the concept now is to make a “one-world government”. What is the difference????

The Nazi conspiracy, as was shown during the Nuremberg trail, always contemplated not just about overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not be reconciled with its philosophy of the state. It not only sought to establish the Nazi “new order” but to secure its sway, as Hitler predicted, “for a thousand years.” {US Army Re-Education Camp Manual – describes how political activists in prison camps will be indoctrinated by specially assigned psychological operations officers. US detention camps will have PSYOP teams whose responsibility will be to use “indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes,” as well as targeting “political activists” with such indoctrination programs to provide “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.” It applies to citizens detained within the USA, whether they be DCs (displaced citizens) or “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”
It’s the responsibility of the PSYOP officer to “control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.”
“Resettlement conducted as a part of civil support operations will always be conducted in support of another lead agency (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security)”. Page 13 notes how “U.S. citizens will be confined separately from detainees,” meaning they will be separated from foreign prisoners in the camps.
On page 146 of the manual, we learn how prisoners in the camps are to be identified: “The prisoner’s last name, first name, and middle initial are placed on the first line of a name board, and the prisoner’s social security number is placed on the second line.”
The document clearly shows that the policies outlined in the manual can be applied domestically. The language makes it clear that so long as the President passes an executive order to nullify Posse Comitatus, the law that forbids the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement, the policies “may be performed as domestic civil support operations.”
The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.”}

The conspiracy went into its second phase. Religions that supported peace, liberties, individual choices instead of the “common good” had to be ended. Religious persecution was clothed in the language of religious liberty, “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State…”so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race.” {Notice that there are all kinds of religious persecutions going on today against Christianity}.

This takeover from within the German regime itself did not just happen; it was planned and prepared for over a long period of time and with no small skill and cunning. Their seizure of the German State, the takeover of the legitimate government there, their subjugation of the German people, their terrorism and extermination of dissident elements, all these are ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another and more ambitious one. The intricate web of organizations, which these men formed and then utilized to accomplish these ends of destroying the legal government there and installing their own.
{The same long-term planning and preparation, the takeover of our legitimate government, etc are paralleling that of the past in Germany. The people are doing nothing, as happened in Germany. The elected representatives the people sent to the different branches of our government are working against us here – but who are the “behind the scenes players” that our reps are assisting in the destruction of the USA? What will their (US reps) payoff be for assisting in the downfall of the country and people who put them into “high” places within our legitimate government – the same as other past traitors who were murdered off by overthrowers as “untrustworthy”, or because when they are betrayed by the ones they assisted into power that they would become “enemies of the state”? How can they be trusted to support the “new” regime when they sold out the old one that had placed them in positions of power? History shows that the dupes used to implement these actions are always murdered afterwards.}

Much of this information (and LOTS more) comes from Opening statement by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials.

Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials
“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”. {About the USA}

Another long comment – but I am tired of those who will not bother to educate themselves; putting the rest of the nation in danger.

When the people are sovereign, like here, they have a RESPONSIBILITY to hold those who serve in their governments – yes, we do have more then one government here; the federal government with its specific assigned duties and the states republican form of government – responsibile for their actions. Not only that, but to not let some group or organization tell them what to think, who to elect because then that laziness gives those who crave more power an easy road to it.

Nor can you (generic “you”) hold the schools accountable for your non education, as the ease of continueing education today on your own is substantically different from what those beginning our country had and the educated among them were better educated then our “best” today.

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “I guess for me I want to find a way to protect people that does not require them to protect themselves”.
There is no such thing. If you can’t protect yourself then you are deluded to think anybody else can or will do that for you.
And we don’t want your protection, Jeremy. You can’t even think straight. And you use the Government as your bully boys to Forcibly take property from other people. Why would anybody think you could possibly be protection for them? Who protects us from you?
We want you Liberal Progressives NOT to Force your way on the rest of us. You are no different than rapists who also get off on Forcing their way on other people.

Dave I never said people should not be able to protect themselves. I said they should not have too. Having a responsible police force and an accountable government provides better protection for the people. If the people make sure to be politically active and hold their representatives accountable they can make the government better. As for me I am not trying to force anything on you or anyone. Like you I have my beliefs and values and depending on how strongly I feel about them I may wish to support legislation that reflects what I want and what I believe is right. I do that just like any other American. If you are truly afraid of me Dave you have a Republican government to protect you. You have the freedoms of speech and expression and petition for a redress of grievances.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Dave I never said people should not be able to protect themselves.”

You just don’t want them to protect themselves with the BEST tools for the job.

-Jeremy: ‘I said they should not have too.”

Since they do have to. No what?

-Jeremy: “Having a responsible police force and an accountable government provides better protection for the people.”

Better is STILL NOT BEST. But it is better. That is why we had one. With a Constitution and everything. Then the liberal/progressives came.

-Jeremy: “If the people make sure to be politically active and hold their representatives accountable they can make the government better.”

How’s that working out for you. We see how good the current representatives are at being accountable. (Nancy “WE have to pass this bill so YOU can find out what is in it” Pelosi comes to mind. And she was re-elected soon after that speech.

If you REALLY want to get politically active try http://www.downsizeDC.org

-Jeremy: ” As for me I am not trying to force anything on you or anyone.”

Which is why people like you and Karolyn hire government thugs to take other peoples money and spend them on your pet social causes.

-Jeremy: “Like you I have my beliefs and values and depending on how strongly I feel about them I may wish to support legislation that reflects what I want and what I believe is right.”

Such as violating the Constitution by passing laws restricting the ownership of firearms that are particularity suited to the use of the militia. Yes we understand this about you.

Our forefathers did too which is why they created the Constitution as a set of explicit powers that could be delegated to government and a SPECIFIC list of powers that could NOT be delegated to it even if a majority of people or a majority of their representatives want to.

Not that the Constitution is having any serious limiting effect on the now runaway government in DC.

Dave H; Getting a permit to carry is like registering for the draft, big government can find you, and take it away! Known felons should be accessed on the internet similar to sex offenders, then we may be more alert to that shadowy figure.

CPA

As to your first main point. A psychopath specifically a suicidal one is rarely if ever intimidated. The threat that the students may be armed or the teachers is not likely to stop him from trying. For crying out loud Columbine had armed guards. The shooters who were students knew that and they still came. The threat of guns in school wont stop someone who is insane. Though it may encourage more students to bring guns.

As to your second point. Again suicidal psychopaths cannot be reasoned with or intimidated and we cannot base our lives and policies on the most crazy among us. As to my naivety I never suggested get rid of the second amendment. I like guns and feel people do at times need them for protection. And even if they do not it is their right to keep and bear them, that’s what the constitution says. The only place where I feel severe restrictions if not bans on guns must be made is in schools. I refuse to believe that having guns in schools when there is not a mass murdering psychopath, which there rarely is, makes them more safe.

And I can add evidence to that with my answer to your third point. My school has a strict no gun policy. It was founded and has maintained that policy since 1958. And like yours there have never been any instances of shootings mass or otherwise. So if history is any indication its that not having guns in school does not increase the risk of a school shooting mass or otherwise.

Jeremy,

My point was not to “intimidate” suicide gunmen in schools nor to reason with them over fear for their own life. It is to kill them or stop them – as soon as possible after they start shooting to limit the lives lost of the innocent.

The mentality portion of the argument – the shooter wants a high death toll and to go out in a blaze of glory. It is not due to fear or intimidation of their own death but rather practicality of purpose of what they are looking for. If they realize they will not get the numbers of death tolls they want (because they will be shot dead sooner rather than later) and total death toll includes 0-3 others and themselves rather than 26 babies and themselves – it may cause them to go elsewhere for their cause. If not – we should be ready to defend our children and shoot them dead on the spot – not waiting for SWAT. (Ways to accomplish this being discussed elsewhere on this site). But removing guns for a “gun free zone” is not the way to protect – that just puts lambs in the slaughter line for these types.

There is no way to stop them from ever starting as we as of now cannot identify them before hand.

I can respect that CPA. All I am saying is I do not think it likely for someone who is suicidal to think about things like death tolls. Simply walking into a school and shooting and being shot by the police or by teachers could just as easily gain someone media attention. And an insane person could easily consider such a thing if they are capable of thought at all.

I would say on your last point. Every so often mass murderers and psychopaths attempt to get attention by publishing their beliefs or by stating them publicly. But with the deluge of aggressive rhetoric going on now a days it often gets lost in mix. If we could all start to tone down our rhetoric it might make it easier to single out the rhetoric of insane people or those in need of psychological help. Insane murderers become that, they are not born that way. If we can learn to spot the warning signs and respond effectively it might help stop problems before they start.

Jeremy,

I can agree with you on that. I think we give far too much air time to these sub humans to have this as a way to promote their views or air their grievances and that only generates more of these cases. There really is no reason for the public to view their manifestos or search endlessly for the “why” and by doing so glorify them.

