Pages

June 20, 2015

The Stupidest Cartoon From The Left on the Charleston Shooting

 What makes this liberal cartoon especially stupid is that if in fact members of the congregation in Charleston had been armed fewer lives may have been lost!
Do you agree?

87 comments:

  1. It isn't all that stupid. Just think how different the story would have been if just one of those people at the church had been carrying. Only one guy would be dead; the bad guy, and the good people would still be alive.

    Those people in Charleston are dead in part because they bought the lie that they didn't need to protect themselves from gunman walking around with their brains melted from prescription psychiatric medication and that they could rely on the police to keep them safe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're making the false assumption that:
    1. The heat-packing churchgoer would know how to stop a gunman, and:
    2. The heat-packing churchgoer would want to stop a gunman.

    Not all gun-carrying citizens are going to whip out their guns and start shooting; many will just exit the church as soon as possible in order to avoid confrontation. In other words, they're obligated to defend themselves and their family, not others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama's disingenuous statement about these types of mass killings occurring in other developed countries is even more ironic from the fact that we now know the Maidan Square sniper mass murder was carried out by Obama's own operatives hired by his State Department. So not only do mass shootings occur in Europe, Obama's administration has orchestrated the killings in the Maidan case: https://youtu.be/Xh_YkdGbWqk

    ReplyDelete
  4. It only takes one.

    And they may feel obligated to help other humans in general; one of the tents of their faith.



    Your willingness to turn your back on others in peril may be a minority opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is that one churchgoer guaranteed success in taking down the gunman? No. In fact, you could have a half dozen heat-packing churchgoers, and it's entirely possible that none would be able to bring down the gunman.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MEDIA-ASSAULT-THOUGHTS. There is no action that is not preceded by the thought and idea of the action, and MSM has immersed America in violent anti-social thoughts. and been publicly proud and boastful of their ANTI-heroes. The immersion of a society in the thoughts and ideas of senseless violence unaccompanied by consequences. The flooding of Media venues such as music, movies, video games, TV, with thoughts and ideas designed to induce violent behavior. If purveying ideas through the media does not work ..... why are $BILLIONS spent every year on advertising and political propaganda if spreading "thoughts" does not matter?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  7. DRONES --- You forgot the mass wedding and funeral DRONE MURDERS done/ordered by Obama HIMSELF...... Obama has murdered far more INNOCENT people with his drones then ALL the shooting combined.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's equally possible that just one churchgoer with a gun, who has trained to use it, would prevail.

    That actually happened in December of 2007 when a mass shooter attacked Christians at a church in Colorado. One of the church-goers, a former police officer, took the gunman out.



    You sound like one of those gun-grabbers who think it is better to have a woman lying raped and strangled with her own pantyhose in an alley rather than explaining to the police how her attacker got shot.


    The hard fact is, as this Charleston case proves yet again, the police cannot and will not prevent these kinds of crimes. All they can do is show up after it is all over, pose with the bodies for the news cameras, and promise "justice" (revenge) on the perpetrator, on those rare cases they are actually identified and caught.


    One more point. It is reported that Dylann was obviously struggling over whether he wanted to carry out his act or not.

    Had the media actually made a big deal about the police officer stopping a mass shooter at the church in Colorado (they didn't because positive stories about guns are "discouraged") Dylann might have decided to stay home.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is possible that one would prevail, but equally possible that one wouldn't. Pro-gunners only mention those who would succeed. Why would a heat-packer, in a theater with his family, worry about defending others with his gun once someone starts shooting? He's obligated to defend himself and his family only...no one else.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nobody in that church was carrying because the (now very dead) Senator voted against church carry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jesus never needed to carry a gun because it was his plan for the government to murder him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. With only a few minor adjustments we could make your statement more accurate Joel, we'd only have to replace "heat-packing churchgoer / gun-carrying citizen" with the label of "police officer / coward", anyone else WOULD feel obligated to defend his/her fellows in that church.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You have no basis to assign an equal possibility. In fact you don't sound like you yourself have much familiarity with firearms or how people who own them train to use them.

