Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Cower, Lock The Door, Grab The Scissors, Act Like A Sheep

February 1, 2013 by  

Cower, Lock The Door, Grab The Scissors, Act Like A Sheep
SCREENSHOT

The Department of Homeland Security has new advice for those unfortunate enough to find themselves in a situation where their workplace is being shot to pieces by a crazed gunman: cower under the desk, lock the door, grab the scissors, hope you don’t get shot.

In a ridiculously simplistic propaganda video entitled “Options for Consideration,” DHS mentions recent mass shootings — all of which occurred in gun-free zones — and gives instructions on the best ways to cower in fear and hope you don’t get shot. The video description claims it “demonstrates possible actions to take if confronted with a (sic) active shooter scenario. The instructive video reviews the choices of evacuating, hiding, or, as an option of last resort, challenging the shooter.” The challenge makes no mention of pulling out your own personal protection firearm, but does suggest grabbing a pair of scissors.

The ultimate irony is that at the end of the video, a group of law enforcement officers wielding personal defense weapons enter the workplace looking for the shooter. Anyone running out of the workplace with hands in the air is allowed to pass. Meanwhile, officers are going into office carrying the very weapons the gun grabbers want to deny lawful gun owners.

The overall message of DHS is clear: Take no action beyond pretending to be a herd animal and hope law enforcement gets there before everyone in the building is dead or dying.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Cower, Lock The Door, Grab The Scissors, Act Like A Sheep”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • USAF VET

    When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

    • Vicki

      If taking a knife to a gunfight is stupid, what is it to take a scissors? :)

      • Vicki

        The OP writes:
        “The overall message of DHS is clear: Take no action beyond pretending to be a herd animal and hope law enforcement gets there before everyone in the building is dead or dying.”

        This video explains my position rather well.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYF8Z7rZ050

      • Warrior

        Here we go again, the scrools are now instituting “duck and cover” drills. Yes, little ones, learn to be afraid, VERY AFRAID!

      • rendarsmith

        This reminds me of that episode of King of the Hill when the school was teaching the kids to throw their books at incoming assailants.

      • ibcamn

        You got that right,kinda like the old saying,”where’s a cop when you need one?” and then of course the cop’s are there when you don’t need(want)them!…

      • eddie47d

        No surprises in the responses here and fear has a steady grip on all your minds. Now Vicki what does rape have to do with office shootings? Feel free to carry that video along with your Beretta or Colt .45 in your purse when you are on the streets or in your car. Office shooters almost never if ever rape. Office shooters generally are disgruntled employees who are either being laid off or have already been fired so they are well known to everyone. Yet no one knows what they are capable of so why in the hell would you or management want them to be armed. That’s like putting handguns into the hands of two spouses having an argument and daring each other to take the first shot. If an employee is mad at a boss and weapons are allowed on premise what better way to settle a score with out thinking. If a husband and wife work at the same company and the wife is caught flirting with another man what better way to prove a point . If you don’t like the lady working next to you who doesn’t work as hard as you who’s to say you won’t use alittle more force than anger management or self control. Where I worked there were an occasional heated political discussion and some guys wouldn’t talk to each other for weeks. You really want guns around pissed off people?

      • Bob

        How many hollow point bullets did DHS buy for target practice? Buy guns we will need them to protect ourselves from our government.

      • Alex Frazier

        eddie, you’re describing a worse-case scenario from the perspective that every citizen in the country is without control and able to make a decision between right and wrong. I don’t care if I’m carrying ten guns. I’m not going to shoot someone over an argument. I’m not going to shoot my boss because he fired me. I’m not going to shoot someone for flirting with my wife.

        I might beat the snot out of someone, but I’d never shoot them unless they were a danger to my life or physical well being.

        So your scenario has no teeth. It only holds water if the general public is incapable of choosing good and rejecting evil, and I don’t believe that’s the case. We have some nutjobs out there. But the average person won’t sincerely entertain murder over something petty.

      • eddie47d

        How can that be Alex when office shootings come from those who work there and from lay offs and personal squabbles? I wouldn’t shoot anyone either but that wasn’t the point in who is doing the shooting. Even if you were armed you couldn’t stop a fellow employee from shooting a boss because he has the element of surprise. If an employee was mad at the guy next to you and pulled out his gun there is nothing you can do at the moment because he would have the draw . The guy next to you would be dead or wounded. More than likely if he wasn’t mad at you the scenario would be over so would your really shoot and kill him if you did had a weapon? Office shootings are rare but do happen every year so why would you want to make it easier for the disgruntled employee to seek revenge. In cases like the Edmond Okla shooting where he had his uniform on so he blended in and starting shooting with a multiple magazine weapon. He had the element of surprise and no one had time to react. If everyone of those Postal employees had a weapon he still would have killed the most regardless because he had the upper hand. The best bet in any office is not to allow any weapon. My wife worked in an office and had to lay people off and heard many stories from other bosses too. That employees would sabotage desks and destroy computers and damage property on the way out. Would you really want them to have guns in their possession?

      • Doc Sarvis

        “…what is it to take a scissors?” It is an option. All viable options should be considered when one finds oneself in bad situations.

      • Dennis48e

        “All viable options should be considered when one finds oneself in bad situations.”

        For once Doc gets it right. All viable options should be considered so QUIT trying to take the most effective option (firearms) away from us

      • Gordon

        BOB= As you well know DHS ordered 1.6 BBBillion rounds of NON-Geneva Convention bullets (hollow points), new handguns and new assault rifles for the EPA, Noaa weather men, FEMA, etc.

        The feds are 1) consuming the manufacturing abilities of the bullet makers, 2) restricting imports of ammo, because they are…… 3) Expecting an armed confrontation/ civil war in the lower 48 when the socio-economic collapse happens, and marshall law is declared- suspending elections (22nd amendment).

        After the citizens wipe out most bad guys and use up their own ammo, then the blue hats and National Guard will come in for weapons confiscation and relocation (like Katrina).

        Hide and watch.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d focuses on the wrong nouns and writes:
        “Now Vicki what does rape have to do with office shootings? ”

        The nouns to pay attention to are “herd animals” and “possum”. As in to hide and be quiet till the police come to herd you to safety. Which was the main thrust of the DHS video and clear from the part of the OP I quoted.

        So as the girl in the video says, I would rather play “tool using human” like the police do. Wouldn’t you?

      • Vicki

        Alex Frazier says to eddie47d:
        “So your scenario has no teeth. It only holds water if the general public is incapable of choosing good and rejecting evil, and I don’t believe that’s the case. We have some nutjobs out there. But the average person won’t sincerely entertain murder over something petty.”

        And we have significant evidence of your assertion that the general public IS capable of choosing good and rejecting evil.

        We know that there are 100′s of millions of guns out there in private hands. We know that the anti-gun crowd worry constantly about them being stolen by a VERY few bad people.

        Yet in spite of all this we know that

        ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT shoot anyone.

        STOP punishing the INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        • kimo3690

          Exactly Vicki and Mr Eddie47d MAY want to check this “stats” out….

          “The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.

          Check it out …

          Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
          Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
          Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
          Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
          Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

          Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

          Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.

          Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.”

          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2979881/posts

      • Vigilant

        “The ultimate irony is that at the end of the video, a group of law enforcement officers wielding personal defense weapons enter the workplace looking for the shooter…Meanwhile, officers are going into office carrying the very weapons the gun grabbers want to deny lawful gun owners.”

        There’s not a bit of irony in that, Mr. Livingston. It’s precisely what the gun grabbers want: disarm everyone except the police.

      • Loco Coco

        Would taking scissors to a gun fight be 2 times as stupid? 2 blades,a knife has only 1 blade** How do you protect yourself? Do you try to block the bullets coming at you with the scissors? Or do you run up to the man shooting at you & try to stab him? We cant do that,we get arrested for attempted murder* Maybe I will hire Edward Scissorhands for a bodygaurd,before someone else does** Loco Coco

      • http://yahoo.com BillT

        Once the perp sees you have a pair of scissors, maybe a sewing class might break out.

      • Old Henry

        And… that old saying: “I carry a 45 because a COP it too heavy.

      • Wumingren

        Bill, about those scissors in schools … to keep the kiddies from hurting themselves, they’re almost all blunted “safety scissors” about 5″ long and with cutting edges under 2″ in length. The few “deadly” scissors available are likely to be found in the teachers’ work room or in an office lamination station. I suppose you could have all the kiddies pull out their scissors and attempt to inflict the “death of a million cuts.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Marine vet, yes about 15 to 20 minutes and your dead by then. God Bless and thanks for your service.

    • Average Joe

      USAF VET ,

      “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

      The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.
      Guess who I’m going to call on….. ;)

      AJ

    • Giovanni

      I’m still trying to figure out how to close the door if I am cowering under the desk and figuring out where the damn scissors are (assuming that they are somewhere in the desk!
      Those guys at Homeland Security should work out a correct sequence but, regardless how they do it, the result is that I am dead unless I have a firearm on my person which would give me better odds of survival.
      Politicians’ Intellect is only matched by their stupidity and, before you shake hands with them, I suggest you wear gloves!

    • Chuck

      And when DHS has close to a BILLION rounds of ammo, it’s easy for them to say this. Wonder what they tell THEIR kids?

  • Vicki

    Watching the video and remembering a discussion with Jeremy it makes me wonder if he wrote their script.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Alas no Vicki. Writing scripts is not in my repertoire. Though I did once write a scene that got some good reviews in drama class. Well I did have a partner. I made the original script and she edited and added. It was a collaborative effort.

  • Gaines Bruce

    Quite frankly, I set through a video at work with a similar message. My workplace is a “weapons free zone” where even a 3 inch pocket knofe is prohibited. We were advised to run if possible, or barricade ourselves behind closed and blocked doors with the lights off if possible. The “attack” with the sissors or whatever else you have is for when the gunman breaks through the barrier and there is no other alternative. Some office have safe sissors do something else may be necessary. If I have the option to run, it will be to my truck in the parking lot where I’ll retrieve my automatic pistol. I probably am violating some work rule, but I think I am in literal compliance with the rules. Maybe some day folks will wake up about the stupidity of gun free zones.

    • Robert B.

      Why don’t you just take your gun to work and hide it on you. Wouldn’t you rather be fired from your job than die at your job.

      • Average Joe

        Robert B.

        There the answer in a nutshell.

        Which do you value more, you job or your life?
        I have been fortunate in that I am a Land Surveyor by trade in west central Florida, a gun on the job is pretty much a given (it’s not all city life here, we still have some swampland…and lots of it). However, If I weren’t a LS, I still wouldn’t work anywhere that I was forbidden to protect my own life…by any means possible…and that includes concealed carry. I could not work for a company that doesn’t value my life.

      • http://google gary gerke

        You my friend are right on the money!!!!! Life and death can be an option, we would all chose life…However, the government would chose death over carrying a gun to save the life of the citizen.

    • kimo3690

      INDEED!! And check this out:

      “The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.

      Check it out …

      Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
      Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
      Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
      Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
      Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

      Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

      Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.

      Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.”

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2979881/posts

      • Average Joe

        kimo3690 ,

        Shhh…the proggressive/ liberals are trying to keep it a secret…..they don’t want us to know that they really aren’t the “tolerant” folks they claim to be. it seems that the only people they are actually tolerant of… is…themselves.

        AJ

        • kimo3690

          LMAO!!!!!!!! yes “mums” the word…..

      • Kate8

        kimo3690 – That’s it!!! You’ve done it! You’ve come up with the solution to the gun dilemma!

        Ban all liberals from owning or possessing guns. Then we will have no more senseless shootings.

        Thank God. Now we can move on to more productive issues.

        • kimo3690

          LOL INDEED!!!

        • Luther Henry

          That’ll be easy too, because they do not want nor do they need guns, It will be a win,win. You have solved the problem of the century in one fell swoop..

  • dan

    safety of the herd…blend in and try not to look tasty….lol
    just don’t run with those assault scissors !

    • Darrell

      love it, LOL

      • Average Joe

        Hey, that’s my name…and spelled… correctly ( nobody ever does that))…I thought I was alone in the universe…lol ;) ;)

  • Corkey

    Stop, drop and roll.

  • Elevenarrows

    If those of us who know our constitutional and God-given rights were to DEMAND the right to defend ourselves as loudly as the left demands their food stamps and free phones…America would be a different place. The left are ruthless in implementing their agenda. Until more Americans realize that the two party system does not serve freedom-loving, constitutional Americans, nothing will change. Those of you who just have not been able to desert a party that deserted the Constitution decades ago, shame on you. Please do all of us a favor and check out other party options. I HIGHLY recommend all the disgruntled Republicans get on board NOW with the Constitution Party so we can dethrone the two party system in the next election. Hey, gun-lovers, read for yourself the Constitution Party’s view on the 2nd amendment.

    • eddie47d

      Elevennarrows; You already have the right to defend yourself . On the main topic are you saying that keeping weapons out of places of employment is a ruthless leftist plot? Most business owners are Conservative so be careful how you answer that.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        eddie47d, you say most business owners are conservative. I don’t know where you get your definition of conservative. My dictionary cites the definition as follows: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. This doesn’t sound like any business owners I know. The business owners I know of, follow whatever political party gives them what they want! The BIG business owners BUY the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. This doesn’t make them conservatives! The little business owners are just trying to keep the government (at the behest of the big business owners) from destroying them. Neither business nor government, any longer haver anything to do with being conservative OR liberal! Let’s stop labeling people and judging them upon whether they’re conservative or liberal. The two terms no longer apply! Our system of government has been corrupted to the point that it’s no longer about conservatives vs liberals. It’s about control! Those with power and money(both parties) CONTROL those without!!!

      • eddie47d

        Maybe I was being too darn nice in saying business owners are Conservative. I should have known better. Yes there are alot of scallywags out there these days Nancy and there are way too many on the take . Just today Russ Wasendorf in Cedar Rapids Iowa (of all places) was sent to prison for 50 years. He pleaded guilty to milking his clients out of $215 million over 20 years through his Peregrine Financial Group. To think he didn’t even use a gun!