I’m all for having them studied so that we can work on ways to identify and prevent future cases and improve our ability to assist those with mental health issues. This work can be done in privacy with nothing in the media on it. And work should be done for this cause.

But at the end of the day, it’s just a bad man who murdered others and now he’s dead. End of his story. Forget the back story on him in the media.

I agree with you on all those points CPA.

“My school has a strict no gun policy. It was founded and has maintained that policy since 1958.”

My high school had no gun policy other than a student could not bring one to class. During hunting season probably half of the vehicles on campus had guns in them and the rest of the year it was common to see several with guns in them. The other three high schools in town had similar policys. There were NO shootings or threatened shootings at any of the schools up to the time I moved away several years after graduating.

Buster,
My Uncle was telling us that as a kid they used to take their grandpa’s, or their uncle’s, or their daddy’s rifle to school for show and tell.

Our advanced math and science teacher gave presentations on firearms at school. As a side note he also said “rules against carrying a pocket knife to school were stupid for you never knew when you might need to cut someone”.

Buster my point was my school is and has been advertised as a gun free zone for more than 50 years. And there has not been any shootings mass or otherwise. I was providing evidence that a school being advertised as gun free does not make it more prone to shootings.

“I was providing evidence that a school being advertised as gun free does not make it more prone to shootings.”

You are incorrect. All that you are “proving” is that at this time, and prior to this time, the school you are talking about has not been made a target. But because it is known as a defenseless school, the cnahces are higher for it to be hit then one that is known as armed. Hope this helps to educate you and others who are not understanding our legitimate government which is a document – NOT a person.

Obama’s two daughters attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC which already uses 11 armed security guards to protect their students – and are trying to hire more to add to their security staff.

Obama and his wife actually bragged up the fact that he is proud that he has armed guards that protect his daughters in school.

President Barack Obama revealed the ‘real reason’ he wanted a second term as president is because his daughter Malia, age 14, is about to start dating boys.

‘One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times
David Gregory (NBC) sends his kids to Sidwell where he knows they are protected by armed security. Gregory, a TV commentator and news personality is an outspoken advocate for gun control.

You probably are not even aware that there is a preamble to 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.”

Are you aware that they have been changing (illegally) the wording of the US Constitution?

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.

Means: The six protections against government encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to
assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a
redress of grievance.

West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson said the following: “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”

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.

What you may not understand is that the “Militia” is “We the people”. Though the states may only call on EVERY able-bodied citizens (and those legally allowed to be here) from ages 18 – 45 if they are needed to defend the state from domestic or foreign enemies. The rest can come assist if they want.

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Article on the Bill of Rights

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton

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

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

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.” Zachariah Johnson

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

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.

Pretty easy to understand this one.

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.

There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens (and people legally allowed to be here) are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. Basically they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does NOT trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first
getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This is only as valid as the judge is honest. There have been cases where judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant – which means the judge doing this is a crook.

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 defense.

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.

This means that not all of our natural rights are listed here in the Bill of Rights, but that does not mean that thsoe serving in the fed gov or state govs are allowed to take them away from us

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.

This means that specific duties (powers) were assigned to each branch. Those are the ONLY powers they have, nor can they legally take more powers (duties) upon themselves (ed: assassination powers, TSA – illegal searches, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc – NONE are legal. Enforcement does not mean legality. It just means that the enforcers are either traitors and working to destroy our nation, legitimate goverment; or that they are stupid and did not understand the Oath required of them.)
The states have all powers except those specifically given to the fed gov. The people have all powers to decide their lives – as long as what theya re doing does not harm or destroy another persons life.

Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Buster my point was my school is and has been advertised as a gun free zone for more than 50 years.”

Whereas ALL schools became Gun Free Zones and WIDELY advertized by government in most MSM. So tell us just where your school advertized.

Large number of schools. VERY VERY small number of mass shootings. Anyone can figgure out that the chance of YOUR school having a mass shooting will be VERY VERY small.

Now lets look at this data.
Number of mass shootings.
Number of mass shootings in a Gun Free Zone.

Jeremy Leochner: “I was providing evidence that a school being advertised as gun free does not make it more prone to shootings.”

Umm. We were talking about MASS shootings who’s history started (according to ABC News) soon after the School Gun Free Zones were enacted.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q))

A more detailed list which actually covered the time BEFORE the GFSZA reports exactly 2 in the 30 YEARS before.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/connecticut-school-shooting-americas-history-1491378

ONE of those was a government approved shooting in Ohio in 1970.

1 in 30 years (1960-1990 (maybe MUCH longer)

The very first shooting after the GFSZA occurred a year later 1991 followed by several more that are well known. This list doen’t seem to contain all the ones that ABC listed but they didn’t start their list till 1999 (columbine.)

Kansas the school I was talking about was the one I went to.

Vicki It was how any school advertises as gun free. By having a stated policy of zero tolerance for violence and having rules which all students knew about saying guns and any weapons are not allowed. With all due respect Vicki your statement “Large number of schools. VERY VERY small number of mass shootings. Anyone can figgure out that the chance of YOUR school having a mass shooting will be VERY VERY small.” proves my point. My point was that even though my school was gun free and anyone who lived near my city knew it the chances of a shooting there were still as you said “VERY VERY small”. So the idea that a school being a gun free zone attracts mass shootings or makes them more vulnerable as many on this site and elsewhere have contended is wrong. My school was gun free for its entire existence and never were there any shootings or acts of violence. I know because I have studied the history of my school and can find no record of any such event. The reason I am so strong on this Vicki is based around your statement “Now lets look at this data.
Number of mass shootings.
Number of mass shootings in a Gun Free Zone.” The reason I make a point of this I believe I could just as easily propose we look at this data.

Number of schools in the United States.

Number of schools that suffer mass shootings.

If we go by strict numbers mass school shootings are not very common. They are tragic and in recent years several have caught major headlines but if we really look at this in terms of chance the odds of a mass school shooting are slim. The more likely scenario is a child or teen will bring a gun to school either to show off or to protect themselves and end up shooting someone. That is the more likely threat. I am not saying that mass shootings are not a danger or that they do not happen. But I am caught between a rock and hard place. Because it is my sincere belief that what is far more likely to happen is that a child will bring a gun to school to protect themselves or to show off rather than to commit mass murder. And it is my firm belief that a child is more likely to do that if schools do not remain gun free. While I do not deny schools having guns would provide better protection from mass shootings I still believe the chance of such a thing happening does not outweigh the risks that it would pose.

Non-stop conjecture from this Jeremy (aka Flashman) guy.
Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “So the idea that a school being a gun free zone attracts mass shootings or makes them more vulnerable as many on this site and elsewhere have contended is wrong”.
Do you have any references to back up your conjecture, Jeremy (aka Flashman)? Of course you don’t.
But I do have this:
http://gunowners.org/op052609cb.htm
From the article:
“The vast majority of multiple victim public shootings occur in so-called “gun-free” zones”.

I will take any further denials from you as yet more evidence that you just don’t care about honest inquiry. In other words, you’re a shill.

What’s your education, Jeremy?

Dave in answer to your comment “Do you have any references to back up your conjecture,” I have this

One I have the high school I went too which over the course of its more than 50 year history has had strict no gun policy and has never had a mass shooting.

Two I have all other public schools in the United States which have strict no gun policies ,which as far as I know is most of them, and who have never had a mass shooting.

As for my education I am a community college graduate with 3 associate degrees. And I have been accepted to a Cal State University where I intend to obtain my bachelor’s degree.

As for my education I am a community college graduate with 3 associate degrees. And I have been accepted to a Cal State University where I intend to obtain my bachelor’s degree.
That is good, very progressive of you. Please make sure to be American and learn beyond what they allow you to learn.

Yes, I have been to many colleges USA and abroad – and if you have been anywhere else you would be able to see what is going here in the USA, through the schools, through the corporate media, thorugh government lies, through both the dems and the repubs selling out our nation.

When you go to school, you must go beyond what you are taught or you are “guided” into accepting only what they teach. They direct your thinking, assist you into helping this “government change”, instead of seeing it as a direct attack by domestic enemies upon the USA and her people. If they “win”, they will slaughter millions for many different reasons. The dupes that they are using will sbe some of the first that they will murder, like the New Black Panthers and others – because when they realize that they are betrayed after they were used they would then become the “states” most ardent enemy. Study, it is what they ALWAYS do. What is happening here is not new – jsut they took a longer time of it because Americans were an independent people – that had to end. Because Americans are armed – that had to end. Because Americans learned that all people, all religiions, had a right to life – that has to end also. Christianity has to end because it teaches people that a concept is worth fighting and dying for – no one else in the world has that concept except America. That is why they are all enslaved first – we ar the lst free nation under attack on this planet – if we lose – the world itself is lost.

