Announcement

**whatthefunk** · Feb 20, 2018, 05:59 AM

Woodsmoke, woodsmoke, woodsmoke.

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...res_in_Germany
Four gun related massacres since 2000.
49 Dead

USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States
21 gun related mass shootings since last year
I don't want to count all the dead, but its clearly over 100

Yeah, gun laws sure seem to be having no effect in Germany...

**TWPonKubuntu** · Feb 20, 2018, 06:50 AM

WhatTheFunk:

Statistics being the third category of lies...

I believe that "Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who have guns".

I think history supports my belief.

**ianp5a** · Feb 20, 2018, 11:11 AM

Schools in Germany don't have lock down drills, and do not fear such shootings. The number of deaths and injuries is tiny compared to the US. Where more and more people are getting fed up with the constant slaughter.

It's odd that some people don't want to do anything about it. Like 34, 000 gun deaths/year or an average of 1 school shooting/week somehow acceptable. And will fight to keep the death toll high.

I'm glad my kid doesn't need to hide in school cupboards.

**GreyGeek** · Feb 20, 2018, 03:22 PM

I had a semi-auto handgun setting in a shoebox on the top shelf of my library for over 25 years and not once did it jump down, run outside and start randomly shooting at people.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, or even self protection, which are side benefits. It is about protecting one's freedom when the government they live under becomes tyrannical. That's why despots go for the guns first. It's also why people recently off their SSRI's bypass places where concealed carry is allowed and target those places that are posted. 20 of the last 21 shootings were by people who were on or had recently come off SSRI's. While they may be crazy they aren't stupid. They know that if they start shooting up a place that allows concealed carry they will probably get shot within seconds of firing their first shot. Rather than risk that they go to schools, theaters, entertainment venues and other posted places. Neil deGrass Tyson mockingly stated that "prayers can't stop bullets". Neither can signs stating "No Guns".

Tyranny? How close do you want to get before you say "enough is enough"? The last two administrations were the most corrupt in US history, IMO.

Allow me to list JUST A FEW of the acts and actions that raise concerns to the highest level:

Obama’s Department of Homeland Security specifically warned that Americans who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration” are potential terrorists, as are libertarian-minded voters who “favor of state or local authority” over centralized power. These “rightwing extremists” (who hold political beliefs shared by a majority of Americans) are deemed a greater threat to the nation than actual revolutionaries or jihadists.

When Obama purposely disables his election campaign website's credit card verification system so that foreign donors can contribute with no limit and no proof of identity.

Does weaponizing the IRS against your political beliefs cross the line?

Is converting the EPA website into a Marxist propaganda website enough?

Is passing a health care bill that no one read before passing it, and everyone lied about what is in it ("if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor"), and it forces you to purchase health insurance from selected private companies, all of them run by members of the political party that pushed the bill enough?

Billions of taxpayer dollars gambled on “green” companies like Solyndra, NextEra, Ener1, Solar Trust and many others — all of which went bankrupt. Is that enough?

Intentional refusing to enforce federal immigration laws and creating "laws" using Executive Orders, "laws" that allow anyone, unverified, into the country and immediately giving them social services, drivers licenses, and encouraging them to vote. Is that enough?

When states voted to enforce the federal immigration laws which the federal government refused to enforced, Obama sued to stop them.

Operation Fast & Furious — a government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry so as to induce public outcry for gun control.

Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense.

Before he entered politics, Obama worked as a lawyer suing banks in landmark cases, forcing them to give home loans to unqualified minority borrowers — a practice now understood as one of the primary initial causes of the eventual housing bubble and market collapse.

Greatly expanding the number of unaccountable “czars,” which essentially amounts to unilaterally adding new federal departments with no congressional oversight — leading to a true “bureaucracy” in the original sense (rule by unelected bureaucrats).

Doling out $800 billion in stimulus cash for “shovel-ready” jobs that didn’t exist — the money just evaporated with no measurable economic benefit.

Alienating and isolating Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.

Apologizing to Islamists and terrorists for offending them.

Proposed in 2008 to intentionally bankrupt the coal industry — and lied to voters and workers in coal-producing regions about his true intent. West Virginia was sent back to the 1930s.

Violated the U.S. Constitution by authorizing assassinations and drone strikes to kill American citizens abroad — without due process.

Was caught on a “hot mike” promising the President of Russia that he would cave in to their demands for a weaker missile shield — after he was re-elected and no longer had to keep up the pretense that he sought to defend America.

Appointed Van Jones, a former avowed communist who supported a “9/11 Truth” petition, to be “Green Jobs Czar.”