      • Gordon

        Actually Eddie47d you’re right.

        Most employers prohibit guns because some liberal theiving lawyers will figure out some way to get rich and bankrupt the business man into oblivion. So employers must protect their own asse—ts.

        EX: WalMart does not allow employees to carry “on the job” for the simple reason that it would WM a gazillion bucks just to settle frivolous law suits “out of court”.

        The real problem is liars….. I mean…… LAWYERS.

      • eddie47d

        Is that all you have Gordon blame the lawyers? Is your mind fracked!

      • Average Joe

        “The real problem is liars….. I mean…… LAWYERS.”

        Sam Ting

        AJ

      • johnny

        Eddy,keeping guns out of work places dis arms the very people that a psycho hunts for.They are drawn to free fire zones called gun free zones.Listen carefully,criminals do not give a rat’s ass about your laws.They laugh at you liberals and your fantasy ‘gun free zones” When did you lose your manhood?

        • kimo3690

          WELL said johnny…. Keep your powder dry!!

    • Hedgehog

      Elevenarrows, as a Canadian, might I suggest that you try a multi-party system like ours, fondly known as divide and conquer. That way the parties fight each other competing for our votes. Of course we often have minority governments when not much gets done, but that’s a good thing. A government that is doing nothing is not harming its people!

      • kimo3690

        YEP YEP YEP well said!!

  • TPS12

    I prefer to let people just defend themself with their CCW.

    • ibcamn

      i carried long long before CCL,i had a CCW with me all the time,never without one!and my lifestyle(biker),i needed it several times over the years and alive to prove it!

      • Scorch

        Ibcamm I agree totally having carried nearly all my life and having to actually use them on three separate occassions, only in one of those did I actually have to fire my weapon. Making the weapon visible to my assailants in the other two instances was all that was required.

    • eddie47d

      Not to get you in a tizzy but you rather proved a point about gun control. I’ve seen a few bikers acting up ( most are not that way) but they are scrappers who are always looking for a fight. Biker bars in Colorado are noted for more than good drinking and good times and shootings do occur.

      • http://www.facebook.com/WizardKiller Mark Are Reynolds

        And how has he “proven a point”? By exercising his NATURAL BORN RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF IF NEED BE??? Idiot.

      • eddie47d

        That SOME people shouldn’t have guns because they continually put themselves in violital situations. Hell volunteer for combat duty if you are so obsessed!

      • Gordon

        Defense is a simple word, like infringed. Look em up.

        Drunks kill people with cars….. so all cars should be outlawed and crushed?

        Doctors kill more people through mis-diagnosis and malpractice than the top 6 diseases AND gun crime added together……. Let’s put a stop to doctors.

        Liberals need a crainirectomy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, what use to be biker bars in Denver won’t let bikers in who wear their colors, must have been in a cave or haven’t been to a biker bar lately?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Not to get you in a tizzy but you rather proved a point about gun control. ”

        Yes he did. He controlled his gun quite well and didn’t die. He did as you CLAIM, and exercised his right to defend himself. Then in a response you claim he should not have the right to do it with the best tool for the job.

        This is why we know you are not serious about claiming that we have the right to defend ourselves.

      • eddie47d

        Now we know Vicki is a brawling biker chick who loves a good tumble! Hey Conservative Gayle Trotter said a couple of days ago “that woman are safer with guns”. In the same article it also said that a woman who is involved in a domestic dispute where a gun is involved is 500 times more likely to be a victim. Oh yes… the good the bad and the ugly of gun ownership.

      • vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Hey Conservative Gayle Trotter said a couple of days ago “that woman are safer with guns”. In the same article it also said that a woman who is involved in a domestic dispute where a gun is involved is 500 times more likely to be a victim. Oh yes… the good the bad and the ugly of gun ownership.”

        Hmmm…. so 500 times more likely to become a victim. I notice in the sequence there is no mention of who has the gun. And in spite of there being 500 times more likely we find that

        ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot anyone. Not even in a domestic dispute.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • eddie47d

        It didn’t matter Vicki either she was shot or if she did the shooting she was sent to prison. She lost either way!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “It didn’t matter Vicki either she was shot or if she did the shooting she was sent to prison. She lost either way!”

        Thus you are saying that your statistic is irrelevant. Thanks. We knew that already. This statistic however is relevant.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

  • FedUp II

    So, the Department of Homeland Security says take a “pair of scissors” to a gun fight! Really?…

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I say…we take all the guns er, I mean, personal defense weapons, that the department of homeland security bought, and distribute them to the citizens who PAID for them. Then we issue everybody in homeland security, a nice pair of scissors!!!

      • Vicki

        Tools of personal defense. Sounds less scary to liberals that way.

      • http://outdoorsunlimited.net Ray

        Nancy, you are sharp and to the point: (No pun intended) love your way of putting it. You got them on the run keep em going.

      • Chris

        Good idea Nancy………I’ll take one revolver, one rifle, and a bazooka please.

      • http://none Susan

        That is a splendid idea.. I love it.. we pay for thease why should not we get one or two each…

      • Richard

        It is wonderful to experiance such creativity as this to express the universal frustration that we as citizens our experiancing with our tone deaf government. Theiir logic defies any linnear logic that I have ever experianced. There is no explanation for the level of retardation that these people exhibit when it comes to rational thought.

        Sleep tonight your Government is watching…. America your in good hands?

        • Bill Johnson

          Contrary to popular belief, governments do not ban guns for protection of the populace, they ban guns to protect themselves from the populace. All established governments first priority is to protect themselves. Watch the timeline on any major shooting incident. The police do not dash in and save anyone. They wait, plan, equip themselves and attack in mass to ensure no police casualties. This is not bad! They are ineffective if they become victims. All this boils down to is, you must do what is necessary to protect you and yours. It is not the primary mission of the police. I prefer to use a gun against armed intruders, First, I am not in the physical shape of superman and second most of the perps are looking for an excuse to beat on someone. I prefer not to be beaten.

      • http://yahoo.com Diane

        I would be willing to pay a little to see that happen !

      • http://westrivertelephone Morris

        right on!!! couldn’t be said better, left wing communist liberals, blaming the wrong things and rewarding the wrong people, maybe we should limit buses to 10 passengers. The sandy hook tragedy is the government’s fault-one armed guard or a couple of teachers with weapons would possibly have prevented 26 deaths.

      • Cathy

        Yes; best idea, yet!!

      • Gunner4r8

        I second that…. The kuindergarten type with round safety tips.

      • http://google mike

        Nancy, I think you are on to something here! Now we have to convince them (we could tax it, demonstrate that thati a better way for them, and will hurt conservatives. That will convince them,What say you?

      • bill

        Nancy, My thoughts exactly.

      • GiGi Bronson

        I agree—bad idea. This would help no one.

      • don

        Nancy i think thats a great idea !

      • John C

        Nancy that is a great idea!!!!!! Now to implement it, and have ovomit get rid of all his secret service protection and especially Joe “Stupid Biden’s ” protection, I will then believe in gun control. However I don’t think the cowards who have never served in the armed forces or done one days hard work will go for that. Let’s force it upon them.

      • BigIndianJim of North Carolina

        Just who is Home Land Security arming with all the weapons they bought with our tax dollars? Do they have their own army paid for with our taxes? How does one sign up for this army? Sounds like the kind of work our Veterans might qualify for, instead of being unemployed. As an old Vet, I would sign up to protect our borders. This whole thing sounds like someone is forming their own Army, maybe to protect us citizens from ourselves because they know whats best for us, so they think. Of course they don’t have to follow the laws they put in place for us. They will be armed, have a pension for life and the best medical insurance.

      • http://WND Kenneth Ferguson

        H.L.S. is an enemy of the State. In Germany it was called the brown shirts.

      • Judy Cook

        You go Girl. U make more sense than all those govmt. dudes.

      • Joe

        Nancy, don’t forget the ammo!

      • http://cjb29010@yaho.com brown

        I think You have a great Idea. they didn’t ask us little folks if they could spend are money tis way. I don’tthink we even need then.if the would look down in Washington DC the wouldfne the folks who want to do us in.

      • beebee

        Nancy, that’s the most reasonable answer anyone can give to these hare-brained ideas! Guess it’s just too simple for them to see. Citizens left defenseless, (armed with scissors, no less!) while “they” sit in their ivory towers surrounded by armed guards with warehouses full of weapons and ammo, and all the while criminals roaming the streets armed to the teeth, just looking for some defenseless family they can terrorize, rob, and kill.

      • mwb

        Perfect!

      • Leslie Shively

        Nancy, what you said is priceless. I agree with you 100%

      • MichElaine Rippentrop

        This is great Nancy I like it you go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Star

        Amen! I thought of the same thing.

    • http://google gary gerke

      I love you fed up……to hell with TSA, HLS and the FBI, they are all involved in trashing the constitution and bill of rights. If the atrocities on the American people continue, there will be an uprising of the true American patriots that the world has never seen. This is the reason for gun confiscation in the near future. The government is scared to death of a potential 90-million gun owners shooting back!!!!!!

  • Mark

    The average number of persons killed in these situtations when the police responds is 14.3 the average when an armed private citizen takes action is 2.3. I guess the Obama administration really doesn’t care 12 people will be saved by a citizen taken action. They only are interested in controlling the masses.

    • Vicki

      It is all about control and not saving lives. An even better statistic is

      ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot anyone
      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few (~0.01%)

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

    • waynedoudney

      HEY! WHY DON’T WE DO SOMETHING REALLY STUPID?

      HERE IS WHAT WE DO:
      We make sure that only the irresponsible mentally retarded people, young and old alike, any and all known felons, any and all drug dealers, any and all gangs and gang members, any and all severely addicted drug users with zero incomes, will have best the best semi-automatic hand guns, rifles, shotguns including pump guns with boo coo ammo at their disposal. Many of them already have networks that trade in these kinds of weapons.

      THEN WE DO THE STUPIDEST OF ALL THINGS:
      Make it a felony to own any semi-automatic guns to include pump shotguns. Confiscate all guns that are worthwhile weapons of protection for civilized, productive, and hard working citizens. Of course the only people who will obey this obviously unconstitutional law is the good folk, the productive folk, the only few that have acquired anything worth stealing.

    • ted sockwell

      its not about gun control its just people control is what they want we really need to start over from scratch

    • Deb

      If you hold a gun like Obama did for his photo op, you might be safer with a pair of scissors. Take a close look of where the gun is on his shoulder & how he is standing. Not a shooters stance. A big joke to show off.

    • Bill Moss

      More than likely the numbers are correct, or near correct, but where did you get these figures?

    • Don

      Mark – I had not heard of that statistic but it is a good one. Unfortunately the central liberal news media and the ignorant (Pierce Morgan) will not want to hear it.

    • Ghis

      Your numbers are wrong… or at least biaised. Your number were the cops intervene include all the big, mass events were a lot of people are gathered. Your number were individual intervene relates to mostly limited size events like household violences…
      How does these compare?…

    • Trish

      We have had guns in our house for years. Three children and they never, never would have thought of using one when not necessary. Thank you and you are right on the money. Mr. Obama needs to work for the Americans for once.

  • Waldo the Pig

    We are our first line of defense. The police are secondary. They are there after (not during) the tragic events.

    • Vicki

      Police are not defense. They are backup.

      • Average Joe

        Also remember,

        Police carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

  • cawmun cents

    So it surprises you that marxists tell you to bury your head in the sand and hope your ass doesnt get kicked?
    -CC.

  • Don 2

    From the mouth of Barack ‘Insane’ Obama himself while in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun!”

    • Average Joe

      …and there goes the stiff uppercut to the jaw….The Big O. is down for the count….Ding!….. ;)

      AJ

  • Guy Waukcinebar

    But for God’s sake, don’t run with the scissors. There is only one solution to madmen who think they can easily kill multiple victims – reasonable concealed carry laws. Almost all mass murders end when someone else shows up with a gun.

    • Gordon

      Let’s be realistic, please.
      Nearly every mass murder ever done in this country was done in a gun-free-zone.

      Don’t read much about people shooting up police stations do ya?

      Ft. Hood= That was a gun free zone also, done by a muslim (there I go again). Off duty troops were not allowed to have weapons on their person or outside of the platoon arsenel.

  • Rick

    Obama will probably want to ban all scissors except maybe the round point safety scissors.
    I don’t think the criminals are as stupid as the politicians, so a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, probably will not deter the criminals either. It might deter Fienstein, Clinton, Biden, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and some of the other idiots, but I just don’t think the criminals are that stupid.

    • Vicki

      I recommend a tool designed to throw a rock very efficiently. Rocks made of one or 2 elements are good. Note that scissors are not really suitable to aerodynamic design and paper can fly but doesn’t have enough kinetic energy delivery.

  • ibcamn

    hey,how about making signs that say this is a armed and ready to go zone,or something to that effect!!or this is a fight zone,not a flight zone!how about a AK-47 zone!this is a AR-15 carry zone,something to get them to think?too much?i mean they put up “don’t even think of parking here”parking signs in Wisconsin in troubled parking areas,and it worked,people stopped parking in those areas!!sometimes a detourant works real well!

    • Alex Frazier

      That’s kind of funny. Because I thought of making a sign out of a target. I’m a tight, clean shot. I can trim the center hole out of a target at fifteen yards with one magazine. So I thought about taking one of those targets, laminating it, and then making a home security sign. Smith and Wesson Home Security. Or something like that.

      I think a potential intruder would get the point.

      • cawmun cents

        I did that…shot the targrt with a 12 ga. and posted it next to my front door.
        -CC.

      • Danseur
      • Gordon

        HELLO= Get a clue people.

        Any “gun stickers” on your home or car say:

        “I own guns. Follow me home, see where I live, and rob me when I’m gone.”

