Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Should We Arm Our Teachers?

December 28, 2012 by  

Should We Arm Our Teachers?
GS2AC.COM
Gun free zones are easy targets for criminals.

There are several things that are not going to happen in this country in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy that struck Newtown, Conn., two weeks ago.

First of all, despite the recommendations of National Rifle Association top honcho Wayne LaPierre, we are not going to post armed guards in all of our nation’s schools. There are something like 135,000 schools in this country. The cost to put armed guards in all of them for every hour they are open would be staggering. I can’t imagine there are very many local communities that would be willing to pay the price.

Nor is there any chance that Congress will vote to strip our various entitlement programs to cover the costs, or to slash the military budget to do so. Yes, I know, only a heartless cretin would try to put a price tag on the value of saving the lives of those 20 6- and 7-year-olds, not to mention the six adults who were also murdered by the same deranged gunman. But let’s face facts here, folks. Would we really be willing to pay the costs of sending armed guards into our schools every day (and night) they are open, to prevent one or two incidents a year? I don’t think so.

Another idea some people have proposed is to arm some of our teachers. While I agree with the sentiment that the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is by a good man (or woman) with one, can you really see very many school boards that would approve such an effort?

As the father of five children, I’ve known a lot of teachers over the years. And frankly, there aren’t too many of them I would like to see armed and ready at any of the schools my children attended.

Yes, I’ve seen the emails circulating on the Internet claiming that school teachers in Israel routinely go to school armed and ready to deter terrorists. But the story is false. Israel has no such policy. Although I confess, it would make a lot more sense to do so in a country where military service is compulsory for every young person, male and female. Presumably they all have had some weapons training, which is not the case in the United States.

But let me play the devil’s advocate here for a moment and point out that it isn’t necessary for every teacher to be armed and ready to fend off an attack. All it takes is one. And there is a lot of evidence that responsible gun owners who have taken the steps necessary to comply with concealed-carry laws in their community can save lives.

Mass shootings at public schools in this country were extremely rare prior to 1995. That was the year that Congress approved the national Gun-Free School Zone Act. The assumption was that banning anyone from carrying a weapon into any of our public schools would make them safer.

No, it didn’t. All it did was make them sitting ducks for deranged lunatics. For starters, how about we rescind that law and encourage people who want to be ready to deal with such situations, rare as they may be, to get the training, permits and equipment necessary to carry a concealed weapon in public?

I’m told that something like 8.5 million Americans can legally carry concealed weapons today. Wouldn’t you feel safer if that number were several times higher? And wouldn’t you feel safer if our schools were no longer publicly advertised no-gun zones?

John R. Lott Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime, asked an interesting question in USA Today this week: “Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’? But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?” Why indeed.

While we’re on the subject of getting weapons in the hands of the good guys (and gals), let’s discuss for a moment if it’s possible to do a better job of spotting the potential bad guys and stopping them before they act.

I don’t know of any mental health screening that would have identified Adam Lanza as a potential mass murderer; or one that would have warned the folks in Webster, N. Y., that William Spengler was about to go berserk and murder two firemen (and wanted to kill a lot more). And I shudder to think of the violation of our civil liberties that it would take to put any such program in place.

I suspect that one thing all of these murderous lunatics have in common is a sick desire for publicity for their crimes. Sadly, that’s one thing we can’t deny them. A free press means giving the public the news it wants, even if that means a morbid fascination with such terrible tragedies as the one that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But it’s interesting to contemplate whether their actions would be any different if they knew the media wouldn’t fill the airwaves with stories about them.

And finally, let me say a few words about the notion that taking guns away from law-abiding Americans will do anything to keep them out of the hands of criminals and psychotics. After the tragic deaths in Newtown, the gun-control lobby has gone into a frenzy. The vitriolic attacks against the NRA and other gun advocates have gotten a bit scary.

But I don’t believe that taking guns away from law-abiding Americans will do anything to make us safer. And no matter what the anti-gun lobby would like to believe, it ain’t going to happen. I expect the courts to continue to affirm our 2nd Amendment rights, which pretty clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Oh, I’m sure we’ll see proposals to increase controls on assault weapons and large magazines. Now that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are on the case, more restrictive legislation is bound to be proposed. Something may even get approved in Congress.

But to believe it will make us any safer is just wishful thinking. I for one would like to see more law-abiding Americans prepared to defend themselves and their community. And after the recent tragedies, maybe we will.

Let me close by thanking you all for your readership and comments. I appreciate the bouquets and yes, even the occasional brickbats.

It’s certainly been an interesting year. And 2013 looks like it will be, too. Although I’m reminded that the ancient Chinese expression, “May you live in interesting times,” wasn’t meant as a blessing, but as a curse.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

-Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Should We Arm Our Teachers?”

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

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    WHEN I SAW THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT WAS, “What if you have a mediocre teacher who is a “fantastic shot?” WILL THE TEACHER REMAIN IN EMPLOY FOR BEING A, “SHOOTING SON-OF-A-GUN?”

    IN THE MEMPHIS AREA, OUR BEST TEACHERS ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY-LIMITS AND EMPLOYED IN SHELBY-COUNTY SCHOOLS. THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL “WRANGLING” ABOUT GETTING QUALITY TEACHERS FOR, Memphis City Schools [MCS] – THE SAD PART IS NO DECENT TEACHER WANTS TO TEACH AT MCS, NOR, LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS.

    Chip Wood IS ON POINT. Asa Hutchinson AND Wayne LaPierre WERE NOT REALISTICALLY THINKING ABOUT LARGE URBAN-SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

    • http://davidsfloors.com Granpa David

      To me it is a false argument for the federal government to do any of this including establishing gun free zones. Show me the delegated power for all this in the Constitution. As Congressman Jjohn Conyers said, “Almost everything we do around here is unconstitutional.”

      • oldgringo

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

      • Charlie

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

        Charlie Freedom

      • Robert Smith

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

        Rob

      • Kinetic1

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

      • JCfromDC

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

      • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

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

      • JC

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

        Rob
        __________________________________________________________________

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

        Good work! ;)

      • Robert Smith

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

        Absolutely false.

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

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

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

        Rob

        • Samuel Clemens

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

      • JC

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

      • Coalminer

        Grampa David,

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

      • Charlie

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

        Charlie Freedom

      • Charlie

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

        Charlie Freedom

      • Charlie

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

        Charlie Freedom

      • Vicki

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

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

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

      • Lawrence

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

      • Wil

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

      • http://www.facebook.com/sirwilliambolton William Wiley Bolton

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Must you always shout (ALL LARGE CASE)?

      • JC

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

      • JC

        Looks like we have two JC’s again.

      • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

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

    • JUKEBOX

      I was raised in Memphis, but I left there over 40 years ago. During the times I have gone back for a visit, I have seen Memphis degrade into drug infested war zone. When I was in high school in the 50′s, over half of the students had some kind of weapon in their car, and we never had any kind of incident.

      • FreedomFighter

        Teachers should not have thier right to bear arms INFRINGED.

        The 2nd amendment is very clear:

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

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

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Jana

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

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

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

      • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

        Hats off to YOU Jana!

      • JeffH

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JUKEBOX,”

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

      • Jana

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

      • JC

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

      • DaveH

        Thank you, Jana, for your kind words.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rhonda.reichel Rhonda Reichel

      I would trust all the teachers I know to carry a gun….concealed of course.

    • Robert Wilson

      One gun is all that is needed in schools and that gun belongs in thee hands of someone who may be able to communicate with each and every class room. A public address speaker is normally located in most classrooms, and communications may work both ways re; a speaker can be used as a mike. Teachers could talk to ,say, the principal in this manner if there is a sign of a suspicious happening. Also, what ever happened o fences? put one around the playground/school.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    In answer to the primary question “I’m told that something like 8.5 million Americans can legally carry concealed weapons today. Wouldn’t you feel safer if that number were several times higher? And wouldn’t you feel safer if our schools were no longer publicly advertised no-gun zones?” I give a fairly strong no to both. If more people were allowed to carry concealed guns legally it would make it just a smidge easier for criminals to hide their weapons. One thing I find interesting is I often hear groups advocating for less gun control make the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. Yet these same people seem to have a paralyzing fear of bad guys having guns. It so often seems that it is less the bad guy and more the gun that this group of people fears. If the most likely threat to an innocent person on the street was someone coming at them with a knife I would imagine the fear would be much less. While such safety precautions as self defense training and tasers or stun guns are often derided as useless against someone with a gun I would bet most would agree that at least self defense could be very effective against a much more lightly armed opponent. So it appears that the fear is still the gun rather then the bad guy because a bad guy without a gun is a much less threatening bad guy. So I think the argument can be made that guns facilitate a much easier crime then one without the use of a gun. The gun is a principle issue. Having more people armed does not make the individuals qualified to use it nor does it guarantee that individuals with criminal intentions will not be able to obtain concealed gun permits and thereby hide their weapons. Having more guns makes no one safer. Improving the legal system, the mental health system and in general the way human beings view and treat each other is a far better deterrent against more crime then simply arming more people in my opinion.

    As for schools. The reason they are advertised as gun free zones is not to deter mindless murderers who cannot be reasoned with or intimidated. Its to stop innocent but naive children who are so frightened by bullies or the thought that other people in school are armed that they feel the need to bring guns to school. Here are some examples of children and teenagers bringing guns to school not because they were insane and wanted to commit a mass shooting but brought it for other reasons:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018034007_schoolguns21.html

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Upper-Darby-Students-Guns-134633263.html

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/mom-says-bullying-caused-teen-bring-gun-school/nSdpM/

    These are innocent children who are none the less ignorant and most definitely not qualified to carry them. And their doing so results in far more gun related deaths in schools then those of mass murdering school shootings. The advertising of schools as gun free zones and the strong effort to keep guns out of schools is to stop these children from bringing guns to schools. There are ways to deal with students who bring guns to school without resorting to arming teachers. I would always recommend armed guards. Though perhaps these can serve multiple functions. For instance my high school was part of the dare program which sought to curb drug use among children and teens. The head of the program in my city served as a counselor at the school in her own office. However she was also a police officer who was armed at all times. In that sense the “armed guard” served several functions aside from simply standing guard all the time. So it may be worth the investment to implement a similar system in other schools. For those that cannot afford it I feel nassp.org offers some helpful suggestions-http://www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?topic=55496

    And as always I recommend that if the concern for a mass murderer is high then the school should require its staff to be trained in self defense and I would be accepting of teachers carrying pepper spray or tazers or stun guns. If the teachers in Sandy Hook had even had pepper spray it would have been better then being unarmed. Especially against a single murderer. Though admittedly they did not know it was just one person. Still in the heat of the moment one must respond to the person one sees. Even pepper spray can be effective and can buy the crucial seconds necessary to tackle a person or escape or get children to safety.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Can you name a criminal with a conceal carry permit? If you know of one, have you reported them to the authorities? You fail to understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. Judging from your previous posts on this site, I feel it would be futile to attempt to enlighten you at this time. As I have stated on this site numerous times in the last few days: If you are man enough, will you attempt to disarm me yourself?

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

        YOU ARE WRONG.

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

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

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

        • http://rockdog1113dothushmaildotcom.wordpress.com rocquedog

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “rocquedog,”

        I WAS NOT MAKING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT ME.

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH,”

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

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

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

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH,”

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH,”

        I FEEL COMPELLED TO CHALLENGE YOU.

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Jeremy Leochner,”

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Flashy

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

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

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

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Flashy” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

        THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY.

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

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH,”

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

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

      • JeffH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        LMAO now! Paranoia mind destroy ya!

        I’m rapidly losing respect for you CAH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • JeffH

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH,”

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • JeffH

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

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

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

      • Robert Wilson

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

    • Larry K.

      pepper spray, stun guns will not stop a crazed killer with a gun, how could you use it, would you say stop shooting while i spray or shock you? the only way to stop that person is to take the shot. i’m and elderly man and if a person comes at me with a knife maybe pepper spray would help then but if the person has a gun i better have one to.

      • JUKEBOX

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • vicki

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Jana

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Evidence already submitted above.

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Vicki

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

      • Vicki

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

      • Vicki
      • Vicki
    • DaveH

      Somebody mentioned Jeremy yesterday, and lo and behold here he is. How coincidental.
      Apparently up until yesterday’s mention, Flashman hasn’t have the energy to mount his Jeremy personality.

      • Robert Smith

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

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

        Rob

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “If more people were allowed to carry concealed guns legally it would make it just a smidge easier for criminals to hide their weapons”.
      Criminals don’t need to carry their guns until that time in which they actually have their crime planned. The chances that their carrying will be detected by the authorities, legal or not, are much smaller than with the common citizen who has no idea when trouble might break out, and thus much carry on a regular basis to gain any kind of security.
      And Criminals don’t care if their concealed carry is legal or not.

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • momo

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • vicki

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JeffH

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

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

      • phideaux

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

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

      • Jana

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JeffH

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • JeffH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

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

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

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

      • vicki

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

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

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

      • vicki

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

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

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

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

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

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

          “raising the standard of health.” {Obamacare}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

        Since they do have to. No what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Robert Wilson

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

    • cpa

      Advertising that you are “gun free” does not protect you. It advertises that you are unable to protect yourself. Monsters like Lansa go to places like an elementary school with a “gun free” zone because he knows he can mow down as many precious innocent lives as he can find bullets for with no worry for anyone stopping him until the police arrive. He wore bullet proof armor – why – for protection from the kindergartners he planned to murder? No for the SWAT team he knew would come eventually and he wanted to kill as many as he could before they would stop him.

      If you are planning to try to kill mass numbers of people, knowing that someone in that crowd may kill you first can only be a deterrent. We will never stop killing all together because this is a human problem. But cutting the death toll down in these cases from 26 to 1 or 2 or zero would be my preference. This only happens if people have the right to bear arms and to defend themselves and actually do so… oh wait – we have that with the 2nd Amendment. Don’t be so naive to think taking this away adds protection for anyone.

      The high school I went to had students with guns, trucks with gun racks – with guns in them and students with guns at school. We never once had a problem or any gun related incident in 50+ years of school history there. These students were responsible gun owners and handled their guns with respect and proper training and handling. Most of them were hunters. But it wasn’t unusual – it was just the way life was there. Imagine – no school shootings at that school – a gunman would not get very far. (This was of course prior to 1995).

      • Jeremy Leochner

        CPA

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

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

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

        • cpa

          Jeremy,

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

        • cpa

          Jeremy,

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I agree with you on all those points CPA.

      • Buster the Anatolian

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

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

      • Jana

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

      • Buster the Anatolian

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

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

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

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

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

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

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

          You probably are not even aware that there is a preamble to the Bill of rights: “Congress of the United States
          begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
          RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
          ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”

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

          Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

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

          Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

          Pretty easy to understand this one.

          Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

          Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

          Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

          Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

          Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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

          Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

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

      • vicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

        Number of schools in the United States.

        Number of schools that suffer mass shootings.

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • DaveH

        What’s your education, Jeremy?

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

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

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Vicki

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

        Number of schools in the United States.

        Number of schools that suffer mass shootings.

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

        Correct but that is not the point we are making.

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Objection. Leading the witness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “One thing I find interesting is I often hear groups advocating for less gun control make the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. Yet these same people seem to have a paralyzing fear of bad guys having guns. It so often seems that it is less the bad guy and more the gun that this group of people fears. If the most likely threat to an innocent person on the street was someone coming at them with a knife I would imagine the fear would be much less”.
      “imagine” is the key word here. I don’t know many people who would like to be murdered by any weapon. And I’ve never known anybody that fears an inanimate gun more than a real live “bad guy”.
      On the whole the quoted comment was illogical at best.

      • JUKEBOX

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JC

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • cpa

        Jeremy,

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

        • cpa

          Jeremy,

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

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

        • cpa

          Jeremy,

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

        • cpa

          Jeremy,

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Understandable CPA. That is your right.

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • JC

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • vicki

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

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

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

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

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

        • http://rockdog1113dothushmaildotcom.wordpress.com rocquedog

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

      • JC

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

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JC

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

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

        Just don’t get it do you?

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Buster the Anatolian

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JC

        Jeremy, It isn’t about winning.

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

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

        And extra credit for having openly acknowledged it.

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

        Are the sleepers starting to awaken yet?

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “So it appears that the fear is still the gun rather then the bad guy because a bad guy without a gun is a much less threatening bad guy”.

      Jeremy creates his own “facts”, then uses them to support his case. Circular Reasoning.
      You gotta love these Liberal Progressives. Not.

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

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

      • vicki

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

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

        Good try to hide an opinion as a fact though.

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

        Good. Trainable.

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          You have not made a point at all Jeremy.

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • Vicki

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • cpa

      I currently make it a point never to assume someone else will protect me – least of all the government who is not on the scene. I do have a weapon in my home and am trained and ready to use it. I have no problem posting a sign over my house that says if you enter uninvited you will be shot. If someone has a problem with that – they don’t have to come in my house.

      I also keep a gun with me in my office. It is not because I plan to use it against fellow workers. It is because I know someone else might be a danger to myself or others. I assume there will never be any incident. But if there is I will be ready to defend myself and others. That does not make me crazy or afraid of guns as you say. It makes me prepared.

    • Adolf Schmidt

      I had a close friend that thought the same as you. He was a black belt in taekwondo. A group of neighborhood punks cornered him. He fought well for his life until one of the punks slid a knife across his throat. The problem with punks like these is they don’t honor laws, fairness, or rules. The laws concerning guns are for the law abiding citizen! The criminal makes their own law. The criminal element will keep their guns, carry them, and use them regardless of what laws are made. Not all people can live in secure neighborhoods.

      • cpa

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

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

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

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

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Having more guns makes no one safer”.

      Jeremy gives us Proof by Bald Assertion.
      Yet the statistics show that the criminals are more afraid of armed victims than they are of the police. And for good reason since — “Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year”:
      http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

      And the statistics show that the murder rate has been declining while at the same time the number of concealed carry permits have been increasing:
      Since 1991, the number of states allowing Concealed Carry with permits or Unrestricted has increased from 17 to 41. The murder rate has declined since 1991 from 9.8 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011.

      • Robert Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Rob

      • JC

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

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

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

      • Robert Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        For DaveH,

        “More Guns Less Crime…”

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

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

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

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

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

        Rob

      • Vicki

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

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

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Improving the legal system, the mental health system and in general the way human beings view and treat each other is a far better deterrent against more crime then simply arming more people in my opinion”.

      Improving the legal system? So the potential victims are supposed to wait for you to improve the legal system? Was that a joke, Jeremy?
      The Liberal Progressives Leaders have been promising us a better country since the late 19th century. It has gotten better — For Them.

      • Robert Smith

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

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

        Trickle down economics have FAILED the middle and lower classes.

        Rob

      • JUKEBOX

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

      • JeffH

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

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

      • Robert Smith

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

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

        Rob

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

        Its a fascinating read.

      • Vicki

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

      • Vicki

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

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

      • oh oh

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

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

      • Vicki

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

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

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) goes off on a tangent (typical Liberal Progressive ploy) and says — “The reason they are advertised as gun free zones is not to deter mindless murderers who cannot be reasoned with or intimidated. Its to stop innocent but naive children who are so frightened by bullies or the thought that other people in school are armed that they feel the need to bring guns to school”.
      The issue here has nothing to do with whether kids should be allowed to arm themselves, Jeremy. You are just obfuscating the real issue. Probably purposely.

    • Chris

      You are clearly uninformed about the second amendment and have zero training with a weapon. Do you remember not to many years ago when a black belt female was abducted by a man in Georgia? She was well trained but was overtaken and eventually killed. Had she been carrying a gun he would be dead and she would be alive! I served my country in many combat zones and will never give up my rights provided to me by the constitution!
      If we allow them to infringe on one right then the door will be wide open for more to be taken away! I for one have two small boys and will carry my gun to protect them forever! The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting it is for a citizens ability to protect themselves period! God Bless our country and we have to protect our constitution from the socialist agenda of our idiot president.

      • Kinetic1

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • cpa

        Kinetic1,

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

      • Jana

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

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

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

      • Kinetic1

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

      • Jana

        Kinetic1

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • DaveH

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

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

    • Robert

      You need to go back and reread what you just wrote. Totally illogical. Arming teachers that qualify, will take the training and be armed in school makes a log of sense. Currently there are school districts that have been doing this for years with no shootings nor loss of life. Parents are relieved that their children have an initial source of defense if ever needed. Agreed, we cannot pay for armed guards in every school, spend to train the teachers and administrators. This is a current policy under consideration in both Michigan and Ohio. Our local county immediately placed, on a permanent basis, a sheriffs deputy in each school. This was prior to the NRA pronouncement. Common sense prevails. Armed assailants can only be stopped forcibly and must be done as quickly as possible. Teachers are the first line of defense. It is too late when you must wait for the authorities to come to the rescue. The recent actions in Connecticut affirm this.

      Every citizen that can legally and consciously carry a gun should do so, this makes us all safer. The least safe place one can be is in a gun free zone.

      • Jana

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

      • Flashy

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

    • HenryA

      Jeremy,

      I have a question for you! Have the law stopped drugs from coming into the Country? No!
      Has the law stop all drunk drivers? No! So what you want is the 2nd Amendment to be limited to your views.

      On the “The Supreme Court recently interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean an individual has a right to own a gun as opposed to its historic view that it applies only to a militia (See United States v. Miller 1939). It also said that reasonable regulation is permitted under the 2nd Amendment. ” It will have to go to the Supreme Count to see what the reasonable regulation limits would be.

      There is a reasonable interpretation in that case that was not interpreted about the 2nd Amendment which is the part on the historic view that it applies only to a militia. Were do the people get limited on arms for a militia. We the people can not defend our self when a state is armed with arms that we the people only have hand guns(revolvers).

      You and the Supreme Court will need to read every word in the 2nd Amendment. I do not read any were in the 2nd Amendment of any limitations of what type of arms the people may own.

      “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.”

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

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

      • Jana

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

    • S.C.Murf

      Sure wish we had more cans of pepper spray back in 68, 69 & 70 we could have really finished of those VC and NVA. You are an idiot plain and simple.

      up the hill
      airborne

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

      • JC

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • E Miller

      Apparently you’ve never contemlated the aspects and or effects of indoor use of pepper-spray. The tactical and practical problems caused by the presense of fumes, odor, or aroma multiplies the chaos and trauma “the incident” involves. The resultant affects, effect the aggressor, the responder, and the victims equally. Mr. Leochner, I would suggest, should expose himself to pepper-spray in an indoor environment before making such a ludicrous suggestion.
      Having had experienced CS gas while in the military, I doubted the effects of “pepperspray”. However, once exsposed to this capsicam pepper,oil based product I fully realize what a nightmare scenario it’s use indoors would create. The security school I experienced pepperspray only deploys it outdoors so as to protect the building and staff from it’s effects.

    • TML

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

      You are directly advocating the idea that if all law-abiding citizens were unarmed, then it would be easier to identify those carrying a firearm as criminals. You actually acknowledge the fact that laws only disarm law-abiding citizens from defending themselves while criminals, by definition, will still retain theirs.

      Jeremy Leochner says “One thing I find interesting is I often hear groups advocating for less gun control make the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. Yet these same people seem to have a paralyzing fear of bad guys having guns……..”

      Non sequitur (logic does not strictly follow the premise) … a 6’3” 250lb unarmed attacker may be just as dangerous to a 5’8” 150lb man as a criminal with a gun. If you do follow strictly from the premise, then it stands to reason the fear these people have is being unable to defend themselves against whatever threat may show its ugly face. The firearm is the best defense tool for that application.

      Jeremy Leochner says “The reason they are advertised as gun free zones is not to deter mindless murderers who cannot be reasoned with or intimidated. Its to stop innocent but naive children who are so frightened by bullies or the thought that other people in school are armed that they feel the need to bring guns to school.”

      Incorrect. It is already unlawful for a minor to possess a firearm in any public place. Designation as a gun free zone by even those adults qualified to do so, has nothing to do with stopping kids from bringing guns to school, and everything to do with the false sense of safety one gets from prohibiting guns by those qualified to carry them.

      Jeremy Leochner says “The head of the program in my city served as a counselor at the school in her own office. However she was also a police officer who was armed at all times. In that sense the “armed guard” served several functions aside from simply standing guard all the time.”

      In essence, that is all that should be advocated. Merely allowing those teachers and staff who choose to arm themselves, to do so under district policy or state law regulation of munitions and training.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

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

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

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

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

        • Samuel Clemens

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

      • Buster the Anatolian

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

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • http://www.facebook.com/rhonda.reichel Rhonda Reichel

      Aren’t school board members elected? It’s time to find out where they stand on this gun issue and boot them out if they want to keep school zones gun free. That was the most idiotic idea yet.

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • walter77777

      I certainly can think of a criminal who had a concealed carry permit. His name was Richard Goldman, Sr, and on Dec. 29, 1991 he killed his son, Richard Goldman, Jr., his wife, and himself. He had been a respected judge in maritime court, but his son was a disgrace — a failed, mad, homosexual artist who insisted on walking around the neighborhood in flamboyant drag. He had been a very good friend of my wife’s, and the tragedy occured two days after my dear wife’s death from breast cancer.

      I found out about this when I called his home to tell him about the funeral arrangements.

    • Aman

      As far as I know it is already illegal for students in high school and lower grades (under the age of 21) to be in possession of a weapon except as allowed for hunting or target shooting in the presence of an adult or guardian that is close enough to take possession of the weapon at any give moment. We already have laws against murder. All states that issue carry permits restrict the mentally ill from obtaining one. No matter how many laws are passed, criminals are not going to obey them.