Appointed Anita Dunn, who said Chairman Mao was her “favorite philosopher,” to be White House Communications Director.

Appointed John Holdren, who previously entertained the notion of forced mass sterilzation to stop overpopulation, to be Science Czar.

Appointed Steven Chu, who openly advocated an artificial increase in gasoline prices to $10/gallon (and similar increases in other energy prices) to be Secretary of Energy.

Appointed Kevin Jennings, who led a group that promoted X-rated “sex-positive” textbooks for 13-year-olds, instructed teenagers at a conference how to perform “fisting” (anal penetration by fists), who refused to report instances of statutory rape, and who expressed admiration for a member of NAMBLA, to be America’s “Safe School’s Czar.”

Can you name ANY economic or political act that doesn't require ID? Driver's license, drinking beer, buying anything on credit. VOTER ID? When states tried to stop election fraud with voter ID laws, Obama sued to prevent them from doing so.

Instructed Attorney General Eric Holder to stonewall any investigation into the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers.

Rather than ending the influence of lobbyists in Washington, their influence has only increased.

Aided and abetted the “Arab Spring” which deposed existing secular governments across North Africa, leading to a regional power vacuum which was filled by Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other hardline Islamists.

Ordered NASA to make one of its top priorities not space exploration or scientific research but “Muslim outreach.”

Set up a special email account, “Flag@Whitehouse.gov,” to which Americans were supposed to inform the government of anyone they heard spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care overhaul. (This was the first of three different “spy on your friends and neighbors” programs.)

“Attack Watch” was Obama’s second Big Brother attempt, a Web site on which you would report “attacks” on Obama’s proposals and ideology; it was quickly shut down due to outrage and mockery.

The “Truth Team” program which encouraged citizens to report to the government any friends or relatives they hear repeating “lies” about Obama. The Truth Team site still exists.

In June of 2011, he anointed his own underage daughters as “senior staff members” so that their vacation to Africa would be paid for with taxpayer money.

When Inspector General Gerald Walpin discovered during a 2009 investigation that one of Obama’s political allies (the mayor of Sacramento) was misusing government funds for personal gain, Obama unceremoniously fired Walpin — even though rooting out fraud was the job description of the Inspector General.

More than once Obama made so-called “recess appointments” when the Senate was not actually in recess, which directly violates Constitutional rules about how appointments must be made; in each case it was his way of getting his political allies into certain key positions without them being vetted or approved by the Senate, as required.

In June of 2009, Obama’s Solicitor General (and now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan filed a legal brief to prevent the families of 9/11 victims from appealing their lawsuits against the Saudi royal family for financing the 9/11 attacks.

Disrespecting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Intentionally misquoting the Declaration of Independence in speeches, often leaving out the words “by their Creator” in the famous passage “…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” which Obama instead has recited as “…are endowed with certain unalienable rights.” Compelled Catholic and other religious organizations to provide health plans with free contraception, even though such requirements violate their rights of religious freedom and conscience.

The Justice Department is building a horrible record of hiding exculpatory evidence in cases they are prosecuting.

Federal agents (but certainly not on their own volition) are provoking armed confrontations with citizens. They can even bush whack a rancher, LaVoy Finicum, with whom they have been quarreling about land rights but can't seem to find any excuse to stop "rainbow family" from camping on the same "delicate ecosystem". Funny how that works.

The TSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist yet the DHS has expanded their actions beyond the "Constitution Free Zone" into the surrounding country, using VIPR squads. The Constitution prohibits random and arbitrary stops and searches, but this hasn't stopped the VIPR teams. A 100 mile wide "Constitution Free Zone" has been established around our borders and Internation airports. Roughly 2/3rds of Americans cannot enjoy full constitutional protections.

And some folks think it would be a good thing for Americans to give up their 2nd Amendment rights? Are they crazy? IF it is about saving lives then lets outlaw personal automobiles, which account for more lives than those as a result of firearms, and force everyone to use buses, trains, planes or bikes. Opps! They are not 100% safe either. Last year 11,000 homicides were due to firearms, out of 15,000 total homicides. 42,826 people committed suicide. Of the 135,000 who die every year in the USA, about 34,000 are killed in car accidents. Where is the outrage? It's because people are willing to put up with that carnage because of their own convenience.

In the last eight years drug overdose deaths have climbed to 16,350. Heroin overdose deaths have tripled. The Feds are NOT able to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country so how do they plan to stop the flow of illegal weapons? It will take more than crushing the 2nd Amendment which, I believe, is the goal of many on the Left who call the Consitution "that little book" derisiviely.