        The trash guys and the yard guys (etc) already know where you live and what you have.

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com PROTONIUS

    The bizarreness of this DHS recommendation is something that, IMO, SHOULD “drive home” the insanity — or the insidiousness — of this current (and, IMO, intentionally manufactured) push to disarm the American people and to further eviscerate our most fundamental Constitutional rights.

    As others have said, “you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”.

    There’s also a fundamental principle — one which has historically been, and continues to be, more than amply demonstrated everyday and everywhere on this planet , internationally, nationally, and even in personal relationships — that says that in situations in which weakness is confronted by strength — particularly aggressive strength — weakness loses.

    If an attacker is bent on your destruction, and you have no ability to AT LEAST adequately defend yourself (which could also include disabling or removing your attacker), chances are high that your attacker will be able to destroy you.

    How many “911 phone-calls”, for example, have we, the public, NOT heard, in which the caller has probably been screaming words to this effect: “Help me! He has a gun to my head!” (or “A knife to my throat!”); “He says he’s going to kill me! Hel…” — and the sound of a gunshot — or of a gurgled brief scream — cuts the cry off in mid-word?

    Was the killer a crook, a gone-mad jealous lover, a drug-brained lunatic, a “terrorist”, none of whom should have had a gun (or knife) — but, not being concerned with the law, they DID have a gun (or knife — and by the way, knife-possession is still legal)?

    And what of the victim? Was calling “911″ any help to him/her? Should that victim — before the trigger was pulled or the knife ripped across the victim’s throat — have perhaps politely asked the attacker to “Please wait, 911 maybe will be sending someone over soon to shoot you dead or to first ask you to not kill me and then they can shoot you dead”?

    So, now, says DHS — the same DHS which is now reportedly seeking to purchase many thousands of AR-15s, and the same DHS which, taken together with various other Federal agencies, has recently reportedly been purchasing upwards (maybe more) of a BILLION rounds of ammunition (including hundreds of thousands of deadly HOLLOW-POINT bullets) — is telling We, The People, (a) to give up our ability to defend ourselves against violent attack, (b) to “run and hide” (as though running and hiding will even be possible as the attackers’ barrage of bullets rip into us amid the screams), (c) to “try to reason” with that murderous “terrorist” whose only goal is to kill us at any cost, (e) to emulate — if we have the chance — the 1950s campaign of “duck-and-cover”, as though a committed “terrorist” (or team of “terrorists”), who are unstoppably dedicated to killing us, will somehow NOT think to blast his/her way through a desk or a closet-door.

    As though any of those attempts were not tried by any of the slain children at Sandy hook (or anywhere else).

    If any of the above recommendations by DHS are to be taken seriously, then I submit that the Agency may have failed to recommend what might otherwise be the most effective methods of “protection” yet:

    – 1. A RUBBERBAND SLINGSHOT: In case of a “terrorist-attack”, people should simply grab the nearest rubberband (of which, of course, there should always be a handy supply within reach in every home and office), loop the rubberband over the tip of one hand’s thumb or forefinger, and then, with the other hand’s thumb and forfinger, grab the other end of the rubberband’s look, pull that hand closer to you so that the rubberband stretches; then “sight” along the stretched rubberband so that you target — the “terrorist” (who hopefully hasn’t decided to shoot you yet, and maybe is eating a sandwich or happily looking at a butterfly out the window) — is in the direction of the stretched rubberband; and then RELEASE that hand’s grip on the rubberband. With luck, the rubberband will now have been launched toward the “terrorist”, and, if that little “projectile” reaches its mark with the precision and impact that you’ve been hoping it would, then you can rest assured that this “terrorist” will bother you no more. That is, after he kills you. And then, the good news is that the authorities may or may not come”to your rescue”.

    – 2. TELL THE ATTACKING “TERRORIST” TO PLEASE NOT KILL YOU: That always works — doesn’t it?

    Doesn’t this whole current push to eviscerate (IMO) the 2nd Amendment strike any of the push’s PROPONENTS within the American public as even just a bit odd? Or is something else at play here, as so many OPPONENTS of the push suggest?

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

    (PROTONIUS HERE with a TYPO-CORRECTION:)

    In my just-submitted post, one of the lines says: “…grab the other end of the rubberband’s look”. The word “look” is a typo. The CORRECT word is “loop”.

    Apologies for the error.

    • Andy

      Does anyone think about the two-prong argument about guns: first, guns are evil–therefore, remove guns. Secondly, the rich and elite sector (government, Hollywood, etc.) will continue to be heavily protected by guns. Conclusion, we are only the “worker bees” to be controlled and/or destroyed when no longer useful. Folks, this is now where we live. Sobering, ain’t it?

      • phideaux

        sounds like Metropolis doesn’t it.

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

    (PROTONIUS HERE AGAIN with ANOTHER TYPO-CORRECTION:)

    Frustrating when the keyboard has its own ideas of how to present what I am typing!

    Anyway, here’s another correction:

    In my just submitted post, I wrote: “…grab the other end of the rubberband’s look”:

    – “LOOK” should be “LOOP”.

    “… then “sight” along the stretched rubberband so that you target — the “terrorist”:

    – “YOU” should be “YOUR”.

    Hopefully, that covers it (until next time!).

  • William Johnson

    Six in the cylinder, two hand hold, both eyes open, lean slightly forward to balance, squeeze six times. Duck and reload. Repeat. Even a .22 can be a great deterent. Law officials will always take the path that ensures their own safety. It makes sense for you to do the same.

    • Hedgehog

      Hi William, just a reminder to everyone using a pistol, 6 o’clock hold! Pistols shoot high, aim a little low. If you want to hit his guts, aim for his nuts! If you miss, with luck you’ll cut a major artery. Don’t try to shoot the gun out of his hand, you might it yourself. Metal objects reflect bullets and bullet fragments.

      • William Johnson

        Right on Hedgehog. In the movies, the hero can make all kinds of fantastic shots, like disabling a killer with a .380 by hitting him once with a finger removal. Bovine Excrement! In real life center body mass++++. If he is wearing body armor you must make his head or legs a target. A killer who can’t move is almost disabled. BTW, I spent 21 yrs on active duty and never saw that super shooter depicted in the movies. My favorite gun is a 12 guage pump. Second a snubby .357 magnum with jacketed hollow points. Both make nasty holes and carry large kinetic energy doses to the perp.

  • William Johnson

    Do NOT spray bullets wildly and rapidly in all directions as seen on TV. concentrate on your target, the shooter. If he is not able to shoot you, you are safe. If you happen to have a personal protection device (AK 47, AR 15, Uzi or other Dianne Feinstein assault weapon) use it. If not use the GUN you do have. Even the diminutive .22 long rifle has a devastating effect if it hits a vital organ (brain, eye, lung, heart). Many shooters have been stopped by defenders with what was available.

    • Vicki

      Many, most of us know to use what is available. We object to people telling us what we CAN’T make available.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clarence.deaton Clarence Deaton

    The DHS ordered modern sporting rifles for “self defense” they said. But yet the law abiding citizens don’t need modern sporting rifles for self defense.

    • William Johnson

      Every time someone is killed by use of a gun, the ghouls come out of the woodwork. They all believe that piece of hardware did the killing by itself. The same people swear SUVs are dangerous because they can withstand a more hazardous collision with no harm to their occupants. Oh yeah, the safer car is more dangerous. The best self defense option is more dangerous. The sweaty mass of humanity needs to be kept out of self protection so we can rule them. The “elites” and “elected class” are more equal. Just like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The pigs were more equal. To me that means they should be held in contempt.

  • Doc Sarvis

    The lead in should read; “A crazed gunnman that the NRA enables with free access to large capacity magazines and assult rifles.”

    Arming everyone just creates a shooting gallery doing more harm than good in all probability considering few gun owners have any training on how to properly use a firearm (and the problem that most Conservatives have poor aim/target judgement).

    • Don 2

      Doc Sarvis,

      You want to back up your “Conservatives have poor aim” comment with some actual facts, or do you just like to run your mouth?

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      The NRA doesn’t “enable” anyone!!! The Constitution of the United States “enables”, it protects our GOD given right to protect ourselves from a government out of our control! The right to bear arms is NOT a privilege, granted by the government, therefore revocable by the government! It is NOT debatable!!! It is our RIGHT!!! PERIOD!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!! ANYONE who ALLOWS the government to disarm the American people deserves what they will get!!! SAY NO!!!!!! SAY IT LOUD AND SAY IT OFTEN!!!!!!

      • Luther Henry

        Nancy, you have written and expressed it perfectly. Not much more could be said on the subject, but the liberal moonbeams will still attempt to debate and dissuade us from our God given rights under our Sacred Constitution. Maybe until their own ox is gored, then it will be a little late for them.

      • eddie47d

        That’s not totally true Nancy for the NRA does write our state laws and put them on our Legislators desks. Those laws allow more weapons on the streets which allows more people to have access to those guns ,honest and dishonest citizens alike. They helped create the free for all where anything goes. Where you can’t tell the good guy from the bad guy in who has a weapon strapped to his waist. Because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law more motorists are being shot in traffic altercations because more folks are carrying weapons. That law can be an escape clause for getting out of shooting someone in that state. I don’t believe it “Is a right Period”! There are too many states that have given free reign to gun owners to shoot anyone with out using self control first. The NRA has also helped take the civilized out of a CIVILIZED SOCIETY.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        The NRA was NOT around when The Constitution of the United States was written!!! THAT is the only law that matters!!! Anything that the NRA proposes is merely a response to those who want to overturn the Second Ammendment without going through the LEGAL process of ammending the Constitution!!! The Constitution of the United States IS the law of the land!!! If you’re willing to let them “mess” with one part, you’re gonna lose it ALL!!! The NRA has no more power to pass laws than the [expletive deleted] who want to take away our guns!!! Just because they say so, doesn’t make it true!!!

      • eddie47d

        Then why do some of you support an organization which advocates so much governmental change for their own benefit.

      • http://outdoorsunlimited.net Ray

        Nancy gotta love ya Gal: you are right on target, now, the murder on the Seal in Glen Rose Texas at the range am I the only one who thinks it was a put up deal because he was so good at his job. Seems as though somebody might have been a bit rattled about him. Guess who

    • Danseur

      Doc Sarvis,

      if arming everyone only creates a shooting gallery, please explain why the vast majority of the “successful” mass shootings occur in gun free zones?

      please also explain why the attempted mass shootings that have been stopped by armed citizens have not erupted into a gunfire free for all?

      — Dansear

      • Doc Sarvis

        Answer to question # 1; Mass shootings are by nature NOT in a gun free zone since someone brought a gun!
        Answer to question #2; Because a minority of those involved are NOT armed or do not use their guns.

      • Don 2

        Wow Doc, impressive answers…..duh, and duh again.

      • Danseur

        Doc Sarvis,

        Regarding #1: the vast majority of “successful” mass shootings are in legally declared gun free zones, where only criminals will have guns. Chicago, the reigning murder capital, is a city wide gun free zone. based on the statistics regard the effects of declaring any area a gun free zone, they would much more accurately be called “criminal safe zones” as the criminal has plenty of time to act unchallenged before police arrive.

        Regarding #2: your “answer” makes no sense whatsoever. reality is that the criminal and derange make up a very small fraction of the population; the average armed citizen is very aware of the uses and capabilities of the weapons they carry, and when a criminal or deranged gunman opens fire, the average armed citizen responds only with sufficient force to neutralize the criminal. (if deranged, the gunman still becomes criminal once they open fire on innocent people). once the threat is neutralized, the average armed citizen puts their weapon away and waits for the police to arrive so the various reports can be filed. i know this from experience, as well as from police reports from across the country. the average armed citizen tends to be very respectful of others, and tends to be very responsible with their weapons.

        — Danseur

      • Danseur

        @ Doc Sarvis

        you said, “The innocent are being punished by the acts of a few; they just can’t speak because they’ve been murdered.”

        I am one of the ~300 million gun owners who has never shot someone. Are you saying I am somehow guilty of something because I’m not dead?

        ***

        I am grateful that i have never had to shoot someone. I pray that I never have to. However, if a criminal threatens my life or my family, I will not hesitate to draw and use my weapon to defend myself and my family.

        Please explain to me why anyone would be better off letting criminals act unchallenged.

        — Danseur

        • kimo3690

          WELL SAID!!! TY

    • Vicki

      Doc Sarvis says:
      “The lead in should read; “A crazed gunnman that the NRA enables with free access to large capacity magazines and assult rifles.”

      1 crazed gunman. Yet with all that easy access

      ~300 MILLION Innocent Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE.

      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Doc Sarvis

        The innocent are being punished by the acts of a few; they just can’t speak because they’ve been murdered.

      • cawmun cents

        The funny thing is Doc…..thats the way I feel about being punished under gun control.
        I will be dead when they come to take them from me too…..who is innocent in all of that?
        Those who obey the law of the land,or those who bend it for their own agenda?
        -CC.

        • kimo3690

          YEP YEP YEP CC I totally understand how YOU feel!!

        • Bill Johnson

          I guess many of us will just have to be outlaws. We already have been labeled as terrorists by Janet Napolitano. Just think, every returning service man / woman, All conservatives, all people who live in the suburbs or country, all who drive pickup trucks, suvs and all hunters. Man, that’s a lot of terrorists for her to fear.

    • john

      You do no research,Americans use guns over two million times a year to stop major felonies.Women use guns 200 tmes a day to stop rapes John Lott “More Guns Less Crime”..FBI UNIFORM CRIME STATISTICS.Read the book before they burn it.

  • Luther Henry

    As the old saying goes, “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6″ This is why we have the 2nd Amendment, when the criminals or the tyrants or the enemy forces are armed only with scissors, maybe then we will be equipped to fight back with scissors, but until then……..

