Consumer Information

What Would a Nationwide Gun Confiscation Look Like?

gun-confiscation

In July 2014, the city of New Orleans agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation after the city’s Police Superintendent, P.Edwin Compass, ordered an illegal and unconstitutional gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina. You can read more about the lawsuit here.

In a press conference, Compass, said, “No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.” The NRA produced an eye-opening short documentary on the gun grab: [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4] It is not the only time in modern history where government ordered a wide-scale gun confiscation. In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that all Japanese “aliens” living in the United States were to be unarmed.

Now, some have a warranted fear of a future nationwide gun confiscation. In fact, it may be already starting. In July, 2015, the Shooter’s Log reported about a new gun control measure handed down by the Obama Administration which would add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the “unauthorized to own a firearm” list by enacting a rule in which people who’s Social Security disability checks are handled by other person means they aren’t able to own firearms. You can read more about that here.

gun-confiscation
What if they did come and take them?
Certainly, we know that President Obama would love a country without guns. He has said numerous times how his personal biggest frustration and disappointment during his reign has been that he failed to do anything about “gun violence.” In June 2014, in a conversation with Tumblr founder, David Karp, Obama let his true feelings to light:

“A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing—we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

Imagine this future. Do you think it would be possible in America? What would a nationwide gun confiscation look like? Tell us your thoughts and theories in the comment section.

[suzanne]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (877)

  1. Any attempt (at least in Texas) at a mass firearm ban and confiscation would result in another civil war. I can’t help but believe in my very core that most of the States and the people would rebel. Knowing many individuals from those states like Carl-Marxafornia and Wishington State I would also bank on a large segment of that population to join the rebellion. Our rights have been eroded and stolen from us long enough. The people have spoken through mostly peaceful elections that in last 2 cycles that maybe we are going to be able to convince the libtards that they WILL NOT gain any more ground. We can pray for a peaceful return to the Democracy promised to us by our founders, but we must be prepared to once again fight for our Liberty if necessary. I am ready, Are you?

  2. @charles, if I’m so anti-firearms, why do I own a dozen firearms? Indeed, I just ordered another box of MK262 mod1’s.
    As for war, been in two already, what’s another one to add to the pile? I served for very nearly 28 years and now I’ve retired.

  3. To make your point In the 2013-14 election cycle I believe the Koch Brothers ranked about number 30 in contributions.***** The two largest contributors to the Democrats, were unions and trial Lawyers.

  4. Wzrd1
    I’m a veteran. I’ve watched over a nearly thirty year career, a massive waste, fraud and abuse system that continues into today.******** waste fraud and abuse is aided and abetted by the power of government to favor those who share their agenda and tilt the playing field toward the outcome they want. without government , game over! Obama hasn’t CHANGED that, or anything else. He just ” hoped that you’d change”. At least the Republicans are up front about it !

  5. c: On the contrary, it has everything to do with this and it’s as good an example as anyone is likely to find of why a healthy skepticism of political forces that tell you why they should have firearms and you should be separated from yours is in order.

    What Yee was attempting had the potential to be very ugly. He was a Cali Senator. He voted his entire career to separate citizens from their guns at every opportunity. You can get away with dismissing it as you did because you are pretty sure nobody really knows anything about it.
    No they don’t but it sure happened. Almost defies belief that a man in his position could try to do what he did… but he did.

    Cordially

  6. @Bill Kennedy, business most certainly has caused major damage to our national economy, the minor depression is a proof of that.
    Obama finally recognized things that worked and eventually embraced them, buffering “too big to fail” businesses that if they sunk entirely would’ve tanked the *entire* economy. Many business journals, even those not beholden to business interests have proved that. Both in the past and today.
    They screwed up, we paid them and continue to do so.
    I’ll not even go into regulatory capture of governance. The worst being in defense.
    I’m a veteran. I’ve watched over a nearly thirty year career, a massive waste, fraud and abuse system that continues into today.
    Entire warehouses full of state of the art networking equipment, sold off for tenths of pennies of the dollar as excess, only to replaced each and every fiscal year. That is just for SOCCENT. Christ knows where else that lies, “justifying” their budget. While operators were bargaining for 9mm ammunition in Afghanistan at the peak of the war with signal units.

    As for “legalization of drugs”, really, I don’t give a crap about grass being legal. I’m highly allergic to the smoke, but let’s face it.
    People high on grass aren’t aggressive.
    Drive while high or drunk, meet the same penalties.

    As for illegal aliens, want to bankrupt the nation? Chase maybe ten million illegal aliens, hell, let’s make it twenty million.
    Remove fruit, grain, corn pickers at below minimum wage.
    Replace them with minimum wage, good luck finding such workers, remove the landscapers and grass cutters at pennies on the dollar.
    I’ve faced that myself, caring for my father while he slowly died of dementia, knowing that illegals cut my grass for $20 biweekly.
    Reality has to meet the road. We *rely* upon illegal workers.
    Remove them, the *entire* bottom of our economy goes away and we pay minimum wage to cut a middle class lawn.

    In the real world, it ain’t happening.
    Or an economic collapse occurs.

    Politicians play their games to make office, paid for with billion dollar campaigns.
    That that nonsense is accepted makes this veteran sorry that he defended this insanity and worse, sorry that he screwed up and returned home to take care of a dying father and got trapped CONUS of a highly remunerative job overseas, to return to the land of the hijacked.

    Left wing idiots proclaim Koch is the X of Y.
    The reality is, Z screws over the majority, via unfettered campaign bribes, excuse me, contributions.
    So, dies a nation.

    This happened while I was away protecting this nation, can you that stayed at home as home guard kindly fix it?
    Because, each and every day, my physical pain, due to the services conducted to protect you builds and either I go to the VA for “treatment” via narcotics or some buddy with out a side does.
    Each and every day, I consider putting a barrel into my mouth.

    Unlike you, I never learned how to quit.
    How did you learn how to quit and find the short path to pleasure via idiocy in office?!

    For the TL;DR crowd, I only consider you a craven coward, unworthy of survival, along with your entire extended family, when the SHTF.
    Consider the above note of not wearing decorations.
    I’m only embarrassed to have to say that.
    But, too many people bought the PR efforts, ignoring their own welfare.

    1. And in many cases too big to fail has become too bigger to fail.

      No Wzrd, paying legal workers, migrant or American, won’t bankrupt the nation. That’s the way it worked for a very long time. The economic damage from allowing millions here undercutting our own poor and depending on the taxpayers for their social services will at least equal the higher cost of lettuce and tomatoes and the installation of dry wall.

      We will not suffer an economic collapse because we control our borders. The net will be to the American working poor’s advantage

      I pay $75 for, at most, a 21/2 hour job when my lawn is cut. That’s a lot more than minimum wage. I haven’t seen an illegal cutting yards here in at least 6 or 7 years. That doesn’t mean there might not be several still working but the lawn service here is back to being almost all locals. I could have the full weed eat for $100 but I do that myself and just pay the $70. This is not an affluent area. We are not facing financial ruin over this. Once things adjusted back no one notices anymore.

      To make your point In the 2013-14 election cycle I believe the Koch Brothers ranked about number 30 in contributions.

      Unfortunately military personnel from general officers, to field grades, to senior NCOs have been implicated occasionally as well in fraud and abuse. I wish it weren’t so. I wish soldiers were the ones that always blew the whistle.

      I appreciate what you did and I’m sorry for the damage done to your body carrying the cudgel for America in a foreign war but your assumption that anyone that disagrees with you never put anything at risk for the Republic is mistaken.

      Best

  7. why would you ban any firearms that are legally taxed under a class 3 ,,,*** Damian, where did I say that I would? You must have me confused with slick the moron.

  8. Although that sounds so simple, it isn’t,******** Yes it is that simple. If there is not control at the border there is no immigration policy and they come here because of a ” minimum wage”…… These people don’t make 2$ a day. They understand that even if they don’t make $7/hr. they make close to it, and it’s damn well better than $2/day and living under a corrugated tin roof. I think for all the liberal moron states that want to raise minimum wage to $15, every border state should put every illegal on a bus and ship them there…..you people are f’k’g out of you minds…… that’s giving you a benefit of the doubt that you even have a mind.

  9. . A wall, or mass deportation isn’t going to “win” it. ***** Every immigration law starts with controlling the border. Without control of the border, every thing else, deciding who gets deported and who stays, issuance of temporary work visas, orderly processing of citizenship……all goes in the crapper. This is a just a fact. And anyone that says otherwise is just pissing in your ear.

    1. Is that what black people do? Expound..

      Our women? Who’s that? Sometimes your relentless smugness makes you look silly

      They come here for jobs and, contrary to leftist boiler plate, they are jobs that Americans, black and white, will do for the most part. The presence of illegal labor hurts the least skilled disproportionately.

      Cordially

  10. As I said, the “healthy” food they won’t eat and you probably can’t make them eat without depriving them of nutrition for a while, which might not be a bad idea either.

    Admittedly without thinking through all the implications Subway sounds like a reasonable idea.

    Cordially

  11. Just trying to help keep your economy going. You’re welcome!**** At least everyone knows what you are.. Another fudge packing liberal…..I should have seen that ” Cumming “

    1. Next you’re going to tell me that people don’t pick up the dog poop on your lawn!

      Man you sure can dig that hole, can’t you. Now you’ve got everyone coming to Austin is a gay communist?!?!

    2. As seen on the T-shirts ” Steers and Queers. No where but Austin” , just “Keepin’ Austin Weird ” I don’t need it.

  12. Sure I would – But just so we’re clear, give me several examples of giving your life for the Constitution.****** No you wouldn’t. I took my physical and failed. This isn’t about me numbnuts. It’s about you. You’re a freak show.

    1. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean you personally, I just meant give me several examples of how a person gives their life for the Constitution.

  13. +++ But you’d never give your life in the defense of the Constitution… you inscrutable turd. +++

    Sure I would – But just so we’re clear, give me several examples of giving your life for the Constitution.

  14. As for guns – if there was an Australian style gun law, I’d probably have to give up one gun. No problem****** But you’d never give your life in the defense of the Constitution… you inscrutable turd.

  15. c: Sounds like he’s a government official since that’s what police officers are. You can justify whatever he’s doing on that basis since you were quick to defend the federal agencies for what was nothing short of mass murder and many were innocents.

    Hey, a blunder here, a blunder there but you’re an extremist and a threat to domestic tranquility if you are so foolish as to express a healthy suspicion of the government or it’s agents. Right? The man is a government official if he’s a police officer and ATF were government agents (plus ultimately a number of other agencies) acting on behalf of the government. A bit of suspicion is entirely appropriate.

    Cordially

  16. You seem quite consumed with the slavery thing that ended here one and one-half centuries ago. Why are you fine with bringing large numbers of people here whose culture both embraces and practices it. Black chattel slavery is widespread all over Africa but since it’s frequently black Coptic Christians enslaved by Muslims no body cares about those poor people. Not much political leverage in that is there?*****As Booker T. Washington pointed out, “There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the black race before the public. They have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs, partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want blacks to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.”

  17. As an example, last year in deep blue Oregon referendum on whether to grant illegals driver’s licenses was put before the voters and the result was no. That is no license without legal status and the margin was something like 2:1. Against. That’s Oregon.****** After living in the state of Oregon for a decade, for those nitwit legislators to come to that conclusion is monumental!

  18. I certainly do not know everything. Certainty is a quality of the righteous right. I do have a fairly good understanding of things, however.****** You’re a moron. You oozed out of the shallow end of the gene pool. My suggestion is, you slither back in a disappear.

  19. Martin, I’m done with the loser. As by this time everyone is wondering who’s the nut job. The guy talking him off the ledge, or the guy jumping….. He’s a waste of space and time. Aim small~ miss small….. Catch you down the country road.

  20. Tom- I was agreeing with you- I have agreed with you 100% throughout this blog. CS is a moronic waste of air. He KNOWS everything about EVERYTHING. Just ask him. He doesn’t understand the consequences of his beliefs one iota. And continues to refute everything you are trying to teach him with bogus facts, figures, and imbicillic interpretations of historical data and facts. The fact that he and his friends are too good to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay speaks to his intentions that people instilled with a true work ethic should support him and his friends. I leave knowing that should the edict come down to turn in guns, he will hand his over with out a whimper. I’ll lose no sleep over it. So long guys

    1. I certainly do not know everything. Certainty is a quality of the righteous right. I do have a fairly good understanding of things, however. And one thing I do know is that nothing is as simple as you’d like it to be. There are nuances. Nothing I talk about is all that unique, or odd, or uncommon, or even controversial (school lunches! Come on!). It’s sad that it’s so alien to you and your wrestling partner.

      As for guns – if there was an Australian style gun law, I’d probably have to give up one gun. No problem. I doubt it would have any effect on home defense. it would however cut down on my ability to mow down a bunch of people in a church or sikh temple.

    2. c: Schools lunches aren’t the least bit controversial. The controversial part is trying to force, unsuccessfully for the most part, school children to eat things they don’t want to eat and may not, in some cases even be appropriate for little people growing rapidly. Will you force feed them when they refuse to eat what you want them too.

      School lunches aren’t controversial but making the government school system surrogate parents might be, at least to some people.

      Cordially

    3. It makes no sense to serve junk food to kids in school.

      As for schools being surrogate parents – I’m not sure that’s even an issue, except among mostly Christian home schoolers. Fact is, education takes time and kids get hungry. If a school giving kids lunch is surrogate parenting, then what are cafeterias at most large and even small companies? I think it’s called efficiency and convenience. Some might even call it a perk.

      I am curious – what are the healthy foods that aren’t appropriate for young growing kids? I haven’t heard about this problem.

  21. When people accuse someone of being racist, you’ll often hear them say – Hey I’m not racist, some of my good friends are black!

    Substitute crazy for black….Get it now? Funny stuff.
    You guys would make a great tag team wrestling team. Well not great.******** Did your ” flux capacitor’ just sht the sheets? why not just take you marbles and go home. You proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the magnitude of you derangement…..adios Scooter……been real, not really.

  22. Austin – that’s great! I’ve been there many, many times. ******* Don’t come back….and no I din’t miss your ” little joke”. You are a little joke. The fact that you can vote is a joke, albeit a bad joke.

    1. I know you’d like to get a Gestapo going, but until you do, I’ll be in Austin every year. But don’t worry – the chance of us running into each other isn’t that good. I hang out with people who like to have fun.

    2. I know you’d like to get a Gestapo going, but until you do, I’ll be in Austin every year. But don’t worry – the chance of us running into each other isn’t that good. I hang out with people who like to have fun.****** no doubt, you’re another 6th st. ck’sck’r’!

  23. Tom, I’m guessing you live in a small town of 500 in the year 1855.******* I live in Austin Texas and understand the damage the morons like you do to their local government, states and eventually the entire country. You’re a scourge, Scooter.

    1. Austin – that’s great! I’ve been there many, many times. Do you play guitar? I’m trying to find one redeeming quality you may have.

      I suppose you missed my little joke –

      I’m guessing you live in a small town of 500 in the year 1855.

      I wasn’t far off – Austin’s population in 1855 was just a few thousand.
      Point is – you live in a fantasy – In a world that doesn’t exist – thank the lord.

  24. I could post a list of companies that have been busted for doing just that. ****** So it is of you’re opinion that it’s the responsibility of business to investigate if the documents they receive are counterfeit?

    1. What I said was (it seems you don’t actually read before you post):

      Q: Are you telling me that companies don’t knowingly hire illegals?

      Q: Are you telling me that individuals don’t knowingly hire illegals?

      I could post a list of companies that have been busted for doing just that. And it would be the tip of the iceberg. As for individuals – way too common to even address.

      And as for as getting false docs?
      Why bother doing it yourself when companies like Tyson will do it for you.

      So, perhaps you could answer the questions and perhaps comment on Tyson.

    2. Not any more will you get Tyson to do it for you c, and jobs at Tyson may not be the best but if you think no Americans will work for what Tyson pays you are indulging in one of your misconceptions.

      Cordially

    3. +++ jobs at Tyson may not be the best +++

      Well, there’s an understatement.

      Tyson is just the tip of the ICEberg. And they happened to get caught.
      Business wants cheap labor and they will do most anything to get it.

      Heck, you could go over to FAIR – one of your people’s groups – and look at how they rage against business hiring illegals. They themselves say that if business stops hiring illegals, then the flow subsides. And they have numerous examples of investigations and prosecutions. And it’s just a tiny sample. Fact is, from IBM to some roofing guy, everyone wants cheap labor and they know how to get it – regardless of what the law says. I know it makes you sad to find out that Obama isn’t leading Mexicans across the border personally – and even sadder to know that it’s your sacred American companies that are providing the incentive. And no wall is going to stop that.

    4. No what I said was Americans, white and black will work for what Tyson pays and you said they wouldn’t You’re wrong.
      .
      They just finished putting a roof on my house Wednesday. All locals all legal. You try desperately to paint this as unwinnable and unchangeable and it isn’t.

      The point I’ve made repeatedly is that the political will exists to make some real changes and it does. You ignore it and say the companies simply can’t be stopped from doing it. Of course they can if you just mean something effective.

      You want the flow of unskilled Hispanic labor because you think it wins the culture war for you, at least eventually. It punishes your countrymen with the fewest skills. You refuse to address what the US with no borders will look like in ten years and it’s mental masturbation at it’s best when you tell yourself you’ll somehow be better off.

      I know at least as much about US corporations as you do, the good and the bad.

      Cordially

    5. ++++ They just finished putting a roof on my house Wednesday. All locals all legal. You try desperately to paint this as unwinnable and unchangeable and it isn’t.

      The point I’ve made repeatedly is that the political will exists to make some real changes and it does. You ignore it and say the companies simply can’t be stopped from doing it. Of course they can if you just mean something effective. ++++

      I don’t think it’s unwinnable – I just think the problem is driven by different forces than you do. A wall, or mass deportation isn’t going to “win” it. And you see, talk of things such as these is you waging a culture war, not me. Because the culture of which you speak predates our culture in much of our geographical locations.

      As for Tyson – I’m sure the increased scrutiny has caused some changes there. But you grossly underestimate the complicity of business in this problem – not to mention what I think is mostly ignorance and indifference on the part of individuals who hire illegals in the millions, as well as enjoy the fruits of their labor, both literally and figuratively.

    6. We don’t need mass deportations. Walls and fences will only be useful in certain places and then only when they are monitored and maintained. When there jobs available are limited the problem will become entirely manageable.People come here from the South for what isn’t available in the countries whose economies you seem to want emulate. We had effective control of the border with Mexico for well over 100 years. Any insistence it can’t be done now serves some other purpose.

      Maintaining our borders for the benefit of the country and it’s citizens isn’t any form of culture war. Reading all your other posts, there is no way you don’t understand that. After all these exchanges I think it’s what your goal is because the social order will be changed to something you find more acceptable. It will be to the detriment of those already here. No country survives without borders and acquiescence in the demolition of ours is the actual culture war.

      That the Spanish and the Portuguese were settling in South and Central America well over a century before the English arrived in what would become the US has nothing to do with anything. It’s irrelevant. You don’t owe the guy down the street a damn thing because he was in the neighborhood first.

      That you think this “culture” is superior, or at least you appear to be trying to make that argument, and should displace the existing one speaks for itself. Even at it’s worst racial and ethnic strife in the US has been much better than almost any of the places from which we are being effectively invaded.

      As just one example, the Mexican government was still selling Yaqui Indians into slavery well into the 1900s. Mexico didn’t allow slavery you say? They banned legal slavery before the Mexican war then did what they damn well pleased. Take your own advice and Google it. It pops right up along with a wealth of other stuff about how truly ugly the racial strife has been in most of the Central American countries as well as Mexico and much of South America as well.

      Regardless of who started what when and where, resistance on the part of US citizens to having our borders ignored to our detriment isn’t a culture war. Being an advocate for social change in the US by virtue of an unimpeded flow of needy people from other countries most certainly is.

      Do the governments of these countries bear any responsibility? They are with the rarest of exceptions venal in the extreme. Most of them make New Orleans look like an example of good governance. What do the citizens of the US owe them? Why?

      One of the two would be terrorist killed in a Garland, Texas attack earlier this year had purchased a 9mm pistol “through a botched federal firearm sting.” The dead would be, Nadir Soofi, purchased the pistol at one of the gun shops the feds were using for Operation Fast and Furious.

      Apparently he was allowed to buy the firearm after it was denied on the initial background check. It looks like this was just a mistake that occurred because they were allowing prohibited purchases to go through on a large scale to get them into Mexico. I don’t think anyone is saying there was a deliberate effort to arm jihadis. The feds again. That healthy suspicion perhaps?

      The cartels have their own helicopters, mortars, real RPGs, crew served machine guns. They have submersible ocean going vessels worth multiple millions each. The assertion that they are armed through US gun stores wasn’t taken seriously by anyone including Eric Holder.

      Cordially .

    7. ++++ We don’t need mass deportations. Walls and fences will only be useful in certain places and then only when they are monitored and maintained. When there jobs available are limited the problem will become entirely manageable. ++++

      See, we’re in agreement!

      But seriously – I don’t think you’ll solve an economic situation with a police solution. And the companies who actively provide jobs, and the people who hire illegals drive the problem. You prefer to understate this. I can only imagine it’s because you don’t like to place blame on business – just government. But really, it’s just capitalism at work. Capitalism knows no borders.

      Nadir Soofi and guns purchased? I’m going to go with coincidence.

      Drug cartels – yeah, again capitalists satisfying consumer demand. It’s an ugly business and someone WILL do it. Stop the demand or legalize the trade. Otherwise, it’s not going away.

    8. Capitalism knows no borders? That’s like saying the English language knows no borders. It’s correct and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

      Some countries have a framework that works reasonably well in creating opportunity and wealth and others a system that makes it almost impossible, with Venezuela being a good example. Your friend Robert Mugabe is very good at saying what you like to hear about who’s to blame and how to fix it. Periodic famines and cholera epidemics say he’s not very good at actually doing it.