**Snowhog** · Feb 20, 2018, 03:55 PM

And, the very Government who has been trying HARD to curtail the protection that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us, is the Government our Founders feared, and for which the 2nd Amendment was framed and enacted. As GreyGeek states, the 2nd Amendment "It is about protecting one's freedom when the government they live under becomes tyrannical."

I've seen/read statements/arguments along the lines of "But how can a handgun or rifle protect you from a tank?" The sentiment there is, the Government has so much more firepower at it's disposal, how can the average American expect to protect themselves anyway? Well, with that kind of 'reasoning', let's all just lay down and get run over!

The problem in the U.S. isn't guns in the hands of responsible citizens; it never has been. Millions of people travel by plane every year. It's the safest means of travel based on passengers per mile by a LONG shot. Yet, when a passenger plane crashes; it does happen; the death toll can be huge. It makes headline news because it's sensational. But we don't advocate for the ban on air travel; that would be ridiculous!

The vast majority of firearms owned in the U.S. are in the hands of responsible citizens. Those that commit violent acts with firearms account for a significantly small fraction of the population, but, their actions make headlines because those acts are 'sensational', and the media loves sensational stories because it sells!

Firearms are tools. Nothing more. They are no more dangerous in the hands of a responsible person than a hammer. And, a hammer in the hands of an irresponsible person can be just has dangerous as a firearm. Yes, it's a matter of degree, and yes, a firearm makes it easier to inflict injury or death to another than does a hammer, but my point remains: Any tool used responsibly isn't dangerous. Any tool used irresponsibly is dangerous. The only difference is the person using the tool.

**GreyGeek** · Feb 20, 2018, 04:56 PM

And CBS News is LYING about purchasing guns in Florida doesn't help ...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida...inkId=48278188

It is NOT easier to buy a gun than Sudafed in Florida, or any other state.

Anyone who has purchased a long gun or hand gun knows the drill. In many states you have to have a local permit (as in Lincoln) to buy a hand gun. That get's you in the door of the gun store and allows you to look around. If you see a firearm you like then you have to present your Driver's License, your SS# and fill out a two page form and sign it. It includes an oath which, if you've lied, WILL lead to fines and imprisonment. Then, the gun store employee PHONES NICS and submits your form. Federal employees at NICS check their database for your SS# and name. It contains any records you might have of citizenship, felonies, spousal abuse or injunctions against you. IF your record is clean they phone back and tell the store employee it is OK for you to purchase the weapon. IF not, you can't.

Now, how many of you had to pass an NCIS check before you purchased Sudafed? None of you.

If I want to carry concealed in most states I have to take that class followed by a test of my knowledge of state and federal gun laws, and a shooting test to prove I can safely handle firearms. If I travel and want to carry concealed in the states I travel through or to, I have to check to make sure that those states allow reciprocity, or that I have taken classes for and have received a CCP for each state, even IF I only drive through it and do not stop. If, for example, I drive through New jersey and get stopped at a VIPR stop & search point, and they find even a single bullet in the trunk of my car, to say nothing of my handgun locked in a gun safe, I will be spending a year in jail and be fined thousands. And that's in a country with the 2nd Amendment. So, the oath of office which all politicians take, and most lie about, includes a promise to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and that they take that OBLIGATION willingly and without mental reservations or purpose of evasion". Yet, they continue to pass "reasonable" laws to infringe that which shall NOT be infringed (that's the lying part).

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.

The SCOTUS ruling in Heller v Disctrict of Columbia:

Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So, that's settled law.

How many of you who have purchased Sudafed had to present a notarized document attesting to the fact that you took classes on the use and disposal of Sudafed? Never mind, I'll answer for you - NONE.

CBS lied.

**whatthefunk** · Feb 20, 2018, 09:26 PM

I believe that "Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who have guns".

I think history supports my belief.

Not really. No other modern industrialized nation has the lenient gun laws America has and they are not enslaved.

And some folks think it would be a good thing for Americans to give up their 2nd Amendment rights? Are they crazy? IF it is about saving lives then lets outlaw personal automobiles, which account for more lives than those as a result of firearms, and force everyone to use buses, trains, planes or bikes. Opps! They are not 100% safe either. Last year 11,000 homicides were due to firearms, out of 15,000 total homicides. 42,826 people committed suicide. Of the 135,000 who die every year in the USA, about 34,000 are killed in car accidents. Where is the outrage? It's because people are willing to put up with that carnage because of their own convenience.