Obviously they haven’t taught you anything about logic, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
I’ve never known anybody who has played and won Lotto, either. And I’ve also never known anybody that has won Lotto without playing. Does that in any way whatsoever give evidence to the hypothesis that people who don’t play Lotto win as often as people who do?

Did you read the article I linked to? Are you calling the author of that article a liar, like you have called Bob Livingston about the IP address?

I say something is very wrong with you, Jeremy, whether you are really Flashman or have worked in the same Boiler Room as Flashman. Imagine how much grief you could have saved yourself if you just claimed to use the same computer as Flashman a year and a half ago, instead of trying to lie your way out of it?

Actually Dave I took a class specifically on logic. And I got an A. As for your analogy I will try and connect it to the argument we are having on gun control. I consider the chance of a mass shooting taking place at a school to be only marginally higher than the chance of winning the lottery. I do not believe in centering our policies around something that is very unlikely to happen. Especially when the preparation for that very unlikely outcome is going to encourage kids to bring guns to schools.

As to your second point I did read the article. I disagree with the author as to gun free zones. However I do not consider the author a liar. One big reason is unlike Mr. Livingston the author presents evidence. Statistics and figures to support his theory. Mr. Livingston simply claimed I share an IP address with several others and then provided no evidence. That sounds like either a mistake or a cynical lie to me. Especially since Mr. Livingston has questioned and opposed the use of propaganda by liberals and big government shills. It sounds somewhat like propaganda to propose a theory yet offer not even one speck of evidence to support it. And with all due respect Dave your continuing to support that claim while providing no evidence sounds like propaganda to me as well.

And as for your final point. The reason I did say what you wish I had said a year and a half ago is that the statement would have and still is false. I never shared a computer with anyone. The computer I used and still use is my home computer which no one has access too. I say again that the only way that I could be sharing a computer with someone on this site is either they hacked my computer and took the IP address or someone is breaking into my house not to steal things but to log onto my computer and then come onto a political blog. I do not think either scenario is likely though. So I all I can say is the truth. I come on to this site using my name and my name only. My name is Jeremy Leochner and I come on as that and that only. You can believe me or not. But considering how often you say I do not provide any evidence to back up my conjecture as you call it I would suggest you provide evidence to back up your claim before accusing me of not being honest about who I am.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I consider the chance of a mass shooting taking place at a school to be only marginally higher than the chance of winning the lottery. I do not believe in centering our policies around something that is very unlikely to happen.”

So why are you arguing for more gun restrictions on private citizens? There were even fewer mass shootings BEFORE gun free school zones were created. Why are you not joining us to fight against gun free school zones?

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I know because I have studied the history of my school and can find no record of any such event. The reason I am so strong on this Vicki is based around your statement “Now lets look at this data.
Number of mass shootings.
Number of mass shootings in a Gun Free Zone.” The reason I make a point of this I believe I could just as easily propose we look at this data.

Number of schools in the United States.

Number of schools that suffer mass shootings.

If we go by strict numbers mass school shootings are not very common. ”
____________________________________________________________

Correct but that is not the point we are making.

Number of gun free school zones = LARGE.
Number of mass shootings = small

WHERE they happen is what is important.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13942-gun-free-zones-called-magnets-for-mass-shooters

Mass murderers OBVIOUSLY seek out gun free zones and since there are (thankfully) VERY FEW mass murderers there are very few mass murders even in schools.

Now the world is abuzz about what to do about this very small problem. What, and be precise is YOUR solution and why?

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Mr. Livingston simply claimed I share an IP address with several others and then provided no evidence. That sounds like either a mistake or a cynical lie to me. Especially since Mr. Livingston has questioned and opposed the use of propaganda by liberals and big government shills”.

You’re the liar, Jeremy. And I’m surprised that you would have the gall to accuse the owner of the website, of which you are a guest, of lying. There would be no reason for Bob Livingston to fabricate the fact that you shared the same IP address with 7 other posters. And there are very very small odds that you could have shared that same computer without being aware of the 7 other posters. But even if that were remotely possible, at that time you denied emphatically sharing a computer with anybody after you were revealed by Bob.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jeremy, you are at the very least a shill. But it’s likely you are one of several personalities of the very sick shill Troll known as Flashman. The fact that you would continually lie about being a shill just demonstrates that you are a chronic liar. Chronic Liars will never admit their guilt no matter how red-handed they get caught.

It amazes me that Bob hasn’t blocked your sick hiney from the board, given you calling him a liar.
The only reason I can see for his forbearance is that he knows any intelligent people will recognize your comments for what they are — illogical, factless, and repetitive (indicating an attempt to Propagandize ignorant people).

Vicki I do not know why there were fewer mass shootings prior to schools being made gun free zones. But I still cannot overlook the flip side your argument about how there are few mass shootings and many schools. Yes we can be thankful that there are few mass murderers and mass shootings. But the fact still remains that there are few. And the fact also remains that there are far more children and teens bringing guns to schools and there are far more killings as a result of that. And it remains my firm belief that allowing teachers to carry guns or to stop advertising schools as gun free is only going to add to the problem of students carrying guns into school. So where do I go. How to protect teachers and students in the unlikely event of a mass shooting while still preventing and discouraging students from bringing guns to school and endangering themselves and others. The best I can come up with is careful planning on the part of the staff, staff trained in self defense and carrying non lethal forms of defense which are easier to hide and thereby easier to quickly access and finally having police officers stationed in or around the school to act as protection. I am trying to make some sort of compromise with my views Vicki. For now I feel that having guns in schools would violate my principles and make me a hypocrite. You may call me one now but I still believe what I believe.

Dave. I never meant to be insulting or disrespectful to Mr. Livingston. In recent months he has been more open to my views and I respect that he doesn’t seem to mind my coming on. The reason I made the suggestion was this. I am not sharing my computer with anyone. Anyone who believes I am is mistaken. The reason I suggested he may be lying is if Mr. Livingston has access to the email address’s provided by those who post here I do not see how he could be mistaken as to who has what email address and who has what IP address. The reason I say this is because neither I nor any of the people who I am friends with have reported any sort of strange emails or messages. I would think if someone had stolen my IP address such a thing would occur. So ultimately it all comes back to my original statement. I have never come on this site with any name but my own and I have never shared my computer with anyone. What happened a year and a half ago was something completely simple. My life became more complicated and did not leave me the time to come onto a political blog. When my life became less complicated I decided to come back. I post here because I believe that some articles express ideas and beliefs that I believe are wrong and I say so. I come onto this site for the same reason you do, to voice my opinion.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki I do not know why there were fewer mass shootings prior to schools being made gun free zones.”

You may not. We do. Keep reading and perhaps you will learn.

-Jeremy: “And the fact also remains that there are far more children and teens bringing guns to schools and there are far more killings as a result of that.”

Proof by bald assertion. You said that you were not good at debate. Here is your chance to study.

-Jeremy: “And it remains my firm belief that allowing teachers to carry guns or to stop advertising schools as gun free is only going to add to the problem of students carrying guns into school.”

You are welcome to your belief. You are NOT welcome to force your belief on others.

-Jeremy: “So where do I go. How to protect teachers and students in the unlikely event of a mass shooting while still preventing and discouraging students from bringing guns to school and endangering themselves and others.”

Objection. Leading the witness.

You have not yet established that bringing guns to school endangers anyone but the bad guys. History of guns in schools even after 1990 clearly shows no such risk as you claim.
Arguing to false premise. We are discussing arming the teachers and staff not students.

-Jeremy: “The best I can come up with is careful planning on the part of the staff, staff trained in self defense and carrying non lethal forms of defense which are easier to hide and thereby easier to quickly access”

Do you suppose that you are the first to come up with these ideas?

-Jeremy: ” and finally having police officers stationed in or around the school to act as protection.”

Further supporting the theory that Jeremy really DOES want a police state despite his multiple attempts to distract us.

-Jeremy: “I am trying to make some sort of compromise with my views Vicki. For now I feel that having guns in schools would violate my principles and make me a hypocrite. You may call me one now but I still believe what I believe.”

And I will support you having your belief. I will NOT support your endangering MY children by making / supporting laws that deprive their guardians (teachers,staff) of the BEST tools for defending my children and the children of friends and others.

It’s time to end the madness
Eliminate Gun Free School Zones.

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Dave. I never meant to be insulting or disrespectful to Mr. Livingston”.
Your exact words, Jeremy — “Dave as I have said numerous times just because Mr. Livingston says I share an IP address with others does not make it so”.
You called him a liar, Jeremy. You can’t help yourself? Or did you get so caught up in your lies and manipulation that you couldn’t help yourself? You can kid some of the others, Jeremy (aka Flashman), but I know what you are.