      I have not the slightest hesitation in placing the blame on business. I’m pretty sure it’s already illegal to knowingly hire illegals. The government, for a number of reasons, is recalcitrant in enforcing the existing regulations. There’s more than enough responsibility to be darkly angry at both of them. Illegal labor hurts the poorest Americans the most.

      This problem was effectively controlled for a long time. It’s not uncontrollable now. The political will is present to do just that.

      Mr. Soofi quite likely was a coincidence. A US government program, illegal on both ends, to pump several thousand firearms into Mexico, for the greater good of course, certainly wasn’t a coincidence and that’s what allowed the denial on the purchase to be ignored.

      Given the cartels willingness to use the utmost violence for the slightest of reasons or for no reason at all I’m not sure it works as an example of capitalism. The market parts ok.

      The legalization of drugs wouldn’t come without it’s own set of problems but I’ve arrived at the point that I believe the net would be an improvement over what we have. The “war on drugs” is being used to circumvent Constitutional protections with the 4th, 5th and yes, the 2nd Amendments being the most violated.

      Cordially

  25. Schools are educators , not restaurants. Their charter is to teach, not feed the f’k’g poor, you socialist, Communist, Marxist, mtr’fkr or what ever hybrid ck’suker you pretend to be.You’re ignorant and depraved, fitting the M.O. of about half the population of the U.S. that believes they’re owed something. No one owes you a GD thing. Deal with it!

    1. Tom, I’m guessing you live in a small town of 500 in the year 1855.
      It must be nice, but I’d suggest you wake up and smell the 2015.

  26. The reality is that there is a never ending and often growing desire for low-income workers. American companies and consumers demand it. It is illegal for companies and individuals to hire undocumented workers – illegal immigrants, if you will.****** Every legitimate business in the U.S. files I-9’s and all paper work on foreign workers. Are you telling the class that it’s the responsibility of the companies and business owners to investigate the legitimacy of said workers credentials? I can go on the internet tonight and for the right amount of money procure all the counterfeit paper work needed for illegals to become employed. Do you live in some cosmic rabbit hole, Alice?

    1. Are you telling me that companies don’t knowingly hire illegals? That’s laughable. Are you telling me that individuals don’t knowingly hire illegals? Also laughable.

      I could post a list of companies that have been busted for doing just that. And it would be the tip of the iceberg. As for individuals – way too common to even address.

      And as for as getting false docs? Why bother doing it yourself when companies like Tyson will do it for you.

      You’re truly in a hole, Tom and it ain’t a rabbit hole. Pull your head out and learn a thing or two.!

  27. Of course that’s fine – it’s just impractical for many – especially in urban areas.***** Any f’k’g excuse will do when you’re looking for one. You simply have all the answers, Slick.

    1. Excuse? For what? Schools serve food. Been doing it since I was in first grade. So…. serve good food. Don’t serve junk. Why is this even controversial?

    2. You make it sound like there are only 2 choices – a spinach and tofu sandwich or the candy rack at 7/11.

      Fact is, they could put a Subway in most schools and that would be a vast improvement.

      And what’s this healthy food that is inappropriate for growing kids?

  28. and one way to be responsible is for parents to demand their schools serve only healthy foods****** How about they just make’em lunch…

    1. +++ How about they just make’em lunch… +++

      Of course that’s fine – it’s just impractical for many – especially in urban areas. There’s nothing wrong with schools serving food – it just shouldn’t be junk food. It makes no sense.

  29. because you’d be too ashamed to actually say publicly why you didn’t like him……. How about the history book that says that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 of the past 80 years ( 70% of the time for the mathematically challenged,and 44 consecutive during FDR’s reign) , with Super Majority status in no less than fourteen of those years, Democrats gave use the PROGRESSIVE programs of the Square Deal, FDR’s New Deal and the welfare-state policies of the 1930s and ’40s ( thanks Elenore), Truman’s Fair Deal, LBJ’s Great Society including Medicare/Medicaid, SS. Democrats ‘institutionalized’ poor people, sedating them for more than a generation , leaving them with no skills what so ever or any incentive to gain any. Social entitlement programs now consumes 65% of the annual budget, While Democrats continue to ignore the economical suicide to protect and guarantee their reelection?! How could it be that Democrats had almost sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress , with substantial majorities most of the time come up with a single policy that worked and isn’t bankrupting the country, HUH ? And now Obama and congressional Democrats rammed through Obamacare, the third leg of the FDR, LBJ, welfare trilogy. Yeah, it’s all good….

  30. He was not a racist…….************Yeah, it is more complicated, beyond the internment of Japanese Americans,FDR defied black leaders and his own wife by refusing his support of anti-lynching laws….Funny how liberals are willing to over look items of history that reflect poorly on them.

    1. Northern liberals proposed the anti-lynching legislation. Southerners, both R’s and D’s opposed it. Why do you suppose that is? Oh I know – states rights!

      Roosevelt was in a pickle. He didn’t “defy” anyone. He was quite clear –

      “I did not choose the tools with which I must work,” he explained. “Had I been permitted to choose them I would have selected quite different ones. But I’ve got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners… occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the antilynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take that risk.”

      Now, I know you’re no fan of Roosevelt. But it’s disingenuous when you try to denigrate the man as a racist, which he wasn’t, because you’d be too ashamed to actually say publicly why you didn’t like him. Are we to believe that your sympathies lie with the “coloreds” of the south? Or the Jews of Europe? Let’s cut through the BS and both agree that the answer is no. The problem here is simply that you hate FDR and that you, like other fundie- conservatives will cloak your hatred in whatever way you can to make it appear to be socially acceptable. It’s pretty funny that you think you fool people. FYI – this “false outrage” is from the Fox News 101 playbook. So I guess it does fool some people – people like you who actually buy it.

      Liberals don’t overlook history. We had to sadly accept that this was, and in many cases still is, the reality which has to be dealt with. FDR’s decision doesn’t reflect badly on liberals – it reflects badly on the Southerners at the time who made it necessary to have to make this compromise. This is still going on today in many areas of lawmaking.

    2. c; The political left as presently constituted ranks with anyone for bigotry and hatred. In unmitigated intolerance they excel.

      The group of Americans least skilled are being devastated by a torrent of the unskilled entering the country legally and illegally and you cooperate and approve because you see, at some point, you think you will be able to cobble together a political coalition that will take from those you want punished and create your proper social order.
      You guys take a back seat to nobody on holding dark animus and intolerance.

      Incidentally, about your lynchings, the resurgence of the Klan in the early 1900s was primarily in the Midwest.

      Cordially

    3. Talk about platitudes – I thought that was my area!

      ++++The political left as presently constituted ranks with anyone for bigotry and hatred. In unmitigated intolerance they excel.++++

      This ability of conservatives to say the opposite of what is true, known and documented is astounding. Truly an art form. You could probably just google this stuff if you needed more accurate info.

      ++++The group of Americans least skilled are being devastated by a torrent of the unskilled entering the country legally and illegally and you cooperate and approve because you see, at some point, you think you will be able to cobble together a political coalition that will take from those you want punished and create your proper social order.
      You guys take a back seat to nobody on holding dark animus and intolerance.++++

      The reality is that there is a never ending and often growing desire for low-income workers. American companies and consumers demand it. It is illegal for companies and individuals to hire undocumented workers – illegal immigrants, if you will. They do it anyway. The conservative political policy wonk stuff you say is all well and good, and plays well on the news, but it’s not the ugly reality. Companies refuse to stop hiring illegals, as do individuals and consumers want their cheap stuff. I could see why you ignore it – it’s capitalism at it’s less than finest.

      Let’s take it to the personal anecdote level for a moment – BK, don’t you know companies and individuals that do this illegal hiring? I certainly do. I could probably show you 100 examples in 30 minutes or less.

      The irony of all this is that really, the only people who really make a stink about this are white dudes who feel disenfranchised (and feel like the US is becoming too brown) – and who would never do the jobs these people do anyway. You don’t see a big deal made of it from corporate America nor do you see much about it from the rich (other than Trump’s pandering) because most of them have 10 of them in their employ. Reality BK, reality.

      +++ Incidentally, about your lynchings, the resurgence of the Klan in the early 1900s was primarily in the Midwest. +++

      I’m guessing they were already at full employment in the South?

    4. No, again. You’ve admitted the problem for American workers then insist it’s because we “demand” it. No, again still, the will among the electorate at large is decidedly in favor of making substantive changes and all the polls show that.

      As an example, last year in deep blue Oregon referendum on whether to grant illegals driver’s licenses was put before the voters and the result was no. That is no license without legal status and the margin was something like 2:1. Against. That’s Oregon.The will and the means are at hand.

      You want this torrent of illegals because you believe they are your allies in a culture war against me. You are very foolish unless you like the grinding endemic poverty that represents much of Mexico. There lives the true have and have not society and it won’t be your friend no matter how satisfying it may be to fantasize about indulging your childish and dark personal animus.

      You are mistaken, the folks most damaged are disproportionately not
      “white dudes” and the cliche that nobody will do those jobs is more false than true. The illegals are overwhelmingly wards of the state. You say they can’t be but the reality is they are.

      About ten years ago my state began a vigorous prosecution of companies hiring illegals and the number here has been drastically reduced and I mean drastically in it’s correct definition. You are correct that small numbers working off the books for small companies, at least for short periods, is virtually impossible to stop but that’s not what we are talking about.

      I’m not afraid of brown. I am afraid of being some combination of Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala and anyone already here, including those here illegally, that doesn’t fear it is a special kind of ignorant. That includes you, despite your smug belief that you will somehow benefit.

      Whatever I might Google can “prove” whatever I want it to as you know very well.

      Couldn’t say but the folks in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere seem to have become proficient.

      You seem quite consumed with the slavery thing that ended here one and one-half centuries ago. Why are you fine with bringing large numbers of people here whose culture both embraces and practices it. Black chattel slavery is widespread all over Africa but since it’s frequently black Coptic Christians enslaved by Muslims no body cares about those poor people. Not much political leverage in that is there?

      Slavery, illegal and defacto, is common all over Africa, the Middle East and not that rare in Asia Right now, this instant.

      Every decade or so pockets of slavery, illegal but very real, are found in Brazil the slave capitol of the hemisphere. Wag your finger at them and observe the response.

      Cordially

    5. +++ the will among the electorate at large is decidedly in favor of making substantive changes and all the polls show that. +++

      I would be with the majority on this. You are conflating what I’ve said about the reality of the situation with what I believe.

      +++ You want this torrent of illegals because you believe they are your allies in a culture war against me. You are very foolish unless you like the grinding endemic poverty that represents much of Mexico. There lives the true have and have not society and it won’t be your friend no matter how satisfying it may be to fantasize about indulging your childish and dark personal animus.+++

      See, I’m not, nor is “my side” having engaging in a culture war with you or your side. You guys are waging the culture war, all by yourselves. We’re just trying to learn from the past, living in the present, moving into the future.

      +++ You are mistaken, the folks most damaged are disproportionately not
      “white dudes” and the cliche that nobody will do those jobs is more false than true. The illegals are overwhelmingly wards of the state. You say they can’t be but the reality is they are. ++++

      I didn’t say this – and the distinction is important. I didn’t say “White dudes” are the most damaged, I said they’re the ones who “feel” disenfranchised” and do most of the complaining. They’re not damaged at all really. Because they won’t do the work illegals do, and that’s a fact. That’s just right wing myth, of which there are many in this debate (social services, taxes, etc).

      Slavery still exists in the US. It’s been repackaged. Regardless, the people who are coming here from countries which may or may not have de facto slavery are not the problem, when it comes to the immigration debate, and you know that. It’s Hispanics. And they are not the “hostiles” of which we have spoken.

      And once again, it is driven by American desire for low wage labor. I don’t know what state you’re in, so I can’t speak about the prosecution of companies hiring illegals, but nationwide, and especially in the Southwest, whatever you’re talking about doesn’t exist.

    6. Repackaged as what? The assertion that we are practicing some sort of slavery here shows such estrangement from reality that you’re either trolling this or you’re irrational. Millions fight to escape their native countries to be enslaved in the US. That’s what you said. Even people on your side would grimace at that.

      I didn’t say white dudes were the ones most damaged. Read it again. I said they weren’t. The point being the poorest and the least skilled Americans (and already present illegals) are the ones most damaged because that’s what we are being overwhelmed by. People with few skills and many needs.

      The “refugees” from the Middle East and Africa, especially from Somalia represent more than sufficient numbers to cause alarm. As I said before they forcibly placed 2,000 of them in a nearby city of less than 50,000. Kerry talks of taking 100,000 more from the ME.

      They are all wards of the state. So far as I can determine the Somali’s do nothing, at least above the board. They simply exist , antagonize the locals with their contempt and get their sustenance in all it’s forms from the benevolent US taxpayer. There are 160,000 of them in Minnesota.

      As I pointed out in another post the jobs, at Tyson for example, may not be the best but when you say white people won’t do them you are dead wrong and so will black Americans. They now have to compete with illegals whose education health care and social services are provided by…..taxpayers. Deny that happens all you want. It’s leftist boiler plate and willfully dishonest.

      Day laborers in my area can earn 10-12 dollars per hour and those with some skills, say basic carpentry, 15 and perhaps a bit more. This has risen about 30% since the departure of the majority of the illegals some 6-8 years ago. There are plenty of honest small operators who won’t use them and a few that will always try. If the aren’t here in numbers they can’t be used to drive down the earning power of the most vulnerable Americans.

      We are probably the only country in the world that has a constant debate about whether to have borders or not. No mature welfare state, and we are, will survive open borders and I’ll bet you see that too. Despite what you think, ultimately, you won’t like it any better than I do.

      You’re waging a relentless culture war to force the future to look like you think it should. That’s different than moving there.

      Cordially

  31. Question Scooter; you claim to own firearms. Color me curious. What flavor do you own….. Grand Dad’s old Side-by-side and an old bolt action .22? How many of God’s creatures have you slain in your life? Remember, lying buys you a ticket to Hell just like stealing..” Inquiring minds want to know”..

    1. Without getting too specific – 2 handguns (one semi, one revolver) and a shotgun.

      I killed a couple of small animals when I was a kid – one with a .22 rifle and one with a bb gun. I didn’t like it. Nothing since then. I do go to the shooting range once or twice a year and shoot a few different types of guns – just to stay in shape for the end of times.

  32. In Turley’s case, he just quacks like a duck some of the time. He doesn’t at all walk like a duck. I guess he looks like a duck….******* Says you..

    +++Have you ever been institutionalized?++++

    No, but some of my good friends are crazy.****** How the f’k would you know?

    1. ++++No, but some of my good friends are crazy.****** How the f’k would you know?

      Tom- He would know some his close friends are crazy because they agree with his BS.++++

      Maybe you guys were trying to make jokes after I made one – if so, mine is better.

      But I’m guessing you didn’t even get mine – I’ll explain:

      When people accuse someone of being racist, you’ll often hear them say – Hey I’m not racist, some of my good friends are black!

      Substitute crazy for black….Get it now? Funny stuff.
      You guys would make a great tag team wrestling team. Well not great.

  33. funny you mention that. I think it’s truly stupid that we serve processed food and soft drinks in public schools.****** Yeah, I think that parents should be held responsible for feeding their kids. i never ate cafeteria food until I was in high school. Then it was my decision because I didn’t bring anything or didn’t want to use my own money to go some where….choices!

    1. +++ Yeah, I think that parents should be held responsible for feeding their kids +++

      I agree – and one way to be responsible is for parents to demand their schools serve only healthy foods.

  34. A bit simple and not exactly accurate ******No, it’s exact. The definition need not entail any other details. Simple and accurate, like most things, Things that humans, especially your breed, mange to render useless.

  35. Roosevelt a claimed aiding the Brits and allies fighting against Germany would make actual U.S boots on the ground unnecessary. After which he was extremely reluctant to receive Jewish refugees pouring out of Europe. FDR was a Socialist Elite, a politician, and a racist. If not for Pearl Harbor he would have not relented to get the country involved. That’s simply the history, Scooter. There’s nothing revisionist about it.

    1. As usual, it’s a bit more complex than most conservatives like to consider. Some on the left called him a fascist – some on the right a communist.
      Some Jews said he didn’t do enough, some said he did what he could, some anti-semites said he did too much. Some blacks said he was the greatest President ever for minorities, some said he was indifferent. Most Japanese would be disappointed in his decision to intern them. Some hawks lambasted him for not getting into the war sooner.

      My take? He was not a racist. The internment, although lobbied for by the military, was still an odd decision. He did what he could do for the Jews in the political climate of the day – which was much more than our European allies did. As for the blacks – well, he did more for equality than any president in history, and that includes everybody. But he did it without losing the votes he needed to do it. After all, he was a brilliant politician, and he knew exactly how he needed to get things done. He placated conservative Democrats, i.e. racists, by not overtly favoring or specifically targeting programs and by giving them some of what they wanted.

      Fast forward to LBJ, who did not placate the conservative Democrats nearly as effectively – well, they’re all Republicans now. And even though it’s cost the Dems the House several times over the years – well, you can have them.

  36. Turley is a libertarian. Many libertarians are “socially liberal”. It does not make them a liberal – it just makes them sound reasonable for a short period of time.***** So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s not a duck……. Yep, you’re a Leftist Loon….. Next you’ll be telling us that North Korea had the only true and just form of socialism or that maybe Kim Jong ” ILL” is a benevolent dictator.

    Have you ever been institutionalized?

    1. In Turley’s case, he just quacks like a duck some of the time. He doesn’t at all walk like a duck. I guess he looks like a duck….

      +++Have you ever been institutionalized?++++

      No, but some of my good friends are crazy.

  37. Hey! That’s not my generation! If it were up to me, selfie sticks would be banned along with most military style weapons.****** What else would you ban, 64 oz. sodas? Is this Michael Bloomberg? Mayor is that you?

    1. Haha – funny you mention that. I think it’s truly stupid that we serve processed food and soft drinks in public schools. It’s just a bad policy. Locally grown and packaged healthy food, i say!

    2. @ TOM,
      why would you ban any firearms that are legally taxed under a class 3 license and tax stamp at all? As for military type or style weapons as you call so called put them as a former cavalry scout sniper for the US ARMY i know for a fact what you buy in a gun store or at a gun show is nothing near or compares even closely to military issue weapons used by the military just because it kinda looks like a military rifle DOES NOT MAKE IT SUCH ,and if you get a class 3 tax stamp and keep it all legal WE CAN OWN WTF WE PLEASE in America up to and including belt fed full auto weapons that is the right we have as law abiding American citizens get over it you liberal idiots please .
      @ slicker , DO YOU EVER QUIT BABBLING NONSENSE MAN or is it a hobby of you’res to constantly ramble like a moronic idiot who has no clue what living in a facists ,communist or socialists society run fully by the governments of them countries or a dictator STFU man tired of watching you babble on and on and on about nothing that matters both you n Tom need to move to russia or china or north korea and see how those people live under such rule.NOW PLEASE STFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!.damn man. Annoying as hell you are dude.

    3. About the only thing that makes any sense in your post is that yes, from your perspective, Tom would look like a liberal.

      Damian, I don’t think anyone is forcing you to read this discussion.

  38. I’m quite aware of the industrialist’s business relationship with Hitler. The point that sailed over your dunce cap, is that Roosevelt was a world leader serving a parallel leader ship with Hitler and ignored, or dismissed what was obvious and taking place right under his nose, as thousands of Jews sought asylum.

    1. This is some odd revisionist history. FDR was at the forefront of trying to get Jews settled. And this was well before the Nazis had even started killing any. Do you realize how strong ant-semiticism was in both Europe and the US? Pretty much NO European countries would take Jews. The US, with FDR spearheading it, took more than any. But many here in the US weren’t happy about it either.

      Do you understand that many leading industrialists were doing big business with the Nazis and were anti-Semite themselves?

      As for later, once the war started and so did the exterminations – it is believed FDR’s idea was to end the war as quickly as possible and this would stop the killing. For this, he has been criticized. It is doubtful that outsiders knew the true numbers, Most of the Jews killed at this point weren’t German, but from other countries. FDR was very sensitive to US casualties and it’s likely that his waiting for the Russians to come from the east before invading resulted in many more Jews dying. I guess it was one or the other.

  39. They never overlap! Using collectivism as your criterion is the weakest of links. If that’s all it takes, capitalists are communists. Like minded voters are communists. Your bridge club is communist. We’re all communists.******* capitalism is not even an ” ism “. It’s simply the freedom of one person transacting with another. The Left exploits capitalism defining it as a dangerous tool, like a machine gun or a chainsaw , used against the welfare of mankind, and to justify greater government economic controls. I regard the prospects of global capitalism as the best opportunity for relieving human misery the world has ever seen.
    You’re a strange duck, slick.

    1. ism: used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.

      +++It’s simply the freedom of one person transacting with another.+++ A bit simple and not exactly accurate but even so – the ism works in that you’ve described an action or practice.

      ++++ I regard the prospects of global capitalism as the best opportunity for relieving human misery the world has ever seen.++++

      I regards the prospects of global capitalism, guided by smart government, rules and regulations, as the best opportunity for relieving human misery the world has ever seen.

      Lookee! We’re almost saying the same thing!

  40. Corporatism/Fascism/Communism simply fill in the void, left by failed socialism or any other “collectivism”. The early years of capitalism marked the first time in the history of mankind when the poor ever had a chance to survive, never mind thrive.

  41. Come on Tom, seriously. It was the Fords and the Duponts, etal. who were cozy with Hitler. Not FDR*******Roosevelt’s entire presidency unfolded along side Hitler’s tyrannical reign. While FDR was busy giving away the store, pushing socialist legislation through Congress ( legislation that to day threatens to bankrupt the country), Hitler was busy rounding up, incarcerating, and exterminating millions of Jews!

    1. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there isn’t a strong causal relationship between FDR implementing SS and the extermination of the Jews.

      If you would like a stronger causal relationship, look into the relationships between the Nazis and US corporations. Seriously, look into it. Then you could right a paper on it called, “Fascists? Meet Fascists.” or “How the Jews died and corporate America Got Rich.” Something like that.