Cars are highly regulated. You have to be licensed to drive one. If you violate the law too many times, you loose your license. The cars themselves must pass federal safety standards. Car design is constantly being improved so that accidents are less likely to happen and less deadly when they do. Traffic systems are also constantly evolving to improve traffic flow and reduce the number of accidents. There is outrage and there is change.

Firearms are tools. Nothing more. They are no more dangerous in the hands of a responsible person than a hammer. And, a hammer in the hands of an irresponsible person can be just has dangerous as a firearm. Yes, it's a matter of degree, and yes, a firearm makes it easier to inflict injury or death to another than does a hammer, but my point remains: Any tool used responsibly isn't dangerous. Any tool used irresponsibly is dangerous. The only difference is the person using the tool.

Rocket launchers are also tools. So are tanks, F-16s, M-60s, nuclear bombs and anthrax. Why not make them legal? And really, if the civilian population is going to have a chance against the US military, they will need a lot more than pistols and semi-automatic assault rifles. Where do we draw the line? Why not just make everything legal? Heroin alone is simply a thing, not dangerous at all. Only in the hands of an irresponsible person does it become dangerous.

In the last eight years drug overdose deaths have climbed to 16,350. Heroin overdose deaths have tripled. The Feds are NOT able to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country so how do they plan to stop the flow of illegal weapons?

This is sadly true. Even if guns were outlawed tomorrow, the millions of guns that are currently in the US would not simply disappear.

**ianp5a** · Feb 21, 2018, 02:28 AM

So it's high time to change then. Urgently.

Especially as people owning guns hasn't prevented any of that.

Unless the death toll is acceptable to you.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Feb 21, 2018, 08:51 AM

I point at Venezuela as the current example of why gun bans are a bad idea...

I think we must agree to disagree on this topic. Flame wars (which we are NOT doing) are not productive.

Look at who is pushing the legislation and ask what they have to gain from it. I don't get a sense of honesty or concern for the people of any country. It is politics and money driving this brain meltdown.

**Snowhog** · Feb 21, 2018, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by TWPonKubuntu View Post

I think we must agree to disagree on this topic. Flame wars (which we are NOT doing) are not productive.

Agreed. Each of has an opinion on this subject, and while we may not agree with each other, each of our opinions are valid and should be respected.

**GreyGeek** · Feb 21, 2018, 01:44 PM

Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

"The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution (specifically, it is the first ten amendments) and, like any other part of the Constitution, can only be changed by amendment or by a constitutional convention. Congress cannot accomplish either of these things by itself.

Before an amendment can be added to the Constitution it must be approved by two thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and must then be ratified by three fourths of the states (which works out to 38 of the 50).

The Constitution itself says nothing about a time limit on this process, which is why the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (dealing with pay raises or reductions for members of Congress) was properly ratified in 1992 even though it had been approved by the House and Senate in 1789. States had been slow to approve it, and the number of state approvals necessary to ratify it kept increasing as more states were admitted to the union. Today most serious proposed amendments include a built-in deadline (typically five to seven years) for ratification.

An amendment would not actually remove the text of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution; amendments are simply added at the end of that document. Amendments can -- and often do -- repeal other portions of the Constitution which came before it. An example of such a change is the Twenty-First Amendment, which was ratified in 1933 specifically in order to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, which had instituted prohibition in 1919. The Eighteenth Amendment is still part of the Constitution's text, but it no longer has any effect.

A constitutional convention would have broader powers and could theoretically decide to scrap the Constitution entirely and replace it with a new one. (Many of the founding fathers expected this to happen periodically, and would be quite surprised to learn that the original Constitution remains in effect after 217 years.) The Fifth Amendment requires Congress to call a convention upon the application of two-thirds of the states, though this has never happened. Like the usual amendment process, the changes proposed by a convention would only take effect upon ratification by three quarters of the states.

Interestingly, the President has no role in either of these processes. His political influence will often make a big difference in a proposed amendment's fate, but his approval is not required. Governors likewise have no role to play; only state legislators can ratify an amendment or request a convention."

Bottom line: The Anti-2A crowd does NOT have 2/3rds of the votes in both houses, and certainly does not control enough state legislatures to muster 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to nullify the 2A. A Constitutional Convention faces the same hurdles. That is why, over the years, the Democrats (who have essentially co-opted the Communist Party of America political platform) have settled for cutting fringes on the edge of 2A, an act which itself is forbidden by the 2A and a violation of the politician's oath of office, but most politicians succumbed to emotional "do something" arguments.