    Every year in this country more than 1.5 million crimes are thwarted by citizens with legally-owned firearms. I am one of them. I chased a burglar out of my home back when I lived in Los Angeles with a firearm. But these incidents go unreporrted because they are a threat to the agenda of keeping us psychologically dependent on police and government for protection, which as Charleston shows yet again, is not actually there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In an ideal world we would all look out for each other, but this is the United States where it's "all about me and my needs." A police officer is obligated to defend others from this type of nutjob. Why? Because that is what the police officer is paid to do. The average Joe who is a gun owner and who happens to be in that theater has no obligation to defend others.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, you chased a burglar out of YOUR home, not a place of public accommodation. And I don't believe these incidents go unreported. Besides, you chased off one person. This nutjob shot more than one person. Not exactly a valid analogy there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joel, I think you're way off there. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to blow that murderer away to save others if they had a gun. The "assumptions" you mention may not happen, are more like 100% likely to happen. Almost guaranteed. Past run-ins between murderers/potential murderers and gun carrying citizens played out with the bad guy giving up or getting shot.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That murderer would have been dead before he reloaded his second bullet.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I disagree. I've been hard pressed to find stories online where a non-LEO pulled out his gun to defend the lives and private property of others. What it boils down to is this: That gun owner has to defend only himself and his property--that's it. Besides, who's to say he's the only one packing heat in that theater or church?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's a feel-good, warm and fuzzy feeling, but let's face it. No gun owner is obligated to defend others (and others' property). Let me know if you find a story online where a non-LEO pulled out his gun to defend the lives and property of others (not just his family and his home).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Everyone assumes someone carrying would have to be a sharp shooter, I would bet shooting in the air in the general direction would have sent the killer running, everyone is a tough guy when no one else is armed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Au contraire! - This is a fairytale that was made up by those who TOLD us that alleged (his)story. The myth of the sacrificial killing survived as it was promoted for a higher reason.

    And if we look at this latest murder we should recognize that it bears the same characteristics as the assassination of judge McCarthy Roll, where Sen.Gifford was promoted by the MullStripMedia (MSM) as the "victim".

    Likewise, Reverend Sen. Clementa Pinckney was the real target, as he had opposed and undermined the plan for the fabricated clashes between "races" by the wannabe Nanny State. The other eight victims were colleteral damage and served only to cover these tracks...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Joel, snobee is very much right about this. The police have zero obligation to defend anyone. Cases based around this question have actually gone to court and the rulings have always been that the police do NOT have an obligation to defend you, me, or anyone else. Just think back to the police response at Columbine.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Look, this is a free country. I am free to defend myself with firearms under the Second Amendment. You are free to not own a firearm and trust that the police will arrive at a crime committed against you in time to stop the crime, which in fact never actually happens. But you go on living in your fantasy worls if that is what makes you happy.

    But banning guns only increases crime and violence, and those who want guns can either get them illegally (like from the US Government's "Fast And Furious" program, or they can build them. I built black powder firearms myself when I was young and that was before 3D printing technology came along.

    Those driven to mass murder by psychiatric drugs will not be stopped by the hypothetical unavailability of guns. Looking through the case studies at ssristories.org, we see murders committed with baseball bats, knives, cars, household cleaners, and so forth.

    The deadliest mass death incident in a US school did not involve guns. 45 people died at the Bath, Michigan elementary school from a bombing.

    Let's put this gun-ban myth into perspective.

    Nathan Campbell deliberately ran his car onto a Venice sidewalk, killing 1 andwounding 17.

    Nobody called for a car ban!

    Andrew Stack III deliberately crashed his plane into the IRS.

    Nobody called for a plane ban!

    Dr. Harold Shipman deliberately murdered 250 patients. And 400,000 Americans die every year from medical mistakes!

    Nobody called for a doctor ban!

    Dylann Roof deliberately shot up a church, killing 9.

    ... and you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

    How does that make any sense?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Michael, you don't understand (like many pro-gunners) the concept of primary purpose.


    The primary purpose of an automobile is to get you from point A to point B. Sure, you can kill someone with a car, but that's not the reason why it was built.


    Planes, also, are constructed to get you from point A to point B though in a different manner, obviously. Sure, you can kill someone with a plane, but that's not its primary purpose.


    The primary purpose of a doctor is to treat your medical condition. Sure, a doctor can kill you, but he wasn't trained with that specific goal in mind.


    Do you think Subway sandwiches should be banned because I can take one and shove into your throat until you suffocate? No.


    The primary purpose of a gun, however, IS to kill. No one shoots to cripple. That would make you a pussy.


    You and I both understand that increased steps (not a ban) to get a gun aren't 100% effective. You and I also understand that traffic lights don't prevent 100% of motorists from entering the intersection when they shouldn't. Does that mean we should get rid of traffic lights?


    How is it that a LEO has to go through weeks of training in order to use his firearm, but a non-LEO doesn't have to go through such training?


    Finally, I'm not talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. What I'm talking about is increased scrutiny when applying for a gun permit. Simply not having a criminal and/or psychological record isn't enough. I want a waiting period, formal training (you know, like you have to go through to get a driver's license), registration, serial numbers on bullets (you know, like on automobiles), and I want current and former spouses, and current and former neighbors, to be interviewed about your standing the community. Simple saying, "Oh, you don't have a criminal background. Here's a gun" isn't enough. All criminals were once non-criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Who has to reload a second bullet if you have a semi-automatic?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cite your source--just one case where a cop isn't obligated to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The primary purpose of a gun is to put food on the table, which I have done.

    The primary purpose of a gun is to chase pests out of the farm fields, which I have also done.

    The primary purpose of a firearm is to protect ones home from criminals, which I have done.

    The primary purpose of a gun is to put holes in paper for recreation, which I have done.

    Your lack of imagination regarding the usefulness of guns is no excuse for those of us who build and use them for peaceful and lawful purposes to cease doing so.


    And finally, the primary purpose of guns according to the Founding Fathers of this nation is to give government a reason to mind its own business, which sadly is becoming a major issue right now.

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

    The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. .. (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46 -- James Madison

    "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 - Alexander Hamilton

    "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." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

    "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 -- Thomas Paine

    "While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny." - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" - Patrick Henry

    ReplyDelete
  28. You can't have multiple primaries.

    Primary: First or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal



    After primary it's secondary. After secondary it's tertiary.


    Are you okay with LEOs having to go through training to get their guns while you, a non-LEO, don't? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Seriously? That's your argument? No gun owner is obligated to defend others. Wow, you have absolutely no faith in your fellow man at all do you? Not sure where you were brought up but in my neck of the woods I can guarantee you this guy would have been put down as soon as he tried to reload the first time.
    As to your request for a story why would you try to use such a bold faced lie in defense of your opinion? Not that it will make a difference but here's a few for you to mull over.
    71 year old man defends public:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859
    24 year old defends elderly against mob of 7:
    http://wkbn.com/2015/04/24/ark-shopper-defends-elderly-man-by-pulling-gun/
    Woman stops rape of 12 year old neighbour:
    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/-Stay-Put-or-I-ll-Shoot-Woman-Warns-Girl-s-Assailant/id-24d7978726c504b519b7b1b8d883ac1a
    Not sure why you were unable/unwilling to do this search yourself as it's not hard to find these stories at all. Your argument is pathetic and dead out of the gate.
    Now please let the people who actually have a clue as to what goes on in the real world discuss this and go back to your MSM so you can soak up more BS that never holds up in an adult conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your very wrong, if i was packing it would be an easy shot for me at close range at 50 yards i can still hit the target.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nine people were killed because nine people were not armed Moron.

    ReplyDelete
  32. BS. You are absolutely inept at using the internet as I have already showed in an above post. It took me a couple of minutes to find 3 stories. It was a pretty complicated group of words that I used so I will even give them to you so you can educate yourself so you don't look so foolish next time.
    Pop the following words into Google and don't forget to hit the enter button as I figure that might be why you are having such a hard time with doing your searches.
    man defends public with gun

    ReplyDelete
  33. Start reading the news Joel, i,ve seen many cases where someone stepped in and fired on a criminal, there was an old pensioner on one video who shot someone robbing a store, recently.

    ReplyDelete
  34. NewHampshire BoundJune 20, 2015 at 4:57 PM

    Great post. "to give government a reason to mind its own business". Lol, love it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thank you so much, Freddy, for taking the time to discredit MichaelRivero about no one reporting gun owners who pull out their guns to defend others. While it is a noble feat, not all gun owners do it. Therefore, the argument that if there were a gun owner in the theater, supermarket, honky-tonk, DMV, etc. he wouldn't have gotten away with it.


    And no, I don't have faith in my fellow American. We've become a country where for most of us it's all about us and our needs.


    Reload? Is that necessary with a semi-automatic?

    ReplyDelete
  36. So, you're perfect, then, right asshole?

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

    ReplyDelete
  38. Just saw a photo online somewhere of a church vigil. Black lady sitting in the pew, looking at the camera holding up her revolver. Good for her! It is well past time when only criminals get to carry guns wherever they want. Get prepared people. Get armed! It isn't always about race but it is always about crazy people wanting to 'make a name for themselves'.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Not only that, but coupled with the fact that guns weren't around at the time. But Jesus did advocate that his followers carry the concealed weapon of the day, a sword. And if they didn't have one, they were to sell their garment to buy one. Luke 22:36

    ReplyDelete
  40. Fortunately I don't live next door to the people advocating against the Second Amendment. I would put up a sign informing burglars, thieves, etc, that my house doesn't have an alarm but is protected by the implements mentioned in the Second Amendment. The guy next door places his faith in an alarm system and the police. Care to guess which house they'll head towards?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm actually pro gun. But I was making the point that Jesus told his followers those who live by the sword die by the sword. When is something ultimately not worth defending with a gun? Of course, if someone wants to rape your daughter and invade your home, give them the pointy end of the gun - especially if it is a tyrannical government. When when does this become - give them your cloak or walk another mile?

    ReplyDelete
  42. You're so full of crap. At least four gunmen entering churches in the past five years have been stopped by an armed churchgoer. In your head, media world is real and the real world is fake.


    You're so stupid you think only Hawaii-5-O can pull a trigger. Dude, face it you watch way too much television. It has rotted your brain. My own father stopped a man with a gun in a cafe a few years back. No mass shooting.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am sure that is entirely possible. I saw Mannix take out a half-dozen armed people on an episode once.


    Have you been punched in the face as an adult? I don't think you have.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So nobody should have a gun and we should wait for police to arrive. That's what happened here in Charleston. It's time to elect YOU President, Joel. You keep winning.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sophistry. I can tell just by listening to you that you no longer get morning erections. Too much soy milk, metrosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anybody who thinks the police know how to use their firearms but citizens don't does not know much about police or citizens. I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of low-IQ psychopaths. We need to start with the police. They have no need for guns in the execution of their duties. Give them a nightstick and teach them to reason with people.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You're joking, right? You must live in a box underground with television your only link to the outside world.

    ReplyDelete
  48. So you don't trust your fellow Americans but you do trust the kinds of deviants attracted to police work and politics? Do you have any idea of how insane that sounds?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Maybe he's just masculine. Already, he's got you beat.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So who will look after our needs, Joel? Some mental fantasy abstraction in your head labeled "The Government?"


    Governments are 95% bug-eyed psychotics that organised crime turned down as too unstable and unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Somebody call emergency services. Joel has been trapped underground in a steel garbage bin for the last twenty years.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Horrific massacre paid for by American taxpayers. Somebody ship that Kenyan back to his home town in Africa and don't let him re-enter this country until he can produce a legal social security number.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Don't you already rely on the government for your TriCare or your VA Health?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Somebody call emergency services! Somebody call emergency services! Somebody call emergency services! (government agency, or did you forget that?)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Why do you rely on the police, firefighters, trash collectors, teachers for your kids in public school, your TriCare and VA Health, then?

    ReplyDelete
  56. One of the most important parts of concealed carry that all pro-gun people would agree with is that it should be entirely voluntary. People who choose to carry know that they must have the training, the state of mind, the quick-thinking clear-headed wisdom when to use it, the willingness to risk death themselves using it, and the altruism to perhaps take that risk for the life of someone else, even a stranger. That list I just wrote would make people who choose to carry better people than the anti-gun liberals who think they're doing society a favor by opposing guns. The interesting thing, reflecting on the list above, is how many cops do not fit it -- like the cop who just shot the four year old girl in Ohio while trying to shoot a dog that probably didn't need shooting anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  57. He may only be "obligated" to defend himself and his family, but gun owners end up defending other people all the time, even if only indirectly, but frequently as acts of pure altruism toward strangers at risk of death to themselves. Compare that to the outcome of several court cases stating that cops are under no obligation to protect anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Joel is obviously a pig. Keep snorkin, LEO.


    There is only one LAW, only one RIGHT. That is my right to be left alone by pigs like Joel. No other "rights" exist.


    Pigs like Joel think it's OK to trample over other people's right to be left alone. That is something Joel has in common with the very shooter he condemns. Joel is one of many pigs.


    Your right to self-defense is sacred, Joel. Use any tool.

    ReplyDelete
  59. One of the largest mass murders in US history remains the Happy Land fire, which killed 87 people. Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio Gonzales, angry at his girlfriend for breaking up with him, used a gallon milk jug full of gasoline to light the nightclub where she worked on fire (she was not one of the dead). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    Ironically, many of the mass murders carried out with guns would have been even more deadly if carried out with gasoline, including this most recent church massacre. Try banning gasoline.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Joel, Joel -- we know that you know you're losing badly when you pull out the profane names as your best argument.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks for asking, Joel:
    In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and
    "grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck", sued
    police for negligence in failing to render assistance to Lozito as he
    was being attacked by Gelman.[17][18][19]
    Lozito told reporters that he decided to file the lawsuit after
    learning from "a grand-jury member" that NYPD officer Terrance Howell
    testified that he hid from Gelman before and while Lozito was being
    attacked because Howell thought Gelman had a gun.[20][21]
    In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that
    police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman.[20]
    On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit; stating
    while sympathetic to the Lozito's account and not doubting his
    testimony, agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito.[17][18][22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree

    This is a case where an armed police officer WAS PRESENT DURING THE STABBING yet hid cowering while the crime occurred. Any self-respecting concealed carry citizen would have stepped in to prevent the crime, but this was NYC so there weren't any.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Tom, darling. I use profanities only when others use them first. Can't you read?


    "Nine people were killed because nine people were not armed Moron" That was from our "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" buddy whose name is Ben. And how do you know it's my best argument? You're new to this skirmish.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I finally figured you out. You're a convicted child molester and you're upset that you didn't beat the charge.


    Want to be left alone? Then don't fucking respond to my posts, you hermaphrodite, you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The Founding Fathers of this nation understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should not be allowed to have it, the greedy, the sociopathic, and the power-mad. They created a nation that was designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing authority all across the land. Most authority was reserved to the state and local government and to the people. The central government was further hamstrung by dividing it in three branches intended to keep limits on each other. The final safeguard was to recognize the right of the people to keep arms as a final check on runaway tyranny. Indeed the United States Supreme Court ruled in United SDtates vs Miller that the Second Amendme reserves to the people the right to keep and bear the exact same arms carried by the uniformed military.



    over time, sadly, the greedy, sociopathic, and power mad have undone most of the safeguards built into our nation by the Founding Fathers. States have become subservient to the Federal Government. The Federal government has violated the enclave clause of the Constitution to confiscate and control the public lands, in many cases pledging the heritage of the American people as collateral on out-of-control Federal Government borrowing. More recently the Supreme Court and Congress have been reduced to mere rubber stamps on the wars and dictates issuing from the President's desk.


    The last safeguard against dictatorship created by the Founding Fathers is an armed populace, and that too is under attack by the greedy, the sociopathic, and the power-mad who seek to transform a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people into a privatized money-making machine for their own enrichment.


    The United States was started as a free nation and one of the most important freedoms is the freedom to say "No." Indeed there can be no freedom without the freedom to say "No" and that is the real purpose of the Second Amendment; to reserve to the people the right and ability to say "No" to any government that exceeds the Constitutional limits on their authority.



    The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Hunting was such an essential aspect of colonial life it went without saying that everyone owned and used hunting weapons. The Second Amendment speaks specifically of military weapons and the need for the safety and security of a free state against their worst enemy, the rise of centralized power.


    And that is why the gun-grabbers are out in force, organized, well-funded, seizing every opportunity to demonize guns and gun owners, to take away thr right of the people to say "no" to an out of control government that sees this nation as merely another get-rich-quick scheme, through massive financial frauds and wars of conquests.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The Founding Fathers of this nation understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should not be allowed to have it, the greedy, the sociopathic, and the power-mad. They created a nation that was designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing authority all across the land. Most authority was reserved to the state and local government and to the people. The central government was further hamstrung by dividing it in three branches intended to keep limits on each other. The final
    safeguard was to recognize the right of the people to keep arms as a final check on runaway tyranny. Indeed the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States vs Miller that the Second Amendment reserves to the people the right to keep and bear the exact same arms carried by the uniformed military.

    Over time, sadly, the greedy, sociopathic, and power mad have undone most of the safeguards built into our nation by the Founding Fathers. States have become subservient to the Federal Government. The Federal government has violated the enclave clause of the Constitution to confiscate and control the public lands, in many cases pledging the heritage of the American people as collateral on out-of-control Federal Government borrowing. More recently the Supreme Court and Congress have been reduced to mere rubber stamps on the wars and dictates issuing from the
    President's desk.

    The last safeguard against dictatorship created by the Founding Fathers is an armed populace, and that too is under attack by the greedy, the sociopathic, and the power-mad who seek to transform a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people into a privatized money-making machine for their own enrichment.

    The United States was started as a free nation and one of the most important freedoms is the freedom to say "No." Indeed there can be no freedom without the freedom to say "No" and that is the real purpose of the Second Amendment; to reserve to the people the right and ability to say "No" to any government that exceeds the Constitutional limits on their authority.

    The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Hunting was such an essential aspect of colonial life it went without saying that everyone owned and used hunting weapons. The Second Amendment speaks specifically of military weapons and the need for the safety and security of a free state against their worst enemy, the rise of centralized
    power.

    And that is why the gun-grabbers are out in force, organized, well-funded, seizing every opportunity to demonize guns and gun owners, to take away thr right of the people to say "no" to an out of control government that sees this nation as merely
    another get-rich-quick scheme, through massive financial frauds and wars of
    conquests.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Your primary purpose for a firearm is different than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Average response time for a 9-11 call in the US is running 21 minutes. Plus we are seeing all these incidents in which the police show up and shoot the victim who called them.



    Right now the US police forces are murdering 8 times as many innocent Americans as terrorists do, but I don't see any of the gun-grabber propagandists demanding we take guns away form the police. :)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh, I do own a gun, Michael. Assumptions, assumptions.
    Guns are made for the express purpose of killing people, usually in 1 of 3 settings: Self defense, hunting and target practice in a controlled environment.


    And no, we shouldn't ban delicious Little Caesar's pizzas simply because someone can fold one up and shove it down your throat with the express purpose of suffocating you. Remember what primary purpose means..it's what the item was designed to do; not what you feel you can do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Okay, so you own a gun and admit you think it's primary purpose is to kill people?

    You weren't in Detroit last night, were you? :)

    ReplyDelete
  70. What do you think I use my gun for, other than for self-defense (with intent to shoot to kill, not to shoot to maim), hunting and target practice in a controlled environment? Tenderizing meat? Hammering nails?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Okay, so you concede that there are legal and legitimate uses for firearms. It therefore follows that we should not take away guns from law-abiding citizens (such as you and I) for the actions of a few individuals whose brains have been melted by dangerous prescription pharmaceuticals and/or are being used as patsies in false-flag hoaxes.

    BTW, it turns out DHS had an active shooter drill going on at the same time and place as this real shooting, and the US Government has fast tracked $3 million in hush money for each of the victims' families.

    Kinda makes you wonder! :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Where did I say I want to take away others' guns? Pro-gunners assume that immediately and go from there. By the way, how many Americans' guns were seized after Obama


    Simply not having a criminal record and/or psychological record isn't enough. There has to be more scrutiny. We're okay with registering vehicles (whose primary purpose isn't to kill) but when you mention registering firearms, the pro-gunners blow a gasket. Why not require a class before getting a gun? LEOs have to take one, right?

    ReplyDelete
  73. New to this skirmish? Actually my comment is the first one on this article yesterday, or do you just read the replies to your ignorant anti-gun tripe? Or do you mean the "skirmish" more generally, between elitists who want to control all of humanity by disarming them and those who know that self defense technology is all that has ever stood between free men and those who would enslave and murder them, whether that was spears or AR15's? In that case, I've kept the letters to the editor I've written before the internet existed going back 40 years. I've been reading the arguments of both sides in this skirmish for a long time; one side bases its arguments on emotional appeals and cherry-picked statistics meant to conceal truth, the other on the hard lessons of history and statistics meant to convey the truth. Two hundred and fifty million dead at the hands of their own governments in the last century alone is a lot of people wishing they'd been better armed -- but they were left defenseless by short-sighted fools just like you.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Oh, you're just Mr. Perfect, aren't you, Tom?


    Who the fuck said I was anti-gun? Cite your source or tell me what town you live in so I can meet you at the local police station, fool.

    ReplyDelete
  75. No i'm Mr.Perfect Joel, I must commend Tom on his excellent Post. Well done Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Joel, I think it's time for you to beg for forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  77. BJ, I think it's time you minded your own business. Get off your high horse thinking I'm going to take away people's guns. There is NO FUCKING WAY a police officer should have to go through weeks of training to get his gun, when an average citizen doesn't have to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Again, what you decide the primary purpose may not be what I decide the primary purpose is.

    You see a revolver's primary purpose as to kill people. I see it as deterring criminals from coming into my home. Yet it is the same weapon.

    As for gun training, I think gun use and safety education ought to be mandatory, certainly ahead of Al Gore's climate nonsense.


    Where I grew up getting a gun on your 12 birthday was automatic, and with it an intense training on using it safely and correctly. First time you misused that gun you would get a trip to the woodshed that would keep you eating dinner standing up for a week.


    We all had guns, and yes we took them to school and put them in the cloak room, because we would chase the pests out of the farm fields on the way home.


    There were never any school (or otherwise) shootings, but then we weren't having our brains forcibly melted with psychiatric drugs, either!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Nah you're just clouding the issue.

    A gun's actual primary purpose is to consistently fire projectiles at a target with consistency and safety for the operator.
    The OPERATOR controls intent and target... Controlling the tool is pointless and irresponsible.

    Now, it is the primary purpose of constitutional law to protect and assert a person's rights under the law.

    What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." are you not understanding?
    'Arms' include "firearms" btw.
    And that's before we even get to "what they mean when they wrote that" , which other commenters here have already pointed out that the founders EXPLICITLY meant protection against government overreach, and this was publicly commented on by more than just Jefferson at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. He stopped a crime!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yes, you will use your gun to kill someone if threatened. That's its primary purpose--to kill. Guns aren't made to tenderize meat, for example.


    Climate nonsense? What scientists do you follow?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Maybe you will use the gun to kill someone if threatened, for myself I was satisfied merely scaring them off. That is what "deterrence" means, and that is what I see as the primary purpose of a firearm.


    The Founding Fathers recognized the right to keep and bear arms to defend against tyranny, but they did not intend for there to be an actual armed revolution. There mere fact of an armed populace was intended to hold the government in check ... without ever firing a shot.


    I don't "follow" anyone, scientist or otherwise. I look at several record-setting winters and conclude that the 1990s predictions about global warming were seriously in error.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Very well said.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Actually there's been more than one superior court ruling over the years stating that police are not obligated to do ANYTHING but enforce policies set forth by their jurisdictions.
    To wit:

    Warren v. District of Columbia
    Castle Rock v. Gonzales
    Enjoy your day.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I've already posted the link to this case once, Joel, but since you haven't found the enter button yet I'll post it again:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree
    That's the Long Island case where the armed police actually cowered inside a locked motorman's control room on a subway car while a psychotic murderer stabbed a citizen right outside as they watched. I was going to post more links to more cases, but after putting "police no obligation to protect" into Startpage and bringing up many pages of links on this subject, I'll let you do the search yourself. It's a well established legal principle from multiple cases. You're right, we pay police to protect us -- the joke is on us that they can shirk their job duties and get a court to say it's okay. But then, they can beat, taser, and shoot innocent, unarmed citizens and get a court to say that's okay, too.

    ReplyDelete
  86. At least 8 out of 10 people in politics test true for psychopathic traits. Nearly 6 out of 10 policemen do.

    ReplyDelete