    1. Come on Tom, seriously. It was the Fords and the Duponts, etal. who were cozy with Hitler. Not FDR. As matter of fact, the anti-semites of the day (ummm, the Fords and Duponts, etal) hated FDR, because they thought he was a secret Jew. None of this stuff is secret information. In hindsight, it may appear that FDR didn’t do enough, but hindsight is tricky. He did give German Jews the highest immigration priority at the time – and even that was controversial. There was a lot of anti-semitism at that time.

      Oh, hang on a sec – I’m dizzy from deja-vu.

  42. universal background checks, licenses, periodic renewals, etc. There are countries which do this quite successfully.*******When will you and the rest of your moronic idealist friends finally grasp that the only people snared by ” government paper work” are law abiding citizens.
    “During the last year of record, although the government has done millions upon millions of background checks, they [only] brought 14 prosecutions to court for trial–hardly a crime-fighting tool.” He said some people respond to this by pointing out that there were people who were “denied getting a gun at the point of sale,” but these people fail to note that criminals get guns in ways that completely circumvent the checks. “Many mass murders have gotten their hands on guns by passing a background check, while other criminals are resourceful. They are evil, but they are resourceful, as well, and they get their hands on guns. The idea that somehow we’re safe if we do a background check is simply not true.”

    Harris & Keibold (Columbine) & Lanza (SandyHook) were rejected by the background check, yet it wasn’t important to follow up on them. Care to explain that logic to the families of the 41 killed and 26 they injured?

    1. Do something just like this, wait a couple of generations, and your grandkids will thank mine:

      Canada

      The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms to improve public safety. Canadians have seen access to firearms become more restricted, but are still able to purchase them. Rifles and shotguns are relatively easy to obtain, while handguns are much more restricted. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.

      Users must possess a licence, called a “possession and acquisition licence (PAL)”. A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a “non-resident firearms declaration” confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[8] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[9]

      In Canada, firearms fall into one of three categories:

      1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns.

      2. Restricted: This includes handguns with barrel lengths greater than 4.1 inches (105mm), and long guns which do not meet the length requirements for non-restricted, and are not prohibited. These guns require ATTs, and as such can only be shot at ranges. These arms can be possessed with an RPAL, which is similar to the PAL course, but covers restricted weapons and the increased storage requirements. One must pass the CFSC as well as the RCFSC in order to obtain their RPAL. Examples in this class include all AR-15 variants.

      3. Prohibited: These weapons generally cannot be possessed by civilians. Normally, the only way to possess these is by being grandfathered in or inheriting a pistol with a barrel length at or under 4.1 inches (105mm), in which case the individual may receive the Class 7 endorsement. This class also includes prohibited devices. Many military arms fall under this classification, including all AK variants, and the FN-FAL. All handguns with a barrel length equal to or under 4.1 inches (105mm) are prohibited, as well as those chambered for the .25, and most chambered for the .32 caliber cartridge, presumably to prevent the possession of “Saturday Night Specials”. Also prohibited are fully automatic weapons and suppressors. Magazines for semi automatic long guns capable of holding more than 5 centerfire cartridges or 10 rounds for handguns, are prohibited, with the exception of the M1 Garand.

  43. It’s not that liberals are against freedom. It’s just that they are for some many things that are incompatible with freedom. One might conclude that liberals so believe in freedom as to view it as compulsory.

  44. Larry Grathwohl, the FBI informant who infiltrated the terrorist group and later wrote the 1976 book “Bringing Down America,” said he Ayers told him personally that fellow Weather Underground member and future wife Bernadine Dohrn set the bomb that killed San Francisco Park Police Sgt. Brian McDonnell in 1970.

    “Bill Ayers told me in Buffalo that we weren’t doing enough bombings and strategic sabotages,” Grathwohl told FoxNews.com. “He complained that it was a sad situation when [Dohrn] had to plan and place the bomb at the San Francisco Park Police station.”

    Grathwohl said the bomb used in San Francisco and the ones that killed the three Weather Underground members when it exploded prematurely were all packed with roofing nails and fence staples and designed to kill as many people as possible.

    It was not clear if Ayers sees the difference between bombings he and his associates carried out and the April 15 attack by brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as one of intent or outcome. Although no one was killed in the bombings of NYPD headquarters, the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol building between 1970 and 1972, Ayers’ then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, pal Terry Robbins and fellow Weather Underground member Ted Gold were all killed when a bomb they were making in a Greenwich Village townhouse exploded. That bomb, which was packed with nails similar to the pressure cooker bombs used to kill three and injure more than 200 at the Boston Marathon, was intended for use on newly drafted soldiers at Fort Dix, according to authorities.

  45. You may be right in that bloggers here may FEEL that, but just because someone feels something, doesn’t make it so. I’m hardly a socialist. At most I’m a social democrat. I mean, I don’t believe the state should control the means of production, so that’s kind of a big deal.*****Socialism is the tool of the powerful, far removed from a movement of the downtrodden masses, a method to consolidation and controlling wealth, and certainly not sharing anything.

    1. +++Socialism is the tool of the powerful, far removed from a movement of the downtrodden masses, a method to consolidation and controlling wealth, and certainly not sharing anything.+++

      Here, fixed it for you –

      Corporatism/Fascism is the tool of the powerful, far removed from a movement of the downtrodden masses, a method to consolidation and controlling wealth, and certainly not sharing anything.

    1. +++ Democrats tried to tell us that Hitler wasn’t all that bad until it was almost too late. +++

      I think you’re confusing Democrats with American corporations.

  46. No c: Fascism and Marxism are very close on the political continuum and they are both of the left. Even modern vocabulary and word definition torture can’t make fascism say anything other than it’s an ideology of the left.

    Regards

    1. Mostly, it’s been modern vocabulary and word definition that has attempted to make this erroneous distinction. Credible consensus puts it where it belongs, on the right.

      The political continuum of which you speak could be viewed as a line, or an almost closed circle – makes no difference which.

      If you start from an imaginary center and add known ingredients of increasing conservatism, you will eventually get to your authoritarian right – fascism. And the same goes moving left, to communism. In the circle continuum, they will come very close to each other, but they will not touch, for very good reasons.

    2. Mr. c: NO! You are mistaken. Fascism is a collectivist ideology and clearly so. The fact that they don’t precisely overlap doesn’t change that. The communism of Stalin and Mao was different too but it still was.

      The distinction is correct and the more recent “creditable consensus”
      works to hide the unpleasant reality.

      Cordially

    3. They never overlap! Using collectivism as your criterion is the weakest of links. If that’s all it takes, capitalists are communists. Like minded voters are communists. Your bridge club is communist. We’re all communists.

      You have to have several very important factors – again, if you start in the middle of the continuum and work your way left and right, you’ll see it. It’ll be a revelation. You’ll wonder why you ever thought you were right in the first place.

    4. They absolutely overlap. Liked minded voters aren’t communist either. Common interest has nothing to do with communism. Collective bargaining as part of a labor group doesn’t make one a communist.

      It’s your bridge club and you have common interest not common property.

      You left because the damned old fools didn’t like your “suggestions” about appropriating their stuff in the name of the proper social order.
      You should have expected that among the senile geriatric crowd.

      Get yourself the latest from Samsung or Apple, go some place like, I dunno…Starbucks?? and preach the gospel to the younger crowd. There are plenty of them that are buying it.

      I think you are on to something with the selfie stick. A couple already killed when their sticks were struck by lightning. Maybe the black plague of the next century?

      I’ll be damned if it doesn’t look like….a weapon? More effective than a broken off car antennae and less than a light baton. Might work if your adversary wasn’t just real determined.

      Just wait till you tell that too smart for God young nineteen year old with COEXIST tattooed across the back of her neck about the permit and renewal plan. Now you got a real problem. I’ll tell her to call you.

      Best

    5. Surprisingly, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m of the belief that the 2 systems get close – right at the authoritarian ends of the continuum, but never touch. And the reason they never touch is because of how they got there. And the getting there is everything when considering right vs. left.

      I do like some of these other models containing both an x and y axis. I think they make a nice illustration of degrees or right and left along with strength of authoritarianism. But even with these, there is still a line.

      I hadn’t considered the weapon aspect of a selfie stick – but I have thought about how they’ll be adding features. It seems they’ll be around awhile.
      So from a self defense perspective you could easily add a stiletto or a mace cartridge. Or both. Or a quick removable end cap revealing a sharp point – instant spear. More likely they’ll just add a make-up case.

      Re: coexist – nothing wrong with a little idealism in our youth. They’ve got plenty of time to turn into cranky and cynical old people.

  47. “You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. … expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism.” ~Benito Mussolini

    “Go f’k yourself” ~ Tom

    1. CS- I believe that to be the way the majority of bloggers here feel about your stance on everything you have “discussed”.

    2. You may be right in that bloggers here may FEEL that, but just because someone feels something, doesn’t make it so. I’m hardly a socialist. At most I’m a social democrat. I mean, I don’t believe the state should control the means of production, so that’s kind of a big deal. Simply put, I like capitalism. It’s the best economic system. And when paired with a form of democracy as its political system, we have a winning combination.

      But what’s that got to do with Mussolini being right wing?

    3. At least you keep trying. I don’t see a year on that quote, but I guess it was when he still thought he could pass for a socialist. Or maybe he said it when he got thrown out of the socialist party. I kind of doubt he said it when he was helping Franco’s fascists in Spain, however. The General wouldn’t have liked that.

      Mussolini calling himself a socialist is like you calling yourself a guy who doesn’t post easily debunked drivel. We all look at ourselves one way, but then there is reality.

  48. cc: You know that’s lame. Most of the bridge players I know are relatively elderly woman with an occasional guy of like chronology. Talk about a goofy conspiracy and you damn well know it. One never knows in the cyber world but I’m reasonably sure you’re puttin’ me on. Old guys mostly don’t know it (bridge) and if it doesn’t live on a screen they can hold in their hand the young ones aren’t interested even if they could master it which mostly they couldn’t.

    I know lots of “gun people” and I’m quite sure none of them plan on arming criminals. Another statist boogie man.

    The most lethal act of mas murder ever committed on US soil not considered an act of terrorism was accomplished with a couple of dollars worth of gasoline. It was far worse than anything done with a firearm Yes, it actually was thus proving again, still again, that Steinbeck was correct.

    Mr Ayers, the charming Bernadine and company didn’t seem to have any trouble making bombs without permission. Regardless of the nobility of their cause I’m pretty sure their enterprise reeked of illegality from beginning to end.

    Cordially

    1. ++++One never knows in the cyber world but I’m reasonably sure you’re puttin’ me on. +++++

      It’s this.

      Old guys mostly don’t know it (bridge) and if it doesn’t live on a screen they can hold in their hand the young ones aren’t interested even if they could master it which mostly they couldn’t.+++++

      I tried it once for a couple of weeks. I suppose it was interesting, but ….nah.

    2. Mr c: SEE. Who needs games like that when your PED can define all things, and as the witless millennials can attest, you can take your own picture 47 times per day. A generation consumed with taking pictures of themselves will take us exactly where you want to go….and they are. More congratulations.

      Cordially

    3. Hey! That’s not my generation! If it were up to me, selfie sticks would be banned along with most military style weapons. It may turn out that ultimately, selfie sticks are more dangerous than all these terror groups we are talking about.

    4. c: See previous comment on the selfie sticks. You may be right.

      Ban military style weapons? Well, the US military has been issued as individual small arms everything from full autos to smooth bore black powder muskets so that ought to get most all of ’em. Clever, not much it won’t cover.

      “They” would never do that? Please. A Henry manufactured in 1864 is a 15 shot repeater, the deadliest arm (hype it) of the Civil War. It was truly the”assault rifle” of it’s day. Fifteen rounds in the magazine. Who needs that? How am I doing?

      Lots of fully functional Henry rifles (real ones) around if you are willing to pay the price. Firearms are durable.

      Cordially

  49. Tom – I all seriousness, if you truly want to learn something***** The last place I’d turn to is you, your philosophy, your party, or anyone resembling the moron that you are.,

    1. +++The last place I’d turn to is you, your philosophy, your party, or anyone resembling the moron that you are.+++

      Haha ok fair enough. But you just did, in quoting Paxton! But don’t worry, I won’t tell any of your friends – we’ll keep it between ourselves.

  50. What he’s talking about in Europe for instance****** What he’s talking about is places like Detroit asshole, where Democrat policies create the social programs locking people in poverty, over regulating, crippling education for the poor, encourage single parenthood, discouraging the development job skills and leading to higher numbers of people in poverty, with higher dependence on the government. What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail. In so far as they fail, they receive the money; in so far as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away. The Left then blames the “Rich”, despite the fact that the 1% are overwhelmingly Democrats ( they control the majority of the wealthiest voting districts).  This all stokes the anger, envy of the poor and they vote for more Democrats.  And so the “ poverty cycle” begins again yet again. There are no economically disadvantaged groups that Democrats won’t take advantage of in return for their vote ! In a political environment devoid of a strong Constitution, it’s a Fascist’s dream !

    1. Tom – I all seriousness, if you truly want to learn something, or know something, or if you actually care whether you actually know what you’re talking about, read about Robert Paxton. I know it doesn’t matter here, on a message board you can say anything under a fake name and then shut down the computer- but you know, for your own satisfaction.

      Paxton came up with a theory on how fascism begins and grows. He based it on what he learned about Nazi Germany and Vicky France. It’s pretty much a playbook for describing white disenfranchisement. It has nothing to do with the poor – and certainly not the black poor of Detroit.

      I am loath to drop names, but I know people who took classes with him when he taught at Columbia. As I said – you really should do yourself a favor and study his work. I mean, you’re at 2/12, why stop there?

  51. Domestic and foreign terrorists DO NOT show the same level headedness. They kill innocent people, intentionally. This is no small distinction.****** You continue to defend Billy. How stupid are you. Should we have a shipment of fertilizer sent to your house, you Ficus….. Oh wait you make your on bulls@#$….

  52. Bill Kennedy- Ain’t it the truth?!! And this idiot (CS) believes he is continuing to ” have a discussion”. The really scary part is that he believes himself to be a ” reasonable, responsible gun owner. Someone should check him out and take away HIS gun before he shoots HIMSELF or someone he cares about accidentally. Wait , I take that back, someone get him another cleaning kit!

  53. Personally, I couldn’t have done what Ayers did. ******* Personally you are a moron. If anyone should be kept from owning a firearm it would be the mentally challenged…. You seem to fit the pattern.

  54. cc: If I can only utilize at most two firearms simultaneously what difference does it make if I have 7 or 12? Why should my government masters care if they concede 2 are ok?

    Cordially

    1. You know how those bridge games can quickly turn ugly? Best to err on the side of caution.

      Or if I were to get all conspiratorial like some of you guys do – I suppose you’d use them to arm a bunch of your buddies that aren’t able to own guns because of those loose screws previously mentioned. Not you, personally –

  55. Robert Paxton says that fascism is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood……. Describe perfectly the society that the liberal Democrats have built through out this country..

    1. Tom, you pick a partial quote from a guy who was trying to explain to you that fascism is exactly what we’ve always known it to be.

      First, let’s finish the quote:

      Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

      What he’s talking about in Europe for instance, would be the white conservatives, feeling victims of multiculturalism, Jews, affirmative action, the rise of the left, etc – becoming increasingly and nationalistically militant.

      So, probably a bad idea to quote Paxton. Because what he is describing is pretty much the Tea Party, most domestic terrorists, Glen Beck Etal.

      If you read his “The Five Stages of Fascism”, you would see you’re at about 2 1/2 although there are already elements of 4 (yes there are some fascist leaning Democrats). Hopefully it goes no further.

    2. cc: You gotta know that the history of so called multicultural societies is nothing short of dismal.

      You said earlier you wouldn’t allow anyone hostile to immigrate. Yes you said that. The multicultural element that is being invited and sometimes simply placed here in large numbers are disproportionately very hostile. Unfortunately that’s a fact that you dismiss at your peril and neither of us is going to like it.

      You think sweet Bernadine might be recruited in the future to make bombs for my side?

      Regardless of how pristine the intentions of those that come here from the South, they are overwhelmingly people of few skills and many needs. The groups damaged most here are the ones with whom they compete for jobs, that is those with the fewest skills. Ironically that includes those here illegally ahead of them as one wave undercuts the previous one. We are willfully creating a hard underclass that will be beholden to one political party for sustenance at the expense of the rest of us.

      Your multicultural future in the US may look a lot like Mexico which truly is a country of have and have not.

      Congratulations, you’re very enlightened.

      We are presently given to redefining words for the purpose of political expediency. The classical definition of fascism is the melding of the power of the corporation and the state. There were already elements of it present but your guy has taken it rapidly to the next level.

      Jonathan Turley is a very liberal law professor, Georgetown I think. If it alarms him, and it does, it ought to alarm you. He says the Prez has become precisely what the Constitution was designed to thwart. Let “social justice” prevail, the Constitution be damned.

      Cordially

    3. I grew up in a multi-cultural setting and still live in one. Of course there are problems. But on balance, the benefits far outweigh the problems. Having said that, it’s a tricky situation when you consider what is or should be the makeup of the mix. As people love to say, we’re a country of immigrants – and we’ll continue to be. Policy should be that people hostile to the US should not be part of that equation. How? I don’t have the answer.

      The big driver of immigration from the south are jobs, imaginary or real. Reality is, businesses want cheap labor. Homeowners want cheap labor. Consumers want cheap goods – food and otherwise.
      Mexicans undercut Koreans who undercut white Americans. But make no mistake – it’s the consumer driving it. It’s the same reason Walmart sells $7 t-shirts from China and McDonalds sells 89 cent diseased “hamburgers”. It’s what we want.

      It is a sad race to the bottom which exists in many sectors.

      I like Jonathan Turley, but he’s a libertarian.

    4. Mr c: You are ducking and dodging with platitudes and cliches.

      Jonathan Turley, by any definition, is most assuredly not a libertarian as anyone who looks will quickly find. He simply recognizes the constitutional restraints of original intent that make the statist goals (yours I’m pretty sure) of the left a struggle…sometimes.

      No, the consumer, in the manner you indicate, isn’t driving this. There is, clearly, the political will among the electorate at large to make real changes to our immigration policy. Your party is at least as involved as the other in our problems, probably more, and their subservience to the worst inclinations of corporate America just as bad. Look at the money. It says D in amounts that equal or exceed R.

      You propose a goal of keeping out the hostiles then verbally throw up your hands and say, in effect, it’s just too difficult. Unsaid I think is the acknowledgement that doing anything substantive would prove a liability to the political left.

      A nation of immigrants? Not like this or anything remotely like it. When advocacy groups like La Raza and Maldef seek out or even greet illegals with written instructions on how to use the system and it’s benefits (yes, they can and they do) then it makes a dark joke of that phrase.

      The nation of immigrants offered opportunity and nothing more. Ellis Island had no person or office of “social justice.” You are willing to tolerate and encourage this in the pursuit social and political goals. It will be our undoing that immigrants aren’t assimilating (one culture more or less) but are being encouraged to effectively deassimilate with the second or third generation less American than the previous one.

      We’re just Somalis (or pick another) living in America for our check. You gotta problem with that? Expect a torrent of idiocy beginning with bigot and xenophobe and working out and up from there. This is, as Toynbee said, national suicide. You feign acknowledgement but acquiesce or encourage in the name of political expediency. Your comment on this is almost trollish.

      I said unequivocally that McVeigh was a criminal and deserved to lose his life. He was also a relative rarity and your insistence that common criminals constitute the real threat to individual citizens and the country addresses your own goals.

      You acknowledge that Ayers and company committed criminal acts but you seem to have no serious problem with it because the goal was worthy and their intentions pristine. I think your assertions that they never intended to hurt anyone are mistaken willfully or otherwise. Perhaps they are just unfathomably naive.

      They had no problem getting what they needed did they? Nor did the gentleman who killed nearly one hundred with a small can of gasoline. I think you live in constant fear of your fellow citizens, who pose a rather small threat, while you acquiesce in the importation of large numbers, many of whom are a much greater danger, in the name of some greater social good.

      Given the magnitude of what the federal government did at Waco why wouldn’t any rational person be at least a little wary? It’s not necessary to be an apologist for David Koresh to see the problem. I don’t understand why anyone, as you do, would describe this as anti government wackiness unless it served another purpose. Perhaps unrestrained central power in the name of some specific goals? You can explain it to the suspicious peasants I’m quite sure.

      Cordially

    5. I have been known to use the platitude and the cliché. Sometimes in the same sentence.

      Turley is a libertarian. Many libertarians are “socially liberal”. It does not make them a liberal – it just makes them sound reasonable for a short period of time.

      Yes, the politicians – both sides – have issues dealing with immigration. But let’s be clear – we’re really talking ONLY about hispanics and the hispanic vote. As for numbers, this is certainly not what I am referring to when I talk about hostiles. There is nothing hostile about cerveza, margaritas, and mariachi bands. And again, consumers drive this traffic. Many of these people are our modern day slaves, and we do love our slaves. The least we can do is provide a little social service for our slaves, no?

      As for keeping out Somalis, Syrians, etc – well, you figure that out, You’re the law and order guy.

      McVeigh isn’t rare and wasn’t a common criminal. He was one of many affiliated, whether loosely or not, right wing militia types. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of them. This is not a platitude. But to be clear, personally I’m not afraid of them. We don’t live in the same neighborhood, nor frequent the same bars.

      Waco – it was unfortunate that the gov’t bungled this service of warrant operation so badly – So poorly that these kooks got their end of times wish. It’s truly unfortunate that kids, who may have escaped this foolishness at some point in their lives, had to die also. The Feds bungled, and the Koreshians fumbled.

      Reality is, other gov’t law enforcement agencies – city cops,etc and the military, bungle operations all the time. Why would the FBI and the ATF be any different?

      I have zero interest in unrestrained central power. I have zero interest in unrestrained local power. From where I sit, however, the local power issue is much more relevant and dangerous to the average person, as of right now.