Firearms are by any accounting NOT the worst harbinger of death in the USA, and because Americans are heavily armed, a government like the Marxist Murado, in Venezuela, has set up would not be successful here. Remember, the very first document relating to "Terrorist threats" in the USA released a couple months after Obama took office listed among those groups: Christians, Libertarians, Pro-Life folks, returning Gulf War vets, "Constitutionalists and other conservatives, which they lumped together with the KKK (a group created by the Democrats) and other Far Right groups. NOT ONE group on the Far Left with a history of blowing things up and shooting people were mentioned. The outcry forced the DHS to release a second terrorist list including those on the Far Left a couple months later.

Doubters claim civilians armed with mere rifles (suddenly they are not "assault" weapons?) and hand guns wouldn't be able to stand against the armed might of the US military. Why not? The Viet Cong did. There are National Guard and military airbases and armories in each state and scattered around the country. Many of the soldiers AND their commanders in those bases would fight any attempt to repeal the 2A or any other of the basic human rights listed in the Bill of Rights, and they would bring their planes, tanks and heavy weapons with them. MOST of the folks in America who are armed were also trained by the military in weapons and tactics, so it wouldn't be a bunch of country rubes going against a professional military. This is why Obama replaced almost 4,000 key military officers with his own picks, and why he had the DHS purchase more than TWO BILLION rounds of ammunition during the end of his first and the beginning of his second term. IF he couldn't take the guns he'd take the bullets. He failed. Most gun owners keep at least 10,000 rounds of ammo on hand, and Obama has been the best gun salesman since Bill Clinton.

I'm 76. My first presidential election was Goldwater vs Johnson, in 1964. I was told that if I voted for Goldwater there would be war. I voted for him and there was war. Johnson started it by lying about a "gulf of Tonkin" incident. It never happened, but it was the excuse for a war which cost the lives of 50,000 Americans. Over the years I have observed many presidential campaigns. However, THIS WAS THE FIRST where ALL the major news outlets sent their star talking heads to a dinner given by John Podesta, the campaign manager of Hillary Clinton, to talk about how the reporters were going to "coordinate" their reporting with Hillary's campaign!
And coordinate they did. Hillary seemed so smooth and polished at the debates because she had been given all the questions in advance, a decided advantage! She had the super delegates bought and paid for before Bernie even ran. Her campaign staff is recording saying that they had voted in each state they campaigned in, which is a violation of Federal law. Undercover video recordings captured campaign staff bragging about hiring thugs to provoke discord at opponents campaign events, which would be covered by the media in such a way as to imply that the victims were the aggressors.

Despite that and much more, Hillary Clinton still lost. It has been a constant wet dream of the Left that American would be overthrown by a violent revolution. Saul Alinksy thought it was going to happen at the time of the 1968 DNC convention in Chicago and he and his close friend spent every weekend at a firing range shooting their pistols, practicing to be ready. A fact he mentions in his book "Rules For Radicals". AntiFa is doing the same now, in anticipation of their wet dream coming to fruition. Had Hillary won they may have gotten their wish.

**GreyGeek** · Feb 21, 2018, 03:14 PM

In a nutshell:

**Bings** · Feb 21, 2018, 05:35 PM

GreyGeek, Just as a point of order, the Viet Cong or more accurately North Vietnamese forces had rather more than rifles and handguns. They had a full army, navy and air force as well as Soviet and Chinese backing. They were also led by an experienced military that went back to fighting the Japanese in World War 2. Yes, they were the underdogs technologically wise but not vaguely comparable to a civilian with a personal gun collection. As for the national guard, they weren't exactly the people's friends when they were murdering unarmed civilians at kent state university. I don't think it's an argument to not have guns but personal gun ownership will not stop a theoretical tyrannical ruler, either alone or being a major part of.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Feb 21, 2018, 07:14 PM

In defense of GreyGeeks comparison of our "civilian" population acting against a hypothetical US despotic government, This is what the founding fathers had in mind when the framed the 2nd amendment. They had immediate, first hand experience with such a situation and wanted to ensure that future generations retained that option.

History records that there was not universal acceptance of this viewpoint, as witness the "Tory" faction during the revolution, but there was enough agreement among the "colonists" to form the Continental Army.

I expect we would see a similar schism in today's society and in today's military. That is why the previous administration tried hard to purge the military command structure of members who did not agree with that administration.

I won't attempt to predict how successful that purge was. Only time will tell and I truly hope we don't have to test this in the future. Civilian gun ownership is both a deterrent and a threat to government. That is the balance which the Constitution was created to maintain. Hence the current attacks on the Constitution.

We live in "interesting times"...

Announcement

18 killed in school shooting

18 killed in school shooting

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment