Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Nadler: Government Has Monopoly On Violence, Not People

December 31, 2012 by  

Nadler: Government Has Monopoly On Violence, Not People
UPI FILE
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) wants to ban future sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) recently told a reporter for CNS that he essentially believes the exact opposite of what the 2nd Amendment says.

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

Nadler said at press conference on Capitol Hill earlier this month that he wants to ban future sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The lawmaker said he would also like to take it one step further than many of his colleagues by enabling the government to confiscate high capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.

Nadler told CNS: “Now, the fact of the matter is that Germany has 150 or so people killed a year with guns; Canada, 170; the United States 9,000 to 10,000 a year. We have a murder rate with guns that are 15 to 20 times higher than any other industrialized country. There’s only one explanation and that’s the availability, the easy availability of assault weapons and of high-capacity clips.”

But while Nadler does want to do his part to put an end to all of the senseless killing, he also wants the government to continue in its ability to kill, maim or imprison anyone it likes. Nadler calls it “legitimate violence.”

When asked by the reporter if the military should continue to have high capacity magazines, Nadler said: “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

“If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane,” he said.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Nadler: Government Has Monopoly On Violence, Not People”

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

  • Vicki

    Representative Jerrold Nadler says:
    “When asked by the reporter if the military should continue to have high capacity magazines, Nadler said: “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

    That is not the definition of a nation state. It IS the definition of a slave state.

    • Vicki

      Now lets look for a moment at the 10 round limit to see if it has any reasonble relation to criminal gun mis-use.
      http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/AmmunitionMagazineCapacity.pdf

    • Harold Olsen

      It’s clear the left wants to enslave the American people. They want to limit free speech and disarm us. The first acts of despots.

      • Warrior

        And that “progressive hotbed” chicago reaches 500 gun deaths again this year. Hmmm, democrats, can’t live with em and can’t live amongst em. Ah yes, LBJ’s “great society”. Chased all the conservatives out to suburbia. And now they want us to come back because they’re “broke” in every conceivable way.

    • roger

      that hog needs to be scraped from his seat. what a troll…………….

    • Steve E

      “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

      • Vicki

        Steve E says:
        “Congress have no power to disarm the militia.”

        So much for that restriction. NFA 1934 took care of that annoying limitation on government power.

      • Steve E

        Vicky, In VA you don’t have to register your guns with anyone. There is no system here to even do that. No one knows what or how many guns their neighbor may have. Somehow (and I really don’t know how) VA got around the NFA 1934 act (at least the part about registration).

      • eddie47d

        Could that be why Virginia Tech happened? I would have phrased what Nadler said a little differently but we do need restrictions on high capacity magazines. No where in the 2nd does it authorize anyone to have the ability to kill dozens within seconds. Certainly not private citizens who are not tied to some authorized militia,military service or police. I rather fight authorities in the court of law and not in the streets.

        • David

          Virginia Tech happened because it was a “gun free” zone. I guess the murderer who committed that crime didn’t get THAT memo. Had students or teachers been allowed to carry firearms, there’s a possibility that few, if any, of the students might have been killed.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Could that be why Virginia Tech happened?”

        probably not.

        -eddie47d: “No where in the 2nd does it authorize anyone to have the ability to kill dozens within seconds.”

        Reading comprehension problems? The 2nd does not authorize anything. The 2nd RESTRICTS Government agents from infringing on the natural right of people to keep and bear arms.

        -eddie47d: ” I rather fight authorities in the court of law and not in the streets.”

        That is why the founders gave us the Jury Box. But when you disappear (NDAA 2012) how (and be specific) do you plan to “fight” the authorities in a court of law?

    • GALT

      Ah, the “meaning of words” surfaces again……..

      “If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane,” he said.

      Not a premise…….that’s what the words MEAN and what happens when people don’t say what they mean…….( or don’t have a clue. )

      Of course, there are no common law courts, which means there is no “constitution”,
      so it’s all a waste of time…….which is what you all do BEST!!!!!!!!

    • roger

      Doc Sarvis says:

      December 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      If I were a dictator that would be true. You and I and others elect our government to make and enforce laws. Review your Civics.