    6. No c, they aren’t slaves of any sort and huge numbers of them have just the effect on the lower legal economic strata that was described. You are again avoiding dealing with the real problem. The political will in the electorate at large exists to change things. Avoiding it, obviously, works to your political advantage. It goes well beyond consumerism.

      I’m the law and orderived guy? Oh come now. Anyone following this string knows who has shown the greatest fear of his fellow Americans and the most faith in central authority. That flip response says my side of the airplane is on fire and perhaps it is. When the structure gives way you can try again. The Somalis, at least some of them, probably know a thing or two about slavery from the owning side. Another trolls response.

      Mc V actually is rare and the commonest of criminals as well. The only way your thesis works is to include them and that is precisely what you are doing and why.

      Local power is far easier to dispose of than federal bureaucrats who can be nearly impervious. Local power is far more limited. This is good.

      Yeah, they bungle badly and often.

    7. Since this does relate to the original post, way back when – it’s important to address.

      Previously posted:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=458&v=1XA_yW7Z5OM

      Even LinkedIn has a list of militia groups one can join. A lot of these groups have websites. Pretty hilarious. It’s like a “how-to-not” build a website instruction manual.

      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140607145036-66813483-a-list-of-state-militia-you-can-join

      BK, who are these people? What are they doing and thinking? Why is that cop in the video allowed to possess a gun? If that isn’t a screw loose, I don’t know what is.

      Again – this isn’t rare stuff.

    8. Who indeed.

      For twenty five years another boogie man of the left that nobody could find living examples of. Where’s the list of crimes committed by all these alleged government threatening militias? Southern Poverty Law Center fabrications perhaps?

      Apparently one or more “militias” rejected McVeigh because they thought he was crazy which of course he was, as well as rare.

      I have no idea who the cop is. I know you say he is a cop. He was an agent of some level of government, prone to serious imperfections as they are at all levels. These are the reps of government that you insist I offer unquestioning obedience to because?

      FBI agents arrested 29 year old Kevin Lumpkin for knowingly selling firearms to a pair of felons. Mr Lumpkin was a police officer in North Randall, Ohio .There are lots of these.

      Leland Yee. This one was potentially very ugly.

      A healthy suspicion is entirely justified.

      Who are these people?

      Cordially

    9. Similar to what happens in the jihadi world, many of these people are sympathetic to a related cause, and some of them actually do things, whether organized or inspired by makes no difference. And yeah the SPLC is doing God’s Work, for sure. I mean, someone’s got to since the Christians aren’t.

      Leland Yee – fascinating case with Shrimp Boy and others, but it has nothing to do with any of this. Film noir gangster stuff.

      “Forget it, Jake; it’s Chinatown” – Chinatown 1974

    10. 3rd and final try to post this…..

      ++++ No c, they aren’t slaves of any sort and huge numbers of them have just the effect on the lower legal economic strata that was described. You are again avoiding dealing with the real problem. The political will in the electorate at large exists to change things. Avoiding it, obviously, works to your political advantage. It goes well beyond consumerism. ++++

      Modern slaves. Not actually dictionary definition slaves. And yes, we as a society do like our cheap labor, for everything from sweatshops, gardening, construction, domestic help, farming, etc.. It’s inconvenient to your argument, but your white friends – and mine – are NOT going to do this work at those wages.

      +++ Mc V actually is rare and the commonest of criminals as well. The only way your thesis works is to include them and that is precisely what you are doing and why. ++++

      I don’t think there is anything rare about 50k to 150k of these affiliated kooks – whether tightly affiliated or loosely affiliated in ideology makes no difference.

      Here’s a good example of an inspirational leader. A good law abiding, law enforcement officer. Patriot. NOT RARE.

      youtubecom/watch?t=458&v=1XA_yW7Z5OM

      Add period after youtube – I have to do that or they moderate the post.

      “Roy Blunt (Republican) and Claire McCaskill (Democrat) won’t even talk to me, they say, ‘you’re an extremist’ and I say, ‘amen!’” the cop raves on video. “And I’m real good with a rifle. My best shot is 1,875 meters, I got me a gold star on that one. You run from me, you’re gonna die tired.”

    11. c: That’s right , not slaves in any way or form other than the one you and the left invents. Again, millions trying to get here to be enslaved by the evil US and, of course, mostly white Cracker slave masters.

      When someone without a high school diploma and possibly marginal literacy, can make $12 per hour or more if he will just show up and do a little work there probably won’t be a slave found anywhere.

      A significant minority where I grew up and live now did agricultural work for much of the year until they went off to college and/or pursued real jobs. This frequently lasted for years and the pay, corrected for inflation was still less than $12 per hour.

      Working in the tobacco fields and barns was physically demanding by any standard and there wasn’t a slave to be found. We could leave anytime we wanted but very few did. We just took better jobs when they could get them.

      This isn’t about what was then and what is now. The same thing applies. No slaves then, no slaves now.

      c, the number of men on any given day that could reliably make an 1875 METER shot, (assuming here a rifle, any rifle) even under good conditions, is so small that you don’t need to worry. You can laugh at
      him.

    12. Since this does relate to the original post, way back when – it’s important to address.

      Previously posted:
      youtubecom/watch?t=458&v=1XA_yW7Z5OM

      Even LinkedIn has a list of militia groups one can join. A lot of these groups have websites. Pretty hilarious. It’s like a “how-to-not” build a website instruction manual.

      Again – add period after linkedin

      linkedincom/pulse/20140607145036-66813483-a-list-of-state-militia-you-can-join

      BK, who are these people? What are they doing and thinking? Why is that cop in the video allowed to possess a gun? If that isn’t a screw loose, I don’t know what is.

      Again – this isn’t rare stuff.

  56. I call bullsh!@! Every time you’re cornered, your story changes…

    “The only difference is that the domestic guys are sick and the jihadis are sick and depraved. Bill Ayers was neither.” Sounds like a defense to me.

    “You see, when people talk about gun control, they’re talking about people like you, among others. People that seem to have a bit of a screw loose.”…… Yet you sympathize with Ayers, because he showed such level headedness.

    “Ayers goal was the end of the Vietnam War – a noble cause for which I had sympathy. He did not target people”…… So what if he had killed ” unintentionally”.( in reality he did, when his side kick was killed) Would you continue to support him? How would that effect your narrative? You make no f’k’g sense, simply another narcissistic liberal, pissing on everyone and telling them it’s raining.

    You’re as full of sh@# as a Christmas goose… Get f’k’g lost !

    1. There is a difference between defending someone, and sympathizing with the cause. I can’t make you see the difference, obviously, but it’s there.

      Personally, I couldn’t have done what Ayers did. Maybe I’m too chicken, maybe I lack the conviction, maybe I don’t agree with it as a tactic, maybe the risk of injury to others is too high. Maybe all of the above. But I can certainly sympathize with the cause – which was to bring about an end to a terrible war.

      And yes, what Ayers did was level headed – in how it was done, and in why it was done. This is not a defense – it’s an analysis of the act.

      Domestic and foreign terrorists DO NOT show the same level headedness. They kill innocent people, intentionally. This is no small distinction.

    2. @slicker ,
      I second his vote why dont you just get lost slick you are a total moron no one gives a crap about either we ARE FREE AMERICANS. Now go join ya fellow democrat idiots and wish for a socialist america it will never happen .

  57. There is a huge fundamental difference between what Bill Ayers did ******* So, slick, just so I’m clear,you defend someone who committed crimes against the government, while illegally possessing explosives and making bombs because he didn’t intend to harm anyone, yet you stand by your belief that the government should confiscate semi-automatic firearms ( or what ever type weapon ) from law abiding citizens that have no intention of killing anyone except in defense of their own life? Got it! Liberal logic repels the mind!

    1. I don’t defend Ayers – I said I sympathized with the cause. I don’t think anyone should be possessing explosives and making bombs.

      As for guns – I don’t think people NEED to possess certain types (or amounts) of weapons for defense of their own life. I do support the right to gun ownership.

      Liberal/conservative logic? I think it’s called reasonable.

  58. Martin, it was a funny logic exercise, not a manifesto. In any event, I’ll continue to post if there are those who wish to discuss issues. And if there aren’t, well, then I won’t.

  59. Well slick- first off you are a disrespectful nothing- I don’t know where you get off calling me “Marty”. Secondly”scumbag ” is just trying to make you aware that you are, in fact, a scumbag. And finally, I have not threatened you, nor would I. I have repeatedly stated that a support your right as an American( I guess) to be a pure sh$thead, and would fight to the death for you to continue to have that right. You can rest assured that if you ever angered me to the point of threatening you, I would instead tear off you sorry head and Sh:t down your throat, and you’d have no warning.

    1. Where I grew up, everyone had nicknames. No disrespect intended. But if you’re one of those fancy lads who always wants your full name used – no problem.

      As for the rest, well – I can’t help but notice the inconsistency of the idea of fighting for my right to be a sh$thead, while at the same time tearing off my head, which would in fact deprive me of my right to be a sh$thead.

      I prefer discussing gun issues Martin. If you don’t want to – then don’t.

    2. I said I would drfend your right to be, not that I would protect you from the possible/ probable consequences when you excersize that right, or try to deprive me or those I love of their God-given rights. You might need to think for a minute or two before you respond to that, as there are many, many former Marines who are not as amicable as I have been, and we all roll pretty much the same way. Get lost before you piss off the wrong person. You can be found.

  60. Slick- for someone who claims that he? Would “never think of mocking somebody” you have thoroughly pissed off every single person you have attempted to impress with your knowledge of world affairs and the gun situation in America with nothing but thinly veiled attempts at mockery. You are soooo smart. Crawl back into the hole you crawled out of scumbag.

    1. Trying to inject a little humor is not mocking. And I certainly haven’t called anyone a scumbag or threatened them. If you don’t want to discuss things, then don’t. I’m not holding a gun to your head. Get it? Gun to your head? A joke, Marty. It’s a shooters log!

    2. @city slicker,
      Man you are a real a$$ there pal why dont you stick your liberal commie head in the ground and hide with hillaries emails dude and just get off this forum we are gun owners and we carry that is our right where we choose to live if you do not like it i would think the rest could care as little as i do it is morons like you that do the shootings when you throw a i will get my way fit and go start shooting up a mall or something stupid for gun control laws i hope i am in that mall that day slick i will show you then what gun control really is where i come from down in Tenn. It is hitting what we aim at first shot and not acting like you are now on this forum . Just stfu no one cares dude.

    1. ++++When you post a fact I listen. Until then, adios++++

      Yeah, probably best you take the 5th on that question. God bless the Constitution.

    1. i don’t think anyone is disputing Ayers committed criminal acts.****** apparently you are.

      Come on Tom, try to stay with the conversation. I said I sympathized with the cause. And I said he didn’t target people – civilian or military. This is not incompatible with recognizing he committed criminal acts.

      You see, when people talk about gun control, they’re talking about people like you, among others. People that seem to have a bit of a screw loose. And when politicians align themselves with people like you, they don’t get elected to national office. Because they sound crazy.

      So, I don’t mind saying this again – it gives you a chance to step back from the brink:

      Ayers goal was the end of the Vietnam War – a noble cause for which I had sympathy. He did not target people.

      Your list of Muslims – I do not sympathize with their cause and they target people.

      The list of domestic terrorists I posted (of which there are many more) – I do not sympathize with their cause and they target people.

      Where do you stand?

      Obviously you did not sympathize with the people who wanted to end the Vietnam War. What about the other 2 groups? Do you agree with their causes and tactics?

      Go crazy – figuratively and literally.

    1. Tom, in future history books, when they talk about the reasons stricter gun control was implemented, they’ll just have a picture of you.

  61. Ayers participated in the 1971 bombing of the Capitol building and the 1972 bombing of the Pentagon, according to his 2001 book Fugitive Days: A Memoir. He remained underground for a decade. Federal charges against Ayers and Dohrn were dismissed because of “improper surveillance,” according to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times. You go to hell for lying just as for stealing. What he did was a Federal crime, and an act of terrorism. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
    Were it to happen today he would still be incarcerated. As previous, the values held by the liberal mind are most dubious.

    1. Ayers goal was the end of the Vietnam War – a noble cause for which I had sympathy. He did not target people.

      Your list of Muslims – I do not sympathize with their cause and they target people.

      The list of domestic terrorists I posted (of which there are many more) – I do not sympathize with their cause and they target people.

      Where do you stand?

  62. Liberal values all show the say character flaw…… that’s giving credit that they even have any values, which requires a considerable leap of faith.

  63. cc: It’s probably already overtaken it and there has to be the will to deport or limit the people who seem inclined. That will is presently conspicuous by it’s total absence.

    Cordially

  64. Saul Alinsky? How many people has he killed?***** I was thinking of Billy Ayers, not Saul, although Bill was a disciple ( and decided terrorist.

    1. Ah, of course. The dangerous communist who also killed no one – trying to bring about the end of yet another horrible and unnecessary war.

  65. cc: The number of “domestic terrorists” or “homegrown terrorists” (the terms the political left are so fond of) is, from any realistic perspective, tiny and they were individuals without any support network to speak of.

    The assertion that they are no different than a loosely connected but essentially global network of people who have not the slightest hesitation in killing us in numbers as large as possible addresses your personal goals, social and political.

    Your friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center have become wealthy
    claiming anyone with a Confederate flag is really just as much of a threat as the hair on fire Wahhabis. Morris Dees was/is one slick little hustler and grew very very wealthy at his hustle.

    The new norm? Homicides have dropped by nearly fifty percent over the last twenty years or so. This during a period of probably
    unprecedented growth in the number of firearms in private hands.
    During the same time period violence in the name of Islam (in the US) has moved from very rare to relatively common. We are lucky that, so far, the efforts have mostly been clumsy. That will change. Your response will be the same relentless pursuit of unilateral disarmament of the law abiding. The data you say supports this doesn’t exist. It’s just your statist wish list.

    “There is no doubt that immigration policies need work. They always have.” That’s a platitude. It’s meaningless. Does it mean we should allow the import and forcible placement of one million mostly hostile people from the Islamic world every year rather than half that. That’s change as your guy defines it. I would say have at it but it’s already happening and they all live on the American taxpayers dime.

    Congratulations

    1. ++The number of “domestic terrorists” or “homegrown terrorists” (the terms the political left are so fond of) is, from any realistic perspective, tiny and they were individuals without any support network to speak of.++

      Support network, or support and networks come in many shapes and sizes. Some of the muslim acts have been “inspired” acts. No known support – no overt network involvement. I would say most of the domestic stuff has been the same. However, there are definitely groups of likeminded people inspiring each other, however it is they do that.

      My personal, social and political goals aren’t unusual – at least I would hope not. Keep people safe from terrorist attacks, whether foreign or domestic. Work to eliminate terrorists, whether foreign or domestic.

      Sam Harris has put forth controversial opinions on Islam – you may know them. One of his ideas is that although the group of people who would be active jihadis is the smallest group, as you move further out you have a larger circle of people who will aid and support and a larger group still who agree/sympathize etc, until you have a billion or more people with some level of complicity. I agree with his sentiment. It’s not a popular idea in liberal circles.

      I think the same can be said for domestic groups, in smaller numbers. The point is, take the circle out far enough and there may be a level of complicity in flying a Confederate flag. I think it’s easy to understand why.

      ++Does it mean we should allow the import and forcible placement of one million mostly hostile people from the Islamic world every year rather than half that. That’s change as your guy defines it. I would say have at it but it’s already happening and they all live on the American taxpayers dime.++

      If it were my decision, I would allow the import of zero hostile people.

  66. This is funny and of course a bit sick. This is how you characterize the abbreviated list of people I posted?******* You can call it what ever the f’k you want to call it, but they were all individuals with some kind of hard on for the government, organizing small groups or acting alone…… You could put YOUR Presidents buddy, Saul Alinsky, on the list as well….. Beat it Scooter. No one has the time nor inclination to listen to your moronic pitter patter.

    1. Saul Alinsky? How many people has he killed? Saul Alinsky did more in his lifetime to make this a better country than you could do in a thousand lifetimes. You know NOTHING about Saul Alinsky.

      It’s obvious talking about domestic terrorists hits a little too close to home for you and so we shall not discuss it anymore. It’s a little scary you’re a gun owner.

    2. cc: The association between “domestic terrorist” and gun owners is entirely yours and, as anyone who makes a cursory examination will quickly find, won’t stand ten seconds scrutiny.

      Alinsky didn’t kill anyone though it’s hard not to hear the subtle urge to violence in his message.

      Bill Ayers and his sweet little honey Bernadine? Mr Ayers and your guy? Didn’t they favor explosives? Didn’t one of Mr Ayers and Bernadine’s homies blow himself up? Was he assembling something for a 4th of July display? What would Mr Ayers, the D lady and their dear departed close companion think of celebrating that day? You don’t think so? Me either.

      So, what were your guys friends Mr Ayers and Bernadine up to. All in the name of the Holy Grail….”social justice?” Right on, right on.

      I do believe Mr Ayers and charming Bernadine live the relatively affluent, soft and pampered lives of upscale academics. While protected by our laws they still call for our destruction. Neither one of them or their associates has or ever would put there soft bodies at risk for the Republic. They make the perfect examples of what I think you want in the world and I must say, regrettably, there has been much progress in that regard.

      Keep at it.

      Cordially

    3. +++cc: The association between “domestic terrorist” and gun owners is entirely yours and, as anyone who makes a cursory examination will quickly find, won’t stand ten seconds scrutiny.+++

      I wouldn’t do that. But if one were to add several / 10 or more qualifiers to “gun owner” you’d probably be able to come up with a pretty good profile of which your denial wouldn’t stand 5 seconds of credibility.

      +++Alinsky didn’t kill anyone though it’s hard not to hear the subtle urge to violence in his message.+++

      Haha – the irony of that statement on this thread is too much. No subtly here.

      Ayers was against the Vietnam War – a pretty noble idea – then and now. He blew up buildings – parts of buildings really. Never targeted people.

      As for his political/economic goals – I don’t know. He said he was a communist. Others too. I’m not a communist. So what? As for calling for our destruction? I think not.

    4. cc: “add several/10 or more qualifiers to “gun owners…”‘ Jeez c that makes my point. My “denial” will stand the highest scrutiny.

      Mr Ayers has assured us that he never intended to kill anybody and you have assured me that’s correct but I’m not really sure it’s that clear. In any case when you blow up buildings with large explosive charges the chance of killing somebody is considerable and somewhere along the way I believe they did, plus of course there own amateur demo guy who whacked himself with his own bomb. What a pity.

      Lots of folks eventually came to see Vietnam as a waste of American blood and treasurer but still saw Ayers and company for what they were.

      It seems like you’re defending him because…you see…he really didn’t want to kill anybody and it was a worthy cause. Boom. Given your intense discomfort with my gun safe this reeks of irony…really.

      Outside some good bomb making skills in the countries in the ME where there is fighting, the bomb making outside that area has, fortunately to this point, not been that good.

      In the Beslan school incident the hostage takers were ok at making them but not very good and making them explode when they wanted. Several relatively powerful bombs went off prematurely with one blowing several young children through the windows. The bewildered children went back inside. Three days, 330 dead. 700 wounded.

      Do you know what det cord is? It’s an explosive itself and it’s also used to detonate other charges. Isis executes men by looping multiple coils of det cord around prisoners necks ten to fifteen at a time. The detonation will severe cleanly about half the heads and it’s 100% effective. Relatively inexpensive too. They make very high quality videos of this.

      To compare Eric Rudolph and a hand full of followers with these guys doesn’t come close to working. It’s silly.

      The outer circle, a substantial minority, does nothing because they are afraid of the various inner circles, all of them. It’s not controversial, it’s indisputable. It’s inconvenient in the extreme.

      Cordially

    5. Bill, I’m happy about your gun safe. I mentioned in an earlier post that I’m a gun owner (not that anyone has the time to read all these posts to know that).

      There is a huge fundamental difference between what Bill Ayers did and what people like Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh did. So yes, I would put the latter in the category of the jihadis. The only difference is that the domestic guys are sick and the jihadis are sick and depraved. Bill Ayers was neither.

      The circles of complicity which Sam Harris speaks are important. I think it can be applied to many different situations. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam War – there were people who took direct and violent action (illegal) and then there were people who materially supported those actions (also illegal) then there were people who sympathized but would never do such things and vocally and physically opposed the war (legal) and then there were people who sympathized but did nothing (legal). The numbers go from small to large.

      In the case of the Vietnam War, I’d say the total numbers eventually numbered many many millions – probably 75 to 100 million.

      Sam Harris estimates, in the case of Muslims, it’s in the hundreds of millions. Quite problematic.

      In the case of domestic terrorism, I’m sure the numbers are fairly low by comparison – but I would say it’s got to be in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more. Now before your ridicule this figure, remember what it is I’m talking about – the outer circle of people who sympathize but do nothing themselves. Like when a guy flies his plane into the IRS – and some dude says “Yeah well the f*ckn IRS got what they deserved.”

      The Beslan school incident was horrible to be sure. What is the difference with that and the OKC bombing? Were those people any less bewildered or dead?

      What kind of guy was Timothy McVeigh? A sick guy? Sick and depraved? A sympathetic hero? A good gun owner until he wasn’t? A patriot? McVeigh is a good one to study, because he had all the right qualifiers of which I spoke earlier. And between him and his conspirators, there existed a pretty large circle of sympathizers of all types. A person like McVeigh, who had a permit to carry a gun, shouldn’t even be allowed to be near a gun, let alone carry one.

    6. cc: The distinction you make between Ayers, because you approve of his “cause”, and others whose cause you don’t will be recognized for what it is by most people. Again, it’s not that clear that he was diligent in making sure no innocents were hurt, assuming such a thing is possible given that he was blowing things up, and they did kill at least one person in addition to their martyred companion.