Dave: Saying someone is wrong is not insulting them. Mr. Livingston said I share an IP address with others. That is not the truth. Mr. Livingston is making a claim that is not true. Either he is mistaken or he is lying. I am not trying to insult him. If he genuinely believes that I am sharing my computer with others I would like him to tell me so. I am just pointing out that he is wrong in that belief and he is wrong in his assertions.

Knives do not have 30 round magazines, and they do not run out of bullets, nor make any noise. Just ask Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Here is the logic Dave. Its not the bad guy, its the weapon they use. If a deranged psychopath was coming at me with a squirt gun filled with water I would be slightly less afraid then if he was coming at me with a fully automatic assault rifle. A bad guy is a bad guy and he still has various ways to hurt you. However an unarmed bad guy is much smaller threat then an armed one. The logic is if an unarmed bad guy is less of a threat then an armed one then the weapon is a primary concern.

Well then Jeremy, if a bad guy is coming at you with an assault rifle wouldn’t you want to be armed and able to defend yourself? If not that’s fine, that’s your choice.
But you don’t get to make that choice for me.

I probably would JC. Which is why I want to do everything in my power to make sure that guy cannot get his hands on an assault rifle so I do not have to worry. And I am not trying to make that decision for you. You can have a gun if you wish its your right. I just do not want guns in schools.

Jeremy,

So how is it we jump right to the bad guy no longer being armed? Is that part of the “gun free zone” you think he will abide by? SH was also gun free. Lanza still came with guns.

I agree with you that an unarmed criminal is less threatening than an armed one. The trouble is, criminals don’t put down their guns or follow your rules. All you’re doing is disarming everyone else making the criminals job that much less threatening TO THEM. And making mass shootings that much easier to accomplish for the bad elements out there.

CPA Its not about making any criminal abide by anything. Its about trying to create a safe environment for children. The problem is having a gun when one is not needed makes the environment less safe not more. Since there are other ways to deal with school shootings I oppose arming teachers.

As for disarming. I want to disarm bad guys so good guys do not need to be armed. I cannot arm all the good guys without also arming bad guys. I admit I cannot disarm bad guys without disarming good guys so for me its a tough choice. I believe things like self defense classes, peppery spray stun guns and tasers as well as a more reformed and enforced legal effort against the selling of illegal weapons lends more credence to the idea of making it harder for criminals to obtain weapons legally then it does for making it easier for everyone to obtain weapons legally thereby making it easier for criminals to do so as well.

Jeremy,

Your logic seems to imply that if we “disarm” the good guys we also “disarm” the bad guys and reach this place of no guns being in play.

If that were possible I might agree with you. Problem is – the bad guys don’t “disarm”. That’s the hole in the logic my friend.

Jeremy,

I have a gun on me at home with my kids and at work in my office. This makes my family and those working with me safer not less safe.

I know CPA. This is my view. I want to make it as hard as possible for bad guys to get weapons legally or illegally. I want us as a nation to put more effort into fighting the illegal trading of guns. I do not want good law abiding people to feel the need to be armed. But I will say this. I believe if people wish to keep a gun in their home like you that is their right. And I do believe that as long as your children cannot get to the gun, as I am sure you take due precaution, your house is very safe.

Jeremy,

Sounds good. Once our legal system then stops all forms of crime from ever taking place anywhere in the country, then maybe I’ll get rid of my gun too. Until then, I’ll continue to pack.

Understandable CPA. That is your right.

Jeremy says — ” I just do not want guns in schools”.
Most likely, since Jeremy (aka Flashman) is just a shill for Big Government, what Jeremy really wants, but won’t be honest about, is total disarmament of the people, so that Big Government can run roughshod over the rest of us.
But even if that weren’t true, since the typical target of wackos (maybe even false-flag conspirators) is gun-free zones, Jeremy is in effect preventing those schools from defending themselves and is nothing better than the guys who hold a victim while the perp performs his violence. Jeremy and his ilk are accessories to the murders of those innocent children or anybody else who might have been able to defend themselves had not Jeremy and his cohorts made it very difficult for them to do so.
http://gunowners.org/op052609cb.htm

Again, thank you Jeremy (aka Flashman) for being my foil. Without the ridiculous and Freedom-robbing comments that you Liberal Progressives make on this board, I would not be so motivated to look up information to educate the average reader of this board.

Dave I have never advocated nor do I believe in “total disarmament of the people”. Wanting restrictions is not the same as abolishment of the second amendment. Just because I want politicians and journalists to be required to tell the truth does not mean I want to abolish the first amendment.

As to your accusation of my being an accessory to the murder of innocent students. I have always said teachers should be allowed to carry pepper spray, stun guns, tasers and I would even be for schools being allowed to carry tear gas canisters if the concern is high enough. I always support schools running drills and having plans for dealing with a threat like a shooter. I just do not want guns in the hands of teachers when there is no need for them. Because I feel having guns when there is no threat makes schools less safe not more.

Jeremy Leochner says:
December 28, 2012 at 11:34 am
I probably would JC. Which is why I want to do everything in my power to make sure that guy cannot get his hands on an assault rifle …

Know this: There is NOTHING you can do…NOTHING!
No laws, no restrictions, no legislation….NOTHING will stop criminals from getting guns.
So why don’t you come over to the “reality” side of things and help us preserve our rights to self defense from these immoral A$$ Holes who would relegate us all to the level of slave or victim? Think about it…as opposed to “react about it”.

Your right JC but it can make it more difficult. I do not want to take away anyones rights or ability to defend themselves. Wanting gun control does not do that. Wanting gun bans does but I do not support gun bans.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I just do not want guns in schools.”

You are welcome to want whatever. Do you think however that the Sandy Hook shooter gives a rats (*) about what you want?

I do think that if they knew of your desire that Lauren Rousseau, Anne Marie Murphy, Mary Sherlach, Victoria Soto, Dawn Hochsprung and Rachel Davino would have some choice words to say about it.

But they can’t. they’re DEAD. Because of people like YOU.

And if you don’t know who they are then hang your head in shame.

All one has to do is look at Israel’s example: they never have these kind of things with their schools. Why? Because their teachers pack! Sometimes Galil assault rifles and Uzi sub machine guns. And they’re trained.

Jeremy Leochner says:
December 28, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Your right JC but it can make it more difficult. I do not want to take away anyones rights or ability to defend themselves. Wanting gun control does not do that. Wanting gun bans does but I do not support gun bans.
______________________________________________________________________
Wrong wrong WRONG!
“gun control” doesn’t affect anyone but the already law abiding.
What part of this equation does not compute for you?

How does gun control make it more difficult for criminals to get guns?
I’m starting to think you’re completely incapable of logical conclusive thinking as you are stuck in some seriously flawed dogma.

Keep trying though…the truth might hit you someday…maybe…

JC Some criminals including the Sandy Hook killer used guns that were obtained legally. Making it harder to obtain guns legally will affect some criminals.

Jeremy Leochner says:
December 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm
JC Some criminals including the Sandy Hook killer used guns that were obtained legally. Making it harder to obtain guns legally will affect some criminals.
_____________________________________________________________________
WRONG!

Adam Lanza “stole” the guns, which was the first of about 40 crimes
he committed that day.

Just don’t get it do you?

Jeremy Leochner says:
“JC Some criminals including the Sandy Hook killer used guns that were obtained legally. Making it harder to obtain guns legally will affect some criminals.”

In case you have not been paying attention the Sandy Hook killer STOLE the guns. Therefore your assertion is false.

” I would be slightly less afraid then if he was coming at me with a fully automatic assault rifle.”

Enlighten us Jeremy when was the last time a legaly owned or for that matter an illegaly possessed “fully automatid assualt rifle” used to commit a crime?

I know JC and Vicki. Had he been stopped or searched than it would have been discovered that his weapons were not his and he would have been stopped right there. Or if his mother had been more careful about concealing her weapons than he would not have gotten them. But in regards to disarming his mother to prevent him from getting a gun I have fallen into the same argument I often question in others. Appears I have been caught. You win JC and Vicki.

Jeremy, It isn’t about winning.

It’s about education. I understand the gut reaction of a great many people to such tragedies as Sandy Hook and Aurora and anytime someone is killed or hurt by and armed criminal. We tend to go straight to the instrument used…which in this discussion is a gun.
The problem with “gut reactions” is that they are emotional, not logical or realistic.
If they were logical, it would stand to reason that so many other “instruments” that cause death or harm should also be banned. (I won’t bore you with a list)

But the reality is that guns will not be un-invented. They are here to stay.
The question is: Should they be regulated by a government that has no intention of giving up its own guns? The intention of the Second Amendment is that there should be a balance between the power of the government and that of We The People.
If the government can “dictate” our rights…then in reality we don’t have any.
And the only ones we do have, are the ones that ultimately and if need be,
We the People will enforce.

Gun Control is NOT about public safety.
And it is absurd to believe that it even has a chance to be about public safety.
It’s about power and control for the government…over us.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I know JC and Vicki. Had he been stopped or searched than it would have been discovered that his weapons were not his and he would have been stopped right there.”

Jeremy admits what that we have long suspected. He WANTS to live in a police state. He should fly often. That should fulfill is wishes.

Jeremy writes:
“But in regards to disarming his mother to prevent him from getting a gun I have fallen into the same argument I often question in others. Appears I have been caught. You win JC and Vicki.”

YOU win. You have become wiser. Not because you were “caught” but because you realize the error of that argument (style)

And extra credit for having openly acknowledged it.

Vicki,
You are assuming that you’re talking to a normal person. You aren’t.

Well technically Dave you are right I am not “normal”. I have said it on other posts that I am Autistic.

And Vicki I do not want to quash your respect for my ability to admit when I am wrong. I just want to point out that when I said “Had he been stopped or searched than it would have been discovered that his weapons were not his and he would have been stopped right there” I wasn’t trying to support a police state. That was one of those pie in the sky ideas where I wished that if he had been stopped for something like running a stop sign or even jaywalking then it might have been discovered that he was carrying weapons and then it would have been found out that he was carrying stolen weapons and he would have been stopped. I just wanted to assure you I am not a fascist, I am an idealist.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I just wanted to assure you I am not a fascist, I am an idealist.”

Facists are idealists. It’s just that their idea of ideal is not that of a free people.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“….when I said “Had he been stopped or searched than it would have been discovered that his weapons were not his and he would have been stopped right there” I wasn’t trying to support a police state. That was one of those pie in the sky ideas where I wished that if he had been stopped for something like running a stop sign or even jaywalking…..”

Since there was no probable cause to search him (or his vehicle), absent a police state, it would never be discovered that he was carrying weapons let alone stolen ones.

I don’t know if your right about fascists and idealists Vicki. I believe that to be fascist one has to be an extremist. But I believe one can be idealistic without being an extremist.

As for your other post. Like I said it was a dream where a keen eyed officer when pulling him over for a traffic violation might spot the weapon and inquire about it. But if the only way for that to happen is a police state than I guess it is just a childish dream.

Hmmm. Who else have we heard using the word “extremist” lately?
Freudian Slip Flashman?

And who else have we heard call Bob Livingston a liar on this board?
Jeremy — “just because Mr. Livingston says I share an IP address with others does not make it so”.
Flashman — “Mr. Livingston had to stick with his claim or lose cred”.

Are the sleepers starting to awaken yet?

So Dave. I just created the “fact” that a bad guy without a gun is much less threatening then one with a gun. Are you saying Dave that a killer who try’s to commit mass murder using his fists is just as threatening as one trying to do it with an automatic assault rifle.

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Are you saying Dave that a killer who try’s to commit mass murder using his fists is just as threatening as one trying to do it with an automatic assault rifle”.

Did I say that? As usual, the Liberal Progressive must resort to hyperbole and putting words in my mouth.

Dave you quoted me as saying ““So it appears that the fear is still the gun rather then the bad guy because a bad guy without a gun is a much less threatening bad guy”.”

In response to my argument you said “Jeremy creates his own “facts”, then uses them to support his case. Circular Reasoning.”.

So with respect it sounded like you were suggesting that I “created” the fact that a bad guy without a gun is a much less threatening bad guy. As such I posted that since you thought I just created that fact I ask if the situation I posted was true or if it too was just “created” by me. Point is if I “created” the fact that a bad guy without a gun is much less threatening then a bad guy with a gun then I must also have “created” the fact that a bad guy with an assault rifle is much more dangerous then a bad guy using his fists.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“So Dave. I just created the “fact” that a bad guy without a gun is much less threatening then one with a gun. ”

Dave (as usual) is quite correct. Since threaten is an emotion it can not be a fact in and of itself. You would have to include TO YOU and then you and you alone would be the only one who could prove or disprove or even know.

Good try to hide an opinion as a fact though.

Very well Vicki. I will try not to hide anything. What I mean is a bad guy with a gun is more dangerous to another person then one without a gun. A bad guy with a gun is more powerful then one without a gun. The Sandy Hook Killer trying to commit his evil deeds without a gun would have been less effective if he did not have a gun. That’s not an opinion.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Very well Vicki. I will try not to hide anything.”

Good. Trainable.

Jeremy Leochner: “What I mean is a bad guy with a gun is more dangerous to another person then one without a gun.”

And a good guy with a gun is more dangerous to a bad guy than a good guy without a gun. Now did you have an argument that actually furthered your cause or are you just having fun proving our point?

I think its a little of both Vicki. I like proving points. But I do feel I have made an argument furthering my case. I believe I have made a decent argument against the idea that Gun’s don’t kill people.

You have not made a point at all Jeremy.

Cars, Doctors, and Hospitals kill more people then guns and knives. Big Pharma kill hundreds at a time, and wrecks the lives of many more permanently.

The true point is that anything can be a weapon – but it takes a person to weild (use) it.

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “I like proving points”.
Then you don’t experience “like” very often, Jeremy. I haven’t seen proof of anything, just a lot of lip-service from a guy who lacks moral integrity.

Perhaps Dave. I could be wrong on gun control. Though I have to admit that when we debate over whether I come on this site as multiple personalities I can sit back and be 100 percent sure I am right. I wish you and I could meet in person Dave. Maybe you wouldn’t think so little of me.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I think its a little of both Vicki. I like proving points. But I do feel I have made an argument furthering my case. I believe I have made a decent argument against the idea that Gun’s don’t kill people.”

Since guns are tools and just lay around (that is what is meant by inanimate object) they are totally incapable of killing someone. Or as others have pointed out they are just as capable of killing someone as is a car or hospital or even electricity. And electricity does show some animation. Not willful animation but animation none the less.

Warning to gun-grabbers. When you start complaining about drones being animate objects I WILL point out that they are still tools and do not willfully kill. Which is really the causal point.

Jeremy says — “I wish you and I could meet in person Dave”.

It won’t happen, Jeremy. I stay as far away as I can from twisted people.

I assure you Dave I am not that twisted. I am a little I admit. I only meant that if you saw me in person I think you would finally realize I am not some troll or shill. That I truly am who I say I am. And I think I come off better in real life than I do when I am debating on an internet site.

That’s because in real life, Jeremy, it’s a lot easier for you to spin your tales and get away with it.

Except I do not spin Dave. Also a person in real life is easier to judge than just judging the postings they put on a blog.

Great points. Too bad your friend didn’t have a gun.

There will always be a bigger weapon, more guys, a sucker punch, being taken by surprise, or being overpowered by groups etc. There is no way to be completely safe from all threat ever – because there are always human elements out there with bad intent. No matter how big or bad you are – there is always someone (or groups of someones) who are bigger and badder – or with a weapon (or with leverage i.e. they have your wife etc.). And yes – you may handle yourself with honor – they often will not.

This is why you never want to go looking for trouble or creating trouble of your own – because sooner or later these guys will get in over their head. But be as ready as you can for when trouble comes for you or those you care about. Do what you can – the rest you cannot control and you have to realize that.

If I am overpowered in some way – I cannot control that. But I will not be a sitting duck defenseless waiting on the government or anyone else for anything.

Hi DaveH, how the heck are you? Since you seem to like picky arguments try this one on for size that blows your gun theory into tiny little pieces!

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

During the same period of time you cite for crime statistics the legalization of abortion can ALSO be CONSIDERED as a cause for lowering crime. It’s called Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. See, when unwanted kids aren’t born and abused they don’t grow up to be bad guys.

Please, make some effort to show causative effect of the guns reducing crime. The Donohue-Levitte hypothesis does an excellent job of showing that in states were abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade (done by election BTW) those states enjoyed a reduced crime rate before the rest of the country.

So, by your “logic” abortion has had a positive effect on American society in reducing crime.

BTW, I’m still in favor of upright citizens being allowed to carry even to the extent to where they don’t even have to apply for a permit. ONLY if the state has a reason to should procedures be in place to deny that.

Rob

How about you try and stay on topic Robert?
Your classic “diversion tactics” simply won’t work here.
If you want to debate abortion, find another venue.

Robert,
You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, aren’t you?
Abortion prevents crime? Many people think abortion is the crime.

Robert says — “Please, make some effort to show causative effect of the guns reducing crime”.

Read this, Robert:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356727248&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less

By the way, Robert, it’s you Liberal Progressives who are making the claim that more guns make our society less safe, so the burden is on you to show that is the case.
I have already demonstrated that violent crime has actually gone down and considerably. How does that square with your predictions of less safety?

I pronounce you Liberal Progressives to be nothing but Chicken Littles.

DavidH claims: “I have already demonstrated that violent crime has actually gone down and considerably. How does that square with your predictions of less safety?”

I made no such claim and please quit misrepresenting my position. I was correcting your skimpy “argument” because you have no more than a coincidental relationship with crime rate and guns.