  • jared

    eddie 47d, the things you are writting about are very good points and they are your veiws, and it also sounds like you are very unprepared for any event of harm that may come your way. hope you do not become a statistic waiting on the police save you. just sayin it out loud is all, have a good day.

    • Vicki

      He will claim that you have the right to defend yourself but he continues to deny you the tools for the job. Oh but HIS family has guns according to previous posts of his.

      • eddie47d

        Now I also know Vicki wears pants for they are on fire! So what if my kids own handguns!

  • Defender

    Unless you’re Edward Scissorhands, you haven’t got a prayer. This DHS advice is equivalent to telling children to hid under their desks if we get attacked with a nuclear bomb!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lowell.eneix Lowell Eneix

    It is difficult to imagine anyone having a level of either total ignorance; or the intelligence of a tyrannical hitler type personality. Could think up; let alone; actually print something like what I just read.

  • Bill

    Statistics on the vast majority of mass killers in the last decade clearly show how to avoid becoming a victim;
    Avoid gun free zones;
    Avoid Democrats, or those from Democrat supporting families;
    Avoid Mexicans (122 dragged off buses and killed with a SINGLE sledghammer, no large magazine);
    And for violence in general – avoid Chicago, NY and LA. Oh ya, those three cities have much in common with the other guidelines.

  • Sky Soldier

    This insanely stupid statement out of DHS may as well as been “grab a butter knife” to defend yourself against instruders. This also demonstrates how chaotic and out-of-control this administration is without any bona fide leadership.

  • http://facebook rookie

    reminds me about instructions during an earthquake. hide in a door frame, put your head down and kiss your a.. goodbye.

  • Greg

    There are no guarantees in this world (although the left thinks they can provide them if you just listen to them and follow their instructions) but you can’t punish law abiding citizens because of the crazies-that’s letting the tail wag the dog. If you have purchased a gun legally and/or have a concealed carry permit then that settles it. There are no gun free zones for criminals-anywhere. Silly carping at law abiding citizens is missing the mark-although they are easier targets for the media and government.

    • Vicki

      Greg writes:
      ” Silly carping at law abiding citizens is missing the mark-although they are easier targets for the media and government.”

      That carping is being done because there is no statistic to “law abiding” But we can put the anti-gun argument in proper perspective.

      ~30,000 people are killed each year by people where tool=gun (That “gun violence” thing)

      Well last year alone ~300 million Americans DIDN’T shoot anyone let alone kill them

      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few (~0.01%)

      Stop it
      Stop it now

      • kimo3690

        AMEN Greg!!

  • Medman

    How much do you want to bet eddie47d is being paid to write his “opinion”. Oh it’s

    happening all right. It happens a lot. I think a lot of the controversy is made up and

    manufactured by the media and helped along by the Gov. No clear thinking person, who

    knows anything about history of any kind, could possibly not support the second

    amendment. Also, nearly every study that I have heard of has proven that more guns in

    the hands of law abiding citizens means much less crime overall. In my opinion, the

    government is getting way too powerful and intrusive. It’s really scary, and if you are not

    scared then you truly do not understand what is at stake. This is not just some political

    game, and I am DEADLY serious when I say if they try to come and take my guns, and I

    only have a rifle and a shotgun, both of which were my father’s, they will be getting them

    from the breech and the barrels will be hot.

    • Vicki

      We should put little warning labels on them for the DHS.

      Warning: Hot to the touch. May cause burns.

  • boyscout

    Just wait one darn minute; was running with the scissors even mentioned?

    • Vicki

      You don’t think they meant to have you throw them did you? :)

  • HKaufman

    Once again the advice that emits from the skulls of Journalists, well aspiring to be Journalists not very educated and joins the ranks of complete insane stupidity. But amendment 2 gives every one the right to bear arms and the right to commit mass GENOCIDE- writers, grab a dictionary and look up that meaning.. Guns,weapons,canons,bullets,bombs,tanks,bombers,nuclear bombs, why wait Rambo’s of America, lets get this garbage called earth blown to hell and let bugs rule.. TIRED of reading and hearing about GUNS< WAR, Debit crisis,, When the end finally appears and every one scratching their rears and crying for a miracle ask yourself one question what if there were no dam weapons ever, the word WAR would not exist. BUT AMENDMENT 2 YOU STILL HAVE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND FINALLY HAVE THE MAYAN PREDICTION OF DOOM COME TO BEAR.. What a pitiful lot human kind has become.. So continue on your one way trip and earth will be known as the planet of insects…

    • Vicki

      argument to ridicule

      • eddie47d

        Stop It Stop It! is and argument to ridicule and you play it very well!

      • vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “stop it stop it is an argument to ridicule”

        You have been using it as a response to my self evident truth that

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it now.

        so maybe that is your intent.
        How’s it working for you?

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Doc, is your mind in need of having the rack ran, the mass killing are sure as hell in gun free zones, schools, malls movie theaters, and cities. Chitcago, run by another Rambutt (deadfish) a really close buddy of Onumnutt, and Cylpso :ouie Fkaclownanother muslim domestic terrorist, Black Panther feaks, check out how many decades of stats on black on blach killings have been going on day after day, and guns, knives, drugs, hands and ropes were the 5 types of methods of favorite killing tools. An Abino back friend of mine worked as a homocide detective in the 70′s – mid 90′s and retired. Since sunlight bothered his eyes, he only worked a straight night shift. He’d laugh about having to put dark coloring so he didn’t stand oout like a slice of white bread in a rye bread bakery. His first spot of the welfare towers in Chitcago, the average killing rate vwas 10-20 a night killings, most happen by some piece of crap gang just shooting dpwn hall ways and stairwells. When those welfare huts were leveled, he said the homicides went own a small bit , until new government breeding barns were set up.This former law dog, said he was glad to retire and get to Wyoming. This hard working person said when he’d put on make up to go into the black hoods, his favorite saying were, I’ve been a darie for 3 hours and I already hate those n—ers! This person also said everyone should carry a gun, and 3 would lower the crime rate as well as keep fat slobs getting their exercise,

    • kimo3690

      INDEED!! And check this out:

      “The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.

      Check it out …

      Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
      Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
      Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
      Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
      Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

      Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

      Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.

      Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.”

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2979881/posts

  • Bob

    Only a Washington Bureaucrat would consider bringing a pair scissors to a Gunfight. I guess when you have professional armed guards with Autmatic weapons protecting you, you have tendency to lose prospective.

  • http://yahoo Doug

    Why is it when one gets elected ,they know exatly how we should live and what we can own…………………………..Non of them can balance a budget

  • Herbager

    Hard to believe that we somehow have the idea that humanity is less civilized because of “Advanced” weapons. We aren’t at the top of the food chain because of our weaponry but because of our adaptability and intellect which is what allows us to control our impulses and maintain the hard won veneer of civilization. We watch an individual who has gone mad, has no self control destroy lives and (being civilized) we think that the solution is “gun control”. The value of human life is predicated on belief and protected by our resolve. The government cannot protect us, the police do not protect us and the idea that disarming us will make us safe is unrealistic.

  • Joe America

    For those in favor of getting rid of the second ammendment, please look at this video, which will tell you the truth. Remember, at all time, that the second amendment is about thwarting tyranny, not about just self defense:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4

    • kimo3690

      EXACTLY…….. Excellent video about LIBERTY from a tyrannical government!!

  • Giovanni

    I’m still trying to figure out how to close the door if I am cowering under the desk and figuring out where the damn scissors are (assuming that they are somewhere in the desk!
    Those guys at Homeland Security should work out a correct sequence but, regardless how they do it, the result is that I am dead unless I have a firearm on my person which would give me better odds of survival.
    Politicians’ Intellect is only matched by their stupidity and, before you shake hands with them, I suggest you wear gloves

  • Joe America

    This video says it all. Bend over, America:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYpl6JqENSM

  • Joe America

    Wake up! Americans are screwed. No guns, no freedom, no rights. Thanks, lefty fools:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVl1mRjA-KE

  • Motov

    If passed, Feinstein’s Gun Ban would:
    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns!

    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one “military characteristic” — which could mean just about anything that makes a gun “look scary;”

    *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

    *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and fingerprinting — treating law-abiding citizens like criminals;

    *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.

    That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

    The ban on “transfers” means you and I can forget about ever handing down one of these guns to our kids and grandkids.

    Worse, it could mean widows become instant felons if their husbands owned one of these banned magazines or firearms!

    And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same — outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

    Then Senator Feinstein will be able to achieve her publicly stated goal:

    “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

    I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

    This is exactly the WRONG move for our country — for our liberties and for our safety.

    Now I know THAT’S something you’re not hearing from the anti-gun propagandists in the national media.

    But the truth is, increasing gun sales in America in recent years has led to lower crime rates.

    The same is true all over the world.

    Studies show countries with low rates of civilian firearms ownership are the most violent. Countries with high rates of civilian firearms ownership are the safest.

    Just look to nearby Mexico if you want to see an example of the gun-grabbers’ idea of utopia. Effectively ruled by violent drug gangs in many areas, parts of Mexico are cesspools of rape, violence and murder.

    • kimo3690

      Well said!!! TY

    • vicki

      They are running out of time so to ban guns in a single generation all they have to do is forbid the transfer of guns to the progeny.

  • GQ4U

    I can’t wait to see the horror on the face of the next would be Sandy Hook shooter when he walks in and is confronted by 20 kindergartners armed with their little round nosed paper cutting scissors. The shooter will poop his pants.

    Liberalism is dangerous for the youth of America.

    • kimo3690

      INDEED & Obama & his cohorts would have “us” teach them that GUNS are bad….. I think the words Obama’s right-hand man used is: “we need to brainwash our children that guns are bad” ……. IMAGINE using the term “brainwash”……… VERY DANGEROUS!!

    • kimo3690

      In case you missed it on Fox News, an Obama confidant is proclaiming that Obama is proposing an alternate Bill of Rights. Replacing Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, will be the right to have a job and the right to health care… yippee……

      http://youtu.be/eCVhejFpL-M

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        1: A former Czar claiming Obama might be in agreement with FDR on a second bill of rights sounds like a friend of a friend story.

        2: The supposedly proposed bill of rights is in addition to, not a replacement for, the traditional bill of rights.

        3: Numerous Republicans and Conservatives have criticized President Obama for not focusing on jobs. Here it is suggested he supports a new bill of rights whose first right is the Right to a Useful & Remunerative job. I would think people would be happy.

        4: I don’t place trust in Fox and Friends: Here are a few examples of why I don’t

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

        http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413071/april-23-2012/steve-doocy-s-subtext-reporting

        http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/392262/july-18-2011/blood-in-the-water

        If in fact Obama does support a second bill of rights in agreement with FDR I would consider it nothing more than pie in the sky ideals that will never be made real.

        • kimo3690

          Jeremy……….. YOU have NO intelligence GOOD-BYE!!

      • vicki

        You have the right to a job. That is what the right to work laws are all about. Funny that liberals object to them.

        You have the right to health care. You do not have the right to force someone else to pay for it.

        • kimo3690

          AMEN………… The “new” Bill of Rights??? NOT happening on MY Watch!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo I have “NO intelligence” because I do not consider a proposal based on everyone having a job to be a threat. Respectfully I disagree.

        • kimo3690

          No Jeremy….. YOU do NOT check facts and YOU are prejudice against anything other then where YOU want to get your LIBERAL information …….. I on the other hand check ALL resources of info BEFORE I decide. Keep your powder dry!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually Kimo I check sources. I watched the video you posted. They did not even have the guy on. They didn’t show documentation or video of what he said or what he said the President said-again sounded like a friend of a friend situation. Or at least a he said he said. In spite of them presenting no evidence they made a big deal of discussing and analyzing Obama and his supposed support of a second bill of rights.

        I would love for you to watch the videos I posted and tell me why should I trust anything Fox and Friends or Steve Doocy says. Especially when he does not have the person he is talking about on to comment on what he is supposedly saying.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    With respect Mr. Livingston I watched the video and have a few things to say.

    1: Staying alive by either hiding or escaping does not equal cowering and behaving like a sheep. To quote the wizard of oz “You are under the unfortunate illusion that simply because you run away from danger, you have no courage; you’re confusing courage with wisdom”.

    2: This video makes no mention of what to do if you are armed. This leads me to believe it was intended for those who may not be armed and do not wish to play hero.

    3: In regards to defending oneself the video says “If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to over power the shooter with whatever means necessary”. They then show someone grabbing a pair of scissors. I have a few points on this one. First is I consider the phrase “whatever means necessary” to be basically a good ahead for those who may be armed and wish to be a hero. Second as I said the video is intended for those who do not carry any sort of self defense weapon so the part about using scissors was for those who have nothing else to fight with. Third that being said its hard to understand how this video tells people to cower and act like sheep when it basically condones people trying to over power an armed attacker with nothing but scissors. Sounds more like propaganda for a last stand to me.

    4: Police officers are trained to spot threats and take them out if necessary. They have accuracy and precision on their side. Making sure people do not hinder them is both a way to help them do their jobs more effectively and its an acknowledgment of the fact that even officers can make mistakes. I think this video puts more faith in someone trained to handle these types of situations than a wanna be hero who is pumped with adrenaline and could easily miss. The video does not condemn people from defending themselves by any means necessary. Heck it endorses it. It just points out that trying to fight as opposed to escape is a better option. There is nothing wrong with wanting to save ones life or the lives of ones friends, family and coworkers through escaping rather than fighting.

    Bottom line. Telling people to survive by hiding or escaping or if necessary fight to the death does not equal telling them to “Take no action beyond pretending to be a herd animal and hope law enforcement gets there before everyone in the building is dead or dying.”

    • Jeremy Leochner

      WHOOPS. Stuck my foot in my mouth. I typed ” It just points out that trying to fight as opposed to escape is a better option”. I should of said it just points out that trying to escape as opposed to fight is a better option. My Mistake.