      The circle probably applies to almost everything to some degree but having no serious objection to someone who is already heavily taxed avoiding in some way paying even more isn’t the same thing. When the “wealthy”, meaning anyone with more than you, keep and spend their money in the open economy its a far more efficient and effective driver of commerce than the government. Your favored method of appropriation by some level government in the name of proper distribution (fairness don’t you know) is far worse than just inefficient, it’s corrosive. A certain sympathy for people keeping their own money rather than having it confiscated by the government isn’t the same thing as silence in the face of mass murder.

      It’s not just Beslan. The Mumbai attack killed wounded over 500. Just these two incidents account for nearly 2,000 in killed and wounded. There are countless others of just slightly less magnitude. The huge bomb in Indonesia that killed around 400 for instance.

      McVeigh’s family, his immediate family, began from the moment he was apprehended to provide evidence and testimony against him. They never attempted to protect him in any way and they never expressed anything other than revulsion. They were not coerced. That’s his family. The circle isn’t working very well is it?

      It’s entirely different than the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims being complicit, if only slightly, in the murder of other than Muslims. No matter how hard you to try to equate Eric Rudolph with radical Islam no rational person will see it that way because the threat is not even remotely the same. That’s what the evidence in every way says including the most important one, the numbers globally. It just doesn’t provide much leverage for favorite domestic political causes….like the confiscation of most of the privately owned firearms.

      In another touch of irony, by far the greatest threat of violent death to Muslims comes from other Muslims. Nothing and nobody is even close. Most of the men whose heads have been separated from their bodies by ISIS with det cord have been other Muslims of some sort with a few Coptic Christians tossed in for good measure.

      Problematic indeed.

      Cordially

    7. +++The distinction you make between Ayers, because you approve of his “cause”, and others whose cause you don’t will be recognized for what it is by most people.+++

      I certainly hope so. It should make it clear that I was against the Vietnam War and I’m not against, let’s say, Federal Income tax. Or SS. Or Medicare. Or National Parks and the list goes on.

      As for the “circle” idea, I think it’s a good one You’re of course looking for less than nuanced problems with it as it applies to domestic terrorists, but I’m pretty sure if you needed to argue my side, you’d be able to do it quite well.

      There is no dispute that the numbers are different That doesn’t diminish the affiliations, the inspirations, the brutal and callous tactics, the wanton disregard for life – innocent life and the deaths themselves. I will not call Beslan worse than OKC because it was Muslim jihadis vs. anti-gov’t wacko and because the numbers were higher. There are many more of both types of terrorists. Yes, worldwide, exponentially more jihadis – but in this country, I’d say there are more loose cannon domestic types running around. Another one killed a cop yesterday. I know you don’t see the connection, I do.

    8. Mr c: “Another one killed a cop yesterday. I know you don’t see the connection, I do.” A cop was killed by whom? I have no idea what you are talking about but I think you are serious this time and I think I’ll say lame again. Really.

      Again I have no idea what you’re talking about but if I could find someone foolish enough to take the other side of the bet I would gladly put $1,000 on the table every time a police officer was shot with the proposition that the person who did it was prohibited from legally owning a firearm. Occasionally I would be wrong and ultimately I would be wealthy. Will you bet this way with me? Repeatedly so I can have a really nice custom bolt gun suitable for shooting at 1,000 and beyond bought for me by Mr. C. Slicker? I know nobody needs to shoot at those long distances but just humor me here.

      You’re really are grasping for substance with this. Police officers are killed, overwhelmingly, by garden variety common criminals. The apparent contention that these guys are “domestic terrorists” kills your credibility and makes a generally coherent argument, that I happen to disagree with profoundly, into something truly goofy. If you really believe that it makes it even worse.

      Does “Black Lives Matter” qualify because they seemed to have triggered a series of police shootings that can be classified as nothing short of whimsical. A felon stopped for nothing more than a minor traffic citation just starts shooting. There may be some exceptions but every one in which I know the details involved a person that was prohibited from legally owning firearms.

      These criminals rarely have any discernible political ideology and they rarely seek to serve anyone other than themselves. If a circle of safety exists it’s a group of people, frequently other cons, that would sell them out in a moment. Southern Poverty Law Center has sold you a bill of goods that you bought because it was what you wanted to hear.

      I haven’t seen the numbers for a couple of years but even now I think you could expect to find at least 20% of the police officers shot in any year were shot with their own weapons. Now what?

      That police officers are mostly killed by people that can’t legally own firearms makes my point. You’re asking for the unilateral disarmament of the law abiding.

      Your contention that Beslan and Mumbai are no different and no worse than OKC speaks to your own very strong prejudices and preconceptions. The two lasted more than a week and involved around 2,000 casualties. In both cases large quantities of illegal weapons and munitions were provided by the support network and in both cases the jihadis were communicating with their handlers during the fighting.

      In OKC less than five murderous creatures were involved, they fled immediately for their own safety and their families, within hours of their apprehension, were cooperating in their prosecution. It isn’t the same and you have to have some other goal in insisting it is.

      When your position requires that I accept that ordinary criminals pose a threat in the form of a somehow connected domestic criminal network that functions as domestic terror threat you’ve lost me. There’s no sense in even discussing it.

      It is interesting that McVeigh said he was reacting to Waco. The incineration of over 80 people, the vast majority innocent of anything other than being present and several dozen of them children that was the work of a government so heavy handed and inept that real people have difficulty believing how bad it actually was.

      More than half the ATF casualties on the first day were self inflicted. That is they were shooting each other. Again, if you read an accurate account of what happened you would accuse someone of making it up to make the ATF look bad. No, one with that intent couldn’t have done it as well. Some of the ATF casualties likely resulted from a Uh-1(H) flying overhead and firing indiscriminately into the roof of the entire compound with an M60. Yes Mr. C they did.

      Nothing at Waco justifies OKC. McVeigh killed more innocents and he got what he deserved but it’s worth noting that when the government commits mass murder, and that’s what it was even if the original intent was different, it can bring about some unpleasant surprises.

      Cordially

    9. +++if I could find someone foolish enough to take the other side of the bet I would gladly put $1,000 on the table every time a police officer was shot with the proposition that the person who did it was prohibited from legally owning a firearm. Occasionally I would be wrong and ultimately I would be wealthy. Will you bet this way with me?+++

      No thanks – you’d have your new rifle far too soon.

      The point I was making was that in this case, these guns were legal (actually had just been ordered to be turned in). And as is often the case, the person possessing them was of the anti-govt type with a history that probably should have precluded him from having the guns in the first place.

      I don’t look at it as an either / or – just because most people who kill cops are probably prohibited from owning guns doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be looking at why it is this person was allowed to have guns. There should be regulations in place which make situations like this less likely – universal background checks, licenses, periodic renewals, etc. There are countries which do this quite successfully.

      ++++The apparent contention that these guys are “domestic terrorists” kills your credibility and makes a generally coherent argument, that I happen to disagree with profoundly, into something truly goofy.++++

      I am talking about this one situation and it’s relationship to other likeminded individuals.

      Re; Beslan and Mumbai you said – “When your position requires that I accept that ordinary criminals pose a threat in the form of a somehow connected domestic criminal network that functions as domestic terror threat you’ve lost me.”

      If you’re calling McVeigh an ordinary criminal, then you’ve lost me.

      We all understand that SOME of the jihadis worldwide have much larger numbers, more weapons, and a sophisticated support network. But many of them have been lone wolf types, inspired by philosophy or deed.

      In the US, the situation is very different. At this point in time, I would say domestic terrorists have better numbers, weapons and organization than do any Muslim groups. I don’t see this changing anytime soon. For me, it’s not one or the other that’s the problem – it’s both. One is not scarier or worse than the other.

      As relates to circles of complicity – McVeigh’s family may not have been sympathetic. So what? He was inspired by the acts of others and I’m sure his acts inspired others. And then there are the outer circles of sympathetics. In the case of Waco, OKC, and this latest cop killing, there are no doubt plenty of supporters and sympathizers of many kinds, at different levels. And that’s pretty much all I’m talking about.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States#Active_militia_groups

      ++++The incineration of over 80 people, the vast majority innocent of anything other than being present and several dozen of them children that was the work of a government so heavy handed and inept that real people have difficulty believing how bad it actually was.++++

      Couldn’t agree with you more.

      ++++but it’s worth noting that when the government commits mass murder, and that’s what it was even if the original intent was different, it can bring about some unpleasant surprises.+++++

      You certainly don’t have to tell that to millions of people in Iraq, Pakistan and a multitude of other places.

    10. Mr c: I expect you know I’m not opposed to federal taxes. I’m not an anarchist. What I oppose is the attempt to squeeze more from people by the left until the social landscape looks like they want. Think infinity. The country will die long before that from loose fiscal policy. It’s our duty to care for the world’s poor by bringing them here. That’s just a small part of it. It’s the lack of any sign of restraint on spending and it’s not entirely the problem of one party.

      SS is okay in theory, the practice is somewhat different. Medicare as configured is a far worse problem for our national deficit but we’re working on it by bringing hundreds of thousands of people here every year that are totally dependent on government dollars to pay for their health care.

      Can’t you get your friends on the left to bring more? They’re trying? I do think I see some progress. Congratulations. Again.

      National Parks are fine as long as there is a rational policy and citizens are actually allowed to move about and use them.

      Cordially

    11. ++++What I oppose is the attempt to squeeze more from people by the left until the social landscape looks like they want.++++

      Fair – that’s what it should look like. Fair, of course, means different things to different people, hence why we have things like elections.

      ++++National Parks are fine as long as there is a rational policy and citizens are actually allowed to move about and use them.++++ Can we agree that we don’t really need to have recreational snowmobiles in National Parks? No disrespect to the snowmobile crowd.

    12. No. Generally the parks are big enough to allow the use in some specific part and prohibit it in others.

      The US tax code is steeply progressive now, so yes you’re correct, I don’t think more “fair” is necessarily more fair.

  67. As I was only responding to your list, hence the word ” previous”. As for future acts they too shall fall short of anyone willing to walk into a crowd and blowup himself and all around him.

    You see, you can always change immigration policies, deport people etc. and change the actual numbers.****** apparently not, according to YOUR government.

    All Terrorism is NOT created equal. One or two people who have a bone to pick with another group or the town, or what ever is vastly different from an entire group of organized people hell spread world wide, well funded, and bent on punishing an entire civilization because they see them as ” infidels” and are willing to sacrifice themselves for taking out as many as possible.

    1. ++As I was only responding to your list, hence the word ” previous”. As for future acts they too shall fall short of anyone willing to walk into a crowd and blowup himself and all around him.++

      I wouldn’t base your argument on what may or may not happen in the US. How about basing it on what has and is happening?

      ++One or two people who have a bone to pick with another group or the town++

      This is funny and of course a bit sick. This is how you characterize the abbreviated list of people I posted? A bone to pick? One or two? You cannot be taken seriously with comments like that.

      There is no doubt a worldwide problem with jihadist Islam. There is also a major problem, in this country, with home grown terrorists. In some ways, it’s a tougher problem to deal with because the affiliation is weaker. But make no mistake – the affiliation is there.

      These problems are not mutually exclusive and they are not an either/or. And one killing is no worse than another.

  68. When there are sufficient numbers allowed into the U.S., the acts of previous domestic terrorist will pale in comparison to wha these people want to do and will find a way to carry it out. The one difference between the domestic terrorist and Muslim terrorist the former care about their on well being and concern over being captured……. Sacrificing oneself for Allah is the sole objective of the Muslim jihadist.. So just remain ignorant, continue with ” eyes wide shut” and cover your ears, babblling lalalalalalalalalalalal…….It’s all good!

    1. What do you mean by previous? Domestic terrorism is ongoing. I doubt that muslim terrorism will overtake homegrown terrorism anytime soon. You see, you can always change immigration policies, deport people etc. and change the actual numbers. But no similar solution exists for the domestic type.

      Why the need to try to make one type of terrorist worse than the other? I don’t think it matters much to the families of the people they kill.

  69. This is the one that showed a decline of 59%.******** What these studies say is there is no settled proof that confiscation has had much affect if any. Suicides declined but most of the void was filled by other methods.

    Politifact, for what’s it’s worth, says it’s mostly true that homicides have declined.****** Deaths from firearms have declined in the U.S. by 49% since the early 90’s but have increased in black and hispanic neighborhoods.

    There is no question that if we could remove 25% of the cars from the road there will be a decline in highway deaths, but the provable fact is that removing intoxicated and distracted drivers , better educating kids about DUI has had an even greater positive impact. The same can be said for Rx drugs. Better concentration on mental health policies could eliminate much of the abuse.

    So the bottom line is when everyone else on the planet turns in their arms and every manufacture of guns and munitions is out of business, I will turn mine in. As for confiscation of ” only certain types” , the ” assault” rifle ban was a complete sham. Clubs and knives are used 10 fold in murders than assault rifles. Gun control is not about guns and crime. It’s about CONTROL!

  70. The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
    The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
    The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
    The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
    The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
    The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
    The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
    The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
    The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
    The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
    The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
    The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
    The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
    The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
    The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
    The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
    The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
    The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
    The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
    The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
    The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
    The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
    The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

    1. Tom, for the most part, we’re talking about domestic terrorism. And yes, you’ve listed many Muslim terrorist events on US soil and yes, we do have a problem with Islamic terrorism. So your list is accurate. We also have a non-Muslim domestic terrorism problem – or haven’t you noticed?

  71. BK – can’t find your actual post to reply….

    You’re right – the lack of a major event most likely has several factors.
    I don’t look at the scenario you depict as doomsday either – I believe it’s become the norm, and to be expected.

    I also have problems with “refugees” who have or develop ill intentions.
    There is no doubt that immigration policies need work. They always have.
    But refugees are hardly the only problem when it comes to people with ill intentions.
    I also have problems with domestic terrorists and groups, of which there have been and are many –

    Timothy McVeigh
    The Order
    Joseph Stack
    Army of God
    James Kopp
    Eric Rudolph
    Paul Hill
    Jim Adkisson
    Scott Roeder
    Wade Page

    and many more. These attacks are no different than the ones perpetrated by the Boston kooks and others. They are all driven by hate, in one form or another.

    In a climate such as this – I say less access to weapons is better and I do think the data is out there to back this up.

  72. The deal with Iran is a sham that will come to haunt us.****** Every other military action, left up to the politicians, that we’ve ever undertaken has certainly turned out that way.

  73. With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

    To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

    According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported “a modest reduction in the severity” of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

    In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

    What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

  74. Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no “structural breaks” associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as “breaks.”

    “When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect,” Hemenway explains. “It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years.”Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted…….. Another inconclusive study. Nor does it account for the net affect of armed citizens deterring criminal assaults.

    1. From your post – **the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted**

      This is the one that showed a decline of 59%.

      Politifact, for what’s it’s worth, says it’s mostly true that homicides have declined.

      The question of a “gun confiscation” isn’t that it needs to be a gun confiscation – that’s not what happened in Australia. It was a limited gun buyback to reduce the amount of guns, which it did by 1/3.

      And further, as for what it would look like – well, it would have to be a law passed (unlikely), obviously challenged in the courts. If it were to deemed Constitutional by the SCOTUS (that’s a big if), then people would be required to turn in CERTAIN types of guns. No one would be going house to house. That’s crazy talk. Over time, if one were caught with a weapon that should have been turned in, they would face charges.

      So even if something like this were to occur, I doubt there would be the civil war some of the people posting here seem to crave, at least from their computers.

  75. Tom- thanks, man. CS has repeatedly fabricated BS to keep his hijack going. Passed the blame for “off topic.” Going back and re-reading from the start, he purposely created the off topic threads with an unfounded assertion that our government would never stoop to lying. And he has continued to try to dominate the blog with continual BS. He has continuously mocked everyone who disagreed with anything he stated. He is a waste of our air. He will undoubtedly post a response to this, furthering his own feelings of superiority. It will never change the FACT that he is a selfish, liberal, moron. I truly appreciate your many attempts to set him straight. Truly an excersize in futility which I applaud you for having the stamina to continue as long as you have. He may have accomplished exactly that which he set out to do by turning anyone away who may have actually had useful input to the question originally posed. Hijacking a blog for a personal political soapbox is a fairly common liberal tactic, and I am fairly well convinced that we fell victim to his mayhem. Once again, my take on the original question ” What would a national gun confiscation look like?”- Some will relinquish their arms without any resistance, believing the BS “it’s for the common good”, while others will die resisting confiscation. In this era, most will not be afforded the few seconds necessary retrieve weapons with which to resist, as well trained in the type of entry which would most likely be employed, should such an order were to come down, as our LEOs and military are. My true belief voiced in my first post here is that the confiscation had already begun, just not on the level most of us are thinking of. One chink at a time, peck,peck,peck. Hopefully, this post will put the blog back on topic. Ignore the Catholic liberal if possible.

    1. Marty, I thought we were friends? I’m so disappointed. Thanksgiving is off?

      You got me curious – Here’s my first post, on topic. I was talking about Australia’s gun laws, since they were mentioned in the original post:

      Australia’s gun law hasn’t done so badly. The homicide rate was down 59% after 10 years. Suicide rate down 65%. People are generally happy with the law, as it doesn’t outlaw certain types of hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. Equally important, it’s one part of what is a long term, generational process of reducing a destructive and violent culture.

      So that’s it. No big deal as far as I can see.

      Now, in just your next TWO posts, you start ranting about how you could hit a pie tin with a zip gun, unemployed college degree holders, food stamps, Crapuccinni Megalula, PTSD, and who knows what else. And you say I hijack threads? That’s rich dude.

      I didn’t post again for quite some time – but when i did, I was still talking about (or trying to) how Australia’s law reduced homicide. Still on topic because you see, it’s about a “gun grab”. And during the time I didn’t post, you of course were all over the place. I kid you not – it’s there for all to see.

      In any event, the conversation bogged down when trying to compare homicide rates – and of course things diverge from there in crazy directions. I am certainly guilty of following off topic threads. I don’t mind discussing things.

      What’s your excuse? Day drinking?

  76. “I hope you don’t get slammed for being off topic. Some people are very touchy when it’s done by someone other than themself.” ***** some people post facts, others just opinionated bullsht…..

  77. Thanks Bill…..as i’ve said a thousand times on a number of blogs, liberals are historically ignorant, or they are complicit in suppressing the history. Either way they are an unpatriotic lot, wiping there ass with the Constitution as they attempt to rub the law abiding citizens nose in it. I loathe these people.

  78. Dude, I stay on topic as long as others do. it’s you guys who constantly veer off, ranting about topics such as slavery and taxes. If you actually read the posts you’d see that.

    Happy to hear about your dog. I’ve only ever really known one English mastiff – smaller than yours at 185 pounds. Amazing animal.

  79. Go f’k yourself slick, you’er a moron and have been as huge a waste of my time, as you are a waste of human flesh. We’re done… Be on your way. Find some of your other stupid friends to spew your unintelligible drivel to.

  80. StvnKing- it thrilled my heart to hear of the extra time you have been given with Moose. Your description of the event raised the sensor hairs on my neck. I know you will not fritter the extra time with him away. I wish I had a female mastiff companion for him to bring offspring into the world with. As to CS- your observations are soooo right on! But it is a liberal trait to hijack any conversation to fulfill their desire to sound intelligent, usually convincing no one but other morons. And you have let h know how must of us feel about his BS very well. He has been told this repeatedly, but doesn’t even seem to have enough intelligence to understand a simple sentence. I, want to quit, as it seems his endless dialogue has driven away others who may have visited to actually answer the question originally posed. I will add my thoughts once more- CitySlicker- GET OUT IF THIS BLOG!!
    To all who understand- OOOH-RAHH, SemperFi

    1. +++his endless dialogue has driven away others who may have visited to actually answer the question originally posed.+++

      We spent quite a bit of time posting about the original question. Most of your buddie’s posts were something along the lines of : “It’ll look like a f*ckn civil war.” You know, real insightful stuff like that. Fortunately, there were a few who were willing to entertain and examine the question in a larger context.

    2. Martin… Yeah I’ve tried to explain it to him several times as nicely as one can but it doesn’t matter to these real intellectuals, they are just smarter than every one around them so it doesn’t matter how you approach the situation and as long as even one person continues to play into the trap they won’t quit, hell I’ve seen them argue with themselves for days after everyone else has finally ignored them.
      You cannot imagine and I cannot adequately describe what happened last Saturday, I don’t know why my wife suggested a final checkup, we had seen it, we knew what would happen if it ruptured, he would bleed out in no time, at this point the tumor should have spread to the back of his throat blocking his ability to swallow and interfering with his breathing but it’s clear, the palate is flat and textured per normal and you can bet your ass I will not waste a minute, by yesterday afternoon my wife had located the breeder whom had moved to Boca and was no longer a breeder but her daughter has a facebook thing and there was mention of an old job and a phone call sent her to something else and eventually a note from the breeder promising to call today… She could put me in touch with someone who can help or I will buy a female and do it myself even if we have to use the artificial method, there are clinics that extract and store animal sperm. A dog with his pedigree, it would be criminal not to continue his lineage, i always intended too but somehow I just never did, I hope to rectify that. I’m really done with this forum, I’m going to cut it lose, I’m not following it anymore because of all the “intellectual” crap.. You want to talk use stvenkng at yahoo dot com… I’ll gt back to you… later… Semper Fi….

  81. regardless of where it’s derived, and therefore taxed ****** So you would tax dividends the same as ordinary income, dividends earned by investing money that has already been taxed and putting it to work ( and putting it at risk) not to mention that the earned dividends have already ben taxed? Or if I took ten years to write a book and getting $100K advance , from the publisher, You believe it right to pay a higher tax rate on the full amount ( 100K), rather than lesser capital gains even though the work was done and the money was earned spread over 10yrs @ 10,000/yr. …….You;’re right your own your own. I have to hand it to you when you’re going to be stupid, you don’t pull up short. You saddle up and ride it all the way in.

    Are you aware of how easy it is to hide money on one form and pay a lower tax rate on another? It’s BS.****** Yeah, I am. Business calls them one earnings and and one profits. And I can tell you when government keeps harder that government taxes business ( 70% of corporations are S corps or passthrough entities, with taxes paid a the personal level) the more profits will be retained as earnings. and the less tax will be paid.