      • Veteran

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

  • JeffH

    FACT – Gun Free Zone are defensless zones, prime target zones for those who wish to wreak havoc on the defensless.

    Teachers willing to be armed and trained, are in the best position to protect kids…”armed, trained and willing”! No other safety plan has an equivalent potential to limit the harm that an aspiring mass murderer would otherwise achieve.

    Our decaying public morals, unrestrictive mental health regulations, ignorant and disconnected bureaucrats and ACLU-fettered law enforcement create a cocktail where psychopaths walk among us without fear.

    Motivated by madness, fascinated by evil, baffled by existence and lacking a capacity for mercy, they cannot be wished away. They exist, awaiting the triggering event that will begin their hunt for the rest of us.

    The police can almost never get to the killer before atrocity has been committed. Only well-trained and armed professionals on the scene have any chance of preventing murder from becoming mass murder.

    In schools, this means teachers.

    Willing teachers should be allowed to apply for a state police-administered training program. They should undergo background checks, physical examination, and psychological screening as would candidates for police service.

    We know that there are cases where the only way to stop atrocity is to use lethal force. Teachers, schools, parents and communities need to look unflinchingly at the reality that schools are now among the softest targets in our society, despite their housing our most precious treasure.
    _____________________________________________________

    The Oath Keepers to Provide Teachers With Free Self-Defense and Firearms Training

    Oath Keepers, a national association of over 20,000 military, police, and first responders, is offering free instruction in self defense, including the use of firearms and other tools of self-defense, to all teachers and school staff in the United States. This initiative is in response to the recent tragic mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The volunteer instructors will be drawn from the member rolls of Oath Keepers in each state. Those instructors will be paired up with any teachers and school staff in the same state who contact Oath Keepers and request instruction.

    Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes, issued a statement:

    Children deserve to be defended. And the teachers and staff who are responsible for children during the school day deserve to know how to defend them – effectively, decisively, and at the very outset of an attack. And they deserve a fighting chance to defend themselves as well. It is not enough to tell them to sit tight and wait for the police to arrive. All too often, by the time the police get there, it is too late.
    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/12/16/oath-keepers-to-provide-teachers-with-free-firearms-and-self-defense-training/

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “JeffH” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS, SIR.

      I DISAGREE. “JeffH,” AS YOU KNOW, Personal Liberty Digest HAS ARTICLES ON GUN-SAFETY -AND TRAINING FOR NEW GUN-OWNERS.

      TEACHERS STILL HAVE TO TEACH AND SUPERVISE CHILDREN. LET US SAY, A “THUG” HAS ENTERED A SCHOOL AND ATTACKED SOMEONE IN A HALLWAY, RESTROOM OR CAFETERIA. A GUN-TOTING TEACHER WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE CHILDREN (UN-SUPERVISED) IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE “THUG.” WE KNOW IT IS HUMAN NATURE FOR CHILDREN TO “SCAMPER,” WHEN PANICKED. WHAT IF A CHILD “RUNS STRAIGHT INTO A LINE OF FIRE.” POTENTIAL LAWSUITS WOULD RESULT BECAUSE FORENSIC TEAMS WOULD BE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THE CHILD WAS “HIT” BY “FRIENDLY FIRE” [THE TEACHER], OR, “ENEMY FIRE.”

      AS I STATED IN MY EARLIER COMMENT, SCHOOL BOARDS WOULD HAVE MIGRAINES TRYING TO BALANCE QUALITY TEACHERS WITH QUALITY MARKSMANSHIP.

      • JeffH

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH,”

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        HAPPY HOLIDAYS, “Kinetic1.”

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

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

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

      • Capitalist at Birth

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

      • http://electronics.great-products-group.com Steve H

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Jana

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “DaveH,”

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

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Jana,”

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

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

      • Jana

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

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Jana” – FAIR ENOUGH.

    • Kinetic1

      Columbine High School had an armed guard on duty. A motorcycle cop was also near by and was on scene in minutes. Neither was able to stop the massacre of 15 people at the school. As Deputy Paul Smoker said,
      “… But in chaotic situations, it’s often impossible to identify the “bad guy,” “There was an unknown inside a school. We didn’t know who the ‘bad guy’ was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who ‘they’ were.”
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

      One account does not prove anything one way or the other, but it should end this constant chant of “if only someone on site had been carrying this would never have happened.”

      • KJQ

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Kinetic1

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

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

      • DaveH

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

        I pronounce you to be the Liar, Kinetic.

      • Jana

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

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

      • Kinetic1

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

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

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

    • Robert Smith

      From JeffH: ” create a cocktail where psychopaths walk among us without fear.”

      They have ALWAYS walked among us without fear. If they were judged to be so in a town they’d walk for a week or two to another town and start over.

      Some even had help. Look what the church did for pedophiles.

      BTW, the ACLU stuck up for your Rush Limbaugh. What do you think about that?

      Oh, and do you really think it’s a bad thing to inform those accused of a crime of their rights?

      Rob

      • JeffH

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

      • Robert Smith

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

        Thanks. I’ve made my point.

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

        Rob

      • JeffH

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

  • Harold Olsen

    Should teachers be armed? If they choose to be. It should not be mandatory and teachers who already own guns and know how to properly use them should be allowed to carry them while at work. Teachers, however, should not be used as security for their students. Armed security officers should be hired by schools to protect the students. Many people have advocated a single armed security officer. I believe that would be a mistake. There should be more than just one. In my opinion, at least one per floor of each building at the school. If some nut job shows up with the intent to shoot up the school and he knows there is only a single security officer, guess who his first target will be. As soon as the first shot is fired, if the nut job isn’t detected right off, the officers can immediately respond and take whatever action is necessary and appropriate.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      I would not have enjoyed attending school under those circumstances. Would you? Do you really think it is conducive to learning? I don’t. I think vouchers allowing people to choose the schools their children attend is the answer. That way the Public Schools would disappear. I would prefer that all children be allowed to pray and discuss spirituality in their daily lives. Our society began it’s decline when the “Supreme” Court in it’s infinite wisdom decided that God had no place in the public square. You of course would be allowed to send your children to God hating institutions that promote depravity and abnormal sexual behavior. Leave the rest of us free to choose our own devices while you crumble in your immoral life style.

      • DaveH

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

      • Jeremy Leochner

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

    • Robert Smith

      Harold suggests: “Armed security officers should be hired by schools to protect the students.”

      Why not use National Guard personnel? Maybe there is a law against it with solders serving on American soil but that can be changed.

      The idea is to let these volunteers pull a couple of weeks of duty protecting our kids.

      Might even be a good billet for regular military getting close to retirement. I remember I made coffee in a Chaplain’s office for a couple of weeks before I got out because my squadron went out on the Intrepid and weren’t due to get back until long after my enlistment was up. I would like to think our kids are more important than coffee.

      Rob

  • JimH

    Some of the teachers that I have had with guns? I don’t know who would be the bigger danger.
    There would need to be a proficiency test.(teachers taking instead of giving tests, cool)
    How about Catholic schools? Nuns with guns. Sister Christine, with her M-16.(she did wield a mean yard stick)
    There is alot of work to be done.

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

      Sister Christine with her M16? Don’t be a freakin’ IDIOT!

      • JimH

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

    • Robert Smith

      Already been done!

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352388/

      A fun movie.

      Rob

      • JimH

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

      • Jana

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

      • JimH

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

      • Jana

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

      • JimH

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

  • http://tigrebleau.wordpress.com tigrebleau

    The outcry over guns used in killings seldom addresses a key point. If there were no guns anywhere, it would be hatchets or swords or arrows or knives or clubs or rocks or fists. And whomever had more and bigger would victimize others. The problem is not in things, it is in us and our cultural (and human) underpinning of violence as a means of expression. Absent some long-term fix to that, we need to improve our flaccid mental-health “system”. Start with better, uniform screening of 7th grade kids for behavioural issues and monitoring of those meeting certain thresholds. Follow up with re-evaluation in 9th grade with further monitoring as appropriate. And conduct a final assessment in 11th grade, with ongoing monitoring, supervision, counseling/therapy, and medication per clinical pathways, or institutionalisation as a last resort for those in the highest “at-risk” category. There is already a large cadre of mental health practitioners who know how to do this, but it would cost money for standardization, improved training and expanding the ranks of mental-health clinicians; but probably not more than a few Solyndra scams. It would pay back many times the cost in terms of tragedies avoided, better understanding of our population’s mental health, and peace of mind for the country as a whole. Not a perfect plan (some kids never make it to t he 11th grade and the ACLU would stroke out at it’s intrusiveness into kids’ psyches), but far better than what we have.

    • deerinwater

      Well, you might be right ~ but a gun makes easy to kill. Have you seen very many Hatchet video games?

      • FreedomFighter

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

        crawl back under your progressive commi rock deerinwater.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • TexasGunDealer

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

      • Robert Smith

        What did Cain use to kill Able?

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

        Rob

      • Jana

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

    • Warrior

      Ya know, in Chicago, Walgreens committed to giving out free $25 gift cards to intice parents to come to parent/teacher conferences. Nuff said. The “core” issue really is not about guns now is it.

      • JeffH

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

    • Karolyn

      Very good idea to a certain extent. Too many kids slip through the cracks due to parental ignorance and inability to handle their children. Of course, the main problem with this is the medications that would be rampantly prescribed, which are not the answer. More advanced methods of natural treatment need to be promoted. For instance, food allergies can cause behavioral problems. Medications only address symptoms and are not a one-size-fits-all solution. As a matter of fact, they are not a solution at all. Even if they work, it’s hard to ensure that patients will take them. There are no easy answers; however, comprehensive education of children on interpersonal relationships and of parents on mental health would certainly be a big help.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You have missed the last 60 years, have you? It has nothing to do with mental health. It has to do with the lack of moral accountability. If there are no parents involved, who is responsible? If your parents aren’t responsible, then why should you be responsible? The entire Great Society was designed to destroy the family structure. Taking God out of the public square (public schools) was another step to destroy morality in this country. It has been systematic and constant. Typical “Liberal”, I mean Totalitarian response to better control the human existence, Eh? Now that we have come full circle, do you understand why those of us with intelligence and knowledge have been arming ourselves since November 3rd, 2008?

      • Capitalist at Birth

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

      • Robert Smith

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

        Check out: Donohue-Levitt hypothesis

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

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

        Rob

      • S.C.Murf

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

        up the hill
        airborne

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

      I sure wouldn’t like to live in YOUR brave new world where some so called professional would decide what or what I am not going to grow up to be. Geezz…you people have got to be kidding. Let people be armed and there will be a lot less MASS shootings when civilians stop them. Period.

  • deerinwater

    I want to think Teachers should be permitted the option. ~ while I do believe a accepted protocol be put in place for securing and use.

    The “happening” in recent years, makes armed guard worthy consideration. ~ With people needing jobs, security is a solid investment. Since it is impossible to know when and where a crime might take place, we can invest in where we don’t want crime.

    And as far as I’m concerned money well spent.

    But we have got to stop these dreadful events

  • Warrior

    I say, place a Dunkin Donuts next to every school. Problem solved.

    • hipshotpercusion

      ROTFLMFAO!

    • Financially Insecure John

      who pays for this-Gob-ment?

    • Jana

      Warrior,
      You made my day!

  • hipshotpercusion

    In UTAH teachers with CCW permits are allowed to carry guns in schools. I have not read about any mass shootings in schools in UTAH. As a matter of fact, one of the only public shootings that did occur in the Salt Lake city area was in The Trolly Mall, which is a gun free zone. Thank God there was an off duty police officer there to shoot the Albanian Muslim criminal.

    • Flashy

      Hotshot…from what two articles i read, he was not a “criminal” prior to shooting up the Mall. He was a lunatic nutcase…no doubt.

      Here’s one quote i found from the father. “The father suggested that the US government bears some responsibility for his son’s actions, saying “The authorities are guilty for not alerting us that he bought a gun. In the US, you cannot buy cigarettes if you are under-aged, but you can buy a gun.” However, contrary to Mr. Talović’s statement, federal law prohibits the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to those under 21 from federally licensed gun dealers although some states allow 18+ to purchase handguns through legal private sales. Longguns (being a rifle or shotgun) and rifle/shotgun ammunition are prohibited to those under 18.[16]”

      OK…so the guy bought the gun. now…from whom did he buy it? And why was he allowed to buy it?

      Don’t you think that would have been helpful…and go after the supplier so he doesn’t sell again?

  • Paul Wells

    There aren’t any easy nor obvious answers to this dilemma. Chip is correct in pointing out that posting an armed guard at every single school would be too pricey. I think perhaps arming selective teachers (and not advertising that fact) might do some good, but again, if you aren’t in the right place at the right time, you pretty much are a victim. I still think we need to do more in the mental health area. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but Adam Lanza’s mother was pondering getting Adam committed, and that is when he started his murderous rampage. Again, that is just internet rumor or conjecture.

    This problem just defies an easy fix. I’ll be watching to see if anyone else has a handle on this.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But Paul Wells aren’t we told that O and the government are going to create jobs? Police in schools equal jobs created. We may turn into a police state but isn’t that what is wanted because it won’t be the population setting the laws and regulations to control the police.

  • bayhorse

    Ohh.. the guy in Webster, NY killed his killed his grandmother, with a hammer! Did they really think he was going to get better in prison????? What a crock of [expletive deleted]! He should have never been let out of prison.

    • Robert Smith

      But was it a “registered” hammer?

      BTW, it was over 10 years between him getting out of jail and his recent crime. Even if he had served his full term he would have still been on the street.

      Many countries, some with strict gun control, some without, have had shootings.

      It appears that guns aren’t the problem.

      Rob

  • nc

    Chip, when a gunman has gone to a public place for a spree killing and his plan has been to kill as many as he can and then kill himself, as has been the case in a vast majority of the spree killings, do you think they would be deterred by armed guards?? They planned to die anyway! If we can’t stop the first 10 shots how much are we wiling to pay to stop the 89th shot before the third magazine runs out and he kills himself as has been the case??
    Seems it might be better to limit the access to the gun and magazine.

    The same conservatives who support the NRA position on the 2nd amendment are the same conservatives who back budget cuts or any federal money for education are the same people who now want to add millions and millions to the COST OF EDUCATION for armed guards to take the heat off the NRA protected guns!

    • Capitalist at Birth

      How much money will it take to re-educate all of the stupid people in this country, let alone, properly educate the young today? Do you really think throwing money at a cultural problem will solve it? I suggest you donate your money. We spend and have spent more money on education than any industrialized country int the world on education. What has it achieved? You are obviously and ignorant dolt that needs to be educated..

      • Robert Smith

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

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

        Rob

    • cpa

      Yes, I do think it makes a difference. If you are a suicide bomber – or school shooter in this case – it does make a difference if you are going to go you want to go big and kill as many as possible taking them with you. If that number is only 1 or worse yet only you – this cause becomes less “worthy” for you. The idea here for them is big numbers and going out in big flames. If that’s the case, it is then a deterrent to know you may not reach the big numbers and may die yourself without taking any or as many others with you.

      • Robert Smith

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

        Rob

    • cpa

      Money doesn’t have to be a big government problem to spend it. Think locally. Local volunteers, teacher training with weapons (they’re already paid the same salary), heaven forbid arming the students (high school anyway) – my high school was this way prior to 1995, I like the every citizen with gun and training route, think PTA with safety protection regulars, and I also like the unemployed veterans getting employed by schools.

      Other posts are right – if someone is going to have weapons they need proper training. But I think this is a community issue for communities to care about and solve.

      I don’t mind seeing money being spent (especially to employ unemployed veterans for this task). But it also shouldn’t be just one at every school – they are correct they’ll simply be the first shot. But it could be 1 paid position leading a group of volunteers. It could even be one police officer in charge who isn’t on site every day but who leads groups of volunteers from each community to meet with and direct / instruct / be available to the volunteer groups.

      At my church we have armed guards. We also have plain clothes attenders with guns specifically assigned to volunteer security. They have an organized way to protect the church and those attending with cameras and individuals strategically placed throughout. None of them are paid – they are all volunteer. (I know this is unusual – we’ve had problems with Muslims and drive by shootings (3 so far) at this particular church). It would not help this church in the least to make it a “gun free” zone. LOL. It of course does not help our schools either.

      • cpa

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

      • Robert Smith

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

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

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

        Rob

        • cpa

          Robert,

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

    • cpa

      nc says “If we can’t stop the first 10 shots how much are we wiling to pay to stop the 89th shot before the third magazine runs out and he kills himself as has been the case??”

      Tell that to every child at SH killed after the 2nd or 3rd.

      My view – every life is worth saving. We can’t stop every shooter or murderer with any weapon from trying to kill – but we can limit the numbers they get. I believe that’s worth it. Especially when those “extra” numbers are one of my children or myself.

    • DaveH

      NC says — “The same conservatives who support the NRA position on the 2nd amendment are the same conservatives who back budget cuts or any federal money for education are the same people who now want to add millions and millions to the COST OF EDUCATION for armed guards to take the heat off the NRA protected guns!”

      I call that pure poppycock, NC. Do you have any evidence to back up your conjecture?

      • Robert Smith

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

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

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

        Where would that money come from if you approve?

        Rob

      • nc

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

      • DaveH

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

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

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

  • JB

    The same kind of dumb statements were made at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting…. They said let’s make it illegal to have a gun 100 yards from a congressman speaking….. I was dumbfounded!!!

    • Warrior

      Correct, they should have said 1,000 yards. May have helped the Kennedy’s.

    • Flashy

      Open Carry law is in Arizona isn’t it? So if security saw someone openly packing…or a town meeting was held about gun control and the freaks came out thinking they’re Clint Eastwood and packing weapons…you think with the charged atmosphere, it’s not a good thing to have a no-weapons policy ? You’d rather have rule by intimidation…for that would be the only reason someone would have a gun strapped on because they are allowed to have such….

      Interesting …

      • DaveH

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

      • Flashy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

      • Flashy

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

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

      • DaveH

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

  • Dad

    Eliminating Obama’s support to his Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would pay for it…it is a question of priority.
    I know in these parts, we’d put the priority in the right place. This argument has nothing to do with kids. The abortion clinics alone kill thousands of children a day…

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ah yes. 1973 was the beginning of the end of respect of life in this country. I mourn the day Roe v Wade was decided, as does the woman involved in that suit.

      • Robert Smith

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

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

        Rob

  • R.T. Alamo

    “All it takes is one. And there is a lot of evidence…

    Mass shootings at public schools in this country were extremely rare prior to 1995. That was the year that Congress approved the national Gun-Free School Zone Act…

    No, it didn’t. All it did was make them sitting ducks for deranged lunatics….

    John R. Lott Jr…..“Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying ‘this house is a gun-free zone’? But if you wouldn’t put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?”

    You are correct, you and Lott. I am a teacher. Armed govt. guards are NOT the answer, giving every teacher a gun is not practical.

    As I know hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers, I crunched the numbers based on what I know, and I think is accurate with a no more than a 5% margin of error.

    #1. Arming any teacher/admin. is a school district decision

    #2. For any school personnel to carry, they must go through more than just CHL training. The must pass training to become deputized officers, and they are charged with law officer responsibility.

    #3. 75% of all teachers do not want to have a gun or the responsibility, training, certification and continuing training that law officers must have.

    #4. 15% will not qualify for various reasons, which could be as simple as the building principal does not trust them fully (in which case they shouldn’t be on campus anyway).

    #5. About 10% of us will become trained officers, willing and able to handle this burden.

    However, if you are looking for protection for kids, other than a parent or mother bear, no one is going to fit harder to protect their “cubs.”

    Don’t believe the garbage you see on TV or movies. It is myth that teachers do not care about students or vice-versa. We teach because we care! We could make a lot more money doing something else. This may be true only for those of us who are not unionized, however.

    As a teacher, would I do this to protect my students? YES! While if attacked I would get between the shooter and my kids, that only means I would be the first to die. If armed, I may get shot first, but unless he’s darn good shot and I am caught completely off-guard (doubtful), he would go down before anyone else was harmed.

    • Flashy

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

      • JeffH

        Falsy says ” And what is your primary responsibility?”

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

      • DaveH

        Desperation set in.

      • JC

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

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

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

      • Jana

        Oh wow flashy,
        thats really low even for you.

  • Don

    Gun-free zones are an invitaion to criminals? Gun shows are an invitation to criminals…

    • JC

      In what way Don?
      Seems like a not very smart place to conduct a robbery…

  • ToughGuy1

    Obama’s free gun zones can stuff it. I’m serious people we now need to unseat and impeach Obama and Biden. Before they take away all our rights and freedoms!

    • FreedomFighter

      I expect they allready have (ndaa), and will continue to (gun confiscation/control)– we are to be slaves to the NWO(UN agenda 21)

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • Capitalist at Birth

        I think the end is near.

      • Robert Smith

        You just don’t get it, Capitalist…

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

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

        The trend is finally going the right way.

        Rob

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Robert Smith,

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

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • FreedomFighter

        Mr Smith – you presume wrongly.

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

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

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

        Just stay out of the church.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        HAPPY HOLIDAYS, “Freedom Fighter” – GREAT COMMENTS.

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

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

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

    • Coalminer

      Bob livingston,

      Bible Verses About Premarital Sex
      Deuteronomy 22:13–21
      Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, ‘When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.’ Then the woman’s father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. Her father must say to them, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her.’ He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, ‘I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders. The elders must then take the man and punish him. They must also fine him 100 pieces of silver, which he must pay to the woman’s father because he publicly accused a virgin of Israel of shameful conduct. The woman will then remain the man’s wife, and he may never divorce her. But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin. The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. (NLT)
      Old Testament:

      What about Homosexuality?
      Beastiality?
      Both are punishable by death

      • Coalminer

        Bob Livingston,

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

  • Larry

    “I expect the courts to continue to affirm our 2nd Amendment rights, which pretty clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    How can you say that? How many places in the U.S. have already infringed on those rights? Yes technically they can still get a handgun permit in those places. But try getting it without having political connections or making big donations to the right campaigns. Try getting it just being an average citizen wanting to enjoy his 2nd amendment rights.

    Our rights will be infringed, it’s the natural order of progression for Big Government. To believe otherwise is naive and ignorant.

    • Flashy

      see anything in that Amendment which states one can pack a gun around in public without restrictions or ‘infringement” ?

      • KJQ

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

      • DaveH

        Duh, yeah:
        The Second Amendment:
        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

        http://gunowners.org/op0848.htm

      • Flashy

        Davey…. read post above

        • Samuel Clemens

          “keep & BEAR”… Real simple Flashy

  • KBright

    “who were also murdered by the same deranged gunman”

    Guess you forgot that not only was there at least three armed assailants there, but they were dressed in swat armor also which is why the teacher who locked her students in the bathroom would NOT open the door to the police.

    Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre.

    Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored”. The gag order will be in effect until the investigation concludes, “several months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been supposedly been confirmed as the sole culprit.

    With the exception of an appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.

    How about the greatly underreported feature of the bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character, considering that normally H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured presence in Connecticut state administration.

    Once, in a criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.” So we should expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise, but that was NOT the case. Instead H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the Dec. 15 press conference was an almost entirely different man, appeared apprehensive and uncertain, as if he was never at the postmortem operation he had supposedly overseen. There was multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggesting that the man who was at that press conference was either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.

    An example: Reporter: But you said that the long rifle was used?
    Carver: Yes.
    Reporter: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.
    State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.
    Another reporter: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?
    Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].

    (Actually the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet-per-second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue. This is something Carver would have known as the top Medical Examiner)

    Several additional chronological and evidentiary contradictions in the official version of the Sandy Hook shooting are cause for serious consideration and leave doubt in terms of how the event transpired vis-à-vis the way authorities and major media outlets have presented it.

    After Adam Lanza fatally shot and killed his mother at his residence, he drove himself to the elementary school campus, arriving one half hour after classes had commenced. Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.
    Plus the initial press accounts suggest how no school personnel or students heard gunshots and no 911 calls are made until after Lanza begins firing inside the facility.

    Yet Lanza’s (9:30AM) walked up to the front entrance and fired at least a half dozen rounds into the glass doors. The extremely loud sound of Lanza blowing an opening big enough to walk through the locked school door caused Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach to bolt from a nearby meeting room to investigate. He shot and killed them both as they ran toward him.

    Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Plus, why would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just blasted his way into the building? Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hocksprung and Scherlach sustained injuries “in the hail of bullets” but returned to the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911.

    This contrasts sharply with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed students “were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns.” Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911 call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone “thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.” There is a pretty big distinction between possibly hearing shots fired somewhere in the building and being wounded by a “hail of bullets.”

    According to Dr. Carver and State Police, Lanza shot each victim between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span.This averages out to 7 bullets per individual, not including misses, so Lanza shot 182 times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon. If the misses plus changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are included, Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per second – VERY skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being institutionalized. Plus accurate rendering of the event is even more difficult to arrive at because the chief medical examiner admittedly has no idea exactly how the children were shot or whether a struggle ensued. (And this is the “TOP” medical examiner).

    Photographic and video evidence is at once profuse yet lacks anyhting in them showing that a mass shooting took place on the scale described by authorities. With all the mass video surveillance of public buildings, yet there is no visual evidence of Lanza’s violent entry.

    Studio snapshots of the Sandy Hook victims abound, yet there is little if any eyewitness testimony of anyone who’s observed the corpses except for Carver and his staff, and they appear almost as confused about the conditions of the deceased as any layperson watching televised coverage of the event. Plus there are not any routine eyewitnesses, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath (broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors) all of which are common in such investigations and reporting.

    Medical personnel were forced to set up their operation not at the school where the dead and injured lay, but at the fire station several hundred feet away. This is NOT standard medical operating procedure where personnel are situated as close to the scene as possible. The school had PLENTY of room to accommodate the medical personnel, yet medical responders who rushed to Sandy Hill Elementary upon receiving word of the tragedy were denied entry to the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.

    Shortly after the shooting “as other ambulances from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, the first responders slowly realized that their training would be tragically underutilized on this horrible day. ‘You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try,’” 44 year old emergency medical technician James Wolff told NBC News. “’And when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.’”

    Who were the qualified medical practitioners on scene that pronounced the 20 children and 7 adults dead? Who decided that none of them could be revived? Carver and his staff are apparently the only medical personnel to have attended to the victims, yet this was in the postmortem conducted several hours later. Such slipshod handling of the crime scene leaves the State of Connecticut open to a potential array of hefty civil claims by families of the slain.

    Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students. Yet there is no photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale. There is only limited video and photographic imagery suggest that a limited evacuation of perhaps at most several dozen students occurred. The highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut was the image of a drill that took place before the event took place. Most other photos are portraits of individual children.

    Despite aerial video footage of the event documenting law enforcement scouring the scene and apprehending one or more suspects in the wooded area nearby the school, there is no evidence that a mass evacuation of children from the school ever happened. Nor are there any videos or photos of several hundred students and their parents at the oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent pick up.

    Why is it that despite Carver’s off-the-wall performance and law enforcement authorities’ inability to settle on and relay simple facts; corporate media has not shown a willingness to ignore this officially released news media narrative, and instead question the descreptancies that abound. This is a well-worn script that the public has been conditioned to, and expected to accept instead of questioning the problems that are prevelant in this case.

    While the incident is ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports indicate how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was received – why were they ALREADY there and ready for the call? Why are we not calling for genuine evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and responsible law enforcement here instead of blindly accepting the governments releases on what happened here? The traumatised Newtown community deserves the facts without the spin. Everyone touched by this brutal event deserves to know what really happened here!

    Spins like:
    Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went “on and on.” Yet she was the first person killed.

    The intitial story said that two handguns – a Glock and a Sig Sauer – were found next to the body of the dead shooter, while a third weapon, a .223-caliber rifle was also recovered “in the trunk of a car” later, in the school’s parking lot. All of the weapons were legally bought and registered in Nancy Lanza’s name.

    At the beginning anonymous ‘law enforcement officials’ told the media that Adam Lanza was a former pupil at the school, and that his mother was currently a teacher there; that she was found among the dead and that her son had SPECIFICALLY sought out her classroom first. But when it emerged that teaching staff at the school had never heard of a Nancy Lanza, it was then suggested that she was a substitute teacher whose name therefore mightn’t appear on staff lists. This claim too has disappeared, because it’s now known that neither Nancy nor her son had any connection with the school whatsoever. Adam Lanza was in fact home-schooled. Nancy Lanza has since been painted as a “survivalist” who loved firearms, taught her sons how to shoot and was “stockpiling” because she was “worried about economic collapse.”

    Supposedly “family insiders” claimed that he was a “deeply disturbed kid”, yet Adam Lanza, like so many other alleged ‘lone(r) gunmen’ before him, does not fit the profile of a mass-murdering maniac. His 24-year-old brother, Ryan Lanza, said he hadn’t seen his brother since 2010. This fact brings into question Ryan’s claim that his brother supposedly had his identity card on his person at the school shooting and that was how Ryan was misidentified as the shooter. The biggest question that needs to be asked is why would a person bother to carry ID with them after going to the trouble of dressing up in a bullet-proof vest, mask and black camouflage gear and going on a killing spree?

    The live emergency services audio feed from the scene reveals some interesting observations from first responders that have been completely overlooked by the corporate media such as; hearing at 1.38′ a report that gunfire is still being heard, even though the shooting was supposed to have ended by the time police arrived. The next report at 2.35′ says that the shooting has stopped and the school is “in lockdown”. At 3.23′, the police relay a teacher’s report that she saw “two shadows running past the gym” – which is followed by another officer on the scene who says,”Yeh, we got ‘em, they’re coming at me! … [inaudible] … Coming up the driveway real slowly!” That same officer at 5.40′ says he has them “proned out”, which presumably means he has apprehended them and they are laid out on the ground, before another officer comes on to say, “be aware that we do have a second [inaudible] …”.

    At 19.10′, an officer who sounds out of breath, like he’s just given chase, reports what sounds like “these guys” followed certainly by “multiple weapons, including long rifles and shotgun”. If these were found so early on, why were they not included in the initial press reports which stated that three firearms had been found – the above mentioned Glock, Sig Sauer and Bushmaster AR-15 rifle?

    Further conflicting (planted?) evidence was thrown into the mix by ‘law enforcement officials’ when they published video footage of a long weapon being retrieved from the trunk of a car – you can clearly see that it’s a shotgun, not a rifle. Plus this ‘discovery’ was made late in the day after it’s dark, yet the Bushmaster rifle was first reported found in the trunk of a car much earlier in the day.

    Besides the above two suspects “proned out” in front of the school, another suspected gunman was apprehended after he gave chase, this time in the woods next to the school:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KMH3NQ2YXxI#t=0s

    The police are clearly chasing someone whom they appear to apprehend in the middle of the woods next to the school, a fact confirmed by several eyewitnesses:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ovspEgeMXb4#t=24s

    This fleeing suspect, wearing camouflage gear, a bulletproof vest and armed with four guns, has since disappeared from media coverage. Who was this person and how did he know what “it” was when he protested that “I didn’t do it”?

    [From All these misleading reports had to have been issued by someone or some people "confirming" to Associated Press and other media outlets that the Ryan's father had been murdered (he wasn't even aware that the shooting at the school had taken place until the press turned up at his home), or that Ryan's girlfriend had gone missing from Hoboken, or that either Ryan or Adam were pulled out of the adjacent woods in handcuffs yelling "I DIDN'T DO IT" to assembled parents. These aren't just 'little details' that can be confused for other details, these are detailed narratives. So how, or why, would any member of the press come up with such details?

    State Police Lt. Paul Vance at the press conference he gave the day after the shootings. His answer is as bizarre as it is revealing. When asked whether Nancy Lanza had any connection with the school, he replied defensively about something that is both unrelated and arguably the most significant fact that completely undermines the official narrative: the arrest of a second gunman in the woods:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qid9sE51d1k&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

    Most of the initial mainstream media reports have since been rewritten to fit 'new' facts proclaimed by 'law enforcement officials'. Here's an example from Business Insider. The following excerpts are the opening paragraphs from the 'same' article, one earlier original version, followed by the later revised version:

    The massacre [...] was reportedly perpetrated with a .233 caliber rifle, a Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol.

    The Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of the shooter’s car. The Sig Sauer and Glock pistols were the only weapons used in the shooting, according to CBS. Now the question is what kind of magazine would allow a shooter to fire “100″ rounds in such a short period.

    Indeed, I was wondering the same thing. How could two pistols do so much damage? The report was updated as follows:

    The massacre in Connecticut that’s taken the lives of at least 26 people was reportedly perpetrated with a .223 caliber rifle, a Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol, according to NBC:

    The shooter was using one Sig Sauer and one Glock pistol, according to CNN. Later details emerged that the primary weapon was the Bushmaster “assault-style” rifle.

    Altogether, though, it doesn’t matter what type of weapon the shooter used. The bottom line is that it was likely a magazine fed, semi-automatic, with enough rounds to shoot “100 shots” in a matter of minutes, as quoted in USA Today.

    What actually happened may not matter to some, but surely a journalist’s role is to at least try to find out?

    This Associated Press/Newsday article on Saturday, December 15th, reported that “Only the rifle was used on the victims”, a statement that is supported by Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, Connecticut state’s chief medical examiner. Of the seven autopsies he personally performed on Sandy Hook victims, all of them had “three to 11 wounds apiece”. He also said that the ‘gunman’ used a military-style rifle rigged to quickly reload, and that the ‘shooter’ was able to reload so quickly because he had “taped two magazines together.” Even before the State Chief Medical Examiner had given these statements, it had been stated that spent shell casings from .233-caliber (rifle) bullets were found inside the school.

    So all the victims’ wounds were the result of rifle-fire, specifically from “the rifle”, the one we were told in early reports was found in the trunk of a car in the parking lot! This is simply not credible. If only this rifle was used, and if we try to make this claim fit into the (admittedly fluid) official version of events, then the alleged lone gunman would have had to leave the school, place the rifle back in his trunk, then return inside the school and shoot himself. No one reported any such maneuver on the part of any gunman or gunmen. What we do have, however, is live emergency services radio feed in which we hear that two men have been apprehended and are “proned out” AND live video footage supported by eyewitness testimony showing what appears to be a THIRD man being arrested by police in the woods.

    Initial reports put the beginning of the shooting in the school administrators’ office, where someone, reportedly the school principal, had a row with the gunman (men). We know this because someone supposedly turned on the school intercom system, alerting the teaching staff to the loud swearing and commotion in the Principal’s office and probably saving many more children from being gunned down as teachers took measures to hide the children in closets.

    One brave teacher, Kaitlin Roig, bundled a bunch of children into a bathroom and locked the door. What’s interesting about her testimony to ABC News is that when police arrived and asked her to open the door, she refused, saying that “if they were really cops, they’d know where to find keys to open the door.” In addition, she requested that they slide their badges under the door. For her to have the wherewithal to do so under such traumatic circumstances strongly suggests that Ms. Roig had logically deduced by that point that multiple perpetrators were involved, and that they were either impersonating police officers or were indistinguishable from SWAT team police commandos, either in the way they dressed or the way they behaved upon entering the building. It also reminds us just how narrow the time window of the actual shooting was. The shooting appears to have barely ended when men knocked on that bathroom door and told Ms. Roig they were police.

    There are also conflicting reports about how the gunmen entered the building. We were told initially that they came in through the main front entrance and proceeded straight to the administrators’/Principal’s offices. But Sandy Hook elementary school has a security system with a video monitor, which allows staff to screen visitors before buzzing them in. A “masked gunman dressed in black tactical combat gear” from head to toe would kinda raise red flags, don’t you think?

    Another possible anomaly is that Victoria Soto, one of the teachers killed at the school, appears to have had an ‘in memoriam’ Facebook page created in her name four days before the shooting.

    Was the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a psy-op, using what amounts to a ‘death squad’ and a carefully planned mission to terrorise people on behalf of the government, in combination with perception management to shape the narrative and vector the emotional fallout?

    Gun control isn’t the issue here. The US government would long since have taken measures, quietly, to limit the supply of weapons, the 2nd Amendment of the constitution be damned (it’s “just a god damned piece of paper”, remember?), if it was really concerned with limiting civilian access to weapons.

    The psychopaths in power have absolutely no compunction about using state terrorism, in this case organising the deliberate massacre of innocent children, to control people. In effect, this is little different from the U.S. government calls counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism in foreign countries, where it attacks innocent civilians to create the impression that they were killed by ‘communists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’ or ‘militants’, with the aim of generating public support for the illusion that the common people need a strong, ruthless government to protect them from the ‘evil-doers’. When the common people buy into this manipulation, the end result, as history shows repeatedly, is an overt and brutal police state.

    Niall Bradley Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:21 CS
    http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2012/12/sandy-hook-massacre-official-story_21.html

    • Flashy

      “Was the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a psy-op, using what amounts to a ‘death squad’ and a carefully planned mission to terrorise people on behalf of the government, in combination with perception management to shape the narrative and vector the emotional fallout?”

      And you guys think it’s a good idea this person is allowed to pack a weapon outside their home ????????????????????????????????????????

      • Capitalist at Birth

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

      • DaveH

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

  • Tyler Cruse

    Interesting discussion. First of all, we need to realize that people that legally get CCW permits are much less likely to choose a gun as anything except the “last possible option”. The majority of CCW training is about how to avoid the use of lethal force and the dire results to your life should you choose that option. This generally makes a CCW person less likely to use excessive force.

    The question of training is always important, Some CCW people make a point to take classes in both gun usage and ways to avoid lethal force. Many CCW people go to shooting range and practice regularly. In fact, many of the CCW people spend more time and effort on training that the average LE officer. Most LE officers never have to use lethal force and spend less range time that the average CCW.

    If you really support the idea of “gun free zones”, place a sign in your front yard that says in large letters, “NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD, YOU WILL NOT BE MET WITH LETHAL FORCE”. Until I see these in peoples yards, I will continue to think that people that support “gun free zones” think that they apply only to others and not to them.

    As far as AWB and Mag restrictions, they did not work the first time and they will not work in the future. I would be in favor of better, quicker background checks that the private citizen could use when transferring a fire arm. I do not want any form of national registry of guns. I think that all students should be exposed to Handgun safety and usage instruction before the end of high school.

  • John R. Howell

    Pepper spray is a good idea, and there are two kinds. Aerosol pepper spray is weak, won’t go far, and the effect lasts only a few seconds. A better choice is a pepper blaster which is powered by two co2 cartridges that shoot a 90 mph stream of concentrated pepper about 15 feet, and will put a man on the ground screaming, with both eyes completely swollen shut.
    In all the discussions above, nobody has suggested just locking the doors. John R. Howell

    • cpa

      Doors to the school were locked at SH. Shooter shot his way / broke in.

    • KJQ

      Unless we’re going to make schools fortresses (i.e. bulletproof glass or no windows), there is not practical (affordable) way to “secure” a school. BTW: Sandy Hook apparently had a ‘state of the art’ security system including a bullet proof metal entrance door and security cameras throughout. Mysteriously, no reports yet on why there is NO camera footage available for that day, nor how he got through the secured door.

  • roger

    Chip, the gun free school zone was overturned by the supreme court in 1995. Please, do a little research before stirring up a tempest…………

    United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995).

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear roger,

      You write: “the gun free school zone was overturned by the supreme court in 1995. Please, do a little research before stirring up a tempest.” I suggest you do your research. Following US v Lopez, Congress rewrote the law. It has withstood several challenges and remains in effect.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • roger

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

      • roger

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

      • JeffH

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

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

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

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

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

        From Wikipedia – Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear roger,

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

        Best wishes,
        Bob

  • Chester

    Dad, best you actually tell us how you find thousands a day dying in abortion clinics when there aren’t enough of those left in the country to perform hundreds of procedures a WEEK?

  • KJQ

    The real question (which you sort of touched upon in your comments) is: “Should we continue to disarm our CCW permitted teachers when at work?” No one is advocating forced training/carrying of firearms for teachers. It should be voluntary, just as it is for pilots. No everyone is cut out to carry a concealed firearm. The facts are clear: In “gun free zones” an average of 8 people care killed before the shooter is killed (by himself or someone else). In CCP places, the average is 2.5. The ONLY difference is “are the good guys allowed to have firearms to protect themselves and others?”.

    • KJQ

      BTW: There are states where teachers are allowed (and do) carry concealed firearms in the classroom (e.g. Utah). There has NEVER been a single case of a negligent discharge, improper use of the firearm by the teacher, or the teacher being disarmed. Those arguments are phantom problems of statistically zero probability.

      • Flashy

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

      • DaveH

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

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

        http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

      • DaveH

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

        http://gunowners.org/oped0810612d.htm

      • Flashy

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

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

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

      • DaveH

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

    • Flashy

      “The ONLY difference is “are the good guys allowed to have firearms to protect themselves and others?”.” < —KJQ

      OK Sparky.. And how many civilians with a CWP have stopped a shooter? perhaps one should examine the situs of the shooting. Schools are confined closed rooms…no where to run, everyone packed together. Other sites of mass shooting did not have those characteristics.

      Jeesh….think sometimes.

      • KJQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Flashy

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

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

      • DaveH

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

        Ridicule, the favorite adolescent manipulative technique of the Flashshill.

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

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

      • DaveH

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

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

      • Flashy

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

      • DaveH

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

  • Tom Cook

    Chip, again we have a conservative in name only lacking the backbone and skirting the issue. Of course having armed personnel in each school would make the school safer–I’d prefer a high school with two thousand students to have ten teachers who had ccw to be armed where my kids might be in school, and post signs to the effect. You made the point clearly that the U.S.Congress is the responsible agent for school shootings; it is almost always the federal government which screws everything up since you have mindless hags like feinstein and shumer mouthing off and working daily to make the world a worse place to exist. There are plenty of willing teachers. Pay for their weapon of choice and send them to Front Sight for training at county expense; it would be a minimal cost for effective protection. Then the school shootings will stop. Freaks like Lanza, all messed up with the psychos drugs of choice, will still appear from time to time to shoot, bomb, or stab innocent people–mostly liberals fortunately since they hate guns so they will not be able to defend themselves, but the rest of us will have a very good chance to make them worm’s meat.

  • Flashy

    “For starters, how about we rescind that law and encourage people who want to be ready to deal with such situations, rare as they may be, to get the training, permits and equipment necessary to carry a concealed weapon in public?”

    Maybe because more guns does not equate to more safety but rather means increased danger? Step back and take a good look at the proposal. If one doesn’t do anything drawing attention to themselves, they could pack a gun without a CWP and relatively safe knowing they won’t be troubled by the law. What does a CWP actually do? It is a pass which states that the carrier of the gun has received the proper training and clearance to pack one around in public.

    But do CWPs actually do that? Ha! not by a long shot. Fact: One mass killing was interrupted by a holder of a CWP…and it involved a police officer off duty…and police officers are never really off duty. And do you actually feel safer if you knew someone like me is packing around a gun in public? Seriously? I’d be one of the first to state I lack proper training and practice…and I grew up in the sticks where guns are part of the rural lifestyle. I shudder thinking of someone as my ex-wife having a CWP…heck, I doubt if she would know what end is used to load a gun. Yet…both of us are able to garner CWP merely by having a background check and filling out the proper forms and saying the right things in the form..

    Yes..stricter requirements for a CWP would have a massive decrease in the number of armed people walking the streets…which is not a bad thing. And those who are legit, do carry a CWP…they would know and so would everyone else..that they, in theory, knew what they were doing…kinda sorta. Not increase the number of people packin’…increase the number who have actual training and awareness.

    “I’m told that something like 8.5 million Americans can legally carry concealed weapons today. Wouldn’t you feel safer if that number were several times higher? And wouldn’t you feel safer if our schools were no longer publicly advertised no-gun zones?”

    This has got to be one of the nuttier ideas tossed around in the gun control debate. Notice…there is NO proposal…NONE … by the gun freaks which have anything to do with somehow limiting the access to guns by the bad guys. Yes…bad guys will have guns…. but what about going to those who supply the bad guys with their guns? Put in place a requirement to report each time a gun is sold…what gun and to whom? Along with background checks. Bad guys gets nailed, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be committing a crime..a parolee pulled over at a traffic stop for instance. Now who sold this bad guy a gun? Should that not be within our ability? It hinders not any Right…infringes not upon the 2nd.

    Funny how the gun freaks avoid that proposal…

    As for schools being “gun free zones”? There’s a reason signs are up in schools. If there aren’t signs, unless a person has committed a crime, one cannot rmove them from their firearm. Plain and simple. There is no “cause”. Open carry requires no CWP. OK…without the signs and “gun free zones”, they can without hinderence walk into a school. As a parent, i’d have issues…HUGE issues…allowing anyone to pack a gun in my child’s school. And THAT is my RIGHT.

    Think. Choice is…escalating the situation by tossing out more guns for everyone and increasing the odds of violence. Regulating bad guys having access to guns..making it more difficult and driving up the cost of an illegal gun (ever hear of a rich criminal?). Or going after your guns.

    i’d say rational sane people would go after the bad guys having access to obtaining a gun.

    • DaveH

      Flashshill says — “Maybe because more guns does not equate to more safety but rather means increased danger?”.
      Yet somehow that “increased danger” failed to materialize when the number of states allowing Concealed Carry Permitted or Unrestricted increased from 17 in 1991 to 41 in 2011.
      The rate of murder didn’t just stay level, rather it Decreased by 50% between 1991 and 2011.
      I pronounce Flashshill’s claim as Bull Dung. Yeah, I know, “so what’s new?”.

      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

      • DaveH

        Do the Liberal Progressives care if the actual statistics don’t support their claims?
        Do the Liberal Progressives care that good people are losing their lives because they have made it difficult for you to protect yourself?
        Of course not. They want even more of your wealth than they already help themselves to, and they know that even the heavily Propagandized citizens have had enough of the pillage, so they need to disarm you to ease the danger to themselves of taking even more.

      • Flashy

        Davey boy … I’ll admit i will miss you if the job obligations change as expected. you absolutely are fun to play with. Much like my dog Spot when i was a kid.

        1991..the high point of crime across the board. Now i suspect you’ll state the theft of vehicles being stolen are also because of more guns? And the rise of crime up to 1991 was because…..just why do you suppose the crime rates across the board rose up to 1991? (this I gotta hear…)

        Now…i don’t suppose we should count the fact that the population averages aged and the baby boom was over…young men being the age group which was likely to commit crime, especially crimes fo passion and aggression. nawwwww….

        Or perhaps we should look at post 1991 having employment begin to expand, jobs becoming more and more available, and thus less of a necessity to commit crimes?

        Or how about the socio-economic experiments of the early 70′s…experiments which created such great places as Bedford-Stuyvesant, Pruitt-Igoe, Watts, Times Square etc were rightfully studied and discarded. Replaced by further socio-economic experiments and programs ?

        Or perhaps you ‘d not want to venture 1991 being the high point across the board, perhaps …as usual with a bell curve, there is the downslope to go long with the upslope?

        Nawwww…it’s all about the guns. Uh huh …

      • Flashy

        “Do the Liberal Progressives care if the actual statistics don’t support their claims?” <— Davey

        your problem is Davey, is you never learned how to use data properly to give the correct results. you use the "gee whiz" approach, which takes the simplest, most inaccurate, and most likely to be abused superficiality, and state it as hard fact. As oft is stated in one way and another…your mental swiftness is akin to a herd of turtles racing through peanut butter…

      • DaveH

        It should also be noted that according to Mother Jones (hardly a conservative sympathizer) — “In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump”.
        A 50% jump in the number of guns, but a 50% Decrease in the number of murders. Kind of flies in the face of the Liberal Progressive predictions, doesn’t it?

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “I’ll admit i will miss you if the job obligations change as expected”.
        What? Are they replacing you with a more effective shill, Flashman? Or, are you just posturing for another personality change?

      • Coalminer

        It should also be noted that according to Mother Jones (hardly a conservative sympathizer) — “In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump”.
        A 50% jump in the number of guns, but a 50% Decrease in the number of murders. Kind of flies in the face of the Liberal Progressive predictions, doesn’t it?It should also be noted that according to Mother Jones (hardly a conservative sympathizer) — “In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump”.
        A 50% jump in the number of guns, but a 50% Decrease in the number of murders. Kind of flies in the face of the Liberal Progressive predictions, doesn’t it?
        Amen DaveH
        Guns do prfvent crime.You are right.

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “Or perhaps you ‘d not want to venture 1991 being the high point across the board, perhaps …as usual with a bell curve, there is the downslope to go long with the upslope?”.

        How many of your Boiler Room shill buddies does it take to come up with your nonsense, Flashshill?
        http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1&addstar=1&on=13829871#pid13829871

      • DaveH

        I should take this moment to expose one of Flashman’s common techniques to those who don’t know what a BSer he (and or his Boiler Room cohorts) is.
        He says — “Or perhaps you ‘d not want to venture 1991 being the high point across the board, perhaps …as usual with a bell curve, there is the downslope to go long with the upslope?”.

        What Flashshill is referring to (and most likely only has the weakest grasp of) is the Statistical Construct called a Bell Curve which is used to determine the probability of an event from numerous samples of that event, or to determine the approximate sample size which is necessary to achieve the accurate prediction of that probability within a particular range of samples. The latter is what pollsters are referring to when they claim their results are accurate +/- some percentage.
        The bottom line is that it has nothing at all to do with the particular application that he is claiming. He is just trying to snow ignorant people and give them the impression he knows what he is talking about.

        The reader might wonder why does Flashshill go to so much trouble to mislead people? I mean, he claims to be looking out for you with his Big Government but then he misleads you? Does that make any sense? Of course not, because the truth is that he and his Liberal Progressive co-horts are just trying to take advantage of you while convincing you otherwise (Propaganda).
        Learn from Flashman, because his kind isn’t rare among Liberal Progressives.

    • momo

      Flashy says: ” Yes…bad guys will have guns…. but what about going to those who supply the bad guys with their guns? Put in place a requirement to report each time a gun is sold…what gun and to whom?”

      Flashman, you talk like a frigging criminal is going to fill out paperwork when he aquires a firearm. You think the supplier is going to fill out paperwork? Do you think either one is going to get a firearm legally? Are you dropping acid, or are you just naturally eff’d up?

      • Flashy

        momo….

        think it through. you buy a handgun at Wal Mart. the sale is recorded and papered. you sell that gun to Davey…being of good stock, you record and paper the ale. Davey, thinking government is stupid, sells it to me for cash. I in turn, make a profit selling to Vigilant. Vigilant robs Karolyn and is apprehended.

        Now…the police take the gun records and backtrack. The last papered sale is Davey. Either he proves he sold it to me, or he faces a hefty fine (say $5,000) and open to Karolyn’s lawsuit for liability to her person and property. What do you think the odds are of Davey not papering any future sale ?

        Now…you’re a collector. You sell to me five guns. paper it seeing as you ar a law abiding citizen concerned about the proliferation of guns to the bad guys. I, in turn, sell them to various bad guys who go out and commit five robberies. Over time. OK..next thing I know, there’s the police knocking asking why the paperwork is showing a lot of guns bought my me are used for robberies. Now…not only do i get a hefty fine, but also face a few years in the hoosegow for being a gun dealer AND selling to the bad guys. And i’m busted because of the lawsuits filed.

        Next time Vig asks me to sell a gun, I’d venture either a) I’m going to say ‘no way”; or B) the price is going to be higher…and perhaps out of his affordability as Vig ain’t a smart crook..and he’s always broke (which is why he wanted the gun in the first place).

        Your Right is there as always. you have no infringement upon owning a gun. Davey has some issues now in the future because of the mark against him, and I’m banned from any further ownership because I have been shown to be a supplier to the bad guys.

        The supply is interrupted. Price goes up and more difficult to obtain. Being able to backtrack takes out the supplier.

        Vig then takes on Karolyn armed with a knife. Karolyn pepper sprays him, then runs seeing as he only has a knife, not a gun. Vig…half blind…can’t find his way to the voting booth and thus one less vote for the GOP candidate…the Dem candidate wins by one vote and all is well in the world.

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        Tweety bird said: I did I did, Flashy’s preaching right out of Marx’s, Lenin’s and Stalin’s instruction manual. He’s smart, your dumb. Get that Dave. I guess Flashy’s got a lot of pride, Satan’s sin, under his belt

      • DaveH

        Flashshill is doing his Liberal Progressive best to denigrate me, isn’t he? Poor guy, desperation has set in.

        Imagine, Folks, what these Liberal Progressives are going to treat you like when they achieve their goal of Absolute Power?

      • momo

        Flashman, everytime you purchase a firearm, unless it was produced before 1898, you have to fill out a 4473. The seller, then calls the sale into the feds so they can check if you have a criminal record. If you’re a collector you get whats called a C&R license, curios and relics, you can only collect firearms on the BATF list or 50 years old or older. If you buy a C&R firearm you must send a signed copy of your C&R license to the seller so he can record who he sold the firearm to. Now, if I turn around and sell it I’m going to need an FFL or C&R license so I can take it off my book (Yeah the government makes you keep records, they even come to your house sometimes to do an audit) If you purchase the dreaded “assault rifle” you’re going thru the same procedure. A criminal is going to get a gun thru one of three ways, he’s going to steal it, he’s going to buy one on the black market, or he’s going to use a strawman to purchase it “legally” for him. If the latter he’s going to pay the straw man a few hundred dollars, and you can bet he’s not going to tell the strawman his real name. so much for all your paperwork! Next time try thinking like a criminal.

      • Flashy

        Momo…Thanx for detailing the current paperwork. i was unknowing as to those forms etc. I learned something today, thank you.

        But…i am led to understand that sales between two individuals that “If the person is over 18 (21 for handgun) and is not otherwise prohibited from owning a gun (felon, drug dependent, alien) you can just sell it to them. You DO NOT need a firearms dealer license to transfer a firearm, and no background check is required.”

        Should it not require recording the sale and whom bought it? Am I missing something ?

      • momo

        Flashman, you can probably sell a gun between individuals, but I wouldn’t advocate that. You can’t run a background check, so how are you going to know if you’re selling to a criminal or not? My advice go to an FFL licensee and pay the fee to do the transfer legally. Note, a C&R licensee can’t do transfers.

    • DaveH

      Flashman asks — “And do you actually feel safer if you knew someone like me is packing around a gun in public?”.
      The average citizen is not safer with your kind no matter what you’re packing, Flashman, because you’re dishonest, immoral, and would like nothing better than to subjugate others if we let you get away with it. That is why Personal Liberty is here — hopefully to wake people up to the reality of you and your other evil buddies.

  • KJQ

    Chip: Your comment on Israeli teachers is misleading. While they are not MADE to carry firearms, if they have legal carry permits or are military reservists they can (and most do) carry their firearms in the classroom.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      You can’t compare Zionist Israel to America. Zionist Israel has created a lot of enemies so everbodies got to carry a gun. The Zionist have their manufactured fears to contend with.

      • DaveH

        That’s correct. Every country has different heritages, different cultures, and different systems of crime reporting. To compare one to the other without lots of study is fallacious.

  • josewaleslives

    This artlcle is way off target and offers opinions rather than logic. The writer has reservations about armed teachers because he says “of all the teachers I’ve seen there’s not many of them I’d like to see armed”. Well so what? Let me ask you this, considering all teachers have college degrees and comparing that to the average person enlisting in our military with a high school diploma who do you think is better qualified to exercise good judgement with a gun, teachers or 18 to 20 yr old boot camp recruits? Also considering that the principal at Sandy Hooks Elementary school was very smart and very courageous and did in fact try to attack and bring down the shooter while completely unarmed, just imagine how much better she might have done if she had been armed. There is no doubt she would have had a better chance of stopping him if she had been armed. Also, if teacher volunteers were offered extra pay for getting the training and providing secret security by not having to wear some stupid rent a cop outfit the crazed attacker would have no idea who might be ready to drop his ass like a piece of garbage. The rentacop would be the first person a shooter would shoot whereas a teacher with a concealed weapon wouldn’t stand out as a threat. Evidently this writer never met a teacher like my daughter in law. She’s been a teacher for 10 years, she has a genius IQ and she was raised on a farm in Tennessee and she knows about guns. I would trust her completely to do the smart and correct thing in a situation like Sandy Hooks. And the thought of her herding her students into a bathroom and hiding unarmed just waiting to get executed is totally a horrible and unacceptable thought to me. I’d much prefer she be armed and ready to shoot a bad guy who tried to come through that door and shoot her and the kids than to just sit there defensless waiting to be killed as you seem to prefer Mr. Chip Wood. Sorry Chip but I’d give your article a big fat F and send you back to remedial logic class for additional studies. Leave your opinions behind and focus on the facts. Gun free schools are nothing more than gun free kill zones.

    • Johnc

      Personally I wouldn’t trust some teachers with a gun, but this is not about arming all of them it is about arming a few who can demonstrate ability with a weapon, and can handle it safety as for 18 to 20 year old’s in the military they are taught how to use that weapon most teachers I know these days have never been in the military. probably the reason most cops are x-military they and have had to make a snap decision to take some one out with their weapon a teacher on the other hand might just stand there and get shot while they decide the ramifications of firing their weapon and weigh all the pro’s and cons

      • josewaleslives

        amazing lack of insight on your part. I’m a veteran and I know more than a little bit about military service. How abut you? I’m sure you are not because I can tell you that the average degreed teacher is much more mature and much better at learning than the average person you’ll find in boot camp. So what if they’re taught how to use weapons? Do you think teachers are too stupid to learn about weapons? I’m not going to waste any more time responding to such a stupid reply as your’s.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Yeah Flashy, How does your scenario work with drug sales?

      • Flashy

        CA….clarify?

  • Charles

    “Gun free zones” is a the worst kind of propaganda. These pols have no power to keep evil out. This Federal Law is about citizen disarmed and we should call these places citizen disarmerment zones. Who is still armed you ask? The cops and those who disregard the law. Calling them Gun free zones is nothing more than well sounding political double speak. We must defend and extend freedom or we will not deserve or have it.

    • Flashy

      ““Gun free zones” is a the worst kind of propaganda.” <= Chester

      Chester…someone walks across the school grounds openly carrying a gun and starts to walk into a school. Open carry being legal in your neck of the woods. OK…on what basis can anyone stop and question the guy? What "probable cause' would you cite?

      the sign is notice. One has notice and thus, one may be stopped, questioned, and disarmed.

      Think … it's a good thing

      • KJQ

        He can be stopped and questioned because anyone entering a school has to have a good reason to be there. If he is walking and brandishing his firearm, that too is cause for alarm. A school can have a sign requesting “no open carry” as well. Yes, a criminal can then carry a concealed handgun but a single handgun is less effective than a rifle. You have the same (silly) argument about allowing CCW for teachers (i.e. “what if one goes nuts and starts shooting the kids”) – the answer to which is “then the other armed teachers shoot him/her as quickly as possible.

      • Flashy

        “anyone entering a school has to have a good reason to be there.” <— KJQ

        So you're stating that a sign saying 'no open carry' at a school is better protection that "gun free zone' which gives notice and cause to stop anyone carrying from entering the school? And with CWP being available to just about anyone…that a CWP allows a gun to be brought into a school with no cause available to stop and remove said weapon?

      • JeffH

        Falsy says “So you’re stating that a sign saying ‘no open carry’ at a school is better protection that “gun free zone’ which gives notice and cause to stop anyone carrying from entering the school?”

        What Falsy has just implied is that “gun free zones” protect schools.

        What a joke you are Falsy, and what a blatant lie.

        All of the defenseless students at Louisiana Technical College complied with the ban. One murderous 23 year-old woman did not.

        It is illegal to bring a firearm into a government building or government meeting in the state of Missouri. All of the defenseless elected officials attending a council meeting in the Kirkwood city hall complied with the ban. Charles Lee “Cookie” Thornton did not. The results speak for themselves.

        It is illegal to bring a firearm into a school in the state of Ohio. All of the defenseless students and teachers at Portsmouth’s Notre Dame Elementary complied with the ban. William Michael Layne did not.

        Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, Oregon….?

        The results speak for themselves.

      • DaveH

        Flashshill says — “““Gun free zones” is a the worst kind of propaganda.” <= Chester".
        Then he says — "Think … it's a good thing".

        Yeah, think like Flashshill who calls Charles "Chester".
        You're pitiful, Flashman.

      • Flashy

        JeffH…you cite the instances…how about those prevented because the police had cause if someone came in packing?

      • JeffH

        Falsy, that’s your job, not mine. I just provided the examples that blew holes in your twisted logic.

        Still desperate I see!

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “how about those prevented because the police had cause if someone came in packing?”.
        How did the cops know they were packing, Flashman? And what if there were no cops, Flashman?

  • RichardS

    There is a rumor that Adam Lanza told some close to him that Michael Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine” was a blueprint and that people were too stupid to get it.

    These shooters inspires copy cat crimes because we immortalize their life in print, news and film. First thing is that it should be illegal to profit off of their life stories.

    I AGREE:
    “I suspect that one thing all of these murderous lunatics have in common is a sick desire for publicity for their crimes. Sadly, that’s one thing we can’t deny them. A free press means giving the public the news it wants, even if that means a morbid fascination with such terrible tragedies as the one that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But it’s interesting to contemplate whether their actions would be any different if they knew the media wouldn’t fill the airwaves with stories about them.”

    • Flashy

      1. Rumor. And you are perpetuating it….knowing how the extremist fringe likes to make things up.

      2. your last paragraph…are you suggesting censoring the press?

      • RichardS

        Yes sir, curtailing documentaries about killers is a better step than trying to remove anyone’s best chance for armed self defense against criminals. You obviously know nothing of the criminal mind if don’t think these acts aren’t a cowards attempt at immortality. Maybe a better question for you be, would it upset you to find out that the rumors of him being inspired by Michael Moore’s movie were true? If not, are you even human of just another anti-gun advocate hell bent at protecting all things liberal at all costs?

      • Flashy

        I heard a rumor that he was telling friends he watched a Dirty harry film and he thought the shooter did it all wrong and he had it figured out. Let’s ban all Dirty Harry genre films cause rumors always are true eh/ Especially one concerning guns….

        Interesting you would advocate infringing upon the Freedom of Speech and Press…the true defense and bastion against tyranny, a restriction which is THE sign of a police state…….to be able to pack a gun to protect against the police state you’re advocating.

      • RichardS

        You didn’t answer my question… Note that I did answer yours.

        The truth always comes out eventually even if it doesn’t fit your agenda. The facts are that Adam Lanza didn’t kill those kids because their are too many guns or that the Clinton gun ban was ended.

        The logic that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, is simply unassailable. It simply makes more sense to me that Adam decided to go out in what his sick and twisted mind saw as a blaze a glory. Yes, I maintain that the popular culture in the USA perpetuates this notion in a way that a warped soul could find it appealing and that as a society we would better off if there were laws in place to criminalize this type of thinly veiled entertainment whether it be an internet game about shooting kindergartners or Michael Moore’s attempt to push his agenda while fattening his wallet..

        One more time Flashy… If you did discover that Michael Moore’s film was on his NetFlix account and somehow motivated this sick mind, would you advocate for the loss of personal freedom against film makers in the same you advocate against the personal freedoms in our same Bill of Rights against gun ownership? Yes or no, it’s a simple question?

      • Flashy

        Richard….if you can point out where I advocate against the Rights of gun owners…then we may get to the next step…which is somehow connecting restricting first amendment Rights. A Right which is more effective against tyranny than any other Right contained in the Bill of Rights.

        What Have I written or proposed that infringes upon your right to own a gun?

      • DaveH

        All they need do, Flashshill, is read your comments.
        You’ve gotten so brazen you don’t even know you’re lying any more.

      • DaveH
  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    First off: We have to create a society that is not addicted to Satanic video games, Satanic TV and movies, clothing styles and make up. You know, like the society the shooters at Columbine Aurora, Newtown and God knows where else come from. But that’s a no no. Satan has to able to work in the dark without his name mentioned. We either listen to Satan or we listen to God. In America God’s out and Satan’s in. Anyone with a head on his shoulders should realize that.

    Familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act? Under that a law officer can conscript or deputize an law abiding citizen as an officer of the law in time of need. He would be armed with his personal weapon. When the situation is over, he would go back to his line of work. Why can’t we use that? We have volunteer fire fighters. Why can’t have volunteer law officers in our schools? They could the get the necessary training from our police. Probably retired police officers would fill the void.

    But no. That’s not what the anti-gun pushers are all about. In DC thinking I smell a Communist State replacing America as we knew it coming on. Once guns are registered, it’ll be easy to confiscate. In directly they are any way through the 4473 form. Oh no! The people who have given us this mess, morally and economically are the one’s we’re turning to fix it. Insanity! Pure insanity. Responsible law abiding citizens grouped with Satanic killers. We don’t have to defend ourselves. We should be on the offense against them and their wiles. We all know they will continue pushing till we say NO. FEAR: A physical or psychological act, sometimes violent in nature, committed to gain or maintain SUBMISSION. We’re submitting as they are generating the fear.

    • Charlie

      T C A,,,
      King Jesus Deputized all His People at Luke 22:36,,,The Posses is under The Constitution, The Bible is The Law Book of King Jesus Christ… King Jesus is The American Militia Leader,,, The Real Militia,,,that William Bradford started this Great American Nation under… Better change your title or read or “Harmonize” The Bible…
      Meanwhile………………..
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      Charlie Freedom

  • Larry

    This whole debate seams to ignore the obvious to those of us who grew up in the real USA. when I was attending school, each child was held accountable for their actions, and the school controlled the activities of the students. This was all done under the direction of the parents. in the 12 years I spent in the public school system there was not one shooting in any school, you might ask your selves why that was. Back then it was very simple the parents taught their children right from wrong and held them accountable for their actions, second the teachers were in schools to teach not be baby sitters, or sarogate parents for the students. there were many students in the high schools that on occasion would bring guns to school, also teachers. Not one time was anyone ever threatened with a gun let alone shot.
    To talk about now fixing the problem in the schools with police if very far out on the wish list, what is wrong with the parents of the students in those schools stepping up, I am sure that there are at least 5 percent of the parents who have CCW, and they don’t even have to be inside the school infact outside the school buildings is where they should be, to stop any lunatic before they get to the location of the children.
    Until the parents of the students start doing their jobs, all the rest of these measures that are bantied about on here are of no use. When parents again start holding their children responsible for their actions and teach them right from wrong instead of trying to push their responsibilities on some one else you will not fix the problem.
    Have any of you ever thought that how many veterans we have in this country, that have placed themselves between this country and her enemies with their own lives hanging in the balance. why not ask them to help keep the schools safe by being on site with the power to act, they would likely do it for free. They are not like the police that have to get paid before they will protect anyone, that is why when you need the police they are always 15 min. away, and show up just in time to secure the murder scene.
    If you all know anything about the Government, the only thing they will come up with is spending a whole bunch of money, passing some law that wouldn’t stop a mouse, and trampeling on the peoples constitutional rights.

  • http://midcontent brand inspector

    Gun Free and Drug Free Zones are all oxymoron statements, jst like the assalt guns that the media and social9st/marxist talk about. They are either fullt automatic or one shot one squeezed trigger, the rest is BS.Look what Bonsos going Gonso whe who keep passing worthless laws that never work. The socialist/marxists who want total control over everyone and everything. History show remove and make armed personal protection leads to a dictatorship a and corrupt government, and slavish abuse.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      The Communist butcher Stalin said: Kill one person and it’s murder. Kill 10,000 and it’s a statistic. Is that what we’re going for with all this Satanic crap we’re addicted to?

  • Don

    there would be enough teachers especially men who could be able to use a gun in most situations. give them a pistol with a laser sight. which would improve accuracy. also use a smaller caliber exploding slug. that way the bullet would not pass theu the gunman and hit someone else. why not arm some of the principals with the same type of weaponery

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      A laser will never replace good eyes. Your dead while the laser guy is figuring out where to place the laser. A 44 or 45 caliber revolver in the hands of a trained shooter is all you need. One thought out shot. One bad guy down. Take a look at the movie Sargent York and you’ll see what I mean. Frank McGee, the best firearms instructor NYC ever had put it this way. The only reason a cop carries a gun is to stop an adverse action NOW. They don’t need auto’s. They need to learn how to shoot.

  • DavidL

    Chip,
    When you write “I don’t know of any mental health screening that would have identified Adam Lanza as a potential mass murderer…” it invites two comments. First, the fact that you do not know of a mental health test that would identify a potential mass murderer, and I don’t either, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Second, your criteria for an effective mental screen is too narrow and too literal. The issues of mental illness in these cases is more complicated and nuanced than a bell going off and the diagnostic sign reading “publicity seeker” or “psychotic killer”. I’m no psychologist, but it seems reasonable to me that any individual with diagnosed a mental disorder(s) should be disqualified from owning a gun.

    Banning is not the answer anymore than banning axes after an ax murderer goes on his or her rampage. The issue is obviously more complicated and layered than that. But everyone “packing a rod” is not the answer either. I shoot competitively and have gotten away from many, many people after observing them handle a gun after a few moments. I live in Texas where many stores have signs declaring “no guns allowed” and have no armed guards and no employees carrying concealed. That warning alone is not a complete deterrent, but it does deter. Capital punishment is not a complete deterrent, but it does deter. Criminal law is not a complete deterrent, but it does deter.

    The NRA embarrassed itself last Friday with its commercial for selling more guns. As a gun owner, limits on the size of magazines are coming. Establishing a more effective, and complete, Federal data base of those persons who should not be permitted to own a gun, hopefully, is coming. Closing ANY loophole at gun shows where no background check is made is coming. I also think a private citizen selling one of his or her guns to another individual, as I have done, should be obligated to report that sale, with all the identifying information, to the police to establish a current registration. I also have no problem with a reasonable waiting period so a more thorough background check can be made.

    The Supreme Court recently interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean an individual has a right to own a gun as opposed to its historic view that it applies only to a militia (See United States v. Miller 1939). It also said that reasonable regulation is permitted under the 2nd Amendment. The time for reason is long over due.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      If the State has more powerful weapons than I am allowed to own, pray tell what is the purpose of the second amendment if I can no longer defend myself from a tyrannical government? If you have the guts, come and try to disarm me yourself, instead of sending armed thugs in your place.

    • Johnc

      “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.”

      you are putting words into the second amendment that it does not say

      where does it say the gun is regulated in this the second amendment complete text. It does say a regulated militia, but that is training and discipline to function as a militia and says nothing about regulating arms at all

    • DaveH

      DavidL says — “limits on the size of magazines are coming”.
      And you’re a gun owner, David?
      When I was 12 years old, I could reload my single-shot shotgun in less than two seconds from a back pocket full of shotshells. The average person can run about 18 miles per hour or 26 feet per second at full sprint. Considering the reaction time between willing yourself to sprint and actually doing it, it would take about 2 seconds to run those 26 feet. Also, they would have to do that in the face of almost certain death. Most people would be running the other way.
      That’s with a single-shot shotgun, one of the most basic weapons one could acquire.
      And then there are people like this guy:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXVNypPUGto

      It’s a joke that Liberal Progressives would even think that 10-round clips would solve the mass murder problem.
      Of course, the rational people know that the Liberal Progressive Leaders just taking baby steps towards their real goal — Total Disarmament of the people.

      • JeffH

        Jerry Miculek answers the question of just how fast is fast
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

      • Flashy

        “When I was 12 years old, I could reload my single-shot shotgun in less than two seconds from a back pocket full of shotshells.” <—Davey

        LOL …. uh huh …. and one and two. LOL …

      • DaveH

        Speaking of adolescents — Heeere’s Flashshill.

  • Einstein

    Fort Hood was a gun free zone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    So that only a criminal would have one!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • ranger09

      I am for armed Teachers, Ones Qualified and Trained in combat shooting, Some may die so others can live. If schools hire reg Police or SchoolPolice they should not be in uniform, Only Plain clothes,. For some that do not Know MEXICO only allows for Shotguns And Non Military firearms. Citizens are at the mercy of the Criminals with all types of Full automaticMachine Guns, all types and Yet its Illegal for them to have them. Now do you people want the USA to become another Mexico.

      • Jana

        And I live in Texas and the Cartels are moving into Texas more and more. In fact they are in the states that you might not even suspect.

  • Jay

    There are plenty of good Americans who are either retired, between jobs or could otherwise make themselves available to stand guard at a school near their residence. These citizens; parents, grandparents, veterans of military and law enforcement and other concerned people who genuinely want to look out for the safety of our youth are all over the place and many would likely VOLUNTEER thier time to see thier children and grandchildren are safe.
    A program could be developed through the various Sherriff’s Departments to administer such a program of properly screened and qualified Volunteers to patrol our schools.
    All laws that hinder such programs should be looked at and modified or repealed to facilitate the protection of our youth.
    We need to look to ourselves to remedy this problem and not to big government. This can be addressed by volunteers. Think of all the active law enforcement, retired law enforcement, prior and reserve military as well as every day American citizens who value our youth and want to protect them. I believe there are more than enough qualified men and women who would volunteer their. I believe there are Sherriff’s Deputies who would volunteer their time to administer such a program. I Know a few in my city who would.
    Basic qualifications could be that a person is in good standing in their community, possesses a concealed carry permit.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      All this propaganda is to get people afraid of gun owners and wanting more police presence in their lives. You might say the amount of bondage they think they need or will accept. To establish a Communist police state, everything that’s happening is right out of Kral Marx’s instruction manual.

  • Roy

    For all those who want to ban guns, please post the “No Guns Notice” sign shown in this article all over your house!

  • ConfusedAmericanCitizen

    Gun free zones are about as naive and that person who felt that moving the Deer Crossing signs on a road to a safer place would lead to less deer being hit by cars…..

    • Johnc

      Darn and all this time I thought Deer could read…no wonder moving the sign didn’t work …lol

  • Marine68

    When we consider the results of the lunacy that enacted Gun Free Zones, we can see that the casualties created are few compared to what will be seen if this rule is taken a step further to a National ban on Gun ownership, when the lunatics running the Asylum will have as one dumbocrat recently stated,”an absolute Monopoly on Violence.” Gun Free Zones and attacks on the Second amendment rights of Law abiding Citizens are the only things that must be abolished. Failure to do so will be at our extreme Peril.

  • Ted

    finestein would have voted for the gun free school zones bill, proposing a plan for security, and exhibiting that senators are rather low on the intelligence scale, especially when damnedocrat is the party they are kissing up to. Sadly, she will be joined by tim kaine “who works for the occupant in the White House”as well as mark warner with 4 years of support of socialism and harry reid in the new senate, Both damnedocrats from the Commonwealth will support this lunacy, and both damnedocrats will not represent responsibility, the country or the Constitution. Voter fraud will keep damnedocrats in power for another long season of dismay for Virginians as well as the nation. Wonder if any republican senators will support this assault on the second amendment the way the damnedocrats always do.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      No, it’s Republicrats and if they had there way they would vote together one and all. Almost without exception they’re believers in involuntary socialism, a planned socety with them dictating the plans. Probably 95% of them ever read the people’s Constitution that they swore to uphold making liars at the get go. This isn’t our government. It’s “the” government that the people pay for. Morals? They’re for sale to the highest bidder. Do a vote survey so they know how to vote.
      Look: The first sign of an illegitimate government is they people’s FEAR of “the” government and the governments fear of the people. Think we’re at that point? Think we’re going to do anything about it? Not if this last election tells us anything. look at the propaganda that they’re throwing at us after some guy in bed with Satan slaughters 20 children and 6 Adults.

  • Bob Bryan

    I Agree 100% that the so called gun free safe zone sign invites the crazies. These signs tell the nutcase killer that he or she will be safe killing at a SCHOOL because no one there is armed and can stop them. Being a Parent with children in school and an ex police officer and currently a security officer I say remove the sign,Train and arm the teachers and School personel Put up a sign that reads ( NOTICE TEACHERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONEL HERE ARE TRAINED ARMED AND INSTRUCTED TO SHOOT TO KILL ANY PERSON HARMING OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM A CHILD OR CHILDREN ON THESE PREMISES ) Also have an armed security Officer controlling the only door that can be opened from the outside and have metal detectors at that door. This will help protect our children taking away our guns will not the crazies do not folloe the law any way.!!!

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      I’ve been in the gun business over 50 years and one thing I’ve learned is kids want to play with things their told not to. Myself included. I got my first 22 when I was 9 years old but my father let me shoot it and see the damage it could do to a can. I learned a respect for firearms and the damage they could do. That’s not being taught today. They see the Satanic side of firearms and make what they fantsize over a reality.

  • Johnc

    So we allow guns in the cockpits of airplanes, we allow guns to be carried by air crews, we allow guns in banks where we have our valuable money by having armed guards in banks . In the airport there are armed police when you go thru security even the president children when in school are protected by 11 armed guards…. yet our most precious children we do not protect instead we advertize “we have no guns here” it is a gun free zone and all the law abiding people obey this unfortunately this is a sign for would be deranged people to come and it says to them” I am unarmed come and shoot me” If by chance by deterrent alone the shooters knew there were guns there and they might get shot when they committed their heinous crimes they might of thought twice. I call it stupid when we protect everything else with armed guards we neglect this for a political agenda. The argument that children might be hit in the cross fire doesn’t fly ..27 are dead and it might of been a lot less had the principle been armed she could have faced off the assailant with something more of a weapon than her body. Liberals are extremely stupid when it comes to security they think because they are unarmed that an attacker will not hurt them but this has been proved wrong time and time again. It is not like that in the real world

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Yes but we’re beginning to see the results of our training with Satanic video games, Satanic TV and movies, Satanic dress codes given to our children. Go in a mall and take a look at the videos the kids are watching. A thieve might have a motive to use a gun, sick as it is, but these kids are learning that it’s “fun” killing people.

      • Johnc

        I agree and the worst is the video games depicting the person using guns to take just about everyone out. One particular bad one was Grand theft auto…. One of the neighbor kids brought if for him and my nephew to play…I saw it and I told the neighbor kid that I was sorry but he could not play that game in my house the level of violence was appalling and after that i gave approval to any video game the were going to play. These kind of games should be banned

  • Samuel Clemens

    The sign Should read
    ARMED CAMPUS:
    NO WEAPONS ALLOWED EXCEPT
    BY AUTHORIZED FACILITY
    This sign in itself will stop crazed killers. It gets rid of the “killing field” sign.
    AND our teachers are anxious & eager to be armed.

    • nc

      Samuel< do you really think a sign saying " There is an armed officer who will kill you on this campus OR IN THIS MALL! would have stopped the shooters who had already decided to kill themselves at the end of their spree? AND THEY DID?? I think you need a different argument!!!

      • Samuel Clemens

        To answer your first Question, “YES” Did you hear about the latest killer that walked into the police station and started shooting? You didn’t because that hasn’t happened. Seems that the presence of guns is the best & absolute deterrent. The killers are crazy but not stupid.
        They ALWAYS go to the gun free zones advertised by Gun Free Zone sign. The primary purpose of law enforcement in not to Serve & Protect. It is the create a deterrent to crime BY THEIR PRESENCE.The sign is the first line of defense.

  • Fastfood

    Speaking of “our 2nd Amendment rights” that is “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.” Would a “well regulated militia” not have automatic, let alone semi-automatic weapons or high volume mags? Would our government militia, that is our military forces, be “well regulated” without these items? Would any “well regulated militia” be without these items? A resounding NO! comes to mind. So, Why should a “well regulated militia” of the people be restricted from possessing these items? I believe the intention of this amendment in the Bill Of Rights; remember the Bill Of Rights? That portion of the United States Constitution which tells the Federal Government what it CANNOT do, was intended to give us, The People, the power to combat tyranny, much like our current administration and it’s army of radical, liberal elitists have been dishing out. I believe any person empowered with the right to bare arms should be permitted to possess these items.

    • Flashy

      1920′s. Tommy guns were in vogue amongst the criminal element. Open drive bys. OK..they banned submachine guns from private ownership. How much did submachine gun drive bys increase by?

      Jeesh…Al Capone would love you.

      • DaveH

        How much, Flashshill, and please include referential links since you have no credibility?

      • DaveH

        Speaking of machine guns, here is some reality of that Big Government that Flashshill wants us all to love:
        http://gunowners.org/op0131.htm

      • momo

        Flashman, you can still buy a tommy gun if you want. You just need the right license and pay 200 bucks for the stamp. Of course that’s after the feds do a backgrouind check on you.

        http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=322205059

    • nc

      Fastfood AND AFTER ALL OF THAT THE DRAFTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT THINK IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO INCLUDE IT IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION! IF THE DRAFTERS HAD FACED 30 CLIP RAPID FIRE MAGAZINES AND STREET SWEEPER SHOT GUNS AT THAT TIME WOULD THEY HAVE WORDED THE SECOND AMSNEDMENT DIFFERENTLY?? YA THINK MAYBE THEY WOULD?? WE HAVE HELPED THEM 25+ TIMES WITH AMENDMENTS TO THEIR GREAT WORK! MAYBE IT IS TIME TO HELP THEM AGAIN!!

      • nc

        FASTFOOD, MY REPLY WAS CUT SHORT! THE FIRST PART DEALT WITH THE NEED FOR A MILITA IN THOSE DAYS THAT DOES NOT EXIST NOW AND THEIR NEED FOR A GUN TO FEED THEIR FAMILY WHICH DOES NOT EXIST NOW!

        • Samuel Clemens

          No need for militia now? Have you noticed what the federal government is doing? Rampant overspending to buy votes, voiding the constitution piece by piece, SCOTUS being the primary culprit You need to study the history of NAZI Germany, 1933-1945. Des Je Vous. Der Fuehrer Obama, Gestpo Riechmarshall Bloomberg can’t take over as long as the citizens are armed, As Sigmund Freud said, ” A little paranoia is a health thing.”

  • AWKingsley

    “Yes, I’ve seen the emails circulating on the Internet claiming that school teachers in Israel routinely go to school armed and ready to deter terrorists. But the story is false. Israel has no such policy.” You are incorrect, Israeli teachers can and some do carry guns at school. Because Israel also started resorting to armed guards, fewer teachers now carry guns. Also, some never wanted to carry guns, and due to the screening they must go through some cannot carry guns. Those teachers who can carry and are considered stable enough to do so should be carrying a gun at school after appropriate training, which Israel also provides.

    “I don’t know of any mental health screening that would have identified Adam Lanza as a potential mass murderer; or one that would have warned the folks in Webster, N. Y., that William Spengler was about to go berserk and murder two firemen (and wanted to kill a lot more). And I shudder to think of the violation of our civil liberties that it would take to put any such program in place.

    Yes, there is a way to determine how dangerously mentally ill someone actually is. It is time we quit paying Psychiatrists huge salaries for inadequate patient maintenance with absolutely no cures for chronic mental illness. Chronic mental illness has a disease pathology that does not just reside in or originate in the head. The pathology of the disease affects the brain through chemical imbalances. Mental illness cannot be cured with counseling – not ever. This is the problem: Allopathic Medicine has no cure for mental or any other chronic disease. Ancient Natural and Alternative Medicine had cures for chronic disease; however, treatment of chronic disease starts with expert diagnosis and ability to evaluate treatments. Allopathic Physicians have no diagnostic techniques, relying exclusively on limited laboratory tests and only on patient statements for psychiatric diagnosis. Pretending to handle the problem of mental illness is not going to get the job done no matter how much more money is put into the mental health system. Under our current system, nothing will be done to change the outcome for those suffering from mental illness or destruction of their victims because Psychiatrists do not have the skills to solve the problem. When an Allopathic Physician is presented with a cure for chronic disease, one receives a blank stare. These physicians take their orders from the pharmaceutical companies. In order to solve our societal problem, the solution below needs to be implemented to end chronic disease not only for sufferers of mental disorders and their victimization of others, but for all chronic disorders.
    Natural and Alternative Medicine uses 3 diagnostic techniques very successfully: Those techniques are Iridology, Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing), and either Expert Oriental or Ayurvedic Pulse Diagnosis. Iridology is accomplished via a camera linked to a computer. Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing) can even be done from a distance by mailing DNA swabbed cotton balls to a physician experienced in the art. Expert Pulse Diagnosis can either be Oriental or Indian Ayurvedic. Expert Pulse Diagnosis takes the most time to learn, but is absolutely necessary for any physician who wants to diagnose chronic disease or assess a patient’s status and the efficacy of treatments. An expert pulse diagnostician can detect the progression of the disease and the area of the body from which the disease originates. Pregnancy can be diagnosed within 24 hours of conception by a physician expert in pulse diagnosis. A combination of these diagnostic techniques gives cross-verification to the physician. And, the first 2, Iridology and Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing), will aid the physician’s diagnosis, until he is expert in Oriental Pulse Diagnosis. (Distance pulse diagnosis can be accomplished via a lock of hair by keying in on [DNA], just as can be done in Kinesiology Saliva Testing with a swabbed cotton ball.) Allopathic Physicians face severe incompetence in every area besides the Operating Room and treatment of infection, demonstrating a Dark Age lack of knowledge. Many people believe this ineptitude is due to a stranglehold on Allopathic Medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, but this problem is also due to ingrained arrogance and incompetence on the part of Allopathic Psychiatrists. The State of Texas refusal to accept a mental health diagnosis from anyone other than an Allopathic Psychiatrist bears witness to entrenched ignorance on the part of state regulators regarding the competence of psychiatrists to diagnose.
    Federal Government involvement in Medicine and Medical R & D is also a major factor in the lack of cures for chronic disease. There is too much money available from the Federal Government, so the status quo is reinforced instead of competent cost-effective treatment developing to meet medical needs. Necessity is the mother of invention only when the Federal Government isn’t in the driver’s seat handing out the dough.
    A step by step solution to the problem: Allopathic Physicians first need to learn Natural and Alternative Medical diagnostic techniques. Second, all of the old ancient medical formulas and techniques need to be researched. It is impossible to research efficacy of treatments without expert diagnostic techniques for value assessment on patients. I use an almost completely unknown acupuncture protocol (self-administered much like a diabetic gives himself insulin injections) that treats many chronic diseases, as well as other little known medical knowledge for the majority of my health care needs. I use this acupuncture protocol now only for health maintenance. Friends are now asking me to share my medical knowledge because there is no treatment available for chronic disease. Chronic disease treatment is “Do it yourself healthcare, or do without because Allopathic Medicine provides absolutely “NO” cures.”
    The major solution to high health care costs and successful treatment of mental disorders is for states to mandate medical schools to teach expert diagnostic techniques to first year medical students. If students are lacking in proficiency in expert diagnostic techniques at the end of the first year of medical school, they need to be washed out of the program. We can eliminate the majority of the expense and failure in our medical system by insisting our states get tough on the way physicians are trained.
    Congress and State Legislatures can get Dr. Vassant Lad of Albuquerque, NM and, or other pulse diagnosticians to give demonstrations in Washington and the various state legislatures by diagnosing Congressmen while they are sitting in their seats in Congress. Dr. Lad or other expert pulse diagnosticians could rapidly perform a blind study for a state legislature on an acupuncture treatment protocol that I have in my possession that cures chronic mental disease as well as other chronic diseases. All that would be required is for Dr. Lad to take the pulse of patients before and after the acupuncture treatment, in order to prove that a profound change occurs when the treatment is administered. This acupuncture protocol can be acquired by contacting me: anncgm1@gmail.com
    House members can send a saliva sample to Healthy Bodies in Wills Point, TX to be diagnosed and receive treatment, in order to test the efficacy of this diagnostic method. Congress or a state legislature can invite an iridologist into the state legislature to diagnose everyone sitting in a House seat. Since these diagnostic methods can be demonstrated, our Allopathic Medical Establishment can make no excuses for current inept and expensive medical diagnosis and thoroughly inadequate palliative care.
    There is no excuse for mass murders. Another threat, under our current mental health system is the continuing risk of internment in a mental health facility for those who are not actually mentally ill, due to the lack of diagnostic skills. With the progression of our Police State, we could encounter the internment of dissidents, unless expert diagnostic techniques are implemented.

    Even with extensive training time for physicians and long times for treatment, our society could be well on its way to freedom from chronic disease within 15 years, if we insist on implementation of expert pulse diagnosis. Without expert pulse diagnosis, no Allopathic Physician will implement any of the Natural or Alternative treatments that surface because he has no ability to easily discern the value. That means we are stuck, until we change the system. Psychiatry has not progressed beyond its infancy, and it will only progress when the public insists on competent diagnostic techniques. We have the ability to make our state and federal governments give us better health care, so let’s do it.

    • An honest man

      Why is it that when the government makes laws to protect us it always gets things ass backwards. I think the people we elect to make these laws don’t have a clue how the rest of the world lives. The knee jerk reaction they take to prevent crimes in our schools will only lead to more problems. Taking the guns out of the hands of a law abiding person will only give the criminals free access to any crime they wish to commit. Keep advertising gun free zones to let criminals know they will not be confronted or restricted from doing what they do best, and that is taking advantage of our policy of not keeping a weapon on the premisses to protect ourselves. If the gun grabbers want to take away the guns they only need to be confronted by a crazed thug with a stolen weapon and robbed and beaten just once and they will soon realize that what they propose is a bad idea. The people that make these laws have the protection of the secret service and they carry many types of weapons so they don’t have to live by the laws they make us live by.
      Think twice before you make rash decisions on the gun restrictions, Our constitution gives us the right to protect ourselves through the second amendment, The brilliant men that wrote this kept in mind that all men should be protected from a government that is not for and by the people it represents.

      • nc

        An Honest man ask why is that every time the government makes laws to protect us they get it ass backwards! NAME ONE NATION IN THE WORLD THAT HAS DONE A BETTER JOB OF PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS? THE BIGGEST REASON FOR OUR VIOLENT DEATHS BY INTENTIONAL ACTS BYOUR CITIZENS IS OUR RELUCTANCE TO RESTRICT THE GUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF “OUR CITIZENS’. THE MAN YOU CALL THE “BRILLIANT MAN” WHO WROTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE IT IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT! HOW COULD HE BE SO BRILLIANT AND LEAVE OUT SOMETHING SO “VITAL?” MAYBE IT WAS A GIVEN THAT THEY COULD KEEP THEIR MUSKETS BUT THE CITIZENS WANTED IT IN WRITING! THE SAME AS THEY COULD GO TO ANY CHRISTIAN CHURCH THEY CHOSE BUT THEY WANTED IT IN WRITING THAT NO RELIGION INCLUDING THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WOULD BE FAVORED BY THE LAW MAKERS!

      • Average Joe

        nc ,

        Adjust your meds……

        AJ

  • TML

    “Another idea some people have proposed is to arm some of our teachers. While I agree with the sentiment that the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is by a good man (or woman) with one, can you really see very many school boards that would approve such an effort?
    As the father of five children, I’ve known a lot of teachers over the years. And frankly, there aren’t too many of them I would like to see armed and ready at any of the schools my children attended.
    … …
    But let me play the devil’s advocate here for a moment and point out that it isn’t necessary for every teacher to be armed and ready to fend off an attack. All it takes is one. And there is a lot of evidence that responsible gun owners who have taken the steps necessary to comply with concealed-carry laws in their community can save lives.”

    I think the answer to that would be obvious. Laws that ‘require’ a teacher to arm themselves would be as much a violation of freedom as banning the weapons altogether. As a father of five also, I agree there are teachers not even competent to be teaching and caring for my child every day, and by extension not to be trusted with a firearm. But your devil’s advocate discernment is the answer… those ‘willing’ to arm themselves and who have gone through the necessary steps, generally already have the responsible capacity to wield the weapons in such an atmosphere simply because they chose to seek it out. The only thing we might, as parents, like to see is regulation via district policy or state law regarding the type of munitions used and some extra-ordinary training requirements. I can see most school boards approving the effort as more and more results are seen from those who pave the way in such policy. It certainly wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, be an over-night thing across the nation.

    • Samuel Clemens

      1st. School boards are now ready to arm teachers.
      2nd. I know a lot of teachers that are already proficient with guns & ready to be armed. Would be glad to get extra training.
      3rd. I have a better opinion of our teachers than you.
      4th. The armed teachers will be volunteers that take a psychological profile test. Yes, they identify psychotics like Adam.
      5th. Overnight? Columbine was 13 years ago and now we are at 50+ dead student/children and 10+ dead teachers later. Armed teachers was first discussed in 1999. The plan is designed and ready to go. Let’s not wait for anymore dead.

      • TML

        1. Some are, some are not, and some have been doing it for almost a decade
        http://www.kcbd.com/story/20387667/texas-school-district-allows-armed-teachers

        2. I agree

        3. That depends on the teacher, I’m sure.

        4. While I am highly suspicious of the idea that psychotics like ‘what’s his name’ could be identified efficiently by the subjective judgment of a fallible medical professional. I will say such a psychological profile of those who teach our children wouldn’t be a bad idea regardless of whether or not they carry a firearm.

        5. Convincing all 135,000 (approx.) schools across the country won’t happen overnight and ‘forcing’ them to do so goes against principle of freedom, and rushing such policy through could be reckless. As you pointed out, talks started a little over a decade ago, and now it is increasingly becoming more accepted as a reasonable solution. As we see, it will happen on its on merit, not by conjecture.

        • Samuel Clemens

          to TML: I think we are thinking a lot alike. We created a system to arm teachers 13 years ago. It is a great system that addresses a lot of the questions that you have asked and some that you haven’t thought of yet. Like the guns will be secured in a quick release combo safe slightly larger that a shoe box securely mounted and hidden in the class room that only the teacher can open. The guns will not remain overnight. They can be taken home or locked in a central gun safe provided by the school.
          I agree, this will take time but DAMN, not 13 years & how many more lives!!

      • nc

        Sam. I would not like to be there when you and your “armed militia” take on the troops sent to put you and your paranoid group back in line! I don’t care how sure you are that the government is treading on your rights, for the sake of your loved ones, I suggest you just notify your Congressman that you are Pi$$ed and pull the shades and have a beer!

  • Frank

    Glad to see some serious discussion about thre issue of gun control and the idea of arming teachers. This is a discussion that many conservative believe must take place. People like representative elect Chris Stewart from utah realizes that this is not an issue of “liberal” trying to take away guns but is something that serious minded citizens of all politcal beliefs want to see take place..

  • rod

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

    rear a bout the Indians be ford the with man and blackman toke ovary when the with man and black man did their then the Indian were all already move to the reservation so now it is the with and black man and the government is the blame for the guns.but gun do not killer people killer people or that is what i thank.

    ps;the Federal Government CAN do what they wont to do

    • ConfusedAmericanCitizen

      Now, look at the statistic regarding sex ed. “bout the same results. The argument then was that our children left to the demise of their parents knowledge would not be able to make intelligent decisions regarding their sexuality. Well, that worked……same deal. Everything that the Fed takes out of the hands of WeThePeople, it screws up.

  • Average Joe

    I think that the whole point of this issue is thus: In order to change the way guns are viewed is to change the culture.
    How do we do that? By changing the perception of guns. As Chip pointed out…stop sensationalizing these stories, stop talking about them.
    Most of these “monsters” who go on rampages are not just killing for the sake of killing someone…they do so because they seek “notoriety”. They know that people will be talking about them for months…maybe even years…the want the FAME…that the media and we attach to them. Instead, we need to do the opposite…We need to sensationalize when someone stops a lunatic with a gun, we need talk about what someone does that was positive with a gun…rather than something negative with a gun.
    Therein lies the problem….good…does not sell newspaper or TV advertizing…..and therefore, they sell the Bad aspects of guns for the purpose of profit…and we ( the willing dupes) buy up the propaganda and perpetuate the one sided misconceptions concerning guns. Instead of worrying about our (so called) legislators fixing things, start sending your emails and outrage….. to the Networks…and those companies who advertize with them. Let them know of your disapproval with thier “News” practices and that you will stop using thier services…and thier products! Swamp them with letters…the only issue that they understand….is $$$$$$….Learn to legislate with that $$$$$$$. Politicians have become puppets for the corporations…time to speak directly to the policymakers…the corporations.

    We have become a culture where gun violence is surrounding us in TV, Games, Movies and just about every other aspect of our lives. Movies have become so graphic in nature that seeing death and dismemberment…is commonplace…even the low budget made for TV garbage. As a result, we as a culture… have no value for life.
    If we want to change the gun culture…we must first change our moral culture.
    Sensationalize the GOOD…marginalize the bad…..Learn to vote with your wallet (stop supporting bad behavior).

    AJ

  • Patriot007

    Govt. can solve this about as effiectively as it prevented this senseless killing spree. Remember, school boards are a part of government, they are funded and directed by Washington politics, usually liberal. Will better fences, adding guards, or establishing special zones (usually doubling fines or penalties) going to work? Punitive measures against law abiding guns owners is simple ignorance. Special zones are already followed by law-abiding citizens. Until society can figure out how to get criminals to comply with all laws, support themselves with honest employment, pay taxes, and in general, just behave like citizens, then all this political wrangling is useless but, it does serve one purpose, and that is to chip away at our Bill of Rights. Take this 2nd Amendment Right away and the others are just a matter of time. Liberals want that, They like a society that guarantees them an outcome, even if it’s just a lie. Most of the dialogue on this site is childish and doesn’t seriously contribute to the arguements made for either side. Austrailia disarmed about 5 years ago and its crime rate is now at 500%. What makes us believe that we will be any better for it. Do we want a camera at every street corner like in the UK? Let’s face it, Central planner have to do away with our pesky consitution for their plans to work. Pick which side you’re on, because sooner or later you will choose or be told what you will be doing when at home, on vacation, while shopping, while voting and, while (on occassion) thinking about all this.

    • Charlie

      Patriot007,,,
      How did you become a Christian??? Give Scripture……………….
      The Bill of Rights don’t protect The Bill of Rights… The Bible,,,under,,,The Leadership of King Jesus Christ , does… NO King , no power,,, no Bible, no Law… Read Luke 22:36 for gun Rights from King Jesus Christ … Meanwhile……………..
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      Charlie Freedom

  • Rock Thomson

    And once again, Shrf. Arpaio, (Az), the same one that proved that Obuma is a fraud, has come up with an ingenious idea: He is using his well trained and all volunteer deputy force to patrol the some odd 50 schools in his jurisdiction. Security for our children at NO COST to the taxpayers!!! Why can’t the Feds come up with something so simple??? Almost every law enf. agency has its reserve force that is made up of volunteers, usually retd’ LEO’s and/or veterans, that are trained to perform the kind of duties that a school resource ofcr. would do.

  • Charlie

    jcfromdc,,,Can you prove you are “Christian” from Scripture??? Can you prove gun rights from the Bible??? Meanwhile…………….
    Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

    Charlie Freedom

  • Coalminer

    what about tasers? They are affected tool that police used in disarming criminals.

    • Samuel Clemens

      Tasers? You must be within 15 feet, have a clear shot for two probes to penetrate. You want to go within 15 feet of a crazed shooter! Now you are displaying your ignorance. Stay out of this discussion.

      • Coalminer

        Dear Big mouth Samuel Clemens ,
        That is the rudest most insulting statement om this blog.First of all I am pro gun. and I am a member of the NRA, as i stated in the earlier blogs.Second you don’t own this blog. and I got the right to ask a question..If you got anymore stupid remarks let me know.
        PS,I am against any kind of gun control. My belief is that you can own a machine gun,that should be your right. I am also a proud member of the IWW.It is the Union of the future.Come join the Iww.

  • JC

    A little off topic, but not much…
    Hey lefties, here’s another good reason Americans should keep and
    bear semi-automatic firearms…

    On April 30, the second day of the riots, Korean-Americans saw the police fall back from Koreatown, leaving them to defend themselves in the midst of heavy looting and fires. A store owner at the time, Jay Rhee, told the Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
    The Times reported in May of 1992:
    In the shadow of a flaming mini-mall near the corner of 5th and Western, behind a barricade of luxury sedans and battered grocery trucks, they built Firebase Koreatown.
    Richard Rhee, owner of the supermarket on the corner, had watched as roving bands of looters ransacked and burned Korean-owned businesses on virtually every block.
    But here, it would be different.
    “Burn this down after 33 years?” asked Rhee, a survivor of the Korean War, the Watts riots and three decades of business in Los Angeles. “They don’t know how hard I’ve worked. This is my market and I’m going to protect it.”
    From the rooftop of his supermarket, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets. Scores of others, carrying steel pipes, pistols and automatic rifles, paced through the darkened parking lot in anticipation of an assault by looters.
    “It’s just like war,” Rhee said, surveying his makeshift command. “I’ll shoot and worry about the law later.”
    From tiny liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles to the upscale boutiques in Mid-Wilshire, Korean store owners have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against the looter’s tide.
    For many store owners, the riots have become a watershed in the struggle for the survival of their community.
    The store owners shot off at least 500 rounds into the sky and ground to break up masses of people that were looting. They could have only accomplished that with the types of weapons they were using.
    By the end of that first day of defending themselves, they have killed four looters and beat back the mob that had moved into their area.
    Though they desperately tried to get the police to respond, even asking “Where were you when we needed you?” police would not show up for another 24 hours. Additionally, it was reported that 200 police uniforms had been stolen, so according to a Korean radio announcer, “We cannot trust a person just because they are wearing a uniform.”
    Eventually things were brought under control. However, understand that his was just two years later. Imagine if that had been in place when the rioting took place. It is highly possible that many of these Korean-Americans would not have been able to defend themselves, their property or their families and obviously the police were not very effective.
    So I ask those who may read this article who are in favor of gun bans, more gun laws, and simply more control, are you willing to simply stand for government telling you how you can and cannot defend yourself, your family and your property? You better think this through before you go calling for it. After all, if the police in LA will abandon the people of Koreatown, what makes you think they won’t leave you to fend for yourself should something similar take place in your neighborhood?

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/hey-lefties-heres-an-example-of-the-need-for-assault-rifles/#ixzz2GOtfOmxX

    • JeffH

      JC, BRAVO! :) I considered posting that same article yesterday.
      Good job!

      • JC

        Interesting isn’t it JeffH? That a group of immigrants who know the value of hard work and property are more willing to defend it than the local police were. Kind of shines a bright light n the saying the police like to use…”To Protect and Serve” …Yeah, protect themselves and serve the state that is…Where were they when they “knew” that the lives of these Korean-Americans was definitely in danger? They were literally thrown to the wolves…Thank God for the Second Amendment and rapid fire crowd control.

  • CAJUNMAN69

    Something we tend to gleem over in the wording of the Second Ammendment: the word “MILITIA” is used, not “HUNTING”. The Second Ammendment itself clearly precludes limiting the type of weapons we may own.

    • Coalminer

      CAJUNMAN69
      The Second Amendment Argument

      The Second Amendment to the United States 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.”[

  • Mark Gippner

    Outlaw the unions and they could afford to put guards in every school, maybe 2

  • Ed “K”

    They should do it the old fasion way use your fist. What happens if you get a disgrunted teacher is the teacher going to turn the gun on other teachers and students? They should make more stricker laws for the individual wanting to purchase a gun mentally,psychologically and physically.

    • Larry

      They should ensure that the people driving cars actually know how to drive, and are compitent but you see how that is working out.

  • Coalminer

    Mark Gippner says;

    Outlaw the unions Outlaw the unions ? That is crap.

    • Coalminer

      Coalminer,
      I am tired.I am retiring for the night. See you tomorrow.Good night!

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A GUN AND LOVING A GUN. THE “LOVERS” ARE RAMPANT IN THIS THREAD.

    • Jana

      Christopher,
      There is a difference between cowardice and not being afraid to make a stand. There is a difference between being enslaved and being free, and sometimes those differences are guns.
      Loving a gun? NO. Respecting a gun? Yes.
      Knowing what an evil person can do to good people who are helpless and knowing that if you had a gun and could have stopped them but were afraid to make a stand, that is called a coward.
      Even the boy Scout motto says Always Be Prepared. That is all that we are trying to do, is be prepared for the worst, so that we and others can enjoy the best.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Jana,”

        BEING PROACTIVE AT THE RIGHT TIME IS NOT, BEING A COWARD; IT IS HAVING SENSE.

        YES- THIS SITE ALLOWS YOU GUN-LOVERS TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS. BUT, IF YOU CONTINUE ON THIS PATH, A “lesbian” WILL BE ON Pennsylvania Avenue IN JANUARY 2017.

    • JC

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:
      December 28, 2012 at 8:55 pm
      THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A GUN AND LOVING A GUN. THE “LOVERS” ARE RAMPANT IN THIS THREAD.
      _____________________________________________________________________
      And here we have yet another liberal with yet another example of “projecting”.
      It’s all in your twisted mind….

    • JeffH

      CAH, c’mon…you shouldn’t say things like that…a wholly generalized and stupid comment. I thought you were better than that. Now I realize that you’re not much different than those you just categorized…dissappointing.

      I’ve owned guns for almost 50 years and not only do I appreciate a well built, good looking gun but I just love the guns that I like, period! I never bought a gun with the intention of harming any human being. No different than buying an appealing car, purse, outfit or a piece of jewelry.

      Does that make me a fanatic or a nutcase? Absolutley not! I have my reasons, I have no problems passing background checks, and I don’t have to explain my reasons to you, Diane Feindyck, Obama or anybody else.

      You have no clue as to the reason people like or love guns.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

        I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THE COMMENT I MADE AT 10:48 AM.

        AFTER I MADE AN EARLIER COMMENT, “JC,” IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME A LIBERAL. SO, “JC,” MUST DEFINE “LIBERAL” IN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

        I). A PERSON WHO DOES NOT OWN GUNS AND WANTS TO ABOLISH THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO DO; OR,
        II). A PERSON WHO OWNS GUNS, BUT, DOES NOT SHARE HIS PARANOIA IN REFERENCE TO “GUN GRABS.”

        HENCE, MY 10:48 AM COMMENT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

        “JeffH,” YOU SAY I HAVE NO CLUE WHY PEOPLE LIKE OR LOVE GUNS. THE FACT THAT YOU ATTACKED ME TELLS ME YOU REALLY LOVE YOURS.

      • JeffH

        CAH, I was responding to this comment you made above @ December 28, 2012 at 8:55 pm and that is where my comment was placed and had nothing to do with your “10:48am” comment.

        If you consider my response an “attack”, I’d like you to point out exactly where I attacked you. If saying your comment was “wholly generalized and stupid” is what you’re referring to as an attack you’re wrong. I suggest you go back and review exactly what I said…I made it very clear in my comment and there was not anything in it resembling an “attack”.

        Your beef with JC is between you and he.

      • JC

        CAH Says:

        AFTER I MADE AN EARLIER COMMENT, “JC,” IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME A LIBERAL. SO, “JC,” MUST DEFINE “LIBERAL” IN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

        I). A PERSON WHO DOES NOT OWN GUNS AND WANTS TO ABOLISH THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO DO; OR,
        II). A PERSON WHO OWNS GUNS, BUT, DOES NOT SHARE HIS PARANOIA IN REFERENCE TO “GUN GRABS.”

        Yeah that’s pretty close…but gun ownership isn’t about paranoia..it’s about good planning and taking responsibility for yourself. It may not make you a “liberal” but it does make you dangerously stupid and irresponsible to be spewing such Bull.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH,”

        IT IS MY GOAL TO MAKE MYSELF “CRYSTAL CLEAR.”

        I HAVE NO “BEEF” WITH “JC;” I MENTIONED HIM FOR Y-O-U-R BENEFIT.

        “JeffH,” YOU “PISSED-ME-OFF” WHEN YOU TYPED [sic], ” I have no clue why people like or love guns.”

        I AM V-E-R-Y SECURE WITH MY OWN MIND. I NEED NO WEB-LINK TO “BACK-ME-UP.” PEOPLE WHO USE WEB-LINKS ARE TELLING THE WORLD THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR OWN. BECAUSE I DO NOT GET INTO THESE HIGHLY SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT GUNS, DOES NOT MEAN I AM IGNORANT ON THE ISSUE.

        “JeffH,” I AM “PISSED” BECAUSE YOUR COMMENT FROM YESTERDAY WAS OUT-OF-CHARACTER AND “CAUGHT MY EYE” – BECAUSE OF TIMING, I ASSOCIATED YOUR COMMENT WITH MY “SETTING DaveH STRAIGHT.”

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JC,”

        I DO NOT KNOW YOUR AGE, BUT, I ASSUME YOU ARE A SENIOR. DO NOT CALL SOMEONE A LIBERAL BECAUSE HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH YOU. THEN SAY, “It is Bull,” WHEN THAT PERSON RESPONDS TO YOU.

        MY STATEMENT STILL STANDS – THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A GUN AND LOVING A GUN.

      • JeffH

        CAH, I highly doubt that you have “set anybody straight”. You’re obviously welcome to post your opinion at anytime, and that’s all you’ve done. I am quite accurate when I say you have “no clue” about why people like, love or own guns. All you can do is make assumptions, which is all you have done here. You seem to have made quite a few meadering “assumptions” right here on this thread.

        It is better to be pissed off than pissed on!

      • JeffH

        CAH says “PEOPLE WHO USE WEB-LINKS ARE TELLING THE WORLD THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR OWN.”

        FYI, that’s a crock and you know it!

      • DaveH

        Christopher doesn’t like being grouped as a Liberal Progressive, but he sure behaves like they do. So us putting a link to a good article is worse than writing unfactual, unsupported, and untrue comments?
        Get a life, Christopher. We Freedom Lovers here on PL are confident enough of our knowledge and logic that we can link to backup references to support our statements, unlike those of you who scream nonsense.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH,”

        ALTHOUGH I SAID I WAS FINISHED WITH THIS CONVERSATION, I NEED TO TELL YOU THIS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. WHEN I MENTIONED “SETTING DaveH STRAIGHT,” THAT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF GUNS. I TYPED THAT BECAUSE I DID NOT LIKE “DaveH’s TONE.”

        I RELATE TO PEOPLE ON THIS SITE FROM A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE. I COULD “CARE LESS” ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON’S POSITION ON AN ISSUE IS RIGHT OR WRONG. I GREATLY APPRECIATE PEOPLE WHO “PUT THEIR VIEWS OUT THERE.” IF I DISAGREE WITH A PERSON’S POINT OF VIEW, I WILL LET HER/HIM KNOW; BUT, I WANT THAT PERSON TO “FEEL GOOD” ABOUT HER/HIS OWN COMMENTARY. DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT DESTROYING ANOTHER PERSON’S CONFIDENCE AND SELF-ESTEEM. “Let’s disagree if we must, but still, come away happy.”

        SO, “JeffH,” ALWAYS REMEMBER – IF YOU WISH TO “DEAL” WITH ME IN THE FUTURE; IF NOT, THAT IS FINE – I AM COMMUNICATING WITH YOU FROM A “SOCIO-HUMAN” PERSPECTIVE O-N-L-Y. YOUR “POLITICS” IS YOUR BUSINESS.

      • JC

        “JC,”

        I DO NOT KNOW YOUR AGE, BUT, I ASSUME YOU ARE A SENIOR. DO NOT CALL SOMEONE A LIBERAL BECAUSE HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH YOU. THEN SAY, “It is Bull,” WHEN THAT PERSON RESPONDS TO YOU.

        MY STATEMENT STILL STANDS – THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A GUN AND LOVING A GUN.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Gnu AND LOVING A Gnu.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Dog AND LOVING A Dog.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Truck AND LOVING A Truck.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Snake AND LOVING A Snake.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Brick AND LOVING A Brick.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Cat AND LOVING A Cat.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Barn AND LOVING A Barn.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Bat AND LOVING A Bat.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OWNING A Llama AND LOVING A Llama.

        Relevance?
        A: None.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JC,”

        ACTUALLY, THERE IS RELEVANCE.

        ALL OF YOUR EXAMPLES ARE HARMLESS.

        BUT, LOVING A GUN TOO MUCH CAN GET YOU KILLED … OR A LIFE SENTENCE … OR THE DEATH PENALTY.

      • JC

        Why don’t you bore us with another of your “opinions” Mr. Horton?
        Just how is that so?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JC,”

        THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME HAVING A DISCUSSION. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE BEING ANTAGONISTIC WITH ME. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CALLED ME A LIBERAL, BECAUSE I CRITICIZED GUN-FANATICS.

        SIR, I AM NOT A THREAT TO YOU OR YOUR VALUES. YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLY “EXTREME.”

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JeffH,”

        WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS COMMENT, I HAD DECIDED TO IGNORE IT. BUT, TODAY, I AM IN A DIFFERENT MOOD.

        “JeffH,” YOU SAY, “It is better to be pissed off than pissed on!”

        FIRST, “JeffH,” SINCE YOU ARE A GUN OWNER, IT IS SAD YOU KNOW NOTHING OF “STREET COMMUNICATION.” ALWAYS REMEMBER, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE A “VERBAL JAB” AT SOMEONE, BE SURE THAT PERSON SHARES YOUR INTENDED MEANING. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE A “REAL BAD-ASS,” YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BECAUSE YOU CAN HANDLE WHAT COMES NEXT.

        SO, “JeffH” – FOR FUTURE REFERENCE – NEVER TELL A MALE HOMOSEXUAL WHAT YOU TYPED; THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN INVITATION.

      • JeffH

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON, after reading all of your responses in this thread it’s ovious that you do have many personal issues that affect you mentally.

        Having never considered myself to be a “bad ass”, having a full understanding of “street communication” and having communicated on numerous occasions with both male and female “homosexuals” as well as a host of heterosexuals and, I’m sure, many that I had no clue what their sexual orientation was nor did I consider it a necessity to have knowledge of…I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a complete and utter moron. As a matter of fact, I could care less if you were a “male homosexual”, a “negro homosexual” or a “colored homosexual” or any other “ethnicity”…a moron is a moron and you’ve firmly garnered the accolades of a moron.

        Dwell on that for awhile and perhaps you would do well to “print” some copies of this thread to share with your psychoanalyst.

  • http://none steve pernell

    we the people do have the right to bear guns, but when the 2n amenant was written it was for hunting and to protect your home. the nra would try and tell us that an ar 15 like the one at newtown. that was stollen from is mother,why in the hell did she buy the gun ;knowing that her son had mentonl probema ?? senator
    graham and mccain said the people sould have have the wrght to hvr these guns.graham on meet the press last week braged that he had an ak15 and did not fell like he would change athing at mewtown. well it did [i wouder hike his kid stoll his ar15 and killed even one person would he feel the way ???] but these yow ass holes wer ok wiith sendin our men and women to thier death in wars that should not have been!!! back to schools all we is a melal detectoe at the front door and all the doors lock from te inside with alarm and a towx4 across so if the g kids need to get out in a hurry i think all guns should be band from banne and all guns of mass detructen shaul be taken & the gov, knows who they are.the NRA would have you beleive the gov.

    • NativeBlood

      steve pernell says:
      December 29, 2012 at 7:09 am

      we the people do have the right to bear guns, but when the 2n amenant was written it was for hunting and to protect your home
      ______________________________________________________________________
      The second amendment is very short and it reads: 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.
      ______________________________________________________________________
      There, in this passage, mentions nothing about sport or hunting with arms. Clearly it was written to address the need for a well regulated and armed citizenry to augment the armed forces, when necessary, to defend the country against tyranny whether foreign or domestic.
      I am sure there are many gun owners who keep heirloom weapons and arms in mothballs for a just-in-case scenario and those arms have never been registered. Many folks have never taken them to the range to practice nor used them on hunting trips. Just kept them oiled and placed somewhere out of reach from untrained and inexperienced hands.
      How would a post WW II carbine stack up against a modern foe with sophisticated electronic and technological assistance? Not very well if that person was alone. If the
      people organized and stayed informed, that may be a different matter to consider.
      Keeping today’s youth complacent with media conditioning and with a aging and medicated veteran population, this will keep most armed citizenry at bay until the UN agenda 21 kicks in where it may be that we will all have our arms confiscated. I suppose you can see where that has gotten Australia and the UK.
      Our congress and senate are working hard to diminish our rights to bear arms so that the children are safe.
      This has been an emotional subject and the left wing operates more from the emotional aspect as opposed to the logical needs of “the people”.
      In short, the constitution is largely ignored and so too are the nation’s citizens.

      • Charlie

        NativeBlood,,,
        Where were you when the Ruby Ridge Massacre happened ??? When things go Guerrilla,
        a mini 14 without scope is very good , but , with scope is much better… Meanwhile…….
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      You are incorrect. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with defending ourselves, from those who might overstep the powers assigned to them by our government if necesary. You hopefully will recognize the names on those quotes.

      ”No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms”. Thomas Jefferson

      ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson

      ”The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. — This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction”. St. George Tucker

      ”Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”. George Washington

      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights

      “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” Samuel Adams

      “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men”. Joseph Story

      ”The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. William Rawle

      “Laws that forbid the carrying of guns…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson

      “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
      My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.
      The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
      “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

      ”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”. Thomas Jefferson

      “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, Annals of Congress 434 June 8, 1789

      “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry

      “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison

      “the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution”

      “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government (USA) to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” Alexander Hamilton
      (Notice that the people are to have access and own any weapon that the military uses – gun control of any type is illegal because it allows the fed gov to illegally arm a standing military – illegal also – to have better arms then the people, which puts them at risk if there is one serving who wants to destroy our nation from within)

      “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

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” George Mason

      “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

      Undertsand now?

  • FreedomFighter

    Have you noticed that anyone who has recently voiced support for an American’s Second Amendment rights has been systematically vilified by those in opposition, such that it is virtually impossible to have an honest, intelligent conversation about the issue? This is not an accident, but an agenda. It is an agenda of vilification, of the planned prohibition of not only “scary guns,” but of “scary talk.” It is characterizing vocal resistance to a government agenda as a prohibited behavior. It is forcing tolerance to fit a very specific, government sanctioned ideology, beyond which becomes not only an exhibit of intolerance, but of an intent intolerable to the government.

    The issue of banning weapons is only the visible part of the magic act where the weapons are only the props. The real act is taking place behind the smoke onstage, where a legitimate and rational opinion that happens to be at odds with the government’s agenda is the real target.

    Savage behavior
    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7325#more-7325

    Without the 2nd, the 1st cannot stand very long.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Freedom Fighter,”

      IN GENERAL, I AGREE – LIBERALS ARE ATTACKING GUN-RIGHTS.

      BUT, IN REFERENCE TO Personal Liberty Digest, THERE ARE DEGREES OF INTEREST IN GUNS; YET, THE PUBLIC OPPOSITION “LUMPS US TOGETHER.” AND, THE Personal Liberty GUN-FANATICS CALL OTHER Personal Liberty GUN-OWNERS – WHO ARE NOT, FANATICS – LIBERALS.

      SO, “Freedom Fighter,” YOUR COMMENTS ARE VAGUE BECAUSE SOME GUN-OWNERS FEEL YOU ARE RIDICULING THEM FOR NOT BEING OBSESSED. THIS “GUN-GRABBING KICK” HAS “BLOWN” MANY Personal Libertarians’ MINDS.

      I REALLY WISH Bob Livingston WOULD PROVIDE A CLEAR DEFINITION FOR THIS SITE’S PURPOSE. SINCE MY ARRIVAL, I HAVE OBTAINED AN INTEREST IN LIBERTARIANISM; BUT, IT SEEMS MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE SOME TYPE OF RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST.

      • http://sacredheartchurchcamden.org MO

        The 10-year-old sibling of one of the ‘slain’ 6-year olds in Newtown, Ct.was RIGHT: “THE ONLY PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO USE GUNS AT ALL ARE THE APPOINTED POLICE, AND THE APPOINTED ARMED FORCES. ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO WANT TO USE GUNS SHOULD GO TO THE GALLERY AND RENT ONE, THEN RETURN IT, OR GO TO HUNT, STOP AT THE STATION WHERE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY RENTS IT, THEN RETURN IT. IF THERE WERE NO GUNS IN HOMES, THEN ONLY THESE ‘LEGITIMATELY APPOINTED OFFICERS AND ARMED FORCES WOULD BE RESPONSIBLY USING THEM P.R.N…AND WHAT A DIFFERENT WORLD IT WOULD BE.” The 10-year-old sibling had this message for President Obama, and it is one of the most wise messages of this century !!! FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES, AND CHILDREN…PONDER THIS EVERYONE…Smart ‘answers’ and ‘responses’
        won’t cut it…PONDER…AND A PEACEFUL 2013 ! ! !

      • FreedomFighter

        Mo you are foolish to listen to a 10 year old, here is why

        Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians(mostlyChristians) 1 – 1.5Million
        Art 166, Pen Code 1866 & 1911 Proclamation, 1915
        • Permits required • Government list of owners
        • Ban on possession

        Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political Opponents;Farming communities 20 Million
        Resolutions,1918 Decree, July 12, 1920
        Art. 59 &182, Pen. Code,
        1926
        • Licensing of owners
        • Ban on possession
        • Severe penalties

        Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political Opponents;Jews; Gypsies;Critics;“examples” 20 Million
        Laws on Firearms & Ammun..1928
        Weapon Law, March 18,1938
        Reg’s against Jews, 1938
        • Registration & Licensing
        • Stricter handgun laws
        • Ban on possession

        china, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political Opponents;Army conscripts;others 10 million
        Art. 205. Crim Code, 1914
        Art, 186-87, Crim Code,1935
        • Government permit system
        • Ban on private ownership

        China, Red
        1949-1952
        1957-1960
        1966-1976 PoliticalOpponents;Rural populations;Enemies of the State 20 – 35 Million
        Act of Feb, 20, 1951
        Act of Oct 22, 1957
        • Prison or death to “counter-revolutionary criminals”
        And anyone resisting any government program
        • Death penalty for supplying guns to such “criminals”

        Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians; Political enemies 100,000 – 200,000
        Decree 36, Nov 25 – Act of 1932
        Decree 386, 1947
        Decree 283, 1964
        • Register guns & owners • Licensing with high fees
        • Prohibit carrying guns
        • Bans on guns, sharp tools • Confiscation powers

        Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
        Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
        Firearms Act, 1970
        • Register all guns & owners • Licenses for transactions
        • Warrant less searches • Confiscation powers

        Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons; Political enemies 2 Million
        Art. 322-328, Penal Code
        Royal Ordinance 55,
        1938
        • Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
        • Photo ID with fingerprints
        • License inspected quarterly

        Rwanda 1994 Tutsi People 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12,
        1979
        • Register guns, owners, ammunition
        • Owners must justify need • Concealable guns illegal
        • Confiscation powers

        Nobody should make such a monumental decision to not only strike the 2nd amendment, but to allow 320 million Americans to become as defenseless as that childs sibling was …

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • FreedomFighter

        Ohh in case you didnt realize it — those big numbers like 20 million are those people killed right after gun confiscation.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • DaveH

        MO,
        You have either been severely brainwashed or you are part of the elites who are taking advantage of the rest of the people with their Big Government.
        If you truly believe that Leaders are there to help the people, then you need to take the time to read this book and learn the history of Leadership since the Pilgrims first set up housekeeping in Plymouth:
        http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

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

        CAH: BUT, IT SEEMS MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE SOME TYPE OF RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST.

        Everyone is a radical fundamentalist, Mr Horton. including; you, gun enthusiasts, liberals, conservatives, atheists, religionists and in particular, anti-gun radical-fundamentalists!

        It is obvious that you and all who use the designation “Radical-Fundamentalists” haven’t a clue as to its proper definition, or who qualifies to wear the label, much less recognize it in yourselves! It all depends on your world-view, and how you express it in every day life, does it not? That being, your beliefs, the things you feel most passionate and strongly about that manifest themselves in your LIFESTYLE? convictions you would not compromise under any circumstances, even if it be in stark contrast to the norm, or popular opinion, correct? If so, then, Mr. Horton, you, are a radical-fundamentalist. As well as, anti-gun aficionados! No one, it seems, can escape the label, Mr. Horton; you radical-fundamentalist you!

      • DaveH

        Christopher (the Screamer) protests vociferously about being pigeon-holed as a Liberal, but then says — “BUT, IT SEEMS MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE SOME TYPE OF RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST”.
        Good grief.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “WTS/JAY” – HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

        MY ONLY POINT IS, EVERYONE IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT “GUN-GRABS.” IN MY REAL LIFE I KNOW NO ONE WHO BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE THEIR GUNS AWAY.

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

        I don’t believe that that was your only point, Mr. Horton. Happy holidays to you, as well.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “WTS/JAY,”

        AS YOU KNOW, YOU AND I HAVE “BUTTED-HEADS” BEFORE; SO, THAT “OTHER STUFF” YOU MENTIONED WAS ME “BUTTING-HEADS” WITH “DaveH” AND “JeffH.”

  • Coalminer

    1. Dear Bob livingston.
    Gun control is not the answer. What about the mass murderer Timothy McVeigh? He didn’t use a gun. Gun control is plain old horse [expletive deleted] .If someone is bent on killing someone. They will find other means, Mcveigh did.

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

      Timothy McVeigh is a Great American and a Hero according to many pro-American patriots.

      Wes Cross, in the newsletter of South Carolina’s “United Militias” has described mcVeigh and his army buddies as “Great Americans”, and “Heroes to all patriotic Americans” for their role in the bombings.

      Former President George Bush spoke on national television to congratulate McVeigh and his accomplices, describing the bombing as “just and necessary”. McVeigh and his peers were also characterized as “America’s finest” by retired General Colin Powell.

      Even the Liberal Media fell into line with these sentiments. News anchorman Dan Rather offered “congratulations on a job well done”, to the bombers, while his competition Ted Koppel praised the “efficiency” of the killings.

      Koppel even stated on his news program that “the good news (of the bombing) led to a rather unique feeling of euphoria throughout the nation”.

      Some public opinion polls corroborated this, claiming as many as 80% of Americans professed “support” for Timothy McVeigh and “the troops” in their bombing attack against even civilian government buildings, not unlike the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

      Destroyed in the bombing, besides the Baghdad City Hall, Iraqi Supreme Court and the central post office, were electrical power plants, water pumping stations, dams, municipal water and sewage facilities, oil tankers, oil refineries, oil pipelines, cement plants, a rubber factory, TV stations, phone exchanges, offices, cafes, hotels, markets and night clubs.

      Two, fully operating nuclear reactors were also bombed, adding nuclear terrorism to the list of war crimes committed by McVeigh and company.

      Also among the bombed: busy highway traffic, civilian hospitals, including a mental hospital and a maternity hospital, schools, mosques, civilian homes, grain silos, wheat fields, farm buildings, a vegetable oil factory, a sugar factory, frozen meat storage, food warehouses, a tractor assembly plant, pesticide storage, a baby milk powder factory, and a major fertilizer plant.

      A Pepsi-Cola plant and several Christian churches were also hit in the bombing perpetrated by the well-armed right-wing “self-defense” group calling itself “The Allied Forces”.

      An estimated 25,000 civilians were killed in the bombing. Another 25,000 civilians were killed indirectly by the bombing. At least 100,000 more civilians have died since the end of the bombing due to lack of food, medicine, and clean water.

      McVeigh has also been implicated in other, smaller acts of terrorism. Btw, has anyone seen McVeigh? How convenient that he is no longer in the spotlight, yet so much destruction has been credit it to him? Maybe we should look into making “BOMBS” illegal?

      Has anyone noticed a pattern unfolding, whereby, an atrocity is committed, the perpetrator is apprehended, and shortly thereafter is seen and heard of, no more. Its as if they are treated as having served their purpose, (the “fall-guy(s), ) are then whisked away and are seen and heard of, no more.? Bizarre, don’t you think? In a week, they go from super-status “Celebrities” (fall-guys/patsies) to having never existed(no longer needed as pasties, as populace sufficiently brain-washed into accepting official story)!!!

  • http://sacredheartchurchcamden.org MO

    YOU would be the foolish one, FF…for not ‘pondering’ what is wisdom…NO ONE would want to eradicate the 2nd amendment. First, as many above have explained, it needs to be ‘updated’ and better understood as to the true meaning. Second, and finally, people who are ‘human beings’ need to BEGIN to TRUST each other again. If anything is totally adverse to trust, it is unnecessary pre-anticipated-defense within homes. Also, intelligently and reflectively, an ENORMOUS ISSUE is that of MUCH BETTER EARLY SCREENING AND INTERVENTION FOR ANY KIND OF DISTURBANCE IN A CHILD—WHEN THEY ARE VERY SMALL, UNASHAMEDLY! Early intervention is so more human and caring than snowballing ‘mistrust’ by storing weapons. When children in America are helped with mental disturbances at the onset, this will incorporate healing, and fewer and fewer young Americans will seek violence. Even reaching out toward this goal would be a beginning of Healing America. Sincerely,
    one whose family member’s life was taken by an available
    gun, and one who also was a former teacher, from the
    state of Connecticut, Mo

    • FreedomFighter

      Teachers should not have thier right to bear arms INFRINGED.

      The 2nd amendment is very clear:

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

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

      • JeffH

        I agree Dave. The hornets nest has been stirred for years now and any attempts by government/Feinstein/Bloomberg/Brady/Obama
        to disarm or severly cripple legal gun ownership will be met, at some point, with severe resistance. Perhaps this would escalate to the point of spilling the blood of both tyrants and patriots

    • DaveH

      MO say — “people who are ‘human beings’ need to BEGIN to TRUST each other again”.
      Then MO says — “an ENORMOUS ISSUE is that of MUCH BETTER EARLY SCREENING AND INTERVENTION FOR ANY KIND OF DISTURBANCE IN A CHILD—WHEN THEY ARE VERY SMALL, UNASHAMEDLY!”.

      Make up your mind, MO.

      So MO would harass millions of good humans in a vain effort to detect some random killers? And he would trust that harassment to Government Officials who have bee proven throughout history to be untrustworthy?

      Something to think about for those who are inclined to think more psychiatric screening is the correct way to go:
      http://www.infowars.com/school-shooter-adam-lanza-likely-on-meds-labeled-as-having-personality-disorder/

      • http://sacredheartchurchcamden.org MO

        ((Make up your mind, MO. ))…F.Y.I…via Mo…

        ” So MO would harass millions of good humans in a vain effort to detect some random killers? And he would trust that harassment to Government Officials who have bee proven throughout history to be untrustworthy?

        Something to think about for those who are inclined to think more psychiatric screening is the correct way to go:”

        THE ABOVE WORDS ARE VERY MISPLACED …Dave, you need to re-read…TRUSTING AND ENTRUSTING—ARE SIMILAR…ADULTS TRUST EACH OTHER, AND THEY ENTRUST THEIR YOUNG TO BOTH HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AND EDUCATORS–TO ASSIST THEIR YOUNG…ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS. This is how young children are helped, and problems are nipped in the bud. Much can be done…it’s these systems, of course, not the government, helping. So you’ll have to take it from an elderly, well-seasoned teacher from Connecticut, who by the way, is also a woman, and who has additionally experienced a sibling’s death–resulting from a misplaced gun in the hands of one with diagnostic difficulties. We learn from sorrow and from the accumulation of wisdom—I wish that for you, and again, a PEACEFUL 2013. MO

      • ChuckL

        Mo has a major pproblem in understanding that the very people to whom he wishes to entrust our small children are the very people who have caused most of the problems.

        Guns are not the most common item in the mass murders in this country. That designationn belongs to psychiatric drugs. You do not need to ask me. Ask the liberal movie mogul, Michael Moore, ot the founder of the “Front Sight Firearms Training Institute”, Ignatius Piazza. Both have noted that these problems did not exist before psychiatric drugs became the normal treatment for “disturbed” persons. And these drugs are also prevelent in mass murers commited with Ball Bats, Hammers, and Motor Vehicles.

        Incidentially, Dr. Piazza has stated that he would train without charge any teacher who is sent to him by any school board. His training exceeds that of any police agency or any military organization, as reported by those from those agencies who have taken his training program.

        • http://sacredheartchurchcamden.org MO

          MO IS NOT A “HE”…once again, MO IS A “SHE”…and by reading MUCH MORE CAREFULLY, you will see, Chuck, that I’ve explained: “The mental health system AND parents need to be greatly more accountable for disorders in the young, even the very young, and gun-registration laws need desperately to be overhauled and accountable to those they approve for purchasing guns.” WE ALL NEED TO CONTEMPLATE THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE AND THEN THERE WILL BE A GROWTH…TOWARDS PEACE !!!

          SO—we are BOTH talking about PEOPLE, NOT GUNS, and their psyciatric and mental
          health needs, of course, including watchfulness of drugs among the young, etc…that’s what is meant by EARLY SCREENING AND INTERVENTION…parents + appropriate professionals would be those team-assisting this enormous task. Let’s hope that parents are not part of ‘most of the problems’…as you seemed to indicate. We also know that
          the system checking ANYONE obtaining ANY firearms needs to be revamped protectively, as noted above. Good luck in your research…but still, HOPE…. !!!

  • DaveH

    Once we go down that road to disarmament and one-world Government, there will be no turning back without enduring incredible pain. Leaders, with their vast Power, will not give up their Leadership without one very ugly fight, usually with other peoples’ money and lives.
    Wouldn’t it be much easier to wake up now, and stop it before it gets that far?

  • Financially Insecure John

    You people need a life and a girl friend-and Vicki need new D-batteries for her date.

    • Coalminer

      Financially Insecure John says:

      December 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm

      “You people need a life and a girl friend-and Vicki need new D-batteries for her date”.

      You can get all the girls you want on the internet.Just tap on these porntube websites and you can have a face to face chat with these nice girls. John,its not the women in your life,its the life in your women.Ha Ha Ha
      Vicky, you can also have a face to face chat with a nice guy, maybe even get married.
      Ha Ha Ha
      Get rid of those batteries.Webcam is the answer.

      • Bob666

        Yo Coal,
        Based on the post of both John and Vicki, there is obviously some real sexual- tension between them and I’m not sure this board is ready for that encounter, but at least Vicki could put away her “D-Cells”?

    • JeffH

      It appears physiologically insecure John doesn’t like women who are smarter and have better common sense than himself.

      “Stupid is as stupid does”.

      • Vicki

        John is just a supervisor of the paid shills that come to this site. Nothing more.

  • Coalminer

    Armed Citizens Are Defending Against a Crime Wave – What the news media don’t want you know.

    12160.info/profiles/blogs/armed-citizens-are-defending-against-a-crime-wave-what-the-media-
    Aug 4, 2012 … A recent article by Mac Slavo of shtfplan.comcontained some statistics about how crime has risen in Australia since guns were banned

  • Anne

    I am for giving all teachers “bear mace” on a belt to keep with them at all times, AND key school officials should have tranquilizer dart guns along with the mace, and be well trained in the use of them–only for situations such as this. Our high school has undercover police, and our school is not considered “violent.” The police are not armed, though; they should be.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Anne,”

      IN INNER-CITY SCHOOLS, THERE ARE REPORTS OF STUDENTS ATTACKING TEACHERS. IT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE LEGAL DISASTER IF A TEACHER “MACED” A CHILD.

      A REASON WHY CAUCASIAN TEACHERS HAVE LEFT INNER-CITY SCHOOLS IS BECAUSE NEGRO ADOLESCENTS’ BODIES ARE SO LARGE. IN THE MINDS OF CAUCASIAN TEACHERS, A TEN-YEAR-OLD NEGRO BOY WHO IS ALREADY SIX-FEET TALL LOOKS LIKE AN ADULT.

      SO, “Anne,” YOU WOULD HAVE THE PROBLEM OF A TEACHER – ON ONE HAND – “MACING” SOMEONE WHOM HER/HIS MIND SAYS IS AN ADULT; BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT TEACHER WOULD HAVE “MACED” SOMEONE WHO FITS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF, “MINOR.”

      WHEN CAUCASIANS ESTABLISHED CHILD-LABOR LAWS IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY, THEY DID NOT HAVE NEGRO CHILDREN IN MIND. CONTEMPORARY JUVENILLE-COURT SYSTEMS ARE FILLED WITH NEGRO CHILDREN WHOM CAUCASIANS PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDER TO BE ADULTS.

  • http://miami,com Dwane Brown

    I didn’t read all the discussions. However, one subject which might be of interest is the FFDO program instituted by Congress for the pilots. No one seems to mention this. The pilots who attend the program pay their own way to training, pay the expense of their stay and have to take vacation time to train. All Uncle Sam does is to provide the training. There are personal friends who have CCW permits who are teachers and I trust them explicitly to teach and be armed. The state of Florida has written into law the ability to have firearms on school grounds but not in school. As previously mentioned, it ain’t about hunting.

  • Tired of Bravados from Cowards

    Here’s an idea. Give a gun to Chip Wood and have him defend a school against an armed thug. Let him put his money where his mouth is. What say all of his readers? Sound like a good idea? Write the governor of his state and the mayor of the city Chip Wood lives in and have them deputize Chip Wood to defend any school against armed intruders. It will be curious to see Chip Wood’s face and hear him backtrack when he’s called to defend his views.

    • JC

      So you’ve elected yourself as the only one brave enough?

      This just in…
      EVERY moral citizen will defend his fellows, especially the children, if put in a position that requires him to do so. But no one can defend anyone from an armed criminal with their bare hands. That’s not “bravados” dipstick…it’s human nature.

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

      Here’s an idea. Go get a clue, and then come back and try again!

  • DaveH

    Given that it has been proven over and over again that More Guns leads to less crime, a large contingent of the minions continues to line up behind the gun-grabbers.
    There are only two valid reasons for people to disarm their fellow citizens, thus making them vulnerable to predators:
    1) Those citizens have shown themselves to be unprovoked murderers, in which case we should just grant them what they granted their victims. In that case, there wouldn’t be an issue whether or not to take their guns.
    2) The gun-grabbers are the predators, so they prefer their potential victims to be helpless against them.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the shills Flashman and Jeremy (probably one and the same) belong in the 2nd group.

    • DaveH

      For those people who are honestly just ignorant of the issue, but would like to learn some facts:
      http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356883966&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+lott

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

        Is it possible, DaveH, that the person posting under both monikers (Flashman/Jeremy) is schizophrenic? I can’t see them as being roommates, or two separate entities living under the same roof; as one, (Flashman) is clearly insane; and the other, (Jeremy) a naive-pacifist, having no inexperience in life, and out of sync with reality. I find it rather difficult to believe that such a strange combination of psycho-eccentric, personalities, complete polar-opposites of each other, could co-exist under the same roof. Don’t you think so?

      • DaveH

        Don’t know about the schizophrenic part, Jay, but I am certain that Flashman and Jeremy are either shills who at one time (at least) worked out of the same Shill Boiler Room, or they are assumed personalities of the same shill.
        Those who say it isn’t possible for one shill to take on two personalities should just really study Flashman’s double-speaking comments to see that he definitely does have the kind of energy it would take to assume such radically different personalities. Flashman is definitely a very intelligent sort of person, but no matter how intelligent he is, he can’t make a silk purse out of a Sow’s ear (Liberal Progressivism), because Progressivism is all about feathering the Leaders’ nests at the expense of the rest of the people, and they can hardly come right out and admit that.
        Also, he obviously has no morality. In other words — he’s a Sociopath who will do or say whatever it takes, with no moral constraints, to get what he wants. And what he (and his masters) want is for him to disrupt good people from learning reality.

        And I’ve noticed that Jeremy has taken the course of saying that he doesn’t (as in currently) share an IP address with Flashman. Well, duh. Of course if they had any sense at all after Bob exposed their little scam, they would work from different computers and even use different service providers in the same building to avoid detection in the future.

  • Karen

    I would support a Private Security Plan for schools or possibly School Marshall’s, like Sky Marshall’s, might also be a deterrent.

    • Vicki

      Now what about all the other gun free zones? We have whole cities (Chicago) and states (California) that are gun free zones. Put armed guards in them and what exactly is the difference between them and a police state?

      RETURN to us our RIGHT to keep and bear arms and you will no longer need to find a scapegoat for mass murder with guns. Mass murderers will return to the old ways.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        The problem as I see it is that you keep saying “RETURN to us our RIGHT to keep and bear arms…”

        That is our natural right, and they cannot take it away unless you willingly give them your arms. Not only that – sorry – more education for you and everyone else:

        Let’s start with Feinstein (not that she is the first, but she is the one I am working to get arrested for her crimes against the USA, against the state of California, and against the American people. Much of what I will say, quote, and list here will apply to all who take the Oath – but some you will need to go to YOUR states Constitution and REQUIRED oath. Notice how nice and inclusive the Califiornia Oath is when you get to it.

        Diane Feinstein is going against her Oaths and both Constitutions; State of California & the US Constitution, criminal acts. The oath(s) are a requirement of office, and must be kept to continue to meet the requirements of office. The Bill of Rights sets limits on those in government, one of which is the right to bear arms by the people.

        California State Constitution, Preamble:
        We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

        California State Constitution
        Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 1: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

        Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 13: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.

        Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 18: Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort. A person may not be convicted of treason except on the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court. UN Agenda 21

        Art 1 Dec Of Rights: Sec 26: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

        Art 3 State Of Californi, Sec 1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

        Art 5 Exec, Sec 1: The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.

        Art 5 Exec, Sec 7: The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.

        Art 5 Exec Sec 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced…

        Art 7 Public Officers And Employees: SEC. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, no person or organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or the State by force or violence or other unlawful means or who advocates the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities shall:
        (a) Hold any office or employment under this State, including but not limited to the University of California, or with any county, city or county, city, district, political subdivision, authority, board, bureau, commission or other public agency of this State; or
        (b) Receive any exemption from any tax imposed by this State or any county, city or county, city, district, political subdivision, authority, board, bureau, commission or other public agency of this State.
        The Legislature shall enact such laws as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this section.
        (Agenda 21)

        Art 9 EDU. Sec 1: A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.

        Art 20 Misc Subjects, Sec 3: Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

        “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

        “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
        ________________________________________________________________

        (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

        And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

        “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

        Okay, on to more information, laws, etc.

        Constitution of the United States of America
        Preamble to the Bill of Rights

        Congress of the United States
        begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
        THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
        RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
        ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
        Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

        This paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

        Bill of Rights
        Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

        Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: Breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are;

        The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
        The unorganized militia and
        The regular army.

        It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied *male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
        (*Since females are now in fighting units it encompasses every able-bodied “person”)

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

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

        Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

        {That would be the Senate, congress, and Obama, Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, Feinstein, and the rest of that adminstration. Don’t forget that both Bush’s, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution. Basically all of our “reps” qualify as traitors, as do some justices}

        18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
        {That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel}.

        *Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
        When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

        “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}

        {Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.}

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

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

        Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or
        Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
        Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

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

        Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

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

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

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

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

        Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
        The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

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

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

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

        Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. For example, an apartment lease legally binds the lessor and the lessee. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. The document’s signing gives the number of conditions the weight of law. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

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

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

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

        The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
        The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

        Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

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

        Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

        If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

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

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

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

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

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

        The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
        One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

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

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

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

        This shows that the oath is NOT simply an administrative error. In fact, the practice at the time was to publish the sentence in a newspaper “to prevent in future the commission of such crimes.”

        It is wayyy past time to arrest these domestic enemies of the USA, these treasonous slimesuckers and hold them for prosecution. You might say where does Feinstein fit in this – she was aware of and aided in Fast and Furious, Agenda 21 implementation in California and elsewhere, etc.

        By now you know that NOT keeping the legally binding and REQUIRED Oath(s) are two things: 1) a Criminal offense 2) Has to be kept in order to meet the requirements of the office or position they are occupying.

        That is right, anyone who was REQUIRED to take an Oath in the USA to get into office or to hold a position no longer can legally hold the position the oathbreakers was occupying once they break the oath. Doesn’t matter if the position being occupied was accountant, chef, secretary, senator, judge, president because it is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to get into and to hold that position.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joelscopeland Joel Copeland

    Jeremy Leochner says: “The gun is a principle issue. Having more people armed does not make the individuals qualified to use it nor does it guarantee that individuals with criminal intentions will not be able to obtain concealed gun permits and thereby hide their weapons.”
    Jeremy, you are beating on the wrong drum. Since when do criminals desire to have such a clean background that they are willing to go through the screening and permit process? I’m not saying that someone with a clean record won’t have criminal intent as we have seen “normal” citizens go off on a killing tangent. But to suggest that permit holdrs make it easier for criminals to pack concealed weapons? Your “fuzzy logic”, though well presented, is still fuzzy, Jeremy. You are condemning the many for the actions of a few. Sounds quite like Hitler’s little speeches. Well-written and delivered, they helped to justify the slaughter of millions. Is that what you want the door to open to, Jeremy? An armed populace, though by no means safe in of itself, is a great deal more considerate of others as they do not wish to be involved in an exhcange of gunfire due to an unreasonable gesture or statement. Beeing an armed society creates a pact between humans: “Don’t shoot me and I won’t shoot you.” Action and reaction. People will consider their options a great deal carefully, because they know that it is better to assume that the one you are arguing with is armed and as likely to harm you as you are willing to harm them. See? A balance of power; a polite society based on TRUE equality. Guns may facilitate a crime, but only by those who are impatient or want a broad audience for their heinous actions. They are also careful not to walk into police stations, pawn shops, or bars, because they know damn well and good that those places have armed persons in attendance. You are barking up the wrong tree, jeremy; I hope that someone as intelligent as yourself would look at your ideas from every angle. I wish you the best of luck this New Year!

    • DaveH

      Jeremy is a shill, like Flashman (probably the same shill), and they’re not here to learn anything. They’re here to disrupt the board so that good people might be prevented from learning something about Freedom.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      With respect Joel I disagree. I believe a concealed gun permit makes it a lot easier for someone to carry a concealed gun. Its harder to do something when its illegal to do so. And with all respect Joel-” Sounds quite like Hitler’s little speeches”. Name one thing I have said that even remotely comes close to the things Hitler said.

      • DaveH

        Hitler disarmed the people as soon as possible.
        Hitler also had to bide his time until conditions were right.
        Jeremy will deny it (of course) but this is what he and his Progressive cohorts have in store for us if we meekly stand by:
        http://www.givethemback.com/

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Good point Dave and sure Hitler did not push through laws to disarm people until after the Reichstag burned down and martial law was declared and all major political parties in Germany were outlawed or disbanded. Sure Hitler pushed through the Enabling Act which explicitly granted him absolute power before he disarmed people. And sure the circumstances in which Hitler rose to power were in no ways similar to the conditions we face. Unless you see constant stories of armed militias clashing with each other in the streets of major United States cities or if you see politicians coming to power while calling for the outright banning of political parties and the explicit and emphatic demonization of entire races of people as Hitler did in Mein Kampf long before he sought political power through the democratic process.

        And sure I have never supported gun bans and have often stated that people have a right to keep and bear arms.But go ahead and compare me to Hitler if you wish. Just know that I am in no ways like him and my beliefs in no way resemble his.

      • DaveH

        You are a proven liar, Jeremy (aka Flashman). Only fools would take you at your word for anything.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Dave what I just said is history. Its not my opinion. You do not have to take me at my word. There are beliefs and than there are facts. The burning of the Recihstag, the declaring of martial law, the banning and dissolving of political parties, the Enabling Act and the obvious extremism and racism of Adolf Hitler are not beliefs they’re facts. And my being in no ways like Hitler is also a fact not a belief or opinion. You do not have to take me at my word. Just the things I have said as opposed to the things Hitler said. I think you will a find a slight difference.

      • DaveH

        Ahh yes, grandiloquence, another typical Flashman technique.
        Way to go, Jeremy (aka Flashman). Even the slumbering regulars might finally wake up to the reality of the shill.
        Are you drinking, Flashman, or just talking too much to control yourself?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Dave I apologize if I got a little snippy about this. History is one of my great interests. And one point that gets me irked is when I hear people compare the people they disagree with to Adolf Hitler. I believe such a comparison is very unbecoming and very counter productive. I suppose I got a little worked up about it so I do apologize. I will try to stay calm on the issue. So Dave what I want to know is what do you mean when you say grandiloquence. Are you saying its grandiloquence to tell the truth. I say truth because what I pointed out about Hitler is history, its not my opinion. You have often accused me of twisting the truth, of spreading propaganda and outright lying. I am telling the undeniable truth and you appear to be sarcastically dismissing it. If you do not believe that what I say about Hitler and Nazi Germany is the truth look it up yourself. Here’s a start:http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

        And as for me. If you or anyone believes that I am in any ways like Hitler please offer me something that I have posted that in any ways resembles the things Adolf Hitler said.

      • DaveH

        You know what I’m saying, Jeremy.
        I’m saying that you and Flashman are the same people, and that you have exposed yourself by carelessly using typical Flashman techniques in your comments.
        Like your use of grandiloquence (fabricating the appearance of knowledge and expertise by using big words that most people are not familiar with, or otherwise trying to appear erudite).
        And your use of the word “extremist”, a frequently used word by Flashman lately. You were the only one of the many commenters (besides Flashman) to use that word on this weekend’s board.
        And both you and Flashman called Bob Livingston a liar on this board because he exposed you guys in the past as commenting from the same computer.

        • http://www.sacredheartchurch.org MO

          A-M-E-N……..PEACE IN EACH HEART…….IN 2013………TRUST BREEDS PEACE!!!

      • ChuckL

        A permit does not make it easier to carry a concealed weapon. It makes it legal, under our unconstitutional laws, and requires/assures that the holder has had training and has passed a backgroung check that many security officers and some policemen could not pass.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Legally, under our legitimate government they can regulate concealed carry, but not open carry. Nor can they legally decide we are “not allowed” (as if they are rulers instead of high priced temp workers put in place to carry out specific duties) what type or how many weapons we can own. Because we ARE the militia, any arms ad as many as we can afford we can get. Illegal laws are “”null and void”.

          Preamble to the Bill of Rights
          Congress of the United States
          begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
          RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
          ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

          Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

          The Preamble shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to PREVENT the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

          2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

          Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: Breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are;
          · The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
          · The unorganized militia and
          · The regular army.
          It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied *male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. (*It encompasses every able-bodied person)

          Now from the people who were there:

          George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

          William Rawle, wrote “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” which became a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Rawle was not only a respected constitutional authority; he was the only early commentator who voted to ratify the Bill of Rights:

          “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. {Basically he says anyone in our governments, both state and federal, who try to disarm us in any way is acting illegally}

          George Washington, Farewell Address: “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

          Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

          Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

          Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT AND DUTY TO BE AT ALL TIMES ARMED and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” (My caps)

          Story: “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

          The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves… Congress have no power to disarm the militia. 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”.
          {See? “every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American”}

          Tench Coxe – After the Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress – published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 where he asserted that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

          Alexander Hamilton in Fed 29: “… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped…

          Nunn vs. State
          ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.

          Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this
          “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

          Cockrum v. State
          “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

          Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

          William Pitt: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”

          Notice the recurring theme of the people’s right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, which (together) provides for the “security of a free state.”

          John F. Kennedy: “… By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important.”

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

          Ronald Reagan: “The NRA believes America’s laws were made to be obeyed and that our Constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          Senator Hubert H. Humphrey: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

          Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address: “But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government

          Glenn Harlan Reynolds: “The purpose of the right to bear arms is twofold; to allow individuals to protect themselves and their families, and to ensure a body of armed citizenry from which a militia could be drawn, whether that militia’s role was to protect the nation, or to protect the people from a tyrannical government.”

          Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Sen. (R-WY): “The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.”

  • Jimbo

    The problem is:

    1. No respect for life. 58 MILLION INNOCENT unborn children have been killed since Roe v. Wade in 1973. What message does that send to people, including our kids?

    2. No fear of God or Hell. Liberals have pushed God out of life. They preach that there is no sin or any consequence to sin. For many people the only deterrence to committing evil is fear of getting caught by the police.

    3. Liberal judges have taken the mentally ill out of the hospitals and put them into the general population.

    4. People (including the mentally ill, and young children) sit all day in front of video games where they ROLE PLAY murderers, cop killers, arsonists, and other evil people. After years of this, how do they separate reality from fiction?

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

      The Economic Drive of Abortion

      The world of economics runs on the basis of supply and demand. And this is perhaps the largest fear to approving fetal tissue research and transplants from elective aborted fetuses. While it is claimed that supply is sufficient to meet current demand – which is a tragedy in itself – what is to happen when researchers discover that the fetal tissue products can effectively treat a broader assortment of disease and illnesses? What happens when there is still not enough supply? While these questions may seem overstated, we should not underestimate the advances of medical technology or the moral corruption of modern society.