      • kimo3690

        BTW YOU are such an IDIOT with your “fake” scenarios” and idiotic assumption anyone would run at someone armed and try and beat them with their “fists” OMG R U for REAL??? PLEASE swtop advising innocent people on what they should do because YOU will get them KILLED!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kim I would run at someone armed only with my fists if it was my only option. If I am about to be shot I will fight to death with whatever I have same as anyone. And I was not proposing “scenarios”. I was simply trying to provide context that it appeared Mr. Livingstons article lacked. And as for me giving advice. All I was doing was saying that I feel the video Mr. Livingston attacked has good advice and that Mr, Livingston is distorting what it said to score points. For the sake of argument. Tell me something using my own words that suggests I was specifically advising people to do something. And please tell me how what I am “advising” could get someone killed.

        • kimo3690

          Because YOU are a fool and if you respected guns instead of being afraid of them, then YOU would understand that under the proper training, you would “respond” accordingly to the situation. YOUR idea of being “heroic” may seem admirable…… BUT in the line of fire it is foolish………. just sayin!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo I am not afraid of guns. I just don’t carry one. I never said people with guns would not respond accordingly. I was talking about Mr. Livingston who seemed to be suggesting that hunkering down and hiding made one cowardly. I took that as implying that Mr. Livingston thought the responsible thing to do would be to confront the attacker. I considered that to be too risky. As for my idea of being “heroic”. If I do not have a gun I cannot confront the attacker unless I have no other choice. To willingly confront a gun man armed only with ones fists seems suicidal. So for me all I have left to do is try and help everyone else stay safe and escape. If I can get people to safety I am fine. If someone else wants to take out the gunman and be a hero so be it. Heck if by some strange twist of fate I ended up with a gun and was left with no choice I would fire it. The comments I made were in response to Mr Livingston who seemed to be suggesting that telling people to hide and escape during a shooting was akin to telling people to behave like sheep. I consider hiding and escaping if you have no weapon to be the logical choice. If you have no weapon I consider confronting the gun man to be the illogical choice. If you have a gun I would still recommend hiding and or escaping. But if you are left with no other choice go ahead and shoot.

        • kimo3690

          And indeed I will without hesitation……… I am trained with a weapon and I respect the weapon and I will do what I need to do to STOP the terror and SAVE the innocent…….. running & hiding MAY be a temporary positioning……… BUT the gunman commin hopes you will hide and roll into a fetal position……. NOT ME…. Bring It!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Fine Kimo. What say you to us non armed people. What should we do if an armed attacker comes.

    • kimo3690

      YOU ARE AN IDIOT…………. Do you actually think YOU will have ALL that time to summarize a possible position of safety in that situation??? OMG HELP US LORD……. Please read/google the “Last 5 major massacres by guns” and INDEED see that it is YOU that caused them ALOHA FOOL!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kim if you are unarmed the best thing to do is hide or escape. Fighting will more than likely get you and your friends killed. Its called being smart as opposed to panicking. What would you suggest as an alternative Kimo. Run at the bad guy. Try and overpower him with your fists. Hell even shooting at him- you could miss or he could be wearing body armor. In both cases you just gave yourself and who ever your with away and left yourself exposed.

        • kimo3690

          NO Fool, I have a conceal weapon license….. I will handle it as it should be……. NOW you dial 9-1-1 and wait for the response……. ALOHA!!

        • William Johnson

          If my options are only to flee or hide, then the best option is to bend into a ball and kiss my A$$ goodbye. At least if I have a weapon and have trained to the point of comfort with it, I have a chance to survive.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo if you feel shooting is necessary okay go ahead. Just don’t miss. As for me I do not carry a gun. I will do what I can to protect myself and the people around me. If need be I will fight. But as long as getting people out safely is an option I will choose that. Getting people to safety is just as heroic as taking down the bad guy.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        William your choices are not have a gun and you will live. don’t have a gun and you will die. Knowing self defense, carrying pepper spray or a taser or a stun gun or a knife give you a chance to live even without a gun. No one said hide and wait for death. They said if you do not have a gun don’t try and be a hero unless you have to. Don’t try and over power the shooter with your bear hands or in the clips case a pair of scissors unless you absolutely have to. If you have a gun and are sure enough of your aim that you can hit the shooter and take him down by all means go ahead. Just be careful. Cause if you miss you might as well kiss your a$$ goodbye because you just exposed yourself. And I am pretty sure the shooter will go after the person who can fire back first.

      • vicki

        Jeremy. All they are asking is for you to STOP telling them that they can NOT have the best tool for defense. They don’t need scissors when they have the proper tool for the job.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it now.

        • kimo3690

          UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH Exactly!!! TY Vicki!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki I never said they cannot have a gun.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vicki I never said they cannot have a gun.”

        Your intent is crystal clear from your writing including:
        “William your choices are not have a gun and you will live. don’t have a gun and you will die.”

        and

        “And I am pretty sure the shooter will go after the person who can fire back first.”

        http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/01/cower-lock-the-door-grab-the-scissors-act-like-a-sheep/#comment-826982

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki here is what I meant when I said ““William your choices are not have a gun and you will live. don’t have a gun and you will die.”

        and

        “And I am pretty sure the shooter will go after the person who can fire back first.”

        William seemed to be saying that if you don’t have a gun you might as well kiss your a$$ goodbye. This based on him saying “At least if I have a weapon and have trained to the point of comfort with it, I have a chance to survive.” I believe one is not doomed simply by not having a gun. I never said you can’t. I just meant don’t give up at the first sign of danger.

        As for my second statement. I consider confronting an armed gunman whether with a gun or not to be a rash choice unless you have absolute confidence in your aim. Because if you miss you pretty much killed yourself in my opinion. Because now the killer knows where you are and he knows who has a gun. I never said do not have a gun. I just said if you have a gun don’t do something rash that could get yourself and others killed.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        ” I am pretty sure the shooter will go after the person who can fire back first.”

        Proof by bald assertion. Let’s test this.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTct7OB_n78
        Fail. The shooter even had his gun aimed at the person who can fire back first.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “I believe one is not doomed simply by not having a gun.”

        Just REALLY REALLY close to doomed.

        • kimo3690

          Awwwwwwwwwwwww VICKI!!! Excellent example of a person with a licensed concealed weapon STOPPING somethaing that could have gone VERY BAD!!! TY for a great example!!

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner writes:
        “As for my second statement. I consider confronting an armed gunman whether with a gun or not to be a rash choice unless you have absolute confidence in your aim.”

        Or children to protect.
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/17/alabama-woman-shoots-home-intruder-to-protect-herself-and-her-ax-and-knife-wielding-daughters/

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Because now the killer knows where you are and he knows who has a gun.”

        - Jeremy Leochner: “I never said do not have a gun. I just said if you have a gun don’t do something rash that could get yourself and others killed.”

        What you say is all the things you can supposedly do when you do not have a gun. If you really cared for the 2nd Amendment you would emphasize the need for the BEST tool for self defense and not just the other possible tools.

        • kimo3690

          AMEN… the 2nd Amendment is an ABSOLUTE!!! TY

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        First- No your not really close to doomed. There are martial arts disciplines specifically focused on disarming an attacker.

        Second- If they are in your house fine good ahead and shoot whenever you want. In a house there is little place to hide. Though why someone would be stupid enough to break into a house with people in it is beyond me.

        Third- I care about the second amendment. And I want people to have the best tool. However I also have to contend with evidence that suggests a gun in the home is more dangerous:

        http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx

        This is the issue for me Vicki. I try not to encourage people because I feel it would conflict with my personal views about carrying guns. I don’t emphasize it because I believe the need for guns is vastly exaggerated. I will give you an example. Once when I was having a discussion on this site regarding gun control Vis-à-vis home protection. I proposed using sources like: http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/security/discourage-break-ins.htm#page=10 that there were ways to protect ones home without using guns. I specifically focused on locking ones doors and windows at night or when one is away. For this I was called a wimp. It was as though it was less important what was the best way to protect ones family and home and more that we must have a gun in the home at all times. And anyone who suggested protecting ones home with locks and security systems was a coward.

        Another example and I mean this with all due respect Vicki is some of the posts you have made. I mean specifically the ones involving Hitler and his use of gun control to control people. Not just you but many people from Wayne Lapierre to Joe The Plumber have essentially connected the loss of guns with the loss of liberty. I do not wish to put words in your mouth Vicki. But you speak as though the freedoms expressed in the first amendment serve no purpose. Its as though if we don’t have the ammo box it does not matter if we still have the soap box or the ballot box or the jury box. I apologize but that is how it comes across. And the problem is that you are reasonable compared to people like Mr. Lapierre. And Mr. Lapierre is one of the public faces of this debate. I guess I just see a lot of fear mongering from those who speak out against gun control in the national debate. They make it out as if any regulation on guns, however small, is akin to banning all guns. That is how the debate is framed. And then when I see people like James Yeager threatening to start killing people if the debate doesn’t turn out the way he wants it I become worried. That’s why I want to push for other types of defenses both personal and political. Its not intended as a smear against gun owners. Its just that I believe forms of defense that don’t involve guns are not being emphasized enough.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vicki
        First- No your not really close to doomed. There are martial arts disciplines specifically focused on disarming an attacker.”

        90 year old grandmothers are particularly adept at those. They do require the use of a tool. You were aware that firearms training is a martial art?

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Second- If they are in your house fine good ahead and shoot whenever you want. In a house there is little place to hide. Though why someone would be stupid enough to break into a house with people in it is beyond me.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Third- I care about the second amendment. And I want people to have the best tool. However I also have to contend with evidence that suggests a gun in the home is more dangerous:

        More dangerous than what?

        - Jeremy Leochner: “This is the issue for me Vicki. I try not to encourage people because I feel it would conflict with my personal views about carrying guns.”

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Not just you but many people from Wayne Lapierre to Joe The Plumber have essentially connected the loss of guns with the loss of liberty. I do not wish to put words in your mouth Vicki. But you speak as though the freedoms expressed in the first amendment serve no purpose.”

        Without the 2nd the entire Constitution is just words on parchment.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Its as though if we don’t have the ammo box it does not matter if we still have the soap box or the ballot box or the jury box.”

        It does not matter because we WON’T. Plentiful evidence in history.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “And the problem is that you are reasonable compared to people like Mr. Lapierre. And Mr. Lapierre is one of the public faces of this debate. I guess I just see a lot of fear mongering from those who speak out against gun control in the national debate.”

        As opposed to the absence of fear mongering by those who speak out FOR punishing ~300 MILLION people cause they might do what the few have done?

        One side is promoting fear. The other is promoting preparation. The evidence is clear which is which. You at least are on the side of preparation even though you insist on limiting yourself in the tools you use. It is your right and I will support it.

        What I object to is the clear intent of your writing to ridicule the choice made by anyone who would choose a gun for defense over your less effective solutions.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “They make it out as if any regulation on guns, however small, is akin to banning all guns.”

        What they say is that any government regulation interfering with the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to INDIVIDUALLY KEEP and BEAR ARMS IS a violation of the Constitution that they SWORE an oath to protect.

        They are not saying that every regulation bans guns. They (we) are saying that every regulation INFRINGES on the RIGHT.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “I want to push for other types of defenses both personal and political. Its not intended as a smear against gun owners. Its just that I believe forms of defense that don’t involve guns are not being emphasized enough.”

        Use all the persuasion you want. Let each person make up his/her own mind. But until YOU start telling government agents to HONOR their oath we know you are not serious.

        Here is an example
        ———————————————————————————-
        - Jeremy to government agents.

        ~300 MILLION Americans did not shoot anyone.

        STOP Punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        -Jeremy groups of Americans. “I think that I can show you a better, safer way to defend your self, family, community. This is how it works……”
        ————————————————————————————-

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        First- I did not know firearms training is a martial art. I am okay with people learning it.

        Second- A gun in the home is more dangerous than an intruder:

        http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?_r=0

        http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.html

        Third- Without the second amendment the words of the constitution are not just “words on parchment”. Gandhi had no guns and he freed millions. Martin Luther King had no guns. Rosa Parks had no guns. Harvey Milk had no guns. Cesar Chavez had no guns. You don’t need guns to exercise your first amendment rights. You just need to exercise them. If you believe you need guns to fight back watch this:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40bI6wzCTck

        Forth- Let me get this straight. It doesn’t matter if we can vote out our leaders or publicly criticize them. It doesn’t matter if we still have the courts to stand with us. None of that matters if we do not have guns. Than why did the founders put any faith in those freedoms. Why did they make freedom of speech and the press and assembly and expression the first amendment and the right to bear arms the second if they were so meaningless.

        Fifth- The argument is not against “300 MILLION people cause they might do what the few have done”. Its against ensuring that the 300 million can always get the guns they want whether or not the few, who commit crimes with them, are also able to get them as a result.

        Sixth- I am all for preparation. And I have no desire to ridicule people simply for wanting to use guns to protect themselves and their families. If I have I apologize. My only ridicule is against what I perceive as paranoia rather than preparation. Like when I see Gayle Trotter talking about Sarah McKinley to support her position against an assault weapons ban. Yet when she is reminded that the gun Mrs. McKinley used would not be banned Mrs. Trotter says she does not recall the weapon used. And then when pressed on the issue she starts changing the story. Where Mrs. McKinley faced two armed attackers Mrs. Trotter seemingly without explanation started talking about facing and now I am quoting “Three, four, five violent attackers”. It didn’t seem to matter that Mrs. McKinley defended herself just fine with a gun that would not be banned under the new proposals. Mrs. Trotter seemed convinced that nothing short of an AR 15 would give her peace of mind. It wasn’t what was the best preparation, it was what gave peace of mind. And then there is the more political argument by people like Lapierre who opposes universal back ground checks despite the fact that he once supported them. And again lets not forget all those who insisted that Obama would take away peoples guns in 2008 only for him to instead do numerous things that actually helped gun owners. And again lets not forget James Yeager. Like I said and you acknowledged I am for preparation. My problem is when people like the ones I have mentioned are controlling the national debate and are the ones speaking to those in power. People who seem more concerned with winning debates than in dealing with what actually is best for the people. I don’t keep guns for protection and I believe doing so is dangerous. But I concede peoples right to do so. And whether with hand guns or rifles or shot guns they can choose what so ever they wish. However I believe hand guns and rifles and shot guns all by themselves much less together provide more than adequate home and personal defense. Where I draw the line is with those who seem to think nothing less than a semi automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine is sufficient for personal and home protection.

        Seventh- Saying that “every regulation INFRINGES on the RIGHT” is just as unreasonable as saying every regulation is akin to banning guns.

        Eighth- I do tell the government to honor their oath. I do it every time I vote or speak on politics. I don’t have a public forum. And I have a life to live. I do encourage people to petition their state and local representatives and senators. And if someone sends me a petition I will send it to mine. I apologize if I do not seem serious but I do not apologize for having a life to live and not allowing me to be very politically active. If I find the time I attend political rallies. And I vote in all major elections. And I always use my face book to support the causes I believe in.

        Ninth- I am autistic Vicki. As such I have always placed more faith in order and systems and routines than in emotions and feelings. As such I may come across as uncaring or bossy or stubborn or in political terms tyrannical. I have no desire to tyrannize people. I just have more faith in the system than most. Perhaps my faith is unwarranted. But I do my best to balance my personal views. On the one hand I am pledged to the Republic. On the other I voted for Obama and I support that which I support. I try to make sure that what I support helps rather than hurts the Republic. And if I feel it hurts it than I am left in a very conflicted state. I cannot simply change my views just because people take exception to them. Even if people say my positions violates their rights I cannot simply take their word for it. I have to decide for myself what I believe. And if I believe that which I support does not violate peoples rights well than all I can do is stay true to my words. Other wise I would be as hypocritical and weak as the politicians I condemn. I will try my very best Vicki to ensure that what I support does not violate your or any one elses rights. However if I support something I cannot in good faith say I do not support it.

    • Jonathan

      Livingston’s point is “futility”. Hide under your desk, pull up a chair… If the shooter is hunting his targets (watch the Columbine video – it’s terrifying), and has all the time in the world to do it (remember, seconds count – police are usually minutes away), in the likelihood you are discovered your chances are ZERO. With my gun at hand (Scissors? Don’t make me laugh, DHS!), the futility factor is suddenly tipped toward some modicum of balance. Now the element of surprise comes into play. In an office full of “scissor shooters”, what is the last thing Evil bearing a gun expects to encounter?

      Do it your way, Jeremy, and I’ll do it mine. I am no threat to any who are not a verified and lethal threat to me.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jonathon

        1: I do not consider you a threat.

        2: This goes back to the video being directed at those who do not carry guns and who may not carry any form of self defense weapon. Are you saying confronting the shooter with scissors or your bear hands is a better option than hiding and confronting the shooter only if you have to.

        3: In reference to my second point and your comment that the shooter “has all the time in the world to do it (remember, seconds count – police are usually minutes away)”. Yes seconds do matter. But the fact that police are minutes away means the shooter does not have all the time in the world. That’s why the video talks about locking the doors. The shooter does not have the time to blast through every locked door. Heck that could be a way for schools to have constant preparation for shootings. Have the best locks money can buy. Get the students and faculty in the rooms and lock the doors tight. You can then hunker down and wait for the police to come considering they are just a few minutes away. One of the reasons to hide is so you can call the police.

        4: If you are found your chances are not ZERO. You can fight to the death. That’s your chance. If I do not have a weapon and I am discovered I will not think This is it, goodbye world. I am going to think well I am going to die anyway might as well fight back. If your going to die fight back. Heck maybe you can throw the scissors and disorient him for the fraction of a second it takes to grab him. All hypotheticals mind you. And I admit your chances of surviving or over powering him are slim to none. But the smallest chance of survival is better than death.

    • kimo3690
      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        I signed the petition to repeal the NDAA. I will not sign a petition to impeach President Obama.

  • Michael

    Rember the horrendous Murdering of thousands Jews who had no weapons NO WEAPONS to protect themselves from the goverment of Hitlers regime of power.Power and Money is what is taking over the world,one world money ONE WORLD GOVERMENT.Without are Constiution esp. the 2 amenment any Idiot (iconoclast)===(distroyer of long heald values) can see ( IDIOT I SAY ) are Fredom may be lost forever.( All men who belives in me unite,healp us find someone,someone who can fight to healp us keep our Guns and our FREEDOM.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      One slight problem Michael. Hitler did not implement full gun control and take the weapons away from the Jews until 1938. He had established the first concentration camps and declared absolute power in 1933 a full five years before. Having weapons did the Jewish people and everyone else little good.-

      http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

      http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

      http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “One slight problem Michael. Hitler did not implement full gun control and take the weapons away from the Jews until 1938.”

        One slight problem Jeremy. MIchael did not say that Hitler disarmed the citizens. He said that BECAUSE they were disarmed they could not resist. The disarmament began YEARS before.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        Michael said “Rember the horrendous Murdering of thousands Jews who had no weapons NO WEAPONS to protect themselves from the goverment of Hitlers regime of power.” Very well he did not out right say that Hitler disarmed the people. However he equated their not being armed with Hitler being able to have his way with them. Problem is Hitler was doing whatever he wanted long before gun control was implemented. And as for the disarming happening long before. The major act of gun control implemented by the Weimar Republic was to require registration of all gun owners. It was an attempt to monitor groups like The Nazi and The Communists who were creating disorder in Germany. They were not disarming people. The reason Hitler came to power was not because the people were disarmed. And his ability to exert absolute power was not because the people were disarmed either. The people, including the Jewish People, had access to weapons until 1938. By then the Republic was a memory, Jewish Germans had lost their citizenship and the courts were Nazi controlled and freedoms of speech and expression and the press were long gone. As you once told me Vicki the defenses free people have are 1: The Soap Box 2: The Ballot Box 3: The Jury Box and 4: The Ammo Box. Those are the order of defenses. And it was in that order that Hitler took power. Hitler did not take away the ammo box until he had already taken away the soap box and the ballot box and the jury box.

        • kimo3690

          Hitler: a cult personality who took the SOAP Box (with lies & hipocrisy); the BALLOT Box (voting fraud); then the JURY Box (appoints the left-wing judges in his favor) THEN the AMMO Box……. HERE’S OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! History repeats itself….. remember that if you don’t learn the lesson, HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!! Wake Up America!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        1: Hitler came to power through political dealings rather than through an election. Within a month of him becoming Chancellor, which was basically a combination of our Speaker of the House and Vice President, the Reichstag building which was the equivalent of our capital building burnt to the ground. Hitler who had the ear of the German President convinced him that it was the Communists that had committed the act and convinced him to declare martial law, something our President would never be allowed to do. Once martial law was declared freedom of speech, expression and assembly were suspended. The reichstag fire decree as it was known remained in affect for the rest of Hitlers reign. So went the soap box.

        2: With in less than a month of the declaration of martial law Hitler proposed the Enabling Act to a still existing German Parliament. If passed it would grant Hitler the power to act outside the constitution for four years and then come under review. The proposal was voted on and the Social Democrat Party which was the second largest political party in Germany voted unanimously against the act. Sadly they did not have enough votes because Hitler convinced the members of the numerous other parties to vote for it and it passed as a result. Surprise surprise within weeks of the act passing Hitler declared that the Social Democrats were in league with the Communists and the Social Democratic Party was disbanded and its members arrested and thrown into concentration camps. Then one by the one the rest of the political parties were either bullied or bribed into disbanding themselves leaving the Nazi party as the only party and Hitler free to do as he pleased. And no surprise when the Enabling Act came under review it was renewed by a unanimous “vote”. So went the ballot box.

        3: When the Communists accused of burning the Reichstag were brought to trial the brave judge resisted the pressure from Hitler. He declared that the mentally ill suspect who confessed to burning the building was guilty but that the Communist party as a whole was innocent thus invalidating both martial law and the enabling act. Hitler who by this time already had effective control declared that from then on the courts would be brought under his control and all cases involving “treason” would be brought before special party courts. And once Hindenburg the President died Hitler combined the titles of chancellor and president and commander in chief and made his official title that of Fuhrer. Forever after disobeying Hitler was akin to treason and meant being brought before a special Nazi court instead of a regular court. So went the jury box.

        4: At long last with absolute power over the people and courts Hitler set out taking away the ammo box. In 1938 the completely controlled and only for show Reichstag unanimously approved a measure to make it illegal for any non aryans or non Nazi party members to own weapons or even work in the fire arms industry which up until them non “aryans” still could. Up until 1938 the people of Germany still had access to weapons, including the Jewish Germans. But by the time Hitler took away their weapons the Republic was already long gone.

        What I have just described is the history of the third Reich. Don’t believe me look at these articles then:

        http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English%203_5.pdf

        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/enabling_act_march_1933.htm

        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reichstag_fire_1933.htm

        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

        The events of the past 4 years in no way resemble what happened in Germany either before or after Hitler came to power. Kimo Hitler and the Nazi are not suitable comparisons. America is not Nazi Germany and the secret police is not coming for you.

        • kimo3690

          So YOU say Jeremy………. I have read your posts thoroughly and I am “sorry” but YOU my friend live in a dream world! You continue to believe your own “delusion”… WELL NOT ME!!

          Here’s a prediction I have and I pray I am dead wrong! Obama, soon, is going to stage a FAKE assassination attempt on his life. It will cause the LIBERALS to go crazy as they will think their “cult leader” may have died (keep in mind it will be “staged” only). The move to GRAB Guns will escalate and this will be Obama’s greatest opportunity & attempt to gain further control and violation of the Constitution as he will then enforce his “executive order”!! Who on the “left” can blame him??? (I can see them wailing now with pictures of the distraught liberal/progressives plastered all over the media for effect).

          It will just be another “sham” “scam” “smoke & mirrors” used to DIVIDE & CONQUER this GREAT Nation. Sorry Jeremy, I believe nothing you write as it does not make the REALITY test of what is going on in this country….. I will not “walk to the showers” like all the rest of the sheep!

          BTW, there is a video out where Obama is standing next to a General as gunshots are fired as part of a military ceremony. Obama nearly JUMPED out of his pants!! (And he knew the shots were coming) I do not believe he has ever done any “skeet” shooting lol Priceless video!!

          • Bill Johnson

            Sorry Kimo. That pic depicting BHO shooting a shotgun is real. Of course, that is no big deal as the second amendment has nothing to do with shooting paper or clay targets. The message is, “I’m not after your guns, see I shoot skeet.” What a crock of bovine excrement. Target shooting is a far cry from facing an enemy who is shooting at you.
            BTW, the Navy Seal who wrote An American Sniper has been killed along with a neighbor. This will be seen as another nail to drive in our coffin. He died trying to help a damaged fellow warfighter recover. How much more dedication can he show?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        1: No Its not what I say. What I put in my post is history. If the links I provided are not enough you can read history books. I would recommend A Concise History of The Third Reich by Wolfgang Benz and translated by Thomas Dunlap. None of the historical events I posted are a delusion.

        2: I doubt it will happen Kimo. This ain’t Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. Other Presidents have faced very real assassination attempts including Ronald Reagan. His assassination attempt did not lead to gun control. Why would an attempt on Obama real or other wise be any different.

        3: With respect Kimo if we are going to talk about reality. Take a look at the events I mentioned. Those are historical facts. Name one event I mentioned that even remotely resembles something that has happened under Obama.

        4: Fine Obama does not hunt. He was trying to make a futile attempt to win over the hearts of gun owners. Its not that big a deal. A President lied to try and improve his poll numbers. Its not like every President has done that.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner writes:
        ” The people, including the Jewish People, had access to weapons until 1938.”

        IF Jeremy would read the links provided he would have found this:
        ——————
        1919:
        “Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession), which provided: “All firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.”11 Whoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks.12 That decree would remain in force until repealed in 1928.13″
        ——————
        So yes the people including the Jewish did NOT have lawful access to weapons for many years.

        Now you will try and say that it was repealed in 1928. But all that really happened is that people had to get permission from the police. Let’s see how that works:

        —————–
        “Carrying a firearm required a Waffenschein (license to carry a weapon). The
        issuing authority had complete discretion to limit its validity to a specific occasion or
        locality.37 “Licenses to obtain or to carry firearms shall only be issued to persons
        whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.”38 Licenses
        were automatically denied to “gypsies, and to persons wandering around like
        gypsies”; persons with convictions under various listed laws, including this law (i.e.,
        the 1928 Gesetz) and the 1920 Law on the Disarming of the Population; and “persons
        for whom police surveillance has been declared admissible, or upon whom the loss of
        civil rights has been imposed, for the duration of the police surveillance or the loss of
        civil rights.”39″
        —————–
        Interesting pattern there matching the pattern of US law.

        It also continued the prohibition against owning military weapons

        ———————————-
        Kuenzer pointed to § 33, “according to which the possession of military
        weapons made illegal by other laws is of course prohibited.”68 Section 33 provided
        that the 1928 law had no effect on the 1919 Law on the Peace Between German and the
        Allied and Associated Powers and the implementing and regulations.69 The effect of
        this was to continue the prohibition on possession of “military” arms, such as the bolt
        action Mauser rifles Models 1888 and 98, which had 5-shot magazines
        ——————————-

        Then the National Socialists came.

        ——————————–
        1933:
        “The decree authorized the government to suspend the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty, free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, and the rights to assemble and to form associations. Secrecy of postal and telephonic communication was suspended, and the government was authorized to conduct search and seizure operations of homes.84 It provided that whoever commits the offenses defined in the Penal Code as “severe rioting” or “severe breach of public peace” by “using weapons or in conscious and intentional cooperation with an armed person . . . shall be sentenced to death or, if the offense was not previously punishable more severely, to the penitentiary for life or to the penitentiary for up to 15 years.”85 Since the terms “riot” and “breach of peace” could be applied to a protest march by political opponents, the mere keeping or bearing of a weapon might have become a capital offense.”
        ——————————-

        And of course the people in general were not to be allowed military weapons

        ——————————-
        “Nazi policy also mandated the prohibition of possession of “military”
        firearms by citizens at large. An SA Oberführer warned about an ordinance issued by
        the provisional Bavarian Minister of the Interior:
        The deadline set by § 4 of the Ordinance for the Surrender
        of Weapons will expire on March 31, 1933. I therefore request the
        immediate surrender of all arms from former army stores to the local
        stations of the Gendarmie.”
        ——————————-

        All this was long before the final solution.

        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        • kimo3690

          Awwwwwwwww that’s MY Vicki!!! Well done!! TY

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner writes:
        ” As you once told me Vicki the defenses free people have are 1: The Soap Box 2: The Ballot Box 3: The Jury Box and 4: The Ammo Box.”

        And ALL of them are under direct attack.

        SoapBox
        - Constant threats to and shutting down of websites
        - Constant attempts to control the net for your safety.
        - MSM

        Ballot Box
        - Voter Fraud.

        Jury Box
        - NDAA 2012 (gotta have a trial to have a jury)

        Ammo Box
        - NFA 1934
        - GCA 1968
        - Whatever the assault weapons ban becomes

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        First- I did read the links and knew about the law. As you pointed out the decree was repealed in 1928 a full five years before Hitler came to power. And the decree was repealed just before the wall street crash at a time when Hitler was considered a fool and a deranged maniac even by the Germans.

        Second- As for how things worked. The laws created restrictions but they did not prevent people from having weapons. Nor did it prohibit people from being involved in the fire arms business. Yes it was prejudiced against Gypsies. But if we are going to compare their laws to ours I would like you to point out one of the laws currently on the table that discriminates against people of a particular race or ethnicity.

        Third- Yes the laws allowed for abuses. But the abuses only became possible once Hitler achieved dictatorial power. Before that the people still had courts of law and could still assemble to demand reform. Like our policy today people still had the ability to complain about having military style weapons taken from them. They could still get them back. Just like today.

        Forth- Hitler did not implement full gun control until after martial law was declared and all personal liberties were suspended. He did not implement his agenda until the Republic had already been chipped away. In order to implement tyranny one must first destroy the Republican system. That entails destroying first the soap then the ballot and than the jury and than finally the ammo box. Fine Hitler restricted access to guns and he used existing legislation to his advantage. However he could have been prevented from doing that if the soap and ballot and jury box had been defended. People still had the ammo box after Hitler came to power. Having it did not stop him from rising. And having it did not stop Hitler from exercising absolute power. It was through the power of words and laws that Hitler could have been stopped. Sadly people became so paranoid that they turned to the one who they thought could help them. And even that was not enough for Hitler to become dictator. He only became that through extremist actions that people simply accepted as necessary. And the only reason they accepted it as necessary was because they were accustomed to rulers controlling through their own whims than by representatives governing via the rule of law.

        Fifth- The bottom line is the proposed gun regulations in our country in no ways compare to the laws the Nazi party implemented. And even if they did they could not be enforced in the way the Nazi Party did because we have a system and a Republican tradition to protect us. Germany was used to having absolute rulers. For crying out loud their president declared martial law and few if anyone cried out. Our president could never do such a thing. And if he did, considering how people act when he issues so much as one executive order, there would be revolution. Our country has a tradition and a culture and a system built to resist the accumulation of power. If we are going to prevent the rise of tyranny we need to be as aware of when its not there as when it is. Right now we are comparing Obama to Hitler. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Unless some how without our knowledge he has declared martial law and suspended all rights under the first and forth amendment, banned all political parties other than his own, forced the armed forces to swear a personal oath of obedience to him, forced through legislation that in no uncertain terms grants Obama absolute power and formed concentration camps in which he throws anyone who publicly opposes or criticizes him.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        Soap box: Websites need to be protected. Maybe if people knew their state and local representatives they could send petitions to them instead of to the White House.

        Ballot Box: Here is what I think of voter fraud:

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/the_fake_voter_fraud_epidemic_and_the_2012_electio.php

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/opinion/pennsylvanias-bad-election-law.html?_r=0

        http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/nov/06/election-and-voter-id-claims-get-examined/

        and just for laughs

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/daily-show–democalypse-2012—cockblock-the-vote

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-2-2012/democalypse-2012—right-said-fraud

        Jury Box: NDAA is a violation of the constitution and needs to be repealed. Send me a petition to sign to have it removed and I will sign it.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Right now we are comparing Obama to Hitler. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Unless some how without our knowledge he has declared martial law and suspended all rights under the first and forth amendment,”

        Funny you should mention that. NDAA 2012

        Jeremy Leochner: “banned all political parties other than his own, forced the armed forces to swear a personal oath of obedience to him, forced through legislation that in no uncertain terms grants Obama absolute power and formed concentration camps in which he throws anyone who publicly opposes or criticizes him.”

        Patience Patience. All in due time. Have to get (most of) the guns first.
        http://remember.org/educate/mtimeline.html

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        I agree with you on the NDAA.

        Hitler took away the guns after he banned all political parties, not before. The thing to look out for is banning all political parties, not banning all weapons.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “I agree with you on the NDAA.”

        Good. :)

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Hitler took away the guns after he banned all political parties, not before.”

        That’s cause he didn’t have to. Guns had ALREADY been taken away (1919). Evidence in the article. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        Hitler did have to take away the guns. The 1919 law was repealed in 1928. The 1938 law specifically did this:

        ” Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.
        All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
        Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
        Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
        The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
        Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.”-http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

        And the specific prohibition was directed at the Jews: “Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. “-http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

        German citizens, including Jewish, still had access to guns until 1938. They had them before and after Hitler took power. It was because the German people neglected their first lines of defense not their last.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        1: President Obamas victory had nothing to do with voter fraud. No offense but your sources sound more like people upset that the guy they dislike so much could possibly win.

        2: If voter fraud is such a problem what should we do.

    • kimo3690

      Well said Michael!!! TY

      • vicki

        To help us keep our arms tell the anti-gun people that

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it now.

    • Cindy

      Michael, you obviously didn’t watch the shock and awe that we imposed on Iraq, or you would know that it this government wants to get you it will. Drones mean it wouldn’t even take boots on the ground to sink your little butt. Our high tech military cannot be stopped with those little assault weapons that you radicals are so in love with. However, every crazy radical can and do use them against the innocent people in this country. Do hunters need an uzzi to kill a deer? If so, they aren’t hunters at all. Can you promise that every establishment will have a trained gun toting person to protect us when the crazies come? Of course not. Finally the radical right is being found out.

      • Vicki

        Cindy writes:
        “Michael, you obviously didn’t watch the shock and awe that we imposed on Iraq, or you would know that it this government wants to get you it will.”

        That must be why we are still fighting the “enemy” in Afghanistan.

        -Cindy: “Our high tech military cannot be stopped with those little assault weapons that you radicals are so in love with.”

        Argument to ridicule. And BTW even our founders knew that WE the PEOPLE had to have the same arms as our “standing army” that they warned us to avoid. That is why they said things like

        “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
        http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

        -Cindy: “However, every crazy radical can and do use them against the innocent people in this country.”

        Which is why We should have even better arms to defend ourselves against those (3?) crazy radicals.

        -Cindy: “Do hunters need an uzzi to kill a deer?”

        Why would a hunter of deer use an uzzi?

        -Cindy: “Can you promise that every establishment will have a trained gun toting person to protect us when the crazies come?”

        Of course not. That is why WE have to protect ourselves.

        -Cindy: “Finally the radical right is being found out.”

        Argument to ridicule.

        Btw Cindy. Did you know that despite the few crazy people you mentioned (you never did tell us how many) there are

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS WHO DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Luther Henry

        If they, the government have drones, I want a drone. Cindy, “what difference does it make” if someone wanted to use an Uzzi to kill a deer, maybe they are hungry and that is all they have available to them at the time. The 2nd Amendment was not about our right to hunt animals or target practice, everyone had to hunt back then, to eat. It was written to assure that our citizens have the ability to defend themselves from whomever may wish them harm, be it savage Indians, criminals or a tyrannical government. Today almost 250 years later, we still have the same threats, savage radical muslims, criminals, the possibility of a tyrannical government and the threat of foreign invasion. And, I am not a radical right wing nut, I served in the military and I also served over 38 years in local and state law enforcement. We have every right to defend ourselves “by any means necessary”.

      • ShadyChar.

        Cindy/ Dear Cindy surely You don’t think that our military can stop 300 Million Patriots with Guns? Hell they can’t even take care a handfull of Ragheads! Not only that but if You had all the Government Forces,CIA,FBI,DHS and the Local Fuzz and States Fuzz they would only number in my estimate 5 Million at most! Now do You still think that 5 Million can beat 300 Million armed Citizens? Highly Unlikely to say the least…Not only that how many of those that You talk about would join our side or simply would not open fire on Americans? When all the Race Riots happened in the 60′s do You think things would have worked out differently had all the Whiteys had Guns? I think so!Not only that but if the South would have had the Money and Weapons that the North had the South would have Won no doubt about it! IMO the Military has been reduced to mostly Girlie Boys and Women and I would bet that in a One on One fight I could beat most any of them! Why do You think when the Cops show up at the Scene they are 10 of them? It’s because they are Afraid very Afraid that they will get they’re butt kicked that’s why! None of the Worlds Powers are afraid of us anymore that’s why they taunt us like they do…Believe Me they are not scared in the least because they Play Real War not Play War…Take a look back at Vietnam,as an example they played Real War and We Lost just as We are losing now! How many Hundreds of Thousands of our Soldiers were lost? We the People will be fighting to win not just have Crowd Control.

        • kimo3690

          MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Ihave to AGREE with YOU ShadyChar…. there is a movement MUCH bigger then Cindy can comprehend…. Of millions of “We The People….” ready to fight for LIBERTY!! TY for your post my brother!

  • William Johnson

    Check out what our Canadian and Australian friends have found out with their weapon bans. Last month, a mp in UK introduced a bill to ban kitchen knives. What more will we ban from the civilized general population? Already, we have school administrators banning five year olds for making finger guns in recess and for folding paper so it could be construed as a gun.

    • vicki

      We actually don’t need any other statistic beyond this one

      ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few (~0.01%).

      Stop it
      Stop it now.

      Other countries are not relevant to the discussion of gun-control

      • kimo3690

        She is tellin the TRUTH!!! TY Vicki!!

      • vicki

        Welcome. And feel free to share it with others. It is a self evident truth. You can even say it as I do. I released the statement to public domain so there would be no copyright issues. (Fair use would have been enough but I wanted to make it clear that you can use it without having to ask)

  • charlie

    Well, Well! We finally have some consistency here in the good ole’ USA!
    One thing this government knows a lot about is COWERING.
    I will not attempt to list all the issues, but the present administration has reached Expert status in ‘duck-and-cover’. Not to mention ‘bait and switch’.

  • http://none Claire

    My granddaughter was robbed at gunpoint two weeks ago during the daytime. She has a 4-year old daughter, and was in her own home doing a friend’s hair. She answered the door without looking out to see who was there. Big mistake. She opened the door, and the creep shoved a gun in her face. He told the three of them to stay in the bedroom or he would shoot them. He took their cell phones but thank God there was a landline phone in the bedroom. My granddaughter called 911 while the creep ransacked the house. The creep left–he had a car and driver waiting for him. The cops did not arrive in time to catch him. In a scenario like this and if she had a gun, what would have happened? Gunfight at OK Corral? Would they all end up being killed? She had her daughter to think of including herself. It is a tough call. Needless to say, she will never again answer the door without looking to see who it is. And she and her husband should take the necessary steps to be able to protect themselves. I am by myself, and I am a registered gun owner. I also have 3 dogs that have become watchdogs since my husband passed away. I guess they have decided to take care of me! I go to bed at night knowing I am protected. I know exactly what I have to do should someone decide to break into my home. At the risk of sounding like a braggart, I will protect myself. This is my “right” as a homeowner and I aim to keep it that way come hell or high water.

    • William Johnson

      Thank God your Granddaughters assailants were not just out to kill. I agree with you. Protect yourself, your family (including pets) and your property, in that order.

    • Vicki

      Claire writes:
      “In a scenario like this and if she had a gun, what would have happened? Gunfight at OK Corral?”

      Probably not. In the ~2.5 MILLION defensive uses of guns each year, the gun is not discharged ~98% of the time. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/01/more-guns-less-crime/

      - Claire: “Would they all end up being killed? She had her daughter to think of including herself. It is a tough call.”

      And it is her right to make it, not the government. The anti-gun crowd want her to cower in the bedroom waiting for police and hoping that the predator isn’t planning worse.

      You have wisely chosen as well to possess the best tool for self and family defense.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Cower, Lock The Door, Grab The Scissors, Act Like A Sheep…funny, that is not the attitude America displays towards her supposed-enemies/terrorists…nudge nudge, wink wink…now is it?

    • Vicki

      WTS/JAY says:
      February 2, 2013 at 7:37 am

      Cower, Lock The Door, Grab The Scissors, Act Like A Sheep…funny, that is not the attitude America displays towards her supposed-enemies/terrorists…nudge nudge, wink wink…now is it?

      Nope :). It currently appears that she gives them tanks and planes and such.

  • jw
    • kimo3690

      AMEN Brother……. It’s an ABSOLUTE!!! TY for the POST and the link!!

  • Bill Johnson

    On the stump in Egypt, BHO stated, “If ugly things happen, I will stand with my MUSLIM brothers.” You can’t get more clear than that. He is delivering those F-16s and Tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood as promised. He also has ramped up the aid to all the Muslim countries in the area. He also extolled the vast number of Muslim accomplishments (in his eyes) to lead the western countries out of the dark ages. Never mind that Persia and Egypt were not muslim when they contributed. Mohammed lived in the fifth century after Christ. Like the USSR they take credit for things which were accomplished prior to their existence. My favorite is the USSR saying Nicolai Tesla of Electrical Energy fame was a Soviet citizen. The USSR didn’t exist then and Mr. Tesla was an American whose background was Russian Jew. For you left wingers, Mr. Tesla developed alternating electricity usage with Westinghouse. Thomas Edison was into Direct current electricity and started General Electric.
    I suppose if BHO can keep himself in office long enough, he can have the history books re-written to give him credit for all the good things about the USA.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Personally Bill I feel Obama was trying to live up to that old idealistic rhetoric that all men are brothers in a certain sense. As for Muslim contributions to the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s59LfXGMyjY

    • kimo3690

      INDEED BILL!!! It absolutely amazes me how the Leftys ignore or erase all the MUSLIM comments BHO makes….. the new movement “Chrislam” is suppose to make the Anmerican people drink the Kool-Aide and accept the systematic destruction of our great Nation…. and yes BHO will try and take all the credit of any good….. afterall wasn’t he given the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing??? I hear Hillary is up next for the award…… what a sham…….. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No one ignores his comments on Islam or Muslims. They just don’t exaggerate them out of all proportion. Recognizing Islam as a religion and treating it with respect does not equal accepting it as ones personal religion or imposing it, which could never happen anyway.

        • kimo3690

          REALLY Jeremy???? Won’t be imposed upon us???? WE now have “No Freedom of Speech” zones in the USA (violation of the 1st Amendment); WE now have “No Gun Zones” (violation of the 2nd Amendment); DO YOU REALLY THINK MORE IS NOT YET TOO COME?!?

          I have NO problem respect other’s right to worship; speech; bear arms etc…… FUNNY how MY rights are now being infringed upon. We had a man run for President of this country who denied any “muslim” affiliation and swore to be a Christian. He also took an OATH to protect the United States Constitution…. I see very little “protecting” and a whole lot of “violating” OUR Constitution.

          GUESS what Jeremy, BHO has been caught in LIE after LIE after LIE……… But then again, anything anyone else says that does NOT agree with YOUR perception of the world or YOUR cult leader is WRONG…. figures!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        I disagree with No Free Speech Zones. However I do not disagree with having Gun Free Zones in schools. Irregardless I consider there a large gap between not being able to pray everywhere with not being able to pray anywhere. Believing in the equality of religions does not equal submission. Islam cannot be imposed on us. It would violate freedom of religion.

        President Obama is a Christian. I do not deny that he has violated the constitution.

        With respect Kimo I have my beliefs. I do not simply change my position just because someone tells me I am wrong. I do not agree with everything Obama says or does and I have condemned him for the things I disagree with. Rarely do cult followers question and condemn their leaders.

        • kimo3690

          Jeremy says: “With respect Kimo I have my beliefs. I do not simply change my position just because someone tells me I am wrong. I do not agree with everything Obama says or does and I have condemned him for the things I disagree with. Rarely do cult followers question and condemn their leaders”.

          I just watched Jonestown on the History channel……. almost 1000 intelligent people (grant some tried to leave that fateful day) committed mass suicide/murder for the “love” of a cult leader.

          I too respect your beliefs…. and thank you for sharing that you also “question authority”…. Have a great Day my friend!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        Personally I believe most members of peoples temple were murdered by being forced to drink the cool aid. I don’t believe in the idea that it was a blind mass suicide made out of love for Jim Jones.

        Thank you for the respect.

        • kimo3690

          Sorry Jeremy, there were those who willing drank the poison for their leader and there were those who were “injected”…. hence the murder/suicide… PLEASE check your facts….. it gets tiresome with you at times.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        I never said there weren’t those who willing drank the poison for their leader. I just believe most were injected. Just because I do not believe all committed mass suicide does not mean I believe none committed suicide.

        • kimo3690

          Jeremey……… I cannot give YOU an exact head count…… but Many drank and many who wanted to leave were injected…… You aren’t gonna do a Hillary on me are YOU?!? “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?” lol Signin OFF now have a GREAT day!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kimo

        I do not want an exact head count. And no I will not pull a Hillary on you.When we started talking about Jim Jones I felt we were having a slightly more calm discussion as opposed to an argument. I was not trying to force you to believe what I believe regarding the event. I was just trying to state my views on the event. What I believe about Jonestown can be summed up as this: I consider the tragedy of Jonestown to be an example of mass murder rather than mass suicide. Whatever the precise numbers I consider it a terrible event. But I believe more people at Jonestown were thinking human beings than is often discussed.

        • kimo3690

          OK truce Jeremy…… agree to disagree!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Okay. Sounds good to me.

  • Gator

    a bad idea – just wondering what the expense would be to teach them how to use the sissors

    • don

      Gator, who cares, let them eat cake!!

  • irish Vet

    Homeland security can stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  • Sanick

    For those saying gun owners have bad judgment and would probably miss or what have you… How many innocents every year are killed by stray cop rounds?

    How many innocents are killed by stray LAW ABIDING CITIZEN rounds? (CCP Holders)

    Not talking about criminal’s victims, or a criminal’s blind spraying of rounds, but Law Abiding Citizen’s loose rounds?

    And Jeremy; your Martial arts to disarm someone is great and all… But you have to be within 21 feet of someone whose weapon is holstered, or 7 feet of someome holding the gun in your direction, to be effective. Not very much room is it?

    Also, Minutes is a LONG time when someone has a gun and they are walkimg around just killing people. Sandy hook response time was approx 21 minutes (ive read as low as 17, and as high as 25, so average). 21 minutes!! The death toll only being 26 is a blessing, anyone halfway decent with a pistol (and yes he used pistols, not an AR) could have killed many many more.

    Im glad you aren’t against people owning guns in your own words. But unfortunately in a debate like this, if you arent anti-gun control- you are pro gun control.

    As a CCP holder, amateur shooting competitor, hunter, self defense advocate, NRA Instructor, and victim of a home invasion (2 times in last 3 weeks). Don’t restrict what guns i can and cannot own.

    As a Constitutionalist, don’t infringe on my bill of rights more then you have!

    Lastly, as a service member sworn to “Defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic”. Dont step on my rights i have gone to war for twice, and dont become my enemy because you attack the constitution.

    (Sorry for typos, on smartphone)

    • kimo3690

      WELL SAID!! And Thank You MY friend for serving OUR country and protecting OUR Constitution!!

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Sanick

      1: The problem is that law abiding citizens who act in self defense or in the defense of others are often hailed as heroes with no mention of their individual training or whether or not they missed and hit someone. I have attempted to but have been unable to find statistics involving innocent bystanders killed or wounded in self defense shootings. However I doubt that means they do not happen. No one is disparaging those who act in self defense when they have absolutely no other choice. The contention is against this idea that it is bad to try and hide and only shoot at the gunman if you absolutely have to. And yet it is considered good to just open fire on him at the first sign of danger. I admit he needs to be stopped. But often the discussions or touting of people who act in defense of themselves and others by firing makes no mention of aiming or bullet proof vests worn by the shooter or the potential to cause harm to innocent bystanders. My philosophy is if you wish to be the hero and save people go ahead. But do not miss.

      2: I will grant you its risky to use martial arts against a gun. But I think its good as a back up plan for some one with a gun. And for some one with no weapon it may be all they have. Better small chance than zero chance.

      3: I concede that mins are precious and can make a lot of difference. I just don’t believe in disparaging people from trying to hide and bid time. My issue is not with people who have guns and wish to fire to protect themselves and others. My issue is with Mr. Livingston for saying that hiding and escaping is cowardly. If you do not have a gun hiding and escaping are probably the best options. There is no shame in surviving and saving others.

      4: I disagree with you about the debate. I think we are all in favor of some level of gun control. No one thinks its a good idea to sell guns to drunks or to people with obvious mental problems. So we are all pro gun control. The differences between us is one of levels rather than fundamental differences in values.

      5: I am sorry to hear about that. And I have no desire to take guns away from you.

      6: I am also a Constitutionalist. I don’t believe what I have said or supported infringes on your or anyones rights.

      7: I thank you for your service. I have no desire to step on your rights. And I have no desire to be your enemy. I do not believe what I have said or support attacks the constitution and as such I will continue to believe and support it.

  • jopa

    One of the dumbest posts that have been showing up lately are the ones proclaiming buy a gun and protect yourself from your own government.The guv is the first place you all would be going to for help in a major disaster for assistance.Not only that you are the government and your past history of voting and your ideas are what make up America today.Realistically the US Armed Forces are the most powerful in the world and no matter how many AR 15s tanks and bazookas you buy you would still get your ass kicked

    • Danseur

      Jopa

      you are also assuming that the US Armed Forces would blindly obey orders to obliterate armed citizens.

      The members of the Armed Forces I have spoken with have universally said they take their oath to defend the Constitution very seriously and would fire on the C/O giving the order rather than fire on citizens demanding a return to Constitutionally limited government.

      Should it come to that, I suspect we will see some of the Armed Forces marching side by side with armed citizens to demand the corrupt politicians resign and organize elections to get new elected officials who will honor the limits set forth in the Constitution.

      — Danseur

    • Wellarmed

      It seems Ye have little faith in your fellow Americans to dole out justice if the need arises.

      I have broached the issue with all my friends who are past and presently serving in the Military. An based on their responses they are fully aware of what an unconstitutional order looks like.

      I believe the vast majority of what occurred in New Orleans was perpetrated by Private Military Companies. They will pose the greatest threat in the event of a Civil War on U.S. Soil. Their loyalties are to the all mighty dollar and not to upholding our Bill of Rights.

      Jopa, based on your comments, are you suggesting that your fellow Americans merely assume the position and accept their fate of subjugation?

      Please notify others of your position in your immediate surroundings so they can exercise sound judgement and create enough distance from you as humanly possible.

      When the next Paul Revere sounds the call, we will once again push the red coats into the Atlantic, and let it it be known that there will be no terms of surrender allowed for those who were once entrusted to uphold the principles of this great nation.

      • kimo3690

        WELL SAID TY!!!!

  • jopa

    Danseur:I am not assuming they would not fire upon traitors, armed citizens and anyone else threatening their life or our country.Take the drone strikes on the traitors to America in other countries plotting to kill as many Americans as possible.They were taken out by American soldiers from afar.If you want an example of up close and in your face, think about Kent State.When given the order , they fired.The police in the US shoot citizens every day of the week.

    • Danseur

      Jopa,

      First, there is an enormous difference between terrorists who want to outright destroy the United States simply because it exists and citizens who are fed up with corruption in government and are demanding a return to the limited government the Constitution describes.

      Second, the police are an entirely different group than the military. However, there are numerous accounts across the country of county sheriffs officially stating that they will not enforce bills passed by Congress that are in violation of the Constitution. There are also states that are in the process of (I’m not sure if any have succeeded yet) passing state laws making it a criminal offense to try to enforce some federal laws, specifically citing the tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

      For those not familiar, the tenth Amendment reads: “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.”

      In layman’s terms: if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly make it the Federal government’s responsibility, the Federal government has no authority to legislate or enforce.

      In short: many of the police may also march side by side with general citizens and Armed Forces personnel in demanding a return to the Constitution.

      I don’t know what will happen if armed drones are called out against this group. It is my hope that bloody conflict can be avoided while still restoring the Constitution.

      — Danseur

      PS: as a sidenote: the Federal government ‘claims’ authority to regulate who is permitted to own what types of firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). In and of itself, the fact that the Federal government has to manipulate the interstate commerce clause to go after firearms of any kind should be a warning flag that something is inherently flawed in the supposition that the Federal government has any authority regarding personal firearms.

    • http://www.facebook.com/william.johnson.37201901 William Johnson

      At Kent State, there was no order to fire. A line of scared 18 year old guardsmen with live ammo were posted to stop rioters. They took all kinds of abuse before one of the soldiers reacted and fired. To follow up that initial shot was automatic. The only order was, “cease fire!”

      One of my friends was a student at Kent State when this happened. He said he would have fired earlier since those rioters were robbing him of his education time. He paid for his own education.

  • veteran999

    Wow, it is apparent no one actually went to the Dept. of Homeland Security to actually read what they suggest, but then again why would anyone actually want to know what was really said cause it might undermine what they want to believe. For example there recomendations are summed up on the first page of the actual document:

    Good practices for coping with an active shooter situation
    • Be aware of your environment and any possible dangers
    • Take note of the two nearest exits in any facility you visit
    • If you are in an office, stay there and secure the door
    • If you are in a hallway, get into a room and secure the door
    • As a last resort, attempt to take the active shooter down. When the shooter is at close range and you cannot flee, your chance of survival is much greater if you try to incapacitate him/her.

    • http://www.facebook.com/william.johnson.37201901 William Johnson

      The article assumes you are not armed. Our government was us disarmed. There is no inconsistency in the two.

  • Billy Cooper

    These times we are living in have most of the working folks on edge. They see their wages dropping. prices sky rocketing, Government prying more and more into our lives. Its no wonder there are shootings taking place. I happen to remember Obama saying something like, “if they bring a knife” “we will bring a gun”. Our country will not let the Obama Tyrants disarm this great nation. The 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.And THAT IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED ON. I am sure Obama is smart enough to know, he cannot keep pushing his far, far left policies, and trampling the Constitution, because sooner or later, the folks will get a bait of that. That is why I think Obama would like to take away our right to keep and bear weapons. Americans are smart enough to realize what he is doing.

  • Donna

    Someone please tell my how my round tipped scissors will help me in a gun fight? Of course I have to find them first.

  • Mike Rippentrop

    .FBI UNIFORM CRIME STATISTICS.Read the book before they burn it. Yes I read this book. Everyone should, it will give you a whole new prospective.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.