    Here’s an idea I like – limit mortgage interest deductions to one residence. ****** the mortgage deduction was created for the middle class moron. Really wealth people don’t hold mortgages, or certainly won’t under your idea. However, some middle class taxpayers have rental property, and are required to carry a mortgage… Tax are regressive PERIOD. You’re ignorant on so many levels….. Where ever you say you were educated, you should ask for your money back.

    1. ++So you would tax dividends the same as ordinary income, dividends earned by investing money that has already been taxed and putting it to work ( and putting it at risk) not to mention that the earned dividends have already ben taxed? Or if I took ten years to write a book and getting $100K advance , from the publisher, You believe it right to pay a higher tax rate on the full amount ( 100K)++

      Sure would.

      ++70% of corporations are S corps or passthrough entities, with taxes paid a the personal level) the more profits will be retained as earnings. and the less tax will be paid.++

      Get rid of S corps. Partnerships were fine. S Corps are where a lot of the problems exist.

      +++Really wealth people don’t hold mortgages, or certainly won’t under your idea. However, some middle class taxpayers have rental property, and are required to carry a mortgage…+++

      So?

      +++Tax are regressive PERIOD+++

      No, our taxes are simply the reality of doing business in our strong, safe and stable environment . Some are regressive and some are progressive.

  82. All income is the same. All income is taxed the same. NO it’s not and no we aren’t********http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400.html

    1. Thanks for reminding me why my taxes are so complicated!

      Point is – I thought we agreed that simplifying taxes would be an improvement. My apologies if I was mistaken.

      So I suppose I’m alone on this one, but if it were up to me, all income is simply income regardless of where it’s derived, and therefore taxed at the same rate. And that’s coming from someone who reports on at least 6 of those categories – depending on the year.

      Are you aware of how easy it is to hide money on one form and pay a lower tax rate on another? It’s BS.

      Anyway, I would have thought you’d agree that simplification is a good thing – eliminate a ton of deductions – most, really.

      Here’s an idea I like – limit mortgage interest deductions to one residence. Anything more than that doesn’t get the deduction. I think it’s a very good idea. I’d say eliminate the deduction entirely (Canada doesn’t have it and no one seems to mind) but Americans seem in love with their mortgage interest deduction. But let’s limit it to one residence, period. Nothing else.

  83. Oh – I may have made you sicker, but you were sick long before we ever corresponded.****** Yeah, I’ve had Obama sickness for over 6 years. The most divisive POTUS since Lincoln. But at least Abe was trying to save the Republic

  84. Ok and sure raise the top marginal rates well about 350k – as long as the rate gets up to at least 50%.***** You do understand that the majority of these people don’t have ordinary income..no I guess you don’t.

    1. You talking ’bout capital gains an’ such? That’s as ordinary as Texas is wide. Got somes I’ that myself. All income is the same. All income is taxed the same. Mebbe I forgot to mention that part. Weren’t we revamping the tax code?

      We good to go?

  85. But as someone such as yourself, who understands money, income, cost of living, typical bills in the modern world and so on, I find it fascinating you refuse to answer****** Well, it’s not a yes, no answer, moron, but any idiot can point to less money means less access to any host of things. That would be the incentive part of Capitalism and competition. After all the early days of Capitalism was absolutely the first time in the history of mankind that the poor had even a chance to survive, much less thrive. So I certainly fail to see a point in your absurd line of questioning….Other than the convoluted liberal logic of politics of the common good, a problem which the best liberal minds of Mill, Adam Smith, Gladstone, Locke, Galbraith, just to name a few, each recognized could never be resolved.

  86. I was simply asking who, more likely, had the more onerous burden. It’s funny and sad that you can’t say it in writing.***** I don’t slick. Every individual has different prospectives on happiness. I’v know numerous wealthy people that aren’t particularly happy people, have all the toys, no worry about money……Have seen some that have lots of money and the pressure of earning it and maintaining that life style put them in the ground way early. The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to pursue happiness. It doesn’t guarantee anything. All I know is that people that have a difficult time making ends meet in this country are in real trouble. You know, in previous decades, it was particularly easy to tell who the poor people were. They were the only ones that had their HAND OUT…..You make me sick.

    1. Yes yes we all know the money doesn’t buy happiness trope.
      But as someone such as yourself, who understands money, income, cost of living, typical bills in the modern world and so on, I find it fascinating you refuse to answer. Why all the verbal gymnastics?

      Oh – I may have made you sicker, but you were sick long before we ever corresponded.

  87. But once again – who do think has a more difficult time- a person paying 5k of 50k or a person paying 10 mill of 100 mill?******* Why do I care? Is the better question. There are no guarantees in life. I remember vividly being broke and in debt. I din’t blame it on the rich, the tax code ( and it was less progressive then), or anyone or anything but me. So what’s your f’k’g point There is no doubt that someone earning 50K would love to earn 50 mil. and in the land of the free and home of the brave HE CAN. People come to this country every day to earn their small piece of the pie. They come here unable to read or speak the language, yet many thrive and some even wind up millionaire…..You’re liberal dope!

    1. I wasn’t asking if you’d care – it’s obvious you don’t.

      I wasn’t asking if there was something or someone to blame – it’s not a situation of blame.

      I was simply asking who, more likely, had the more onerous burden. It’s funny and sad that you can’t say it in writing.

  88. They were Saudi Wahhabists while Saddam and his cronies were basically just secular Sunnis. ****** They were Jihadist Arabs, and when Bush stood on top of that pile of World Trade Center rubble, he could have invaded any Arab country that he wanted to as they are all complicit as we have now witnessed. ( He picked Saddam, because Saddam had already had the warning shot in the first Gulf War. Daddy Bush warned him. Junior took him out. I don’t miss him. What shouldn’t have happened was the vacuum that was filled by ISIS when Obama declared the war over. The same thing happened after we helped the Afghans send the Russians on their merry way and then we just turned our backs, ignoring an opportunity to Democratize the country, instead allowed Al Quaida to form and fill the vacuum.
    We’ve been at war a long time in the middle east, Clinton had been in office just 38 days when the World Trade Center in New York was bombed. 3 years later the US barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi were destroyed, killing 19 then terror attacks would claim the lives of over 200 Americans, explosions at US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. We should never turn wars over to the politicians, and we should never have Commander n Chief, with no will trade an eye for an eye…Millions of warped misled loons are plotting,as we speak, to destroy our country and our way of life anyway they can. Some of them are here among us now.They don’t want to convert us and don’t want to rule us. They believe we are a vile infestation of Allah’s paradise. They don’t care how “progressive” we are, how peace-loving or how much anyone sympathize with their cause. They want us dead, and they think it is God’s will for them to do it.

    1. Except Saddam wasn’t a jihadist. He didn’t like jihadists all that much. Dad did the right thing. Sonny did what Cheney told him to do. Made no sense then, makes no sense now.

      The Russians were not going to pacify nor were we going to democratize Afghanistan. That is a pipe dream.

      As for crazy people who want to kill us – yup – plenty of them.

  89. Wouldn’t you say that there is quite a difference between a head of household paying 10% of their 100 million income per year vs. a head of household paying 10% on say 50k on income per year? Wouldn’t it be quite likely that that piddly 5k would be much more of a burden on the latter than the 10 mill would be on the former?******* In my opinion, we shouldn’t be paying taxes at all, at least not to the FED. After all they don’t need our tax dollars. They can borrow and print what ever they need. They have proven it year over year with an 18 trillion dollar debt.

    But that aside if you want to fix the problem it’s time for a massive overhaul of both the tax code and the entitlement debacle. We need to solve problems with both payroll and income tax on the federal level. Start by eliminating the fiction that SS and Medicare are somehow “prefunded” e.g., the SS trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, removing the fantasy that the payroll taxes are anything other than taxes. In other words, combine the payroll taxes and the income tax. The nice thing is that eliminating the SS trust fund would actually lower the national debt by something like $4 trillion tomorrow, since we could eliminate the fiction that the SS Trust Fund’s IOUs from the treasury are actually an “asset” in any meaningful sense of the word. Then a single income based tax, where people pay a flat 5-15% on wages up to the first $118,500K ( the current payroll tax cap) After 118.5K, a dramatically progressive income tax structure, similar to what is already in place, but having marginal rates that goes well above the $350K mark or wherever the top current rate kicks in.
    It has elements of the flat tax for the 90% of the population that makes less than $118K a year, but it remains the progressive at the higher end,, where, of course, nearly ALL income taxes are currently paid. As a nation, most have agreed that they don’t want their parents living with them. However, the majority also agree that “someone else” should pay for the costs, not them.

    1. Some ideas! Finally.

      But once again – who do think has a more difficult time- a person paying 5k of 50k or a person paying 10 mill of 100 mill?

      SS and Medicare aren’t entitlements.

      I say let’s leave the fiction. Republicans can not be trusted. And the programs are funded, even if it’s just accounting. And I believe the American people would like their SS/Medicare protected and separate, even if it is a fiction.

      Now regardless, if you mean people pay a range of Fed tax from 5-15% depending on income up to 118k – that sounds good (in addition to payroll tax). A single flax tax- not so good. Still too big of a difference between 25k per year and 118K.

      Ok and sure raise the top marginal rates well about 350k – as long as the rate gets up to at least 50%.

      All good? Let’s do it!

    1. Funny – but you know in middle east politics that just as well could be chinese. They were Saudi Wahhabists while Saddam and his cronies were basically just secular Sunnis. That would be like me aligning with the Duggar family and waging Christian war. Not gonna happen.

  90. Working poor may not pay federal income tax, but most of them pay gas taxes, sales taxes, local and state taxes, and payroll taxes.
    ******* Absolutely, with state and local taxes being the greatest hardship on lower incomes and the middle class, but that doesn’t mean that I (who have chosen to live in a state with no state income tax and in general reasonable taxes) should be penalized for those that live in “blue” tax and spend liberal states, with huge levels of poverty, crime and working poor. That’s not my problem, Scooter. that’s why I have chosen to live where I live.

    1. True, true – but consider that sales taxes (5-10%) and gas taxes(20 cents/gal and up) also hit the poor and middle class harder than the rich. But back to the questions – I’ll rephrase it….

      When you factor in all taxes from ALL sources, then the rates for everyone aren’t all that different as a percentage of income.

      Wouldn’t you say that there is quite a difference between a head of household paying 10% of their 100 million income per year vs. a head of household paying 10% on say 50k on income per year? Wouldn’t it be quite likely that that piddly 5k would be much more of a burden on the latter than the 10 mill would be on the former?

      ++++Just admit that much – that it would most likely be more of a burden on the lower income person.++++

  91. Tom, please don’t link these 2 events.*****why because you can’t see past the end of you nose, entertain two logical thoughts in succession, or just plain historically ignorant?

    1. Ha no – just because the events themselves were not linked. They were linked purposefully yet erroneously by Bush/Cheney.

  92. taxes are taxes, regardless of where they come from. The fact is, if someone makes 50k per year, their reality if far different from someone who make 5 million******* Here’s the facts: Income tax accounts for about 25 percent of all the nation’s taxes paid. Payroll taxes are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid. The top 10% of tax payers pay 80% of them combined. Capital gains made up 45 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income, or a combined $37 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent figure that I could find……Yet you have determined that the tax code is NOT progressive enough! And I’m supposed to take anything that you say serious?!

    1. I won’t check your figures – I’ll assume them to be correct.

      But please address what I said –

      Working poor may not pay federal income tax, but most of them pay gas taxes, sales taxes, local and state taxes, and payroll taxes.

      IMPORTANT – When you factor in all taxes from all sources, then the rates for everyone aren’t all that different as a percentage.

      Wouldn’t you say that there is quite a difference between someone paying 10% on 100 million a year taxable income vs. a head of household paying 10% on say 50k on income? Wouldn’t it be quite likely that that piddly 5k would be much more of a burden on the latter than the 10 mill would be on the former?

      ++++Just admit that much – that it would most likely be more of a burden on the lower income person.++++

  93. I’m not sure what the point of this question is – in reality, the poorer pay more than they should towards SS, due to the income cap. ****** Of course you don’t slick, because you’re ignorant…But you pretty much answered the question anyway.
    So you’re of the opinion that the cap should be removed and high earners should pay more and then told to go f’ck themselves they’re NOT entitled. Only the poor loons on the left are entitled. GD I can’t do this anymore with you….You are a solid ignorant dope.

    1. How is it that higher earners are being told to f*ck themselves? They get their SS just like everyone else. You’re not making sense.

      Here is an idea for SS – no income caps. Every 5 years do an audit to determine what’s happened the previous 5 years and to forecast the next 5. If it’s determined that the fund will have a surplus, then reduce the rate to make it revenue neutral. if there will be a deficit, adjust the rates to make it revenue neutral. This is easily accomplished. There are other tweaks that can be built in and adjusted each 5 years – cost of living increases, fine tuning of benefits in general, eligibility issues, admin costs., methods of reducing fraud, etc.

      Whether the SS fund is a secure fund or raided by Congress makes no difference – it’s really just an accounting issue. Money in, money out – make it revenue neutral.

      What’s your idea? or the Republicans, for that matter?

  94. Your figures are pretty far off – not that it matters. But to be accurate only about 20% have negative tax rates. Check it.******* I have unlike you I know what I’m talking about……..From the tax foundation.”Income tax after credits (the tax measure above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included (as is often the case with other organizations), the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is legally classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.” So it’s far more than 20% Sparky…..As Will Rogers said, ” It’s not what people don’t know but what they know for sure that just ain’t true that that gets them in trouble.

    When all is said and done, our tax rates are not as progressive as they should be. ******* Its not a coincidence that government spending has exploded since the Reagan tax reforms. The Reagan Administration removed the income tax liability of millions of lowerand lower middle class americans, but without the power to repeal their right to vote. Consequently they have voted for MORE FREE LUNCHES. It’s obvious that getting elected by appealing to the 10% that pay the bills, is futile when the 70% that receive more from the government than they pay in can just vote themselves a raise. There are almost 2200 government funded welfare programs. I’d say that the fiscal deck is firmly stacked in favor of the poor and middle class.

    1. Tom, taxes are taxes, regardless of where they come from. The fact is, if someone makes 50k per year, their reality if far different from someone who make 5 million, or 5 billion per year. When you factor in all taxes from all sources, then the rates for everyone aren’t all that different.

      Working poor may not pay federal income tax, but most of them pay gas taxes, sales taxes, local and state taxes, and payroll taxes. These are regressive taxes. You do know what that means, do you not?

      You must be some carefree rich dude from some far off foreign land – because you sure don’t give a sh*t about ordinary Americans.

  95. And please don’t talk about “trickle down” economics or one of it’s offshoots. All republicans do is talk about tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Tax cuts benefit no one except people who pay a lot of tax – you know the wealthy, the rich……********..Why would I bring up ” trickle down…..The fallacy that some how the benefits of economic growth are ” distributed ” among different socio-economic groups in the country.” Free-market economics is not about “distributing” anything to anybody ( unless it’s newspapers). . When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later — if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about money coming back. In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by ignorant people ( that would include you).

    As for the ” middle class” it’s objective reality that the top 10% of taxpayers, pay the government’s bills ( and you have to be paying taxes before one can receive a ” tax cut”). The reality is that almost 70% of the population now receives more in direct government payments than they pay in Federal taxes…The simple fact of the matter is that the debate over what tax rate the most affluent should pay is no longer a debate over what is “equitable”. We are now talking about how much the rich “can” pay to help support the system in something resembling its current form. Not because it is “equitable”, but because they are the only ones that can really pay anything meaningful at this point.

    SS and Medicare are in serious trouble, but considering that the ” Holy Grail” of the left is that ” they paid into the ” Entitlement programs” and thus are ” entitled”. However the SS and Medicare programs continue to be uncontested as a political matter. In other words, if you want to fairly frame the issue as a political question, it would be: Do you believe it is correct policy to require the poorer
    demographics to contribute towards retirement benefits and medical care of the more affluent?
    How do you think most liberals would respond if the question were framed that way.
    I’m sure that the world envisioned by liberals would be a wonderful place to live, unfortunately NO ONE lives there. It’s not the liberals are against freedom, but simply believe in things that are incompatible with freedom…

    1. For the life of me, I will never understand why people need to be apologists for the rich.

      Your figures are pretty far off – not that it matters. But to be accurate only about 20% have negative tax rates. Check it.

      When all is said and done, our tax rates are not as progressive as they should be. When added to regressive taxes everyone pays – sales tax, payroll tax, etc – it’s not equitable at all. When ALL taxes are considered – poorer people pay very similar rates to the rich, as a percentage of income. The problem is, they really can’t afford it. The rich can.

      SS and Medicare are NOT in serious trouble. Unless by trouble you mean always under attack by Republicans. And re: SS – try this – remove the income cap and then do the math.

      Lastly – your question was “Do you believe it is correct policy to require the poorer demographics to contribute towards retirement benefits and medical care of the more affluent?”

      I’m not sure what the point of this question is – in reality, the poorer pay more than they should towards SS, due to the income cap. As relates to Medicare, there is no income cap, so one could argue that everyone pays their fair share – although it’s regressive and not really fair.

      If you idea was that I’d say no, it’s not correct policy -then what? Turn it around and ask the same about the wealthy? Should the more affluent – the extremely rich – pay contribute? Of course. They have the biggest stake in a large, robust, happy, peaceful, product buying consumer middle class.

  96. The lesson of 9/11 and the Iraq War should be that it is dangerous and potentially costly, and will likely be serious blowback by aligning ourselves with terrorist groups, forming pacts with obviously brutal and treacherous groups and individuals in violent parts of the world.

    1. Tom, please don’t link these 2 events.

      The lessons on 9/11 are that terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes, and our gov’t, along with the military and law enforcement need to be prepared, certainly.

      Lessons of the Iraq war? Don’t invade relatively stable nations because you don’t like the dude, or because you would like to steal their oil, or because you have some crazy idea of Christian capitalist white man’s burden. Because the results will not be good for the country you invade, or for ours.

      Obviously aligning oneself with groups deemed less than ideal is a tricky business. It has always been that way. But in general, if a country is relatively stable, there are better ways to try to exert influence than by invasion – especially in the middle east.

  97. T- I bird hunt as well. Limited opening day of dove season in about 45 min. None since. Hot here as well. We have a herd on the property numbering around 35 to 40 give or take. They’re not moving during hunting hours as yet due to the heat. Been up and in the stand long enough to go back to sleep before daybreak every day since opening. Have yet to see any movement once the sun starts up. I’ll get a few a little further on, I have no doubts. Always do. And I do love venison. By hunting buddy told his wife the other day when she expressed her distaste for killing these wonderful little creatures” if God hadn’t expected us to eat em, he’d a made em outa something other than MEAT.” I thought that was funny as all get out. He’s a character. Believe you would enjoy him, based on what you’ve posted here.

  98. I’m s bird hunter. Dove season opening day was pretty rewarding, but it’s been hot here in Texas, birds scattered and not moving ( and have now been shot at)…..hoping for some cool air to move’em down. ….good talk good luck in the stand. ” aim small, miss small”……

  99. Tom- you and I are extremely like-minded. It is a pleasure conversing with you. I have not seen any recent posts from the 5 day liberal marathoner for a while now. That, too, is refreshing. Now season on deer is open here, and Sunday bow hunting is now allowed. I plan on being. In the stand early, so, much as I would like to continue this tonight, I need to go on to bed. Tomorrow is not guaranteed for me, but I am certain it will be another day. As I said before, it had been a pleasure.

    1. Tom- I hate spell check sometimes. My post should read”Bow season”, not “Now season”. Just to clarify. So long for now.

  100. Martin “Republicans dropping the ball when they have been in a position to actually make a difference.”************You just hit the nail square, driving it flush. Republicans will never have sustainable majorities because when ignorant people want the impossible, only a lying Democrat can satisfy them, but only for a short time ( which is all that’s required for their electorate). But when Republicans do get a majority, they simply become ” not Democrats” instead of standing a platform that proves and establishes a truth behind the ruse Democrats have perpetrated on the poor and lower income citizens, the mentally challenged that are now on the street, solving real problems of entitlements, jobs, illegal immigration, the reality of terrorism and an 18 trillion dollar debt…….not getting roped into f’k’g abortion, gun control, political correctness, climate change……They piss me off almost as much as the other side.

    1. Republicans will have problems because they never actually propose things that would benefit the middle class. And middle class is a lot more than a dollar amount. It’s a state of mind. Many poor and working poor consider themselves middle class. And please don’t talk about “trickle down” economics or one of it’s offshoots. All republicans do is talk about tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Tax cuts benefit no one except people who pay a lot of tax – you know the wealthy, the rich. By comparison, the middle class, the working class, the working poor don’t pay all that much in tax and don’t need tax cuts. They need good schools, health insurance, access to higher education, good wages, etc. Because you see, a country – any country is only as good as it’s middle class. The larger, happier and healthier the middle class, the stronger the country. Until Republicans address this, they’ll falter. The rich are fine, and always will be – and any capitalist country is going to have very poor people – it’s the nature of the beast. And they must be taken care of. But all those in the middle – that’s where progressive policy must do it’s most effective job.

  101. Tom- I know that you realize that by directing the response to me, you are ” preaching to the choir”. You left out one important factor that I have made mention of with friends and relatives, that being the inevitable inbreeding which occurs in those environments you listed. All of the “baby mommas and baby daddy’s” bent on supporting their often criminal lifestyles at the working taxpayer’s expense. This being just one more result of the liberals enslavement using the methods you described. There are no restrictions on who breeds with who and the result is a decline in the actual ability to learn or be productive. One only need to check 504 program enrollment records to see that this observation is born out by fact. Am I saying that all black children born today are stupid!? Absolutely not. What I am saying is that the effects of all of the social reform programs are helping to insure that they rapidly heading that way. Ther are many physical and health ramifications also leading to this conclusion, which working class America is also being expected absorb the cost of. I have strong feelings re: Republicans dropping the ball when they have been in a position to actually make a difference. I have done the best I know to do when I have recognized it, by excersizing my voting privilege/right. And making as many phone calls as possible. Usually finding either no one to take my call, or a full mailbox. Occasionally I have been allowed to voice my concerns, but only occasionally. I am a registered Republican, but vote with my intellect and conscience, usually being forced to choose the lesser of two evils, realizing a vote for a non-Party nominee/candidate to be a vote for the opposition. Changing legislation passed using the voting process has become so bogged down and time consuming with appeals and the misuse of judicial powers that in my estimation it has become nearly ineffectual as you have so concisely pointed out during the past 4or5 days. And the voting block created by the Dem’s with their social reform programs is on the verge of becoming insurmountable. After all, why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who promised to take away the free ride they’ve enjoyed for nearly 6 generations? But now I have begun to make statements many consider to be ” politically incorrect”. And so, I will stop now. Thanks Tom for sharing your knowledge and insightful viewpoints. I need to kiss my pillow goodnight.

    1. There is definitely a problem with institutional welfare. It needs to be reformed. I have little faith that either party will address, let alone accomplish this.

      It would seem this would be the area Republicans would shine. But they really have no ideas here either – either than get rid of this or get rid of that. These are not solutions and just come across as mean spirited pandering. Where are the ideas? Realistic, workable ideas. Safety nets, anti-poverty programs food programs, unemployment insurance, etc. are a necessity in todays world. The question is – what should they be, how should they work,
      how can they be used to help, not hinder? As far as I see it – Republicans have no ideas and really haven’t since oh, I don’t know – Eisenhower.

  102. Martin..On the subject of SSI. *******Republicans have been going to Washington for 8 decades to compromise with Democrats. Democrats that have controlled the majority of the wealthiest voting districts in the country.The same Democratic Party that dominated American politics at the national level between between 1932 and 2000. They controlled both houses of Congress for 56 of the 80 years since the beginning of the Roosevelt Administration ( 44 consecutive), with Super Majority status in no less than fourteen of those years(FDR exercised a whopping 372 Presidential vetoes. By contrast, President George W. Bush vetoed no bills his first term, but vetoed a total of 10 bills in his second term.), Johnson’s Great Society programs, which bears brunt of responsibility for the now ‘institutionalized’ poor people, sedated for more than a generation, having no skills whatsoever, and no incentive to gain working skills. The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today. Children born and raised without fathers are a major problem to society and to themselves. There is nothing “fair” about increasing the number of such children. The single most important factor that has caused the political left to demand an end to private firearms ownership is that the underclass has, over the last fifty years, expanded exponentially, bringing with it an exponential increase in crime. Many of these criminals come from the single-parent families encouraged by the welfare system, a dysfunctional government give-away favored by the far left. The absence of fathers has led large numbers of children to seek gangs as a substitute for parenting not available at home. Not content with having created an entire class of welfare-bred criminals and America’s remedy? The political left now seeks to protect this underclass by rendering ordinary citizens defenseless against crime perpetrated by these criminals.Liberals are a blight on our society and I put them in the same destructive category as terrorist !

  103. Tom Williams- On the subject of SSI. I was hoping you would broach it in just the way you did. I recognized it for what it was long before most I guess, and refused to get a card until forced to for induction into military service. Had a draft card before a SSI card. Did not need one to be son of a farmer. I did need one to be drafted and forced into becoming a son of a bitch. And after paying my premiums for more than 40 years they tell me I may never be able to collect my GUARANTEED benefits. Just one more example of legislation from the bench the people are powerless to do anything about. And irregardless of any legal remedies available to us that scooter over there wants to reel off, they would still have little effect on my ability to collect that which I am, by law, actually and truthfully owed. If this was not such a serious topic I would interject”what a joke” at this point. My daughter has a good friend who just finished medical school and internship. In the course of general conversation about various subjects, she let slip that part of her recent training included a course in family counseling and how to approach the topic of euthanasia. Not end of life counseling. Euthanasia- the patient being deemed non functional or a drain on either the family or society. And she was OK with that. Scary. But more than likely in our future. Grand parents on both sides of my family lived well into their nineties, and as nearly as I could tell were never a “drain” on the families, or society, unless you were to consider the drawing of their paid SSI benefits a”drain”. Which if an eye toward grabbing the fund for some other use were to be considered, they probably were a drain. I despise a thief, no matter how he dresses, or how eloquently he speaks. Could it be tha CS is speaking of such a grab when he said he would be drawing SSI soon? Just a thought to ponder, not an accusation.

    1. This issue with SS sounds like there is more to the story than you are telling. If you’ve been paying in for 40 years, you would have been getting your statement every year explaining what your status is – when payments start and how much etc.

      This euthanasia of which you speak is end of life counseling. Nothing more. Stop with your conspiracy theories – it’s not an intelligent look.

      And what I was referring to is that it won’t be long before I am eligible to collect SS – you know, after working my whole life like most people. Although getting old sucks, collecting SS will be cool.

      But check this out – if I were to die before I collect, I would get nothing because I’d be dead! And I would still have paid in! And there would be more for someone else, and that makes me happy. That’s socialism!

  104. Yes they do have serious problems in our eyes. But the next time you have the opportunity to speak at length with a recent, or even not so recent immigrant, approach the opportunities subject. I believe that you will be, just as I was while living and traveling there, be surprised by what you find.

  105. Martin, i’ve never met an Indian ( or an Asian) immigrant that weren’t all about hard work and more importantly education. they have their cultural quirks but generally assimilate well, but India as a country has some serious problems due to their culture and religion that holds back a highly productive and educable population.

    “been forced by law to buy ” Security Insurance” my entire working life. But nobody owes me anything more than that.”****** To only be ruled by the Supreme court that you are no way entitled to the money….

  106. Tom Williams- I was thinking exactly the same thing. You beat me to the punch! None of my teachers would have dared to approach the subject from such a liberal point of view. Their jobs would have been a fond memory! CS continues to paint himself into s corner with statements that he should be embarrassed by. But that’s a liberal for you.

  107. Tom- while that is the general opinion held by nearly all Americans, most Indian immigrants, and to a large degree, India’s citizens, do not view it that way. I spent 2years in New Delhi, finding that much the opposite was true. While the caste system does continue, there is a very strong work ethic, and nowhere near the homeless, undernourished population I had always been taught to expect. And a far lower percentage than found here. Overall the populace does not view the caste system as a problem. Merely a fact of life easily overcome by hard work. Something which seems, to me at least, to have been cast aside in this country. I really do go through my days feeling as though everyone wants something for nothing here. I was not raised that way. I do want what is actually owed me after having been forced by law to buy ” Security Insurance” my entire working life. But nobody owes me anything more than that. Well, I would appreciate at least a small amount of respect for the way I’ve contributed to our society. But I feel that too, has been earned. And regardless of how repulsive and repugnant I find CS’ statements, or how embarrassed I might be that he considers himself a patriotic American, I would still defend his right to be that stupidly stubborn about his beliefs with my own life if need be. Maybe I truly am stupid, but that’s just how strongly I believe in our Constitution- as written. No excuses, no wheedling, no attempts to make it fit into a form more convenient to a change of social whim.

  108. We had the same teachers******* NO we didn’t, not even close…. I’d ask you how old you are but liberals are as incapable of telling the truth as they are perceiving reality.

    1. TW – I went to Catholic schools. I’d consider the education fairly rigorous – and certainly on the conservative side.

  109. Slick, you’re pretty unique. I’ve never seen a liberal come on a pro-gun site and argue for 5 days, receiving NOT ONE supporter. Put hey, what ever blow your dress up.

    1. As a person who owns guns, I’m hardly anti-gun. As for gaining supporters – did you assume that’s my goal? I merely like a good conversation on the issues. Although I will say I do enjoy it when you guys get so trapped in your narrative that you have to resort to gibberish – like when it comes to comparing countries, or WMD’s etc.

  110. slick……. “There really never were.” *** Well, none that remained that way for long..

    Socialism isn’t some monolithic beast. ******* Under it’s strict definition, it most certainly is. It’s dangerous as to what it becomes. Which is precisely why the founders created the Republic with ” individual” rights, rights of property ownership, and control by the people !…….. You must have struggled in school….. Oh, wait, I’m thinking of my schooling…..sht you probably made straight ” A’s”…… but then of course, today, everyone gets a trophy…..

  111. Tom- and there is actually one country which fits the true definition of a democracy- India. A country ordinarily considered backward thinking and poverty-stricken. And yet if researched we find it to be far less so than our own. Go figure?

  112. you could go to wikipedia and get a much better definition ****** Yes certainly a definition that would satisfy the historically ignorant…. This would include you. ‘Sitycliker’. There are no socialist countries today ( maybe the French come the closest). There are a number of small homogenous countries that have extensive social programs.

    1. You are correct if you mean there are no purely socialist countries – in the sense of what Marx had in mind. There really never were. And that’s probably fine. As for communism, I would say the asians came closest.

      That much you get right. But although France has elements of socialism, it falls far short of the social owning of the means of production. Other countries have much higher rates of public ownership – some have even passed higher up the Marxist ladder to communism (Cuba i.e.),

      But my original point is – when most Americans, and Europeans for that matter, talk of socialism, they are really referring to social democracy. Socialism-Lite.

      Definitions and words are important. Socialism isn’t some monolithic beast. It has many parts. And depending on if one is into the truly orthodox forms as laid out by Marx/Engels or some of the French philosophers, it’s really best in modern times to look at it as social democracy.

    2. cc: Yes and the closer they came the more apocalyptic the results to the people governed that way. Mao’s China for example. Explain the Pol Pot school of social justice. His minions didn’t like anyone they classified as “intellectual” which pretty much meant anyone that could read. Oh well.

      Cordially

  113. yeah, Martin, organized religion ( which i’m not a particular fan) wants to instill that faith at an early age, but it’s life experiences that confirm it.

  114. Tom- older and wiser? Perhaps. My epiphany has come in stages. The first time someone standing shoulder to shoulder with me died. And each one thereafter. The first te I knew beyond doubt I had caused the death of another human being. The moment I held my new-born children. Smiling while looking down at the fresh new life. Hearing the first cries of my grand children. And most recently, my first great-grandchild. Each time someone near and dear has past from this life. Life’s stages. Real and in changeable. Some instantaneous. Some taking a while to soak through my thick skull. But stages, nevertheless.

  115. CS…..what’s best is to start with what MAY be the simplest answer. But by all means, don’t stop thinking. You may eventually end up where you started, and that’s fine.******* Seriously, are you trying to look excessively stupid? You are no longer even coherent …..

  116. CS ….” A socialist environment is not really where a collective bears the cost of a select group. A much better example would be Soci”*******The actual definition of socialism is “common control of the means of production”. Socialism is far from a movement of downtrodden masses. It’s not about sharing the wealth ( or anything else), but to consolidate and control the wealth, progressives use the power of government to favor those who share their agenda and tilt the playing field toward the outcome they want. Fascism is a product of socialism. Nazis were National Socialists and Mussolini was a Communist. They are all standards of a three legged stool of control !

    1. And these are the facts one is supposed to bow down to? Your facts are wrong. You could go to wikipedia and get a much better definition and explanation of socialism there. And besides, most American “socialists” aren’t even that – they are social democrats. Regardless, under any definition, SS would be a socialist program. And unfortunately for those looking for a simple answer – socialism comes in many forms and sizes. Most of it’s forms are pretty benign, and many of it’s benefits are right under your nose.

      Yes the Nazi’s had “Socialist” in their name. The USSR had republic in their name – did you buy that one, too?

      By every metric, fascism is right wing. Even the mixing of private and public is done through a nationalistic, right wing approach.

    2. No! cc, you are dead wrong on this. Fascism most certainly is a collectivist ideology. The nominal ownership of private property is just one of a number of relatively modest differences that separate it from Communism which also has some differences depending on the who and where. Nominal, in that it can be appropriated by the government at any time should the government decides it is in the best interest of whomever they decide interests are best.

      This is a common mistake in our modern 3 inch screen world which communicates in 130 characters. It fits the statist narrative and is profoundly, willfully wrong. Fascism is collectivism and lives on the political continuum very close to the various mutations of communism.

      I’m glad you confess to not being a communist. I suppose I can take you at your word but the Pope isn’t a communist either. He’s probably a Peronista which is a distinction with only modest differences.

      Cordially .

    3. Yet another area we’ll agree to disagree – I’m not sure how long you’ve been around, but for most of my life, we all knew, and it was commonly understood that fascism was a right wing philosophy. They only thing that has changed is the loudness of the right themselves, who don’t like the idea of being aligned with fascists, and have sought to change the definition.

      what you call nominal differences are huge differences. Differences which distinguish the different philosophies. See, you can’t just say fascism is collectivist, like communism, and think you’ve made some great point. Because the statement is false. It may APPEAR to have similar ideas, but where those ideas come from, how they are administered, the actual results desired, how an individual is viewed, how people prosper or profit, how the state views itself, and much more, are DIFFERENT.

      It reminds me of how sometimes, the views of a liberal and a libertarian overlap. Yes, they do on some issues, but WHY they meet, as in the philosophical pathway to the meeting, is everything. Because a few points intersect does not make a simpatico philosophy.

      The mindset of a fascist as compared to a communist are not at all the same. Where a true communist wants to end up is not at all where a fascist wants to end up.

      It’s easy to understand why this would confuse some people. And it’s also easy to understand why right wingers would want to try to shed the burden of being oh so close to a philosophy that is nearly universally deplored. So much so, they try to make it a left wing philosophy. The only people buying this charade are other right wingers.

      Here’s a thought – if I had to live in a true fascist society or a true communist society, which would I choose. Well, as long as I wasn’t part of one of the many inferior groups, I’d go fascist. Otherwise, communist. How about you?

  117. Martin,,,” I’m the existence of an all-powerful God.” ****** funny, how the older you get, whether becoming a religious church goer or not, the clear that becomes to you.

  118. Funeralguy…. “enough is enough” and on and on and on. It’s hopeless and depressing. ***** You’re correct. You can’t fix stupid and you’ve probably buried your share that bare that out.

  119. Tom-I hold to my belief that they are Godless. This is not an opinion that I was taught as a youngster, rather an observation based upon years of research steimg fr my love for all things historical. I was raised in a Godless environment, without exposure to any form of “organized religion”. I do not consider myself to be a religious man, or “righteous” in any way. I do,however, now believe, as did our founders, I’m the existence of an all-powerful God. I have read and re-read scripture, finding that if it is nothing else, it is a fantastic instructional manual for co-existence with fellow man. I personally believe there is more to it than that, but respectfully refrain from attempting to shove my beliefs down someone else’s throat. Again, I believe it to be a respect problem, which schools taught, and stopped with the exclusion of God fr the classroom. I suppose I learned it without recognizing it. We prayed every morning before reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” to our flag and our country until I was in my Sophomore year in high school. In hindsight-almost exactly the same year that the moral, ethical decay we are experiencing still to this day began. The puzzle pieces fit very well together, I think. At least it makes more sense to me than any of the many excuses for bad behavior thrown around by liberals.

    1. Tom- Not that I am an expert by any means, but I have found that in life, just as in a game of pool” think long, think wrong”. Most of the time the simplest answer being the best.

    2. And therein lies the problem.
      This is the common mis-use of the idea of Occam’s Razor.

      The idea is to START with the simplest assumption, or hypothesis. I’m reluctant to use the word answer, because that intimates a finality. So I’ll say – what’s best is to start with what MAY be the simplest answer. But by all means, don’t stop thinking. You may eventually end up where you started, and that’s fine.

  120. Leftism is a religion. I always end up kicking myself whenever I get suckered into discussions of the gun issue. Nothing can be said that will change the Leftist mind. They will never acknowledge a source of fact. “That’s a right-wing think tank” is one of my favorites. Whenever I try to inject facts I always get back, “backward gun culture”, “the blood of poor dead children is on your hands” “Republicans are bought and paid for by the NRA”, “enough is enough” and on and on and on. It’s hopeless and depressing.

    1. FuneralGuy- My father-never a great philosopher, but plenty sharp- put it like this.” Arguing a point with a liberal is just like mud wrestling with a pig. Sooner or later, you’ll realize they just enjoy it”.

  121. Martin, I’ve even had some of these liberal loons attempt to convince me that our decidedly imperialist military is a socialist environment. Where in the hell do these people come from?

    1. I agree. A socialist environment is not really where a collective bears the cost of a select group. A much better example would be Social Security – where we all put in, and we all take out.

      Who here get’s Social Security? Or will soon? I’m looking forward to collecting in the not too distant future.

  122. Tom-LOL. I had heard that, but it was many years ago and it had slipped my mind. Yup- I was liberal minded until age 17, when I was forced to view and experience its horrors first hand. Funny how lethal combat can so quickly change one’s belief system, isn’t it?

  123. Martin….”I hope and pray that as you get older, you will find the error in your “logic”, as I truly believe you have much to offer in terms of dedication to cause.’ ******* As the old adage says: If you’re you and not a liberal you are accused of having no heart. If you are old, remaining a liberal, you have no brain.

  124. CS- I have read every word of your posts- just as you say you have mine. I have found them to be filled with the same rhetoric nearly every supposedly “free thinking” progressive is spouting these days in order to make others aware of how “in tune” with today’s mores and ethics they are. You have continued to use the same faulty arguments and provably inaccurate “facts and figures” even when presented with information pointing out your errors. If I were at your keyboard I am positive my face would have been beet red from the embarrassment on many occasions. Tom has been patient and accurate while you have used this same info again and again. And your talking point re: “the gun culture mentality needs changing if we are to become a civilized society” , while sounding impressive to the easily swayed uninformed masses, does not hold water. I am so glad that the founders did not hold to the same ideals you seem to, as you well should be. Without them, and their willingness to stand up for what they believed in by taking up arms against a far superior force, we would still be a British colony, discussing endlessly the merits of remaining loyal to the Crown. you and have the freedom to participate in this blog because of those who came before us willingness to fight and die to attain it. The Grand Experment of a democratic, oligarchal republic, with the protected right to change it by taking up as AGAINST it, should it choose to become oppressive or tyrannical, has worked because of the intimidation provided by that protected right ” the gun culture” you are so fond of pointing to as “the problem”. I, and many like myself, hold the wolves at bay with our embrscent of that very culture, never admitting that without it, all of the other rights you and your ilk continue to enjoy would be removed in the blink of an eye. I have seen and experienced the alternative first hand, while it seems that all of your arguments for change come straight out of a liberal textbook. While in SE Asia I witnessed lives thrown away on a wholesale level by “textbook warriors”. Usually 1st Lieutenants straight out of college. Unless my memory is failing much more quickly than I am aware, the average life span of such an officer was only about 2 weeks, as there were many serving with honor who were more than merely “insulted” by the casualty rate these “students of war” brought to the battlefield. Ayn Rand, Orwell, and other authors have repeatedly warned of the consequences of relinquishing any rights to a government, no matter how insignificant they might seem. If you are as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you cannot help but see that you are erring in your logic. Insulting? Perhaps, but I stated only that which is readily apparent to me and most others who are reading these words. And after re-reading several of your own retorts, I find it amazing that you have the unabashed audacity to go there. Although on the two occasions I have commented re: your childish attempts at being facetious, or clever in the way you name call, you have returned to at least attempting to be civil in your posts. Personally, I have stomached all of the mindless drivel you have continued to spew and will be using my time more wisely by allowing you to carry on without my occasional input. In language plain and to the point- with no re-interpretation necessary- I am giving up on you, as I feel you are a lost cause. I will continue to monitor the blog, as there has been much usef information shared- just not by you. I hope and pray that as you get older, you will find the error in your “logic”, as I truly believe you have much to offer in terms of dedication to cause.
    Sincerely

    1. Marty, this is a very long post of deflection, denial and cognitive dissonance. Nothing more. I’m not surprised you’re checking out – eventually you realize the box you’re in no longer supports your narrative. All that’s left is to bail.

      I’m a lot older than you think. Not all of us old guys were or are as easily duped as others. I prefer to keep my resume private. But let’s just say that the SE Asia war you refer to was quite personal to me and it was a sham. It was known by many then (as was Iraq), and history has reinforced that idea. How many lies did the gov’t offer up in that war? Some of the biggest in US history, I’d say. Thank heaven the people finally rose up in a way that could not be ignored, and exerted pressure that could not be ignored. It’s pointless to argue – the hawks were for war – Communism, domino theory, etc – but many others knew it was BS. From day one. Same as in Iraq. From day one.

      Been back to Vietnam since the war? It’s a lovely place – lovely people.

      Back to the original topic – guns.

      It seems Phoenix police have arrested someone in the freeway shootings.

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/19/phoenix-freeway-shooter-in-custody-arizona-governor-announces/

      Well, maybe the don’t have the right guy, but it seems they at least have the right gun. Regardless, the suspect is a self described “gun enthusiast” as well as an anti- gov’t type – with a healthy does of conspiracy theories in play.

      My question is – IF this is the right guy, should he have even had access to a gun? Does he have mental health issues or this a normal gun rights guy who lost his way?

  125. You have to admit that there wasn’t a program found pre-invasion – there wasn’t one found during the invasion. **** The only thing that I have to admit is that like Bush’s premature ” mission accomplished”, The blood spilled by ISIS is on Obama’s hands for declaring the war’s end and pulling out all troops, creating the vacuum filled by ISIS. It’s the same mistake made after aiding Afghanistan in sending the Russians packing and then walking away. it’s the same mistake that was made in N.Korea. Franklin D. Roosevelt called December 7, “a date that will live in infamy.” What should also live in infamy is the time when too many Americans forgot about Pearl Harbor and started wringing their hands with guilt about Hiroshima. Today, liberals want Israel to become the first nation in history to respond to military attacks by restricting what THEY DO !

  126. If I am to understand you thinking- you really don’t know what you believe! Either our leaders DO LIE to us, or they are scrupulously honest and would NEVER LIE to the American public! Take a powder, scooter- you’re just digging the hole deeper.

    1. Marty, you insult me. Now I don’t think you read my posts. I read yours – every word.

      If you are referring to this –

      “I’ll tell you what’s way easier – understanding that your leaders lied, at worst, or misled, or at the very least, ignored intel, to do something they wanted to do.”