      Several proposals were brought to the National Institutes of Health Panel to protect babies from being procured for the motive of profit. Yet with an estimated annual income of SIX BILLION DOLLARS, the potential for abuse in fetal tissue industry would be substantial, not to mention very difficult to regulate and enforce. ‘With the anticipated profitability of the industry once the technology can alleviate a larger number of diseases, there will be increasing pressures to “share the wealth” produced by these transplants.’ (Scott Rae, ibid)

      Related to the supply of the fetus, is the supply of fresh and more mature fetuses. The timing of abortion becomes an important consideration to the researchers and medical community who benefit from a more matured and developed fetus. The majority of abortions procedures are performed between the sixth and eleventh weeks of pregnancy, however delaying until the fourteen to sixteenth weeks will yield fetal tissue that is usable in pancreatic transplants. Simply put, the older the fetus THE MORE VALUABLE! A subsequent concern of delaying the abortion procedures until the ‘ripe’ time period, is the emotional effects this will have for the mother. Aborting the unborn baby at four months old (as opposed to 6-11 weeks old) will compound the emotional impact on the mother resulting in a significant increase in post abortion trauma.

      Avoiding Foods, Beverages and Vaccines Containing Aborted Fetal Cells

      As recently as May, Pepsi ignored concerns and criticism from dozens of pro-life groups and tens of thousands of pro-life people who voiced their opposition to PepsiCo contracting with biotech company Senomyx even after it was found to be testing their food additives using fetal cells from abortions.

      “The company’s key flavor programs focus on the discovery and development of savory, sweet and salt flavor ingredients that are intended to allow for the reduction of MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products,” the Senomyx web site says. “Using isolated human taste receptors, we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor.”

      Debi Vinnedge, of the pro-life group Children of God for Life, explained, “What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 — human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors. They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors.”

      In August 2010, PepsiCo entered into a four-year agreement with Senomyx for the development of artificial high-potency sweeteners for PepsiCo beverages. Under the contract, PepsiCo is paying $30 million to Senomyx for the research and future royalties on PepsiCo products sold using Senomyx technology. When the prolife group wrote both companies requesting they use one of several non-objectionable, viable cell lines listed in their patents, Senomyx did not respond. PepsiCo did reply however and insisted that its use of the research from Senomyx would produce “great tasting, lower-calorie beverages.”

      The following products are manufactured using aborted fetal cells:

      PEPSI BEVERAGES
      - All Pepsi soft drinks
      - Sierra Mist soft drinks
      - Mountain Dew soft drinks
      - Mug root beer and other soft drinks
      - No Fear beverages
      - Ocean Spray beverages
      - Seattle’s Best Coffee
      - Tazo beverages
      - AMP Energy beverages
      - Aquafina water
      - Aquafina flavored beverages
      - DoubleShot energy beverages
      - Frappuccino beverages
      - Lipton tea and other beverages
      - Propel beverages
      - SoBe beverages
      - Gatorade beverages
      - Fiesta Miranda beverages
      - Tropicana juices and beverages

      NESTLE PRODUCTS
      - All coffee creamers
      - Maggi Brand instant soups, bouillon cubes, ketchups, sauces, seasoning, instant noodles

      KRAFT – CADBURY ADAMS PRODUCTS
      - Black Jack chewing gum
      - Bubbaloo bubble gum
      - Bubblicious bubble gum
      - Chiclets
      - Clorets
      - Dentyne
      - Freshen Up Gum
      - Sour Cherry Gum (Limited)
      - Sour Apple Gum (Limited)
      - Stride
      - Trident

      CADBURY ADAMS CANDIES
      - Sour Cherry Blasters
      - Fruit Mania
      - Bassett’s Liquorice All sorts
      - Maynards Wine Gum
      - Swedish Fish
      - Swedish Berries
      - Juicy Squirts
      - Original Gummies
      - Fuzzy Peach
      - Sour Chillers
      - Sour Patch Kids
      - Mini Fruit Gums

      OTHER CADBURY ADAMS PRODUCTS
      - Certs breath mints
      - Halls Cough Drops

      NEOCUTIS PRODUCTS
      This company produces anti wrinkle creams that
      contain cells from a 14 week gestation aborted male
      baby. Following is the list of the creams, but we
      recommend a full boycott of all Neocutis Products.

      - Bio-Gel Prevedem Journee
      - Bio-Serum Lumiere
      - Bio Restorative Skin Cream

      VACCINES

      MMR II (Merck)
      ProQuad (MMR + Chickenpox — Merck)
      Varivax (Chickenpox — Merck)
      Pentacel (Polio + DTaP + HiB — Sanofi Pasteur)
      Vaqta (Hepatitis-A — Merck)
      Havrix (Hepatitis-A — Glaxo SmithKline)
      Twinrix (Hepatitis-A and B combo — Glaxo)
      Zostavax (Shingles — Merck)
      Imovax (Rabies — Sanofi Pasteur)

      OTHER MEDICINES:
      Pulmozyme (Cystic Fibrosis — Genetech)
      Enbrel (Rheumatoid Arthritis — Amgen)

      Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

      http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.ca/2012/03/avoid-using-products-containing-aborted.html

      • Newspooner

        When it comes to mathematics, there are three kinds of people: those who understand it, and those who don’t.

        Apparently, the author of the thesis that aborted fetuses are being used in Pepsi products fits into the latter category. The quantity of Pepsi products drunk each day far exceeds the amount that could be supplied by the quantity of aborted fetuses in many multiples of that time. It is kinda like the global warming alarmists. They try to scare the sheeple about the effects of burning fossil fuels. But in reality, decaying vegetation contributes many thousands of times as much organic and inorganic gases into the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels. The effect of human activity on “greenhouse gas” concentrations in the atmosphere is infinitessimally small.

  • http://www.sacredheartchurch.org MO

    FOR DAVE H. : TAKE NOTE:
    DAVE: STILL jumping to conclusions…”INTERVENTION” in the lives of the young, even
    if you call it ‘psychological’…does not always ASSUME TAKING MEDICINE…THERE ARE MANY THERAPIES, NONE OF WHICH EVEN REMOTELY INTERJECT A STANCE OF FEAR–OR PRE-ANTICIPATED DEFENSE…self-confidence and self-respect can be instilled in the very young…projecting self-defense is not a priority…actually, self-defense is ALREADY INSTINTIVELY WITHIN A HUMAN BEING! SO MANY APPROACHES…
    Every child nurtured and stopped from lacking self-worth may be one more human saved
    from tragedy…this is DEFINITELY WORTH THE TIME AND THE ‘TRY’ !!…MO AGAIN!

  • Paul carlson

    Let me say this in favor: in the story it said that there was no evals could have predicted what the shooters would have done.
    Let me spin this 180 degrees. I have witnessed teachers “go-off-the-rails” in class.
    I see it this way: let a teachers choose to be armed, BUT,submit to the psyche evaluation test once a year along with the combat style training. These test work and show people with their heads screwed on straight,or not.
    ANY TEACHER that is willing to teach a class of renegade teenagers, much less take care of 6year olds needs to have their responsibility IN-CHECK, and not just hoped they have not panicked when some screams.
    Texas has allowed a couple of schools to arm up.
    The teachers are in charge of educating. This is a huge responsibility to trust a school employee (and for them) to have the ability to protect young lives.
    Back that up with the yearly psyche test. It’s for everyone benefit, and there is nothing to lose, and a lot more trust to gain.

  • http://personalliberty irene

    Yes i am a grandparent , Ithink we should arm our teachers, and i think they should take training , how to use a gun . I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE NRA , AND WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE .

  • http://www.sacredheartchurch.org MO

    A-M-E-N……..PEACE IN EACH HEART…….IN 2013………TRUST BREEDS PEACE!!!

    • http://midcontent I41

      Trust breeds peace, no it means someone getting screwed, take the socialist/marxist democrats and the muslim trained marxist in the WH who lies every time and are backed up by his socialist congenital liars.

      • http://sacredheartchurchcamden.org MO

        …PEACE IN EACH HEART…….IN 2013………”TRUST BREEDS PEACE!!!”…is the TRUTH…and the TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE…Unfortunately, people arrive at this conclusion —of wisdom—at all different times in life, and some are blessed enough to
        REALIZE it sooner… …labels on ‘political parties’ are mostly useless, as there is for example, actually some amount of good in the word “socialism”, etc. EXAMPLE…SOCIALISM=THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IN OUR COUNTRY.. …Sorry you think so ill of Muslims…again, many
        different kinds of these, and none—as your connotation implies—are in the WH—the way you’re inferring. Much more studying and especially observation is needed by you.

        Once again, as for the BASIC of this whole situation: THERE ARE MANY THERAPIES, NONE OF WHICH EVEN REMOTELY INTERJECT A STANCE OF FEAR–OR PRE-ANTICIPATED DEFENSE…self-confidence and self-respect can be instilled in the very young…projecting self-defense is not a priority…actually, self-defense is ALREADY INSTINTIVELY WITHIN A HUMAN BEING! SO MANY APPROACHES ARE AVAILABLE…
        Every child nurtured and stopped from lacking self-worth may be one more human saved
        from destruction. The mental health system AND parents need to be greatly more accountable for disorders in the young, even the very young, and gun-registration laws need desperately to be overhauled and accountable to those they approve for purchasing guns. WE ALL NEED TO CONTEMPLATE THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE
        AND THEN THERE WILL BE A GROWTH…TOWARDS PEACE !!!

  • red neck

    Has anyone paid any attention to what legislation that Feinstien is introducing today?

  • Eric

    Arming teachers who are capable of defensive response should be part of any intelligent approach to school safety. Also, the anti gun lobby, which is using this latest horror story for it’s hidden agenda should be exposed for what it is; an attack on the middle class and the poor. Rich people live in more protected communities and can afford personal guards if desired. Additionally, it empowers the Judicial Branch and law enforcement as the only civilian members allowed to implement the Natures law of self defense. This is the most egregious violation of human rights I can think of.

  • wrm

    I well understand the concern for have armed guards and armed teachers in school districts. But how is it that no one is willing to think outside the box. A number of years ago I was a school administrator at a rural school district. We needed a part time teacher and part time coach. What we got was even more. The young man was also a commissioned law enforcement officer. So…we had a built in school resource officer. Then there is the situation of a nearby school district that simply hired a retiring local police officer as their resource officer. Has anyone given thought to the hundreds of thousands of retired police officers there are? No…I have not put pen to paper to analyze the budget matters, but most of these men and women that I know would welcome a chance to subsidize their retirements. The cost of hiring someone, fully trained, and fully legal to carry a concealed weapon would far outweigh the salary cost.

    Most school districts have at least two different salary scales. One for “certified personnel” and one for “un-certified”. Certified being individuals with teaching credentials. The un-certified are janitors, secretaries, etc. The resource officers would probably be considered un-certified and be paid an hourly wage.

    There are ways this could be done, but don’t expect the hired help in Washington to do anything more that there usual “Knee Jerk” reaction that brought us TSA, the Patriot Act, that subjects us to illegal search and seizures. Just a thought.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Excellent idea.

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    YES: I guss we have gone past Corperal Punishment!!!

  • Sheepdog on patrol

    The very first thing we have to realize and rcognize here is the Government’s agenda to disarm the people of America. The introduction of the Gun-Free School Zone Act in 1995 has accomplished exactly what those politicians expected it to accomplish. They knew when they proposed this Act and placed it into law that it would make schools a magnet for mass killings by deranged lunatics. Have you noticed how gleefully and quickly they move to use the tragedy to further their insidious agnda? All of this is part of the left, socialist agenda to direct our nation into becoming another country without citizens. I, for one, do not intend to become a “subject” to the petty dictator we now have in the White House. If we want to protect the precious lives of our children, then we have to repeal “STUPID” legislation and that would start with the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. Next, we do exactly what Utah is doing, getting their teachers into a voluntary firearms safety and use program. This was actually shown on TV this past week and I was amazed at the huge number of teachers who voluntarily showed up and enrolled in the class. These teachers will be allowed to arm themselves in their respective schools to protect their students. This state is thumbing their nose at the Federal Government and this is what EVERY state and every school should do. It only makes sense to arm those who are already at the schools every day and that would be the teachers and the staff of the school. As citizens, we don’t have to obey any law that is unreasonable or goes against our Constitutional rights and we have the right to use common sense in making good decisions to do what we now know our stupid, lame government will not do. We need to stop turning to the “porblem makers” expecting them to become “problem solvers.” They are the ones who have gotten all of us in the enormous mess we are in to begin with. Contact all of your State representatives and encourage them to introduce legislation to repeal the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 and to move to initiate a voluntary State wide program to educate our educators on firearms use and safety NOW, before we have another mass murdering. This program can be extended to get rid of ALL gun free zones in America now that we clearly understand the gun-free zones are the places that bad people with guns seek for their carnage.

    Next, we need to initiate legislation to require any doctor who is treating a patient for a mental disorder where the doctor can clearly see that the patient is a potential threat to himself and/or others, to report this individual to the NICS and BATFE to be added to the NO BUY list for firearms purchases. Next, all firearms at the house where the person resides must be removed for the safety of the patient and the extended family and the neighbors of the individual being treated should be notified and advised that they have a person in their immediate vicinity who is being treated. This is NO different than what sex offenders are required to do. Why do I propose this? Because my research has shown that the majority of those individuals who have committed mass murder crimes over the past 20 years have been individuals who were being treated and most of them were on anti-depressants of some kind. Guns don’t kill innocent people. Sick people, mentally deranged people, and mean people do. Stop attacking the guns and deal with the real problem!

  • http://midcontent I41

    All the deaths since 1970 has been in gun free zones, more drugs are sold in drug free zones, all of oxymoronic rules. All dreamed up by theorizing trained apes, who have not a clue of what the real world is like. These are the same simple minded idoits, who open up the asylums to create streeet people and most worthless crap on working people. I have had companies hire these mental idoits, that will twist off at any time, because they are cheap labor. I have written up accident reports on couple workers deathscaused by the loony toons that had been in nut bins in 2 different states. The first death happened when a worker crawled in a mixer, to clean it out, even though the worker had put a lock out on the master switch, the mental looon used a shear to cut the lock off, and turned the switch on. The 2nd one was whenwarehouse foreman was lating out a truch load and the loon tune wigged out while drving a big fork lift over the foreman. Just more airy fairy feel good BS. The confinement is still the best way to protect everyone The nut job who killed 20 some kids, was a freak, a momma boy, and his mother should have known he would twist off sooner than later, don’t care how smart or how he was a brain that didn’t work.

  • T. Jefferson

    Teachers should have been armed long ago. The individual school systems should also have been allowed to remove disruptive elements from the school permanently so that those who wish to learn can do so in peace and quiet. Punks, gang bangers and other assorted idiots have no place in school.

  • http://BobLivingston Goodsteve

    We have to arm a few adults on each of our nation’s school campuses. If not
    some of the faculty and / or the administration, then some other compentant
    and dependable adult staff on those campuses. Otherwise, by the time the
    law arrives on the scene, they’ll be almost guaranteed another Sandy Hook.
    What Wayne LaPierrie says is all too true. “The only thing that will stop a bad
    guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. And that holds true for schools,
    homes, businesses, you name it, no matter where you are it will always be
    the case. A disarmed society will always lead to chaos or much worse. On
    the other hand, an armed society is, and will always and forevermore be a
    polite society. History has clearly demonstrated this to be an indisputable fact.

  • http://www.facebook.com/randy.graves2 Randy Graves

    So if i get these commets right the cost of our childern being killed is not worth the cost of armed gaurds that will do everything to try and save these lives… makes no seinse to me at all

  • Veteran

    First, we already have police in most of the high schools, walking around armed, so we’re already doing it in a limited degree and the ‘learning environment’ doesn’t seem to have been harmed.

    Second, if we look at the NRA proposal as a ‘Jobs Bill’, it would be a lot more effective than the Stimulus Bills Obama shoved down our throats (you wouldn’t be spending $250,000 to create a $50,000 job), the employment would be almost immediate, the new hires would be paying taxes immediately, some of those employed would be ex-military and retired LEOs and PARENTS who are concerned and want to protect the children. So in many cases you wouldn’t have to cut any programs – in fact, you’d save unnecessary expenditures in ‘job creation’ and Unemployment Insurance.

    Lastly, I agree that the Gun Free Zone idea is complete garbage – you’re right, let’s erect signs that say either “Victim Rich Zone” or “Target Rich Zone” because you have invited the crazies and the publicity seekers a golden opportunity.

    Personally I’d rather carry and save a life than know I could have saved a life and chickened out on my CIVIC responsibility and the oath I took as a Naval officer.

    • tins6

      Dumb questions, of course teachers should be armed.Only two people should have
      been buried, his mother (too late for her unfortunately) and the shooter.

    • Sheepdog on patrol

      Good post, Veteran.
      In my earlier post I strongley recommend arming teachers and administrators. After having completed a comprehensive, NRA sanctioned handgun familiarization and use course, they could be allowed to carry in their classes at the school. Teachers and administrators who already have their Concealed Carry would only need to attend a range firearms proficiency test where they would be scored on their individual skill level with their chosen handgun. Now, these individuals can be encouraged to get into this program by offering a pay raise incintive for doing so and it would be less expensive than hiring police officers and having uniforms in the hallways. The one thing that must be addressed in addition, is that the person carrying the firearm MUST have posession of the firearm at ALL times. Never is it to be left anywhere in the classroom, a locker, a purse, or anywhere else where the person could not get to it immediately. The bottom line, we need to take charge of our lives and start making good decisions for ourselves and our families and recognize that the government is so far out of touch with us that waiting on them for anything positive at all is totally moronic. We need to take all of these oath breakers out of the loop when it comes to our lives.

  • Joe

    It seems that the one thing not being addressed is the cause of school (and other mass) shootings is the fact that the majority of shooters range in age between 12 and 20 years of age and that the majority in that group range in age between 12 and 14 years of age.

    Some say that our troubles in public schools began with the removal of prayer. But if one were to do some real research into our history they would find that in fact the Bible was once one of only very few textbooks used in our schools. They would also find that when the creation of public schooling was being addressed, Benjamin Franklin asserted that a public school system is necessary “in order that children may learn to read, in order that they may read the Bible, in order that they may be better citizens”.

    We’ve come a long way from those early days of freedom and the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. The changes that have taken place not only in our schools, but in our society in general are far to numerous to mention here. But those changes have left us a society wherein to many of our kids do not know the answers to fundamental questions of life. Questions like “What can I believe?” “Who can I believe?” What is the meaning of life?” “What is the purpose of my life?” “Is anything true and if so, what is true?” “What difference does it make any way?”

    And we come up with all kinds of supposed reasons and proposed solutions to the problem, all of which seem to address anything and everything accept the real cause and the real solution. The real cause is that there exist in America today a growing number of disillusioned young people, not that we don’t have far to many disillusioned older people as well, they just aren’t as inclined to go on shooting sprees. Most of us older people were not born into the stresses and failures of our society, they just kind of sneaked up on us and we adapted as they did so. But kids born in today’s society are born into a jungle of non-sense and outrageous disregard for human life and into a vacuum where understanding, decency, respect for life and common sense have been thoroughly pumped out

    The real solution is to instill in every American child the belief that life, particularly human life is sacred and the understanding that the gravest sin (yes, sin) is to disregard that sacredness. Unfortunately, that solution seems unattainable in our fractured society where sin is promoted as “personal rights” and truth is disdained as “oppressive”.

    We’re in a lot of trouble and if we don’t remember who we are supposed to be as a nation, what our roots are, what our Constitution was framed upon and how exceptional in world history and necessary to freedom it is, we’re toast (to coin a phrase).

    We have removed from our schools any concept of personal accountability, of personal responsibility, of civic responsibility and of accurate and right discipline. Besides removing from our school systems true and accurate teaching about our own history, we have also removed the moral precepts and truths of the Bible that our founders held to be the most invaluable resource for the structuring of a free society. The removal of prayer was not our first mistake.

    I doubt very seriously that in our disunited and fractured society we can reclaim what we have given away, legislated away, thrown away and lost sight of. As surely as the vision of our founders created our nation in the beginning, the loss of vision will destroy us. Rampant mass shootings, as horrible as they are, are most likely only a precursor of evil (yes, evil) things yet to come.

    Perhaps there is no solution. Among all those things we have also removed from our schools was the paddle from the hands of school principles, teachers and coaches. Now we are wondering whose hands to put a gun in. And as you pointed out, Chip, that is no solution at all.

  • David169

    The article correctly says “these shooting were rare before 1995″. Why, what changed? In 1991 the first Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor or SSRI was allowed to be sold in the US. By 1995 about 12 different SSRIs were being sold and prescribed. Now there are over 30 being sold and the frequency of these murders is increasing. If anyone really wants to stop these shootings these powerful psychoactive drugs need to be removed from the market. Why?, because each and everyone of these mass murderers since 1991 had a prescription for these SSRI drugs. Some were on them, some were having withdrawals from them and some were taking to many. When these murderers had no access to firearms they used cars, knives and machetes to murder their victims. Even the King of Toads, Michael Moore, saw this correlation at the time of the Columbine shootings but the Democrats in their zeal to make this country safe for a dictatorial takeover choose to ignore the only common thread to these shootings and concentrate on outlawing firearms. Apparently they do not understand the first ten Amendments to our Constitution are The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are our chiseled in stone civil rights that are off limits to all politicians wanting to increase their power over the people.

  • ibcamn

    GEEZE!took me this long to read through,i was at a post here and nobody was there,i’m here with almost 700 comments.send all these to the wh and show Obama what concerns Americans!were gonna grip but this wh ain’t gonna listen.it’s not just Obama(as much as i hate him)it’s the fact that socialism and the progressives have been at this for a long time and now the people see it and are taking voice against it,when i was young i tried to tell people,better dead than red,and they scoffed at me,they said”never in America”.well guess what?it’s been her and it’s here to stay!too many brainwashed liberals to stop it,we need to keep it in check though,this is how it’s gonna be for a while!they have a foot in the door(Obama,Biden etc..) of our country and are pushing their way in!this anti-gun deal is just part of a long list of what’s going on and going to happen,saddle up people!gun free is going to stay,that’s what they want is correct,they want things in place for the future,they’ve been at this for a long time,they now what to do to get to us and wear us down and catch us at our lowest and dumbest points to achive their goals!we have to stay alert and stay smart and knowledgable of everything,don’t let your gaurd down!they will blame us and keep all things in place and double their efforts now that we are aware of what they are doing to America!they will delay this and another nut job will kill again and they will use it again to ram their idea’s down our throats till they get it across.this wh will do nothing for us,just for them!all the comments from you people,and me,will fall on deaf liberal ears and they don’t care about it.to them,i wouldn’t be surprised if this was a population control issue (planned parenthood,acorn,etc..)or just a control issue!

  • slickzip

    NO ,,,, not all teachers to many socialist liberals ,,, only arm retired military teachers who are not afraid to shoot to kill !!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/825sbrd Russ Fowler

    I have no problem with a teacher or anyone that has no fear of owning a gun, weapon.
    There are lots of school officials that do own gun and some of them like to hunt. If the school had officials that had guns in school there would be a lot more of our children and students alive today.
    Un-arm the honest people and the bad guys will have a field day.

    • Veteran

      They already have field days! Not one of the localtions where there have been mass shootings has been anything other than a “Gun Free Zone” – why don’t they post a “Victim Rich Zone”? “Cause that’s just what they’ve created!

      • http://www.facebook.com/825sbrd Russ Fowler

        Veteran..you are so correct..only if the law maker under stood that.

  • S. A. Andreassen

    The cost of full time police officers in the schools is a real problem and the cost could be staggering . Why not reach out to recently retired police/sheriffs or corrections officers ? They are probably bored in retirement and would welcome the extra income . They would not need medical insurance as it is probably bound over from their retirement package . Work out an agreement with the pension bureau so that the income will not mess up the pension payments . You would not need to pay for uniforms ,,,,, just have them wear sneakers , jeans , shirt and a blazer or sports jacket . One man sits at the entry point and the other is on foot patrol in radio contact with the office/entry point . They would rotate foot patrol/entry point duty . Another point is that recently retired LEOs will have had training in justification , firearms use and will probably still be under their last firearms qualification when hired and will have the necessary mindset to use DPF if necessary . Their handguns would be concealed under the blazer and even (if needed) a long gun (shotgun/rifle) could be locked up in the main office . I am a retired LEO and would probably have welcomed this type of opportunity a few years ago .

  • Dave

    Recently viewed a clip with Dr. J. Corsi (www.wnd.com) interviewing Dr. D. Healy relative to the prliferation of child psychiatrists and mass shootings, point being that teachers are identifying children “needing” medication and these meds being prescribed by family physicians. In many cases, some of the side effects of such SSRI’s (Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors) include aggressiveness. Dr Healy’s point also was that often lacking a grandmother who could provide familial background (“his dad was that way and he turned out okay”) teachers untrained in diagnosising mental illness are being used to steer youngsters going through developmental changes to equally untrained family doctors for medication prescriptions which may play a role in their aggressive acting out; removing guns merely means a different tool needs to be used to accomplish the same end.
    My point, outlawing the means/tools of violence does nothing in dealing with the source, the engine of the anger and violence; children need and want boundaries and control – rational, delivered with love and compassion, and moderated by a person controlling themselves.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/top-psychiatrist-meds-behind-school-massacres/#ooid=hyeHdtODoIBWk39mlWBL9P7flHZEqr0t

  • Mike

    Why in the world should some bureaucrat in another part of the U.S. dictate to me when and where I carry a firearm. The schools in my state are under the control of a local school district who reports to the State Dept of Education. So where in the hell does the Congress of the United States get off telling my local school district that I can’t carry a gun there. Has anyone challenged this under the 10th Amendment? People we need to start waking up. I find it appalling that our tax dollars go to operate the Department of Education in Washington, when they have nothing to do with educating my children. They run “programs”, they are a bank for State run schools. Guess what, if they disolved it tomorrow and gave that money back to the States we would be much better off. Don’t believe me look at their website http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html

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.