      WRONG!!! gov’t is implemented among men to secure our rights. see article 1, section 8 of the constituiton to what congress’ powers are. pay close attention to clause 17.

    • roger
    • cawmun cents

      Nadler is a Democratic Socialist……
      Therefore he,(like Feinstein and all the other Democratic Socialists)wants to relieve you of your power of self reliance.You must be made to rely on government,otherwise their complete plan will not succeed.We are taliking a one world system,where quasi-eleites will tell you who lives and dies.Some will deny that this is their aim,however they obviously havent done their homework thoroughly enough to argue the matter.
      These folks want nothing short of control of the economy.Their next step is control of autonomy by taking over government completely.
      Its a natural PROGRESSION…..for progressives to want to dominate and control.
      That is why they(progressives) beam with confidence when folks readily give up their rights,to instead rely on governance by these feckless malfeasants.
      You may decide you want to go along to get along,with world socialism,but you will definitely have to murder me to do it in this nation without a fight.
      Anyone care to join me in resisting this death by a thousand cuts?
      Cheers!
      -CC.

    • WILDFIRE

      This turd wants to claim he States facts such as using Canada and Germany as references. However, one has to take into account a wide range of issues otherwise it is like comparing apples to oranges.

      Canada population is approx 38 million
      versus

      USA pop. of 311 million

      Germany population of approx 85 million

      Then you have to take into account who or what type of person is committing the crimes and compare the American population to the Canadian and German population as to if they have the same ratio of population of the ones committing the crimes.

      And then you have to look at the judical of each Country and what are the punishment for crimes such as murder. Then look at the prisons in each Country.

      I’ll guarantee if the judicial system of the USA passed out stiffer sentences and the prisons were not so much like resorts and more like what a prison is intended to be for punishment it will deter alot of crime. Capital punishment implemented and execution carried out within 3-5 yrs of sentencing rather than this BS of these people being on Death Row for years and years until they end up dying of natural causes.

      But you got the Libtards who claim that criminals who murder should be given second chance and such which usually end up killing again within 6 months back out into society.

      Thus driving our murder rates up to the levels we have. It is not the law abiding citizens who own guns running our murder rates up. It is the criminal minded and the mentally disturbed that are doing the killing.

      Banning guns will not solve the root cause of the problem being the criminal minded and the mentally ill running the streets free to kill at any moment when they see a citizen in a vulnerable position or some wacko is not taking his/her meds and goes off the deep end.

      These people will use anything handing to murder, if a gun is not readily available, they will use tie irons from your trunk or a bat or a knife or a hammer or sledge hammer from your tool shed or maybe an axe next to the sledge hammer in the garage.

      Murder will always happen no matter what tool is banned. There will and always has since the beginning of time been violence in the human species. The only way to eliminate the world of violence is to eliminate the humans committing the murder not eliminating a tool and leaving them with 1000 other tools to utilize to accomplish their goal.

  • Combat seabee

    NADLER! K.M.A. you effin moron!

    • eric

      do not make the mistake of thinking that this is stupidity, that would assume a lack of knoledge or intent. this man wants to enslave the population of the us and make himself one of the kings. nothing less. it is a malignant and intentional process of striping rights, abiuse and eventual slavery. the same process that has been used by every despot throuought history.

      • eddie47d

        Eric: You must have received one of them there public edumacations! A 30 round clip is not necessarily your right! You don’t need it to defend yourself or your country and if this country is attacked the same government you detest will probably hand them out like cotton candy to save us all. If you think you can threaten me with your semi-automatic or clip then I would say you are enSlaving me to your ideals!

      • eric

        eddie, obviously you didnt get that much.

        i didnt threaten you with anything, or threaten to take anything away from you that is rightfully yours, or attempt to declare you as identical to the terrorists that bombed the twin towers and more. All of these things and worse have been done by the personal property grabbing thieves in the last few weeks in the name of “safety” in an approach that will do nothing of the sort.

        I have merely pointed out that this idiot ( read the origional article) is fosytering the same approach to safety that was touted by Hitler as the start of a new era that would be copied by the reat of the world; and apparently is being copied by all like minded indviduals. I at least learned the ability to read history and see what happens next in that horrible gomit ejemecation. You know, that one ability they attempted to eliminate so that they can have free rain with no predition of othe consequences based on previous individuals performing the same acts.