Here is an example of how you could have made your point: Crime can go down as a direct impact of gun laws favoring the For example, numbers were tracked in Kennesaw, Georgia, gun law. It’s very clear that there was a causative effect there. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

But in the general population of America the timing and implementation of new abortion laws definitely tracked with the lowering of crime in those places.

It was not a change of subject because it was you who brought up the vague causative effect of gun laws that could be explained as coincidence because of another concurrent event such as abortion, which I have done.

BTW, I’m pro-choice on guns. Quit lumping me in with those who oppose the 2nd amendment.

But, thank you for yet another example of right wing screeching without any specific knowledge. You sure have helped me make that point. Thank you.

Rob

For DaveH,

“More Guns Less Crime…”

Yup… Wish you have brought that out to begin with. You might have had some credibility.

The FBI has numbers available by zip codes. It tells an even more interesting story.

For some real scholarship please follow the work of Gary Kleck.

Find him at: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Ohhhhhh, and I’m sure he has opinions about arming teachers. He is one himself!

Rob

Interesting. Since Robert Smith claims there is no connection between increased gun availability and crime reduction and offers no evidence that increased gun availability is connected with crime increase (crime went down) it is logical to presume that there is no connection therefor guns do NOT cause crime.

Since guns causing crime is one of the hallmarks of the liberal/progressive argument against gun ownership Robert has shot his cause in the foot as they say.

DaveH claims about progressives: “It has gotten better — For Them.”

Actually that is patently false. The rich have gotten richer and the rate of transfer of wealth in America has increased to the top.

Trickle down economics have FAILED the middle and lower classes.

Rob

The liberal lawyers are the ones that have benefited. Defense lawyers in Alabama are asking for over $1 million in fees for defending an indigent. Who is benefiting?

RS says, “DaveH claims about progressives: “It has gotten better — For Them.””

Given that you are a progressive shill, Robert, it’s a given that you wouldn’t be able to understand that anyway.

Hey JeffH… No matter what, the fact remains that the rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle class have lost ground.

Trickle down still doesn’t work, no matter how much you want to attack other posters.

Rob

I do not want to hurt anyone Dave. I do not know the answer. There is a line that must be walked between patience and acting on your own. If someone feels the need to carry a gun for protection go ahead, that’s their right. I just put more faith in reform and and the legal system then I do in individual passions. If a situation arises when people must act then so be it let them act. For now and until a situation arises I still have faith in law and order.

Robert you make little sense. Rich people aren’t a homogeneous group of advantage-seekers. They can’t all be lumped together. Some get special privileges from their Progressive Crony Politicians, and others earn their money the old-fashioned way by pleasing their consumers. But even the former would be powerless without the Big Government which assumes the Power of Force. So the buck lands squarely in the lap of Big Government, and it is a fact that the Liberal Progressive followers enable that Big Government.
In 1910, Total Government spending in the US was 8% of the GDP.
In 2011, Total Government spending in the US was 41% of the GDP.
It doesn’t occur to you, Robert, that the 5 times bigger current Government is the culprit in the draining of our economy?
If you had a family of 3, and two new members were presented for you to support, you don’t think it would impact your finances just a little?

Please readers, know that when the Liberal Progressive commenters quote me, it is necessary to actually read my comment instead of taking their word for what I said.

Robert said — “DaveH claims about progressives: “It has gotten better — For Them.””.

This is what I actually said — “The Liberal Progressives Leaders have been promising us a better country since the late 19th century. It has gotten better — For Them”.

Is it their public school lack of educations? I can only guess.

Robert says — “Actually that is patently false. The rich have gotten richer and the rate of transfer of wealth in America has increased to the top”.

Of course his statement, as usual, is made with no evidence whatsoever to back him up.
Here’s what Veronique de Rugy has to say about it:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/12/for-richer-and-for-poorer

Well Dave I have an article posted by Professor G. William Domhoff. In it he lays out “Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010″

-http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Its a fascinating read.

It has gotten better for them. Robert Smith is either one of them or has not figured out he is one of those useful people mentioned in literature.

Robert Smith says:
“Hey JeffH… No matter what, the fact remains that the rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle class have lost ground.”

In the time frame discussed I have gone from poor to rich to middle class so I find your opinion suspect.

Here’s an interesting take on the “rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk&feature=youtu.be

oh oh says:
“Here’s an interesting take on the “rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” argument:”

Thats a REALLY good explanation. It so closely matches my personal experience as to be uncanny. I better check to see who’s watching me

Actually DaveH, kids bringing guns into schools is a problem that causes many deaths each year.

If we want to protect our students we need to protect them from all threats.

Around here in this context the discussion is about guns. It isn’t “obfuscation” to talk about how they can make their way into schools.

But that’s OK DaveH. We are now seeing how it appears to be more important for you to dig on another poster than actually deal with the issue at hand. Thanks for another fine example from the extreme right.

Rob

No Dave. People are criticising the idea of advertising schools as gun free zones. I am pointing out there is a reason for that and voicing my support for it. In addition there are those who say arming teachers would be a good solution to the problem of school shootings. I am voicing my disagreement. I am not trying to obfuscate anything.

Robert, unlike Obama, you are completely transparent.
Show me where anybody but Jeremy brought up the subject of kids with guns.
And show me any kind of documentation that backs up your contention that “gun free zones” were created to prevent the kids from bringing weapons to school.
You are blowing smoke up our hind ends, Robert. Not unusual for Liberal Progressive commenters.

Okay Dave here is some documentation “that backs up your contention that “gun free zones” were created to prevent the kids from bringing weapons to school.”-

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=54

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/gangcolor/weapons.htm

http://www.jasperindiana.gov/pages.cfm?departmentid=455

http://www.agawampublicschools.org/filestorage/617/Protocol_Approach_to_School_Violence_Handbook.pdf

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/children_and_guns

http://www.nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs/bytopics.php?topicid=3130

http://childsafetyproducts.lifetips.com/cat/60347/gun-safety/index.html

http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues52.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP219/index2.html

Chris,
“Had she been carrying a gun he would be dead and she would be alive!” What proof do you have to support this? Who’s to say she wouldn’t have been killed during the original abduction attempt? She might have shot her abductor, or he might have taken her gun (if he didn’t have his own) and used it to subdue her. Guns are not a guarantee of safety. They can improve ones situation or cause an unintended danger, but there is no guarantee either way.

Chris perhaps yes she would have. I have never said take away any ones rights. I do not support gun bans, just in schools. If you wish to keep a gun to protect your children that’s your right. If it were me I would say the same. If I had children and they were threatened all bets are off. I want regulations and restrictions. But I do not want to destroy the second amendment.

Kinetic1,

And who’s to say it wouldn’t have helped her? I don’t know the story – but it sounds like she’s dead and the abductor is alive anyway. Yes, there are dangers to have a gun and you should be ready to use it if you do or it can be used on you. All very much true. But I for one would rather take my chance. She may have killed him and not been abducted – good outcome. Or it may have been taken from her and used against her and she dies during the abduction – this may still be a better outcome for her. I’d rather be shot in the struggle and die rather than be taken and have who knows what go on from this guy over a period of time and eventually killed anyway and die – probably a worse death than being outright shot. Again I don’t know this particular story. But I’d rather be given a fighting chance.

Hmm, it sounds like some are just afraid to have guns around. That’s all right. If you are afraid of guns don’t have them. Go ahead and make yourselves a soft target.

The point is those of us who aren’t afraid of guns, who know how to use guns properly, and who respect what they can do insist that you not infringe your fears on us who refuse to make ourselves and our loved ones soft targets.

If we have the abillity to protect someone then why would you try to hinder that? Of course the answer is because of your own fears and misunderstandings. You would rather trust someone who is unstable or has bad and evil motives than someone who is well trained and is an upstanding citizen. Wow. Sometimes it is just hard to figure out you liberals.

cpa and Jana,
No, I’m not afraid of guns (seems like a grade school taunt, don’t you think?) I own a couple myself. My point was that this constant cry of arm everyone is overly simplistic. Read my post again and you’ll see that I agree that a gun might help, but it’s no guarantee and may actually prove a liability.

Kinetic1

I was replying mostly to Jeremy’s comments, but I reread your comment and remember what I thought about at the time which was, she died anyway. She may have had a chance had she had her gun, but even if she died by her own gun, she died one way or the other and she died fighting. That is how I would die, fighting.

Jana I suppose I am afraid of guns to some extent. Though I will point out that I like guns and know how to fire them and what they can do. And I do not want to infringe my fears on others. I try to balance which of my values and beliefs I want reflected in my state and nations policies and which I am content to just keep to myself. In regards to individuals homes and person I am content to pretty much keep my beliefs for myself though I still voice them. As to schools I wish to have what I believe affect policy because I believe my ideas are safer. If I am wrong I hope that I can be persuaded to realize that. In regards to the issue of guns in schools as of right now I still believe that it is better to keep them out. But as to you and others keeping guns in your homes and on your person I am okay. I may have a difference of opinion but my opinion does not infringe on your right to defend your home your family and yourself. .

Jeremy (aka Flashman), the simple fact of the matter is that without your Big Government, parents would decide for themselves what kind of school they feel safer with. Some might choose gun-free schools, but then they have nobody to blame but themselves for that choice. Others would choose a school that was prepared for the rare cases of random violence. As it stands, you and your kind, by Force of Government, are preventing parents from doing what they believe safest for their kids. That makes you squarely an accessory to murder in those cases that occur to people who had no choice.
http://gunowners.org/op052609cb.htm

For your information Dave my parents did just what you described. You said “Some might choose gun-free schools, but then they have nobody to blame but themselves for that choice. Others would choose a school that was prepared for the rare cases of random violence.” My parents did both those by sending me to my school. It was safe and gun free and prepared for cases of random violence. And by the way I never said parents cannot choose to send their kids to certain schools. If that’s what they think is best so be it, I hope it is.

Then you think the laws that prevent teachers and school administrators from arming themselves should be abolished, Jeremy (aka Flashman)?

Dave my answer is no. Because I believe it was laws such as the ones that prevent teachers and school administrators from arming themselves that made my school safe.

But you just said in the above comment, Jeremy (aka Flashman), “And by the way I never said parents cannot choose to send their kids to certain schools”.

You can’t keep up with all your lies can you, Jeremy?

Robert,
Exactly.
We have such a school in Texas that has schools all over the world calling, asking how they do this. This school is at least 20 minutes from the nearest law officer. They have no problems whatsoever.

“You need to go back and reread what you just wrote. Totally illogical. Arming teachers that qualify, will take the training and be armed in school makes a log of sense. Currently there are school districts that have been doing this for years with no shootings nor loss of life.” Ordinance No. 67 enacted August 14th 1882 specified that no one could “carry concealed or otherwise about his or her person, any pistol, bowie knife, slung shot or other dangerous or deadly weapons, except County, City, or United Sates Officers”

Henry I believe that just because we have not eradicated the problem of drugs coming into our country or drunk driving that we should give up on the effort to fight them.

As for the second amendment I know the second amendment. I view it this way. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech and a free press. Yet both those freedoms are subject to such things as Slander and Libel laws and for good reason. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion. Yet it also disallows the establishment of a state religion. In these cases there are not freedoms without exception. These freedoms are subject to restrictions. I see the right to bear arms in the same way. A person has a right to keep and bear arms. Yet it says nothing of the manner of obtaining those arms or what arms they may be. If we were to view the constitution from a strictly originalist point of view we would probably have to conclude that the right to bear arms was focused on the right to form a militia so as to protect against a foreign invasion or against a tyrannical government. But since neither of those conditions apply today I do not think a rigid interpretation of the second amendment as allowing no regulations in regard to obtaining and using fire arms need apply. People have a right to keep and bear arms. But that does not mean they can get them whenever, wherever, however or for whatever they wish.

Jeremy,
You are right. We should never give up our effort in fighting them, meanwhile we need to have a level playing field. You don’t bring pepper spray to a gun fight. Pepper spray doesn’t stop everyone, neither does a stun gun. A stun gun doesn’t stop my husband.
In training he had to have it used on him and it didn’t work.

I do not consider the average neighborhood in the United States to be comparable to the Vietnam War.

Really Jeremy?
There are more civilians killed “per capita” everyday in Washington DC than in Bagdad.
Conclusion…the US should pull out of DC.

Perhaps Jana. However I do not think that walking down the streets of D.C is the same as walking down the streets of Saigon in 1965.

TML

On your first point. You got me there. I have been trapped by my own argument. Good one.

On your second. The reason I made the argument was to point out that I believe the idea of “Guns don’t kill people” is itself Non sequitur. Because if you follow the logic of the statement it suggests that it does not matter if a bad guy has a gun since after all guns don’t kill people. Your mention of an unarmed thug would fall under the part about how people kill people. But the statement “Guns don’t kill people implies that guns pose no threat”. I believe that is false.

On your third point. With respect I believe that allowing adults to carry guns in school invalidates and undermines any effort to stop kids from carrying them into school.

On your forth. I agree that that is what should be advocated. Sadly all I am hearing is we should arm teachers. There is rarely any mention of qualification or training or district policy or state regulation of munitions. Just we need more guns in school and schools are dangerous without them.

On your fourth, respectfully, you couldn’t be more wrong. Already in place is training, testing, and a plan as to how to employee the guns, very comprehensive. This plan is the work of 13 years since the Columbine massacre but blocked by anti gun lobby.

“But the statement “Guns don’t kill people implies that guns pose no threat”. I believe that is false.”

And you are wrong Jeremy. A gun is an inanimate object. Lay one on a table and it does nothing but lay there. It is only when someone with evil intent picks up the gun and makes sure it is loaded that it can be said to be a problem and that is because the person picking it up has evil intent. If the person picking it up has only good intentions whether to go target shooting, putting the gun away in a safe location, or carrying it for self defence among many other options then the gun CANNOT be considered a threat by any but those who want to disarm the American private citizen.

Buster your argument is my point. The statement that Guns Don’t kill people becomes null and void if the gun is in the hands of a bad person. So in certain situations and under certain circumstances indeed guns do kill. The gun itself cannot threaten but it can facilitate the threat posed by the person. In the same way that a car allows a drunk driver to kill so a gun allows a crazed monster to kill.

The high school I went too was and still is gun free. And in all the years before during and after my term there was never any violent acts or shootings. I do not consider the policy of having schools be gun free to be idiotic. I believe it was instrumental in allowing me to go to school without being afraid of being shot or stabbed.

You are so.o.o right! People still speed, run red lights, drive drunk, litter, park illegally, use profanities, fight in bars – but all of these are illegal! We’ve passed laws to stop them, but people are people. Should we prohibit any car from exceeding 75 miles an hour since that’s the highest speed limit in the US (I believe)? Should bartenders have to have the patrons surrender their car keys upon receipt of an alcoholic beverage and then pass a sobriety test before they can get the keys back? Oops, I let the next laws out of the bag, sorry Obama!

Yep….Its Shocking to hear a US Representative of we the People say this…..But I think more and more Americans are aware of the Fact that our Legislatures treats the US Constitiution with dire impunity!

Granpa David,,, Yeah, you’re right, the so called government , USA Inc. is NOT operating per The Constitution ,,,NOR,,,are “They” operating per The Holy Bible… This outlaw bunch in DC, can they be brought in line by the also outlaw bunches in the states??? NO!!! , because the state outlaws are part of the DC outlaws ,,,corruption breeds corruption , so, it will NEVER clean itself up… America , when it is cleaned up, will need the help of King Jesus Christ and His Laws ,,,history shows America was established and functioned very well under Biblical Law for about the first 100 years,,, then a gradual departure from Biblical Law and King Jesus Christ began to take place… George Washington and a bunch of others thought they could leave out King Jesus Christ and create their own laws and blessings and you see what has happened…Meanwhile…………
Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

Charlie Freedom

The message above was brought to you by Charlie, apparently a member of the amerikan christian telleban.

Rob

Charlie,
“history shows America was established and functioned very well under Biblical Law for about the first 100 years”
What history are you reading?

Much as I DISagree with Mr. Conyers MOST of the time, he isn’t stupid… and that’s one of the smartest things I’ve heard from him since Waco.

I AM a Christian and “Charlie,” aka “Charlie Freedom,” is full of s**t. He doesn’t know dick about Washington, obviously never read his writings, and “cherry-picks” what he chooses to believe (no pun intended). Charlie is a misread, misbelieving christian (lower case intentional).

Robert Smith says:
December 28, 2012 at 9:36 am
The message above was brought to you by Charlie, apparently a member of the amerikan christian telleban.

Rob
__________________________________________________________________

Gee Rob, whether or not you agree with Charlie’s stand on religion is irrelevant.
Referencing the “Taliban” as a comparison is just more proof that you “Liberals” are not in the least Liberal. (You’re NAZI’s) You have zero tolerance for American values. You have zero tolerance of Christian values…you espouse no particular values of your own other than “statism”. I’d say you’ve done a very effective job of identifying yourself as an enemy of the Republic.

Good work!

JC claims: “You have zero tolerance of Christian values…”

Absolutely false.

What I have zero tolerance for is when some “christians” proclaim their religion superior to all thoughts in running America. Instead of using the bible as an instrument to learn how to live and love they use it as a weapon of hate.

You know, kinda like “God hates fags” kind of stuff.

America is a nation with christians. It is NOT a christian nation.

Rob

Pay attention, class is in session. We are not a Christian nation. We are a nation built on Christian principles. If you don’t know the difference……you are the problem.

Thanks for clearing that up Robert, your view does have some validity.

Grampa David,

Did you see those people handing in their guns,with no questions ask? Have the state officials lost their mind?Those guns could have been stolen.Some honest people made a little a money,but bet your bottom dollar the criminal element made a small fortune by selling their so called weapons..STAND YOUR GROUND: Join the NRA.Gun control sucks.We got a long tough fight ahead.

Kinetic1,,,
Check the Mayflower Compact with England by the Pilgrims of America and tell us what it says… Meanwhile……………. SEE Luke 22:36,,,then………………
Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

Charlie Freedom

jcfromdc,,,
Maybe partly,,, because a BM has not occurred yet today… What would a heathen know about The Bible??? is it Facts or not? Can you prove any other History Book to be more True??? Meanwhile,,, see Luke 22:36……………
Praise King Jesus for Salvation for Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

Charlie Freedom

Robert Smith,,,
Heathen,,,it only takes , one True Christian , to make a “Super Power”… It reads as you are a road kill on the hi-way to hell… Meanwhile ,,,check Luke 22:36…
Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

Charlie Freedom

Granpa David says:
“To me it is a false argument for the federal government to do any of this including establishing gun free zones. Show me the delegated power for all this in the Constitution. ”

Commerce clause. Our founders had a few thoughts on the matter.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/founders-and-19th-century-quotes-commerce-clause

They would not likely be happy with the current state where the Federal Government can justify (and has) regulating everything.

Limits are allowed by the constitution. Like the 1st amendemnt of free speech but it’s illegal to scream fire in a crowded theater. Just because you have rights does not mean there are no limits.

Rob,the “Christian Taliban” comment is one of the biggest oxymorons you progs have come up with yet. Think about it.The Taliban is an extremist Islamic group that hates Christianity and would like nothing more than to see it destroyed. The Taliban also has this bad habit of killing Christians, and while the prog ‘atheists’ might not have a big enough pair to do the killings themselves, so many intolerant,hate-filled rants have made it clear they would consider a Christian genocide to be a good thing. So tell us,which group actually resembles the Taliban?

We have nothing to worry about! Obama is arming every jihadist in the world by funding the muslim brotherhood and their AK-47 Factory in Egypt. Their stated mission is to arm every jihadist with our tax dollars! Obama will have them take care of us and provide our security like in Libya! As long as the enemy is in power in the USA we don’t have any worries. He has allowed KGB trained agents in, financed by George Soros, to arrange incidents to sway public idiot opinion against the Constitution. The USA has no greater enemy than the current administration. After all, an illegal alien can’t be a traitor since he isn’t a citizen anyway.

Actually he does NOT have to be a citizen to be a traitor. He is in a place and has sworn or should have sworn (if he has not sworn an oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution then he is NOT legally the president and none of his orders, treaties, etc mean anything – not binding on the USA) to our country – false or not, he is a traitor under our laws.

Proof:
Do not forget that Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey “gave” authority over the USA to the UN, and authority over the US Military to the UN – in front of a Senate panal, and in a letter to Boehner. That is the very definition of TREASON.

Then there is Fast & Furious with ‘our’ gov selling arms to KNOWN gun runners for foreign country which murdered 100′s of innocents in Mexico, and was found at at least 47 crime scenes in the USA since 2009 with at least one American murdered on US soil.

Benghazi – Once again selling arms (military grade) to terrorists, even the ones blamed for 9/11.

These crimes all fall under Murder, Mass Murder, War Crimes, and Treason by those involved in those crimes and those who knew about them, hear what they said and did not push for their immediate arrest for Treason.

A lot of people say that Obama, etc can use UN laws, etc, but they are incorrect. Let’s start out with Treaties, like those we have with the UN. The UN and others realized that if they wanted our money .. sorry .. membership they had to recognize our government and what our US Constitution allows. So…

Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine – see, they badly wanted our money .. membership, and of course to be able to use OUR US military with us paying the bills for UN actions.)

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
“No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Fed 69)

So this stuff going on with the UN; them “overseeing” our elections, trying to get our guns with UN (foreign entity) laws, getting US citizens to pay taxes to the UN is all illegal – and when the UN came onto our American soil for an illegal purpose that actually was them declaring war on us.

On to Treason and other crimes:
Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

“in Pursuance thereof” means that things like warrantless searches, spying, tracking, etc; Patriot Act, NDAA, torture, assassination lists and the deed, TSA doing searches anywhere without a warrant saying EXACTLY what they are looking for, etc – are all illegal here. Under constitutional law it is all “Null nd Void” which is why if Ron Paul or any other constitutional supporting person got in they would be gone – and immediately. That is what “null and void” means.

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. <— See?

Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
· Those assisting in the cover-up and implementation of Agenda 21, giving "authority" to ther UN over the USA and over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey.

18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
· That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don't forget that both Bush's, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.

18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
· "incites", assists = That would be "change" and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel, UN's Agenda 21, giving authority over the USA (no one was ever given THAT power), etc.
o Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.
o “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}
· Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.

18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

{Fast and Furious – Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN 'authority' over the USA – using UN laws, UN here to 'monitor' OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil, UN's Agenda 21, etc}

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

{Giving the UN 'authority' over the USA, over the US Military – Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration…}
{The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA – Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of "our" Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason – that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate – on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts}

Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. (Obama, Holder, Biden, Feinstein, most of the legislative branch, some of the judicial branch, some heads of states and their legislatures, both Bush's, both Clinton's, Pelosi, J. Napolitano, etc. Here are the laws applying:

Clause 2 of Article VI of the original Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, PRESERVE, PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States.”

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
.
Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

Require, Requirement, Required: "to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation."

“Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN beginning clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and ending clauses that specify the duties requiring use of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution, the highest law of our land, as a requirement. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations. That is why they are legally binding.

Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Fed 22), have the Right to overrule any violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials. We can also "nullify" court decisions as a jury in the courts – if we do not agree with a law that someone is being prosecuted by, we can nullify it, stops the law, free's the person.

Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
A provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” (back to UN's Agenda 21 (any who support it, any companies supporting it, any state or federal representatives supporting it, and any person who assists or supports it are committing treason. Back to them "giving" authority over the USA to the UN, etc all treason.)

Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

ANY ACT TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH OF OFFICE PRESCRIBED 5 U.S.C. 3331 WHICH ALTERS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OTHER THEN BY AMENDMENT IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF THE 5 USC 7311.

President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… another precedent.

The problem now is findng a legal agency who is willing to not commit treason even when threatened by Obama and his adminstration, etc.

Thanks CB! That’s why I just BLOW right past Horton’s posts.

Looks like we have two JC’s again.

Laddies… fellow “JCs”…. ’tis why I always qualify m’self as “JCfromDC”! There are no easy answers to this problem guys, so come ON!!! Knee-jerk reactions from BOTH sides aside, let’s try to be civil, constructive and at least polite? I know how difficult it is, I went off in “Charlie Freedom” here already.
And for those of you who did NOT benefit from a Catholic Education, try RIGHT CLICKING your mouse, track ball, or touch pad, and use the SPELL CHECK! JEEZ! And use caps just for EMPHASIS, not to yell! I wish we had an Italics option, but most do not know how to use THAT properly either.

Teachers should not have thier right to bear arms INFRINGED.

The 2nd amendment is very clear:

Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land. That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes. Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern. Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption. We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult.

Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1243-feinsteins-gun-control-bill-will-trigger-the-next-american-revolution

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

Chip, I don’t know if in Israel the teachers carry weapons to school or not, but I do know they certainly know how to use these weapons. I have a 38 year old Israeli girl friend who has moved back to Israel. She was sharing with my husband and I how every man and woman had to learn how to handle weapons. While in training they even slept with them. I was shocked at how well she handled each and every weapon presented to her at the gun range and was quite proficient with them. She hit the target dead on each and every time. She worked with me and taught me a few things.

My husband and DaveH encouraged me in this, and I want to thank DaveH for his his encouragement.

My friend said that every person of a certain age was in the military male or female and had to learn how to defend their country and themselves, so I would assume defending the innocent children in school would certainly fit that agenda.

Hats off to YOU Jana!

Jana, good to see you around here. Hope your Christmas was a good one and your health even better.

“JUKEBOX,”

NOW, WHEN MEMPHIS HIGH SCHOOLS [AND, SOME MIDDLE SCHOOLS] DISMISS AT 2:15 PM EACH DAY, POLICE CARS ARE ALREADY STATIONED AT SCHOOL ENTRANCES IN PREPARATION FOR TROUBLE.

Thank you JeffH,
Had a wonderful Christmas and feeling great. Good to be back.

Good for you Jana,
Glad to hear you are taking your rights seriously.
I’m guessing that more women are, as the female membership at my club is up 25%.
Cool!

Thank you, Jana, for your kind words.