  • Warrior

    Frankly, I see a Divorce in our future. NY, IL, Calif and the other “blue states”. I think we have “irreconcilable differences”. It’s just about time we go our own seperate ways. You can take your “progressive” utopian ideals and shove em!

    • Steve E

      That would be a good thing.

    • WILDFIRE

      Even if a State seceded from the Union, it wouldn’t be for long. The Federal Government would infiltrate and invade that State with the force of the US Military and either redistrict the borders to the surrounding States or claim it as Federal land. Letting this be a warning to other States thinking to secede. If and as more States secede, The federal Government will move in with Military force if necessary and will invade that State and claim it as Federal Government. They all ready claim large areas of land in various States as Federal land as they see fit without military force and with little to no resistance from the American people.

      I think the Federal Government would love for States to secede and do it individually so the Federal Government can take over one State at a time and reclaim it as Federal land so eventually they will be able to do away with State laws and State legislature. The Federal Government is constantly in a battle with State Legislatures as to what and how to enforce laws.

      Take Obamacare for example: How many States have claimed to not enforce or implement this Federal Law. Then look at Illegal immigration: How many States are still enforcing or attempting to enforce immigration laws as they are on the books and you got the Federal Government suing the States for enforcing the laws. Homosexuality is another issue, You have a federal Government who refuses to enforce the laws being DOMA and any State that does enforce it is sued or in some fashion retaliated upon through blackmail of federal grant money.
      Then you got States with laws allowing gun ownership and various forms of regulations that the federal Government has been unable to get 100% control of.

      The Federal Government would love to be able to get these State laws out of the way and the State legislatures and Governors and State Courts all out of the way. Then Federal Government wouldn’t have to deal with State Courts bringing suits against Obama for his eligibility or voter fraud laws and wouldn’t have to deal with Governors bring suit against the Feds.

      Cutting down of State level Courts so their was only federal courts would be alot easier for the Feds to control the judges and have cases dismissed and laws overturned setting up full and complete control.

      The only way that a State will be able to secede peacefully without Federal Government threats of invasion would be for all or at least half of all the States to secede at once and be ready to give mutual aid to each other when the Feds move in.

      The Federal Government will never peacefully allow any State to secede. They are 16 trillion Dollars in debt and no intentions of slowing down spending. If they start losing States, they will be losing tax dollars. Look at the violence the Unions cause when their pocket books are threatened.

      The Federal Government is in no way a Friend of any of us and the sooner Americans wake up to that fact the better off our Nation and the world will be.

      • JohnDVero

        WILDFIRE. An apt sobriquet.

  • http://exodus-consulting.com Thomas

    Mr. Nadler: What is “insane” is the idea that US troops would be deployed in otherwise peaceful neighborhoods to begin with, in a tyrannical fashion, to enforce your dictates.

  • Les

    Does that ban include the weapons & mags provided by our government to Drug Cartels & Terrorists all over the planet? Or just the average American citizen?

    • Vicki

      ” (or) just the average American citizen”

      Judging from recent history just the average American citizen. The slaves have already been disarmed. Creating a generation or 2 of liberals who fear inanimate objects has worked rather well so far.

  • DFayette

    Gee, why don’t they place the same limits on weapons on the military. Really sad, they are all in favor of powerful weapons as long as they, via political power, control the triggers. The purpose is pretty clear in the Constitution, the right of the citizens to bear arms is to maintain a Free State.

    Are we to ban motorized vehicles? Perhaps we should total up the humans that are killed every year by the motorized vehicles. Seems the motorized vehicle is used in nearly all the mass killings.

    If there are any misspelled words…the keyboard is at fault.

    • eric

      do not forget “household implements” , the single largest catagory in the FBI database for murder weapons. you know, table lamps, chairs, tools such as tire irons, pillows, kitchen implements, and so on. this catagory is over 5 times the number of fatalities as firearms. should we ban everythin on the list for this catagory ???

      • Vicki

        Eric writes:
        “should we ban everythin on the list for this catagory ???”

        Nah. Just ban scary looking guns. They’re scary. :)

    • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

      Right click, and voila! a Spellcheck! …with red underlines to right click and replace!

    • eddie47d

      DFayette: Where is the car deliberately used in any mass killing.Maybe in Iraq but then a bomb has to be attached to it. Bobs are banned for good reason and seldom used for any good reason.

      • Les

        Remember the guy that intentionally ran over all those people standing on the curb? How many people have intentionally run over husbands and wives with SUVs?

      • WILDFIRE

        Some clown just a few years back used a car to intentionally run over people on a campus. He was driving up onto sidewalks and turf to pick em off.

  • roger

    waddle on, “nadler the wadler”. clips? CLIPS? WHAT CLIPS, MORON? these idiots don’t know the difference between a clip and a magzine, or an assault weapon(machine gun) and a semi-automatic weapon, which is century-old technology.

    • Vicki

      Not according to the government. The list of “assault weapons” is a source of great amusement since the invention of the phrase in the 1980′s

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

      People who are knowledgeable on firearms and their use find great amusement in the way assault weapons are described as having “scary” features that really have little or no impact on the use of the tool.

    • eddie47d

      If a soldier uses an assault weapon in war to save a nation then it serves its purpose. If a civilian uses a assault type weapon (yes AR-15) to kill dozens then that makes that same weapon “scary”. Tools should be used for the right purpose. Some of us get that and some of you don’t.

      • David

        If a soldier, such as those of the U.S. military, is murdering innocent civilians in countries that never attacked the U.S.—and that INCLUDES on 9/11—then that U.S. soldier is just as much a terrorist/mass murderer as the kid who murdered those kids in Newtown.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d. What is this “assault type weapon” you speak of? Having trouble scaring people with the phrase “assault weapon” so you are adding modifiers?

      • Bill

        Eddie,
        Go f–k yourself

  • Doc Sarvis

    Considering the murder rate in this country, we do NOT have a well regulated militia. We better REGULATE more!

    • Steve E

      “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
      - Thomas Jefferson

    • Bill

      Doc,
      Yes, we need to regulate idiots like you from having any control in our lives.

      • Doc Sarvis

        In case you have not noticed, I have NO control over your life. Nor do I want that “honor”.

      • Bill

        Doc,
        Your call for more regulation has an effect on our lives.

      • Doc Sarvis

        If I were a dictator that would be true. You and I and others elect our government to make and enforce laws. Review your Civics.

    • David

      Doc, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean regulated by the government. It means well-trained.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Are you sure about that? Why does it not say well trained? It probably means both.

        • David

          Doc, most people don’t understand why the Bill of Rights were added to the Consitution.

          The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect (not “give”—rights are something you are born with; someone doesn’t “give” them to you, i.e., they can only forcibly take them away; we’re all born free) individuals from the Federal government. (In fact, when they were first proposed, some of the Founding fathers didn’t think that a Bill of Rights was even necessary.)

          In a sense, the government was an “adversary” of the individuals. Your adversary has no right to regulate you (even though that whole concept has basically gone down the memory hole of history considering how the U.S. Supreme Court has eroded this concept in rulings over the decades).

          The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless.

          Doc, did you know (I didn’t until recently) that the Constitution never refers to “citizen” or “citizens.” It refers to “people” and “person.” When someone visits the United States, they are technically protected by the same rights as people who live here (i.e., citizens). This, too, is something that doesn’t seem to be recognized anymore by the courts. I only mention this because the fact that the words “well-regulated” were used rather than “well-trained” doesn’t mean they meant anything but the later.

      • Steve E

        “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

        “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

      • Doc Sarvis

        So, like I said; we do NOT have a well regulated militia. We better REGULATE more!

      • Vicki

        David says:
        “Doc, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean regulated by the government. It means well-trained.”

        Doc Sarvis says in response:

        “Are you sure about that? Why does it not say well trained? It probably means both.”

        It does say “well trained.” That you do not know English does not change the meaning.

        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

        And for those that do know English you can appreciate the confusion that foreign speakers have learning English because of the many definitions of words and the complex relationships between words. One of my favorites that is relevant to this discussion is the words bear and arms. Put together they could mean

        arms (forepaws) of bears
        the state in humans of having arms with no covering
        the carrying of tools such as knives, swords, firearms etc.

      • eddie47d

        There is no “well regulated Militia” in the USA unless you are speaking of the National Guard. Beyond that these loose militias out there have their own agenda and are not necessarily for the defense of the USA. Our Founding Fathers did not have a standing army and had to rely on private citizens to form local militias in our countries defense. We now have a standing army and the militias are no longer needed. Now if you want the militias to be relevant then demand that the military be disbanded as in Colonial days!

      • ranger09

        Doc, Could you tell me one good law these people passed in twenty years that benifited the public or this country, Then tell me how many laws were passed to better protect themselves and their illgotten gains, How about all the stupid wars and the lives and destruction they have caused, also how about them getting richer off these so called wars for our freedom, And they are still getting rich off the Blood and money of our people.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Our Founding Fathers did not have a standing army and had to rely on private citizens to form local militias in our countries defense.”

        Our founding fathers did NOT want a standing army. They CHOSE to rely on private citizens to form the militia in our countries defense. The evidence is quite clear on this.

        2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
        10 USC § 311

        Further links on the founders opinion of standing armies
        http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/standing_army/

        http://www.infowars.com/no-wonder-america%E2%80%99s-founders-distrusted-standing-armies/

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/117256995

        http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

        http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

    • Vicki

      Doc Sarvis says:
      “Considering the murder rate in this country, we do NOT have a well regulated militia. We better REGULATE more!”

      Doc is correct but not for the reason he thinks. Since we have pretty much disarmed the militia and no longer train them (the definition of well regulated), of course murderers run wild through this country.

      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311
      “10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code – Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
      males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
      313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
      declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
      and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
      National Guard.”

  • roger

    magazine. bad keyboard, bad.

  • Don

    most of the the people who have these oversized magizines will never shoot anyone else. why bother? on all new semi autos why not only put in 3 shots. a lot of these so called assult rifles are used for predator hunting for cnimals like coyotes. why mess with them. i don’t like to blow away shells wastefully. they cost too much. i kinda enjoy prescision shooting. whats next, consfiscation of rifle scopes?

    • czman75

      One more time…the 2nd Amendment is NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR TARGET PRACTICE!…it IS about defending our Country against a tyrannical, rogue government (which we have right now!). Some that this ‘waddler nadler’ seems to have also misunderstood. “Legitimate violence”? this puke thinks it’s ok to commit violence against American citizens?!?

      • Bob Rice

        Hi Capacity MAGAZINES kill NOBODY,its the clown pulling the trigger that kills…it took 50,000 rounds (bullets) to kill one (1) VC OR NVA…in vietnam,,,and these AMERICAN SOLDIERS, were trained,,,

      • Doc Sarvis

        Bob Rice,
        So our country is trying to keep atomic weapons out of the hands of crazy leaders of other countries – it is not the bomb that presses the button it is the clown pushing the button. We want to keep certain arms out of certain countries just as we should keep certain arms/magazines out of our citizenry.

      • Vicki

        Doc Sarvis says:
        “So our country is trying to keep atomic weapons out of the hands of crazy leaders of other countries – it is not the bomb that presses the button it is the clown pushing the button. We want to keep certain arms out of certain countries just as we should keep certain arms/magazines out of our citizenry.”

        Thus proving our point that our current government wants to rule the world and they don’t want piddly things like their own citizens telling them no.

  • Don

    i is a prime example of a leader , not a representitive of the people. something like royalty. it does,nt matter what the people want, he decides what we get. thats whats wrong with this country. i’m in my early 60′s and i never seen this kinda stuff when i was younger. these [expletive deleted] are the cause of the problems we have in this country. our representitives when i was younger were a little more open to ,the people than now. all they want now is power. pelosi and fienstein are prime examples. there is no end to their power. sometimes i wish every state would cede from the union and fire our government in dc. let them take their economic mess and their debt with them. i doubt we’d never be in this mess if we would have stayed with the original constitution we had. we would not have the royalty in congress like we have now if the original 13th amendment would have been passed. the big bankers back then prevented it. look up the “original 13th amendment” and you’ll see that i’m not full of [expletive deleted].

    • Vicki

      Don writes:
      “i is a prime example of a leader , not a representitive of the people. something like royalty. ”

      I think you mean dictator or tyrant. A leader leads people. People choose to follow. Or not.
      A dictator tells people to follow or else where else is intended to be very unpleasent.

    • ranger09

      Lets see Americans and politicians were very careful about tryimg to control firearms and the peoples right to own and carry open or cw up untill 1934, Most citizens as they were able to hire more policemen elected to quit carring because when you are a working man it gets kind of heavy, Most of the changes were in the larger cities where they had more policemen, In the less populated areas most people still carried on their person or on saddle or in the vehicles. But as more people quit carrying, The crooks became back into the open, More and more policemen became crooks, More politicians became crooks starting with the larger cities, Now with the police on there payroll the politicians began writting laws to keep the people unarmed and they had the police for protection, This soon began to work its way to towns and the countryside. This was allowed to happen because the people were to busy and to stupid to see what was happening. Now its all in the open and americans are still to busy,to lazy, and to stupid, to put a stop to it. 250 years and look what they have done in just 78 years.

  • Bill

    What is this fat piece of s–t doing telling us what to do when he cannot even control his own weight.

    • Doc Sarvis
      • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

        Does that include people Killed by Police? They seem to “get a bye” every time they shoot somebody…

      • Doc Sarvis

        I doubt that it does jcfromdc. Tell me how many people have police killed in this country since the CT slaying?

      • eddie47d

        Doc; Although police kill few civilians wrongfully it is the duty of other citizens to have that officer removed if he does so. That is a tough thing to attempt and more often than not that officer will retain his job. Police should never be above the law and generally they should be more accountable.

      • Vicki

        Amusing but they have a problem with their description. The tally is of people killed BY PEOPLE using guns. This is quite a bit different then their phrase “people killed by guns”.

      • ranger09

        Doc, If you had ever worn a badge are a star you could better answer this question, There are more killings of innocent people than there is the Bad guys.
        A happy new Year to one and all, and may only good things come to you and yours.

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

    Nadler, as per the quoted CNS interview, said “If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane”.

    What disturbs me about Nadler’s above statement — because Nadler is, I think, generally a bright guy — is his screwed-up, and ultimately flawed, sense of logic on this issue:

    On the one hand, he ACCURATELY posits the idea of resisting a “TYRANNICAL” (= his word) government. But then he swerves 100% off-track and illogically implies that any efforts “to resist a TYRANNICAL government” — a tyrannical government whose hold onto power would, according to him, be supported by the American military — “by shooting machine guns” (or, perhaps, by using any means whatsoever) would be a fruitless, and therefore an “insane”, effort.

    So is Nadler saying — if I may borrow a phrase used by Star Trek’s “the Borg” — that “Resistance is futile”?

    Is he saying that it is always right that “American troops” should be employed to support a “tyrannical government”?

    Is he assuming — against the facts of how our freedoms and Constitutional rights are being rapidly shorn away by the previous and current governmental regimes — that, somehow, those freedoms and rights are NOT disappearing and that the U.S. Government, or persons and powers within it, can never, not even in the slightest degree, trend toward totalitarian-like thoughts, principles, and actions? And that We, the People, should NEVER have the right to oppose (IMO, hopefully peacefully) such trends of events?

    To be clear, I am not supporting violence as a solution to any of these problems. What I AM in favor of is not only the full support of our traditional (and natural) freedoms and Constitutional rights but also of ACCURACY as to RELEVANT FACTS and ACCURACY in INTERPRETING the MEANING of those facts and ACCURACY in the forms of LOGIC by which our political choices are determined and by which our political decisions are made.

    George Orwell, in “1984″, posited the term “Doublespeak”. The American Indians, decades and perhaps nearly two centuries before — having already been experiencing, what they considered to be the all-too-often deceitful actions of “Paleface” — developed their own phrase for it: “White Man speaks with Forked Tongue”.

    And so, in the present instance, we come to this question: Are these political people, such as Nadler, simply coming up — but honestly so — with their own “proper” interpretations of the issues involved in this guns-and-rights debate, even if their logic, in our view, is flawed? Is OUR logic here flawed? Or is it possible that, on this issue, Nadler et al are intentionally trying to shift the argument, obfuscate what’s involved, so that, despite logic and facts, they can reach a particular goal?

    But I would add this question: Even if Nadler, in his opposition to people’s (presumed) rights to own guns, happens to be absolutely correct, what solution would he propose that a citizenry should do if a “tyrannical government” — such as, say, a Stalinist or Hitleresque or Saddam Hussein-like — government WERE to take power here? In Nadler’s view, how — if at all — should that formerly-free citizenry then resist and throw off the shackles of that evil?

    Would he, in answer, declare that “If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at THE TYRANT’S troops, that’s insane”? And, if he were to give that answer, might his answer then mean that “Resistance is futile” or, perhaps, that “You’d better arm yourselves with far more than machine-guns, because this could well be — to use Saddam Hussein’s expression — ‘The Mother of All Wars’!”?

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

    PROTONIUS here with a small ADDENDUM to my just-posted comment:

    In that post, I wrote: “What disturbs me about Nadler’s above statement — because Nadler is, I think, generally a bright guy — is his screwed-up, and ultimately flawed, sense of logic on this issue:”

    Inadvertently, I forgot to note, in that statement, is that it is MY OPINION that his logic on this issue is poor. So, now, here is my CORRECTION of that above statement:

    “What disturbs me about Nadler’s above statement — because Nadler is, I think, generally a bright guy — is, IMO, his screwed-up, and ultimately flawed, sense of logic on this issue:”.

    Sorry for the error.

    • Vicki

      No need to apologize. It’s obvious that the keyboard did it.

  • Glen

    Ultimately, we always have to end up with the preceding argument, based in historical fact. The British, trying to quell the rebellion of 1775, immediately proceeded to attempt seizure of the Militia’s store of powder at Concord. This led to the full outbreak of the revolution. Why would they want the powder that was intended for legitimate defense? They knew it could be used against them. So it is with our own government. First it eliminated the militias by incorporating them into the National Guard system. Now they want to eliminate high volume weapons and magazines. I am fairly sure the ten round magazines would be next. Another 5-10 years later, all weapons capable of holding more than one round at a time. Eventually, even those. The GOP is saying little. For a voice, you need to go to the Conservative Party at http://conservativepartyusa.org/home/.

    • eddie47d

      There is still no legitimate need for anything over 10 rounds. I bet over 99% of all gun owners have absolutely no need for more. Now if you want to invoke the colonial days then go back to the single shot musket .I’d be willing to compromise for 10 rounds in case there is more than one attacker but if you need more you must be in the wrong place anyways.

  • roger
  • ONTIME

    Ask Jabba da Hutt to put aside his own tax paid security and then WTP can have parity. He will then need the 2nd amendment as badly as you and me to maintain his own personal safety…Write him and ask him to consider giving up his own tax paid security….Write all of our elite congress and ask them the same question, they need to remember whom they work for….parity will make them realize they are still just one of us…

  • ibcamn

    all these laws and regulations are going to do is open a new line of smuggling to the US!people and companies in other countries will smuggle in ammo or magazines or weapon’s for us to buy on the black market…that’s all,.and watch,only the rich people will buy the most illegal weapons and magazines and have the most!!some polatitions will be caught with a stash in there house or someone connected to a polatition or something like that..then Obama will have to hire more police units to deal with that and he will blame the American people for that too…just like proabition…it won’t work! right now Obama is sitting in his easy chair with an erection and a big smile on his face thinking…it’s gonna work,while Schultz is wiggling her fat a$$ in his face!!!

    • ranger09

      Did you ever wonder what happened to all the gold plated pistoles and rifles that was confiscated in iraq.Not counting all the other gold items that was also confiscated, I know the Reg military was checked But for sure the Brass and some others were NOT checked.

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

    What is wrong with the man’s face? It appears as if all the muscles that are supposed to support his skin are atrophied. This man looks dreadful. He should not be allowed to appear in public, much less on national television!

    • NativeBlood

      Diabetes from gross obesity will cause one to make emotionally driven decisions. By it’s very nature, Diabetes is bad news. I will be willing to bet that his blood sugar level is well over 200. That may account for his emotional imbalance.

  • Steve Boylan

    Two words for the jowly Nadler, ” molon labe”.

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.