      I think it’s a pretty straightforward idea. There is a range of situations which are probable. None of them are good mind you. But do you or I know EXACTLY where it falls in the range. Sadly, no. But given the huge body of evidence, it’s PROBABLE it falls somewhere in this range.

      As for leaders lying or not I’d say our leaders sometimes lie, sometimes mislead, sometimes deflect, sometimes hedge, sometimes say factually incorrect things, sometimes say nothing, and sometimes say it as it is, as truthfully as possible – you know, like all other humans.

  127. Tom- I believe CS is just seeking to embarrass himself further with each statement he posts. As you have already noted, “You can always tell a liberal- you just can’t tell them much”. his Koolaid appears to have not lost its kick yet.

  128. In 2010, documents procured by Wikileaks revealed more information on the WMD threat posed by Iraq that was known to the government. The self-described whistleblowers, who could hardly be called pro-war, released 392,000 military reports from Iraq that revealed several instances of American encounters with potential WMDs or their manufacture. These included 1200 gallons of a liquid mustard agent in Samarra that tested positive for a blister agent; tampering by large earth movers thought to be attempting to penetrate the bunkers at Muthanna; the discovery of a chemical lab and a chemical cache in Fallujah; and the discovery of a cache of weapons hidden at an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint with 155MM rounds that subsequently tested positive for mustard.

    Foreign involvement with WMDs in Iraq was documented as well. A war log from January 2006 speaks of 50 neuroparalytic projectiles smuggled into Iraq from Iran via Al Basrah; Syrian chemical weapons specialists who came in to support the “chemical weapons operations of Hizballah Islami” (Hezbollah); and an Al Qaeda chemical weapons expert from Saudi Arabia sent to assist 200 individuals awaiting an opportunity to attack coalition forces with Sarin. As Wired magazine characterized it, the Wikileaks documents revealed that for several years after the initial invasion, “U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”…… And not to mention that Saddam had killed 3-5 thousand Kurds…

    Who cares what Hilary Clinton said? She was wrong, and she has admitted it******* the only thing that we have ever agreed on

    1. Yes, and in the post-apocalyptic USA – you know, after ISIS invades us, they will find WMD here also, from our long abandoned WMD program.

      So this is what they’ve found in Iraq, post invasion. Remnants. Again, not what the invasion was based on, and hardly a threat. Iraq was not producing WMD, and hadn’t been – and wasn’t ramping up anything.

      You have to admit that there wasn’t a program found pre-invasion – there wasn’t one found during the invasion. What’s left? Takes remnant’s from an abandoned program and try to gin it up into something it certainly isn’t.

      I’ll tell you what’s way easier – understanding that your leaders lied, at worst, or misled, or at the very least, ignored intel, to do something they wanted to do. Then, follow the money.

  129. except our own intelligence agencies didn’t even agree with that. They didn’t even agree with the administrations assertions re: tubes, cake, 45 minute attacks, etc., and the list goes on. And Hans Blix was on the ground in Iraq – and repeatedly saying that there was nothing to be found.

    *****The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

    “The discovery of a number of … chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions…. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery … points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.”

    Senator Hillary Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”

    Just continue to make it up as you go, fool.

    1. Hans Blix – It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

      Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with Unmovic in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

      Hans Blix is one of the most sober, trustworthy people one would ever find on the world stage. He stated it as it was. Things were going well – there were a few problems. What he did not find were the WMD that justified the invasion. And Bush/Cheney had no intention of letting it get to that point – the point where they’d have to actually admit they weren’t there. Lift the sanctions? No invasion? Not going to happen.

      Former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.

      Who cares what Hilary Clinton said? She was wrong, and she has admitted it. Now we’re waiting for Bush / Cheney and you to admit the same.

  130. According to a NY Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US. The revelation that Saddam’s generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

    “The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation’s defense, ” stated the New York Times on March 12.

    The Times story supports the testimony of two former Iraqi generals who said that prior to the war, Saddam was in possession of WMD.

    1. Bill O’Reilly – is that you???

      Yeah yeah – except our own intelligence agencies didn’t even agree with that. They didn’t even agree with the administrations assertions re: tubes, cake, 45 minute attacks, etc., and the list goes on.

      And Hans Blix was on the ground in Iraq – and repeatedly saying that there was nothing to be found.

      You guys should really give it up – you were duped. But there is no reason to double down on being duped. Just accept you were duped and move on.
      And then resolve that – as The Who said – We Won’t Get Duped Again!

  131. Tom- I don’t look or feel as old as I used to think people my age looked and felt. My grandfathers both lived well into their 90s. In Jan of 16 I will begin drawing SS, if nothing much changes, but I know that whipper crackers like CS probably think I’ve outlived my usefulness. I still hunt, fish, run the 5 mi every day like I did 37 yrs ago, despite a horrific trucking accident in03 and 2 minor strokes at the beginning of this year. Ride my HD every day that is possible- rain,shine,snow, whatever. And most younger fellows can’t keep up with me in any of these activities, so may have a few more left on me. But like StvnKng, I have felt veryuch on borrowed time since you time in OZ-last two of 60s and a few more in 70s. Borrowed or not, I intend to finish out my time on this planet unshackled and as peacefully as fellow human beings will allow. I’ll meet my maker believing to have done my best to make the world a better place with few regrets for anything I may have said or done while here. Thanks again for at least a glimmer of hope for my grandkids’ future.

  132. Martin…..As long as there are individuals like you, there is still hope for this once-great nation.*******I can’t speak for Bill, but I’m getting Old. I have my doubts about the future of this country.

  133. Tom- I would hope you would add nearly all institutes of “higher”learning to your shortlist. LibArts programs pass this cr#p out like candy to naive students who have not been taught to think for themselves, but rather to swallow and regurgitate the political idealism taught largely by graduates of the Ivy League and their offshoots. Glad that you and Bill and so many others have the true “free thinking”skills so sorely needed in today’s confused society. As long as there are individuals like you, there is still hope for this once-great nation.

  134. Bil Kennedy, every so often, knowledgable people say things on the internet that make sense ( mostly because they are historical fact). You are one of those people. Cityslicker sadly is not. thank you for your insight.

    Cordially

  135. CS, “If you’d step back from how you’d like things to be to how things actually are”…..You f’k’g can’t be serious !?!?

  136. So let me get this straight – it’s not valid to compare the US with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries etc., but we should instead compare the US with Mexico, Swaziland, Jamaica, El Salvador, etc.?****** Until you can identify another country with 50 individual constitutions and one with specific limitations on its Federal government, no you CAN’t make comparisons! One of the most trite comparisons made by liberals is to compare small most homogenous populations of say Norway and Sweden, saying that socialism works, never mind that while these countries have some socialistic tendencies, they are not socialist, nor do they have a diverse population of 320 million with 50 different democracies, many of which are larger and more populous than them…….It’s moronic !

  137. cc: No, respectfully they are not reasonable. Those conditions are contrived, highly selective and entirely artificial. I think you realize that.

    These aren’t “rewrites” of the 2A. The modern urbanite distortions are the rewrites.

    “The brain is the primary weapon, all others are secondary.” John Steinbeck.

    Incidentally, if one uses the original definition of WMD, then they did find it. We found gas by the hundreds of tons in the form of conventional munitions of various types. Then one side changed the definition….until they needed to change it back several years ago in Syria. This isn’t about whether we should have gone to Iraq or what mistakes we made there. It’s about what we consider WMD and what we don’t. Gas is or it isn’t, it’s not that “living document” we can construe for convenience.

    Cordially

    1. “Those conditions are contrived, highly selective and entirely artificial.”

      Or, they’re exactly the conditions one would need to actually make a valid comparison.

      So let me get this straight – it’s not valid to compare the US with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries etc., but we should instead compare the US with Mexico, Swaziland, Jamaica, El Salvador, etc.?

      What would be the basis for which this makes a better comparison?

      As to whether the weapons were found on which the invasion of Iraq was predicated, well, Dick Cheney says no, they weren’t.

    2. cc; Regardless of what Cheney said they found, gas was clearly considered a WMD prior to the Iraq incursion. Regardless of what, for convenience, some may say now, gas of various types deliverable in several different types conventional munitions was found in enormous quantities.

      Again this isn’t about whether we should have invaded Iraq or what mistakes we made there (they are legion). This is about what is and isn’t to be considered as a WMD. If you are implying that gas in huge quantities wasn’t found you will embarrass yourself at some point because it most certainly was.

      Yes contrived because you totally ignore the high to very high homicide rates where there is a total prohibition on LEGAL firearms ownership. Again, still, you are proposing the unilateral disarmament of the law abiding for the protection of the criminal element.

      Hispanics in America have homicide rates a small fraction of that of their countries of origin with legal guns all around. This makes the point that the presence of a firearm isn’t the catalyst for mayhem you are assuring me it is

      Cordially.

    3. You said – “Again this isn’t about whether we should have invaded Iraq…”

      Huh? That’s exactly what it’s about. We should not have invaded Iraq. If it was a money grab, and oil grab, ok, I get it. But short of that, it should never have happened. Except for the bottom line of a bunch of companies, it was a disastrous thing to do.

      The connection between WMD and the invasion is that this is exactly what the invasion was based on – what was sold to Congress and the American people. Those weapons – the supposed ones the invasion was based on – were not found. They weren’t there. They didn’t exist. Even Dick Cheney had to admit it.

      But you, like Dick Cheney, now say – well, yeah, we didn’t find the WMD’s but the invasion was still a good thing. Now I can understand Dick Cheney saying this – how could he ever admit such a monumental blunder or that he did it for oil and Haliburton. But as for others, like yourself (unless you are actually Cheney hiding behind Bill Kennedy), why keep up the charade? We all have a pretty good idea of what happened.

      And like I posted previously -leading up to the invasion, there were millions and millions protesting all over the world who did not buy the lies they knew were being used. Many notable people. It made no difference. That invasion was going to happen one way or the other. Why?

      Remember Hans Blix? Read his book, “Disarming Iraq”. And please don’t try to impeach the reputation of Hans Blix – the CIA already tried that and failed.

    4. cc; That’s willfully misconstruing what I said. I actually said the opposite and it ought to be obvious from some of my other posts that weren’t to you. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea very poorly executed.

      Unfortunately you’ve forgotten or will simply say otherwise, but every potentate from Jacques Chirac to Hilary Clinton and all points in between said they (WMD) were there. Catch your friend John Kerry’s nice little speech on them.

      Gas was mentioned in the same context as the others prior to the invasion. Hundreds of tons of it were found, literally, but the position of no WMD’s found made it very easy to attack the United States and Bush in particular.

      The political left simply assumes the electorate is so obtuse they won’t remember and declares gas to be A WMD for leverage in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. That’s your guy cc and he did the same thing with more success in Libya and Egypt. We’ll only take ten thousand says Kerry except we might take one hundred thousand.

      The chance of an ISIS invasion is obviously goofy. That’s not the problem. The problem is your guy is inviting scores of thousands of people here and making them wards of the state while many of them conspire to kill us. That they can do by the score, hundreds or even thousands . They do it every day in much of the world.

      Look forward to having your social security means tested with ever increasing enthusiasm. When your government declares it our duty to take care of the world’s poor, somebody has to foot the bill and pay you will.

      Cordially

    5. Well this is great. You admit invading Iraq was a bad idea. Will you go so far as to say we were lied to? How about misled? No one was ramping up a WMD program. There was no Saddam/Osama connection, correct?

      As for Syria – Libya – all bad ideas no matter whose “guy” does it.

    6. cc: Lied to by whom? Saddam lied very effectively to his own organization at the highest levels. His own were apparently dumbfounded when they realized there were no readily available weapons to deal with an attack. As in the first war Saddam was afraid to use the gas, of which there was plenty, on US forces because of the potential retaliation.

      Saddam used gas with enthusiasm against the Iranians, many of whom had no protective masks. Like casualties in the entire Iran-Iraq war casualties from gas are difficult to estimate with accuracy. Tens of thousands are possible. The Iraqis sometimes failed to evaluate the wind correctly and the gas blew back on their own guns if it was being delivered by artillery.

      Saddam gave refuge to known terrorist but the link between Saddam and Osama and 11 Sep. 2001 is tenuous at best.

      When nearly every major league intel organization in the world arrived at the same conclusion, who exactly was lied to and by whom?

      The successful efforts to get rid of Qaddafi and Mubarak by President Obama makes even less sense and will, ultimately, prove to be a mistake of even greater magnitude. Whatever Qaddafi may have been twenty years ago he was absolutely no threat when we helped oust him. In some ways he was helpful and chaos followed his death. Of course as you will point out he wasn’t a nice man.

      Mubarak wasn’t by Western standards either but by the standards of the region he wasn’t all that bad. He made and kept a treaty with Israel ( oh my, there’s trouble ) and Christians were relatively safe in Mubarak’s Egypt. President Obama’ s “Arab Spring”? pretty much fixed that. Only intervention by the Egyptian military prevented the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic theocracy that this administration appears to have been seeking.

      Now Assad is fighting at least three different factions in Syria with the most capable being ISIS. Not only are we not assisting the fight against ISIS but we are aiding Assad’s enemies and at least some of the aid is is finding it’s way into ISIS hands. Assad was no threat and since our invasion of Iraq had shown little inclination to aid and abet attacks against us. Syria under Assad was a secular Muslim country that also offered retaliative safety for Christians and, again relatively, better treatment of women. So why is your guy, at this moment, still trying to get rid of Assad? What he worked relentlessly to bring about in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are mistakes, cumulatively, greater than the misbegotten invasion of Iraq and with not the slightest sign of a change in direction.

      The torrent of refuges into Europe is the direct result of your guy’s conscious policy. What in the next decade will be the result of millions of Muslim immigrants into Europe? Incidentally have you seen the composition of the refuges into Germany? Over three-quarters are single military age males….with smart phones. How “desperate” were they really?

      The ten thousand, maybe one hundred thousand Kerry says we will take will be overwhelmingly hostile to any and all things American. Everything, including and especially smug urbanites who offer excuses for what they will do. Why on earth would anyone worry about a Jihadi “invasion?” It isn’t necessary even if it were possible which it isn’t.

      If you insist they won’t attack us you are genuinely delusional. Read a description of what they did in Mumbai. Only a dozen or so with nothing but AKs and ample ammunition plus a few fragmentation grenades killed 160-170 and wounded over 300. Check the Indian firearms laws.

      When the attack started the Indian constabulary, including the few with firearms, ran away. The small, very small, unit designed for dealing with such things eventually appeared….then disappeared quickly when the unit’s functioning leader was killed. A multiple day carnival of killing innocents was the result. Transcripts of the commo between the jihadis their handlers has them asking what to do next since they had all anticipated being dead quickly, and they weren’t. The answer, kill more people. This they attempted to do.

      Your insistence that all this is just fear mongering flies in the face of years of actual events. Mock me all you want. Try the Beslan school and similar occurrences in Indonesia and Malaysia. We are willfully now allowing these folks to come here in substantial numbers.

      There are now 2,000 Somalians in a city of about 50,000 some 60 miles or so from where I live. They were forcibly placed there. When someone is granted the status of refugee they are eligible for any and all government assistance immediately and without question. These people from Somalia are, to a person, wards of the state. They openly express their hatred for the country and people that granted them sanctuary and safety. Why would we continue to bring immigrants like this to the US by the hundreds of thousands every year? Your guy, if he answered honestly, could probably explain it to you and you could rationalize it into something different, and goofy.

      There are thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who put themselves at risk to help the US military and US soldiers as interpreters who are asking for sanctuary. They are very much at risk for helping us and very few are allowed to come here. Instead we take those from Somalia and Syria, many of whom will come here with the darkest of intentions. Laugh at your peril and disarming your countrymen won’t help one bit, though when it starts that’s where your side will try to divert things.

      There may now be Russian hardware and personnel in Syria. I don’t think they will be as unwilling to attack Assad’s enemies, especially ISIS, when they are strung out over miles of desert. We refused, even as they played havoc with what was supposed to be an Iraqi army.

      Cordially

    7. I hope you don’t get slammed for being off topic…. some people are very touchy when it’s done by someone other than themself.

      BK, I’m pretty much with you all the way here – except for the need to blame one “guy” more than another “guy”.

      Bush didn’t have one good reason reason to invade Iraq – all you gas evidence aside. At least not one that dealt with security. And there were many reasons not to, as illustrated by everything that has followed.

      But I agree with you – Libya, Egypt, Syria – bad, bad and bad. For a myriad of reasons, and depending on the geographical location, the US has historically done a poor job of picking the correct side. And this is not a partisan observation

      As for mocking you – I don’t think I’ve done that, nor would I. I do think you overstate the day to day dangers of most Americans, but on the other hand, I’m a little surprised we haven’t had another major event on American soil – a testimony to the more than decent work the intelligence community does.

    8. cc: It’s not off topic, it’s certainly relevant to a disarmed US population. The danger, day to day, to Americans grows exponentially with the number of folks brought here as refugees that, like my Somali neighbors, aren’t the least bit hesitant to declare their relentless hatred for us. it’s unfathomable, at least to me, that those given safety, sustenance and sanctuary would be bold enough to do as they do. It speaks, I think, to their belief that they have powerful benefactors in the existing government. Why would they think otherwise?

      The real number is a closely held figure but hundreds seems a reasonable estimate of that cohort that has gone back to assist ISIS in some manner and then been allowed back into the country. Toynbee commented that history’s autopsies are full of great nations that committed suicide. You are looking at it and it’s happening far faster than even someone as cynical as I would ever have imagined.

      The Syrians and those that come with them will be worse yet. Why is this not painfully obvious? The danger is the in the intermediate future.

      I don’t blame one person. There were reasons to consider an invasion of Iraq and the reasons not to, as we ought to observe, outweighed them. It’s not like there weren’t people in the Bush administration who weren’t saying that. Perhaps worse is the appearance of nothing like a plan to deal with the country after the defeat of Saddam’s conventional forces which was never in doubt. There was ample warning for what has happened in that regard as well.

      Afghanistan is hardly different. The country was a failed state that was being used to launch attacks against us and we had every right, even a duty, to go there and make them stop. The same applies for our duty to do what was possible to make the cessation permanent. Instead we decided on “nation building” in a country where a majority of the population lives happily in the fifteenth century. Something like Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts with big mountains seems what we had in mind. We simply must make sure they have the right number of women in the right kind of jobs and send a reinforced rifle platoon to village X to make sure no underage girls, or boys, are molested and of course the proper treatment of the homosexual community as we see it. In the meantime scores or even hundreds dead every year in pursuit of this plus thousands of limbs and genitals blown off.

      Unfortunately our efforts to stop the use of the country as a staging area for attacks turned into something that looks like a script written by the 2015 Harvard social studies faculty. The results? One hundred percent predictable.

      All our combat power in the country for twenty years couldn’t have done it. Even a cursory view of what the Russians did, and they relentlessly used unencumbered force, and failed at should have been far more than a clue.

      Now this administration has doubled down on every mistake, for reasons that seem even more difficult to understand if real US security were the goal. The efforts to eliminate existing strong men and destabilize the Arab world is far more likely to cause us grief, regardless of the fact that history will judge the invasion of Iraq to be, again, a very bad decision executed poorly.

      You think whatever you like but after almost seven years I can say without hesitation that the I believe that the security (as most people would understand the word) of US citizens is several levels down (being charitable) in this administration’s list of priorities.

      The deal with Iran is a sham that will come to haunt us.

      Cordially

    9. cc: The lack of another major event on US soil is as much a matter of good fortune and the, to this point, relative ineptitude of our adversaries as decent work on the part of the intelligence community. I wish I felt otherwise.

      As an example, the nut ball brothers that blew up the Boston Marathon were amateurs in every sense of the word. Not only that but they did everything but have a letter published on the op-ed page of the New York Times as to their intentions. BOOM. Another example of gratitude toward the country that gave them sanctuary. “Refugees.”

      The bungling, but potentially quite lethal, attempts like Garland Texas have been met with reasonably prompt and efficient violence and been brought to a quick end.

      Chattanooga didn’t end as well but the jihadi received return fire and unlike Boston was apprehended soon after before he could hurt anyone else.

      It speaks to the, so far, ding dong mindset of this group that they try places like Texas and Tennessee when there are far softer targets…like Boston, Hartford, SFO and a hundred other easier places. They’ll learn and they’ll become better. The opposition in Afghanistan learned how to fight us far more quickly and better than they are given credit for. They learned how to exploit our weaknesses and it is already happening here. There are plenty.

      This isn’t a doomsday tomorrow prediction. It’s just what’s happening and it’s probable course.

      Cordially

  138. But Obama a racist? I don’t think so.****** Why would you? You also think that he’s agood POTUS…..From Reverend Wright, to Professor gates, Trayvon Martin and Micheal Brown, Obama has never missed a chance to play the race cars and get involved. But the worst is Michelle, having come to the WH with a chip on her shoulder ! Reader here Masters Thesis from Princeton ! But at least with Obama’s election she finally found a country she could be proud of.

    1. I think he’s done a pretty good job, considering where we were at the time he was elected. I think he wimped out when it came to Wall Street, however. As for the racial stuff – I think he’s been fairly level headed about it all, especially considering the amount of discrimination black people face of a daily basis. I don’t think white people can even begin to understand how bad it is. I’m no apologist for people who act poorly – do bad things – whether black, white or otherwise, but black people have it rough in just day to day living. I see it daily in my own life (I’m white), on the news, on YouTube. Heck, look at the things people say about the President himself, his wife and kids! It’s reprehensible.

      I remember this movie I saw – maybe in the 80’s – can’t remember it’s name. A black guy with a gun was jacking up someone for money or something. The other guy said something like this to him – “You know, if you didn’t have that gun, would we even be having this conversation?” And the guy with the guy agreed that they probably would not be. It’s all about powerlessness – lack of meaning – no stake in the mainstream of society. The funny thing is, I get the same feeling from some white people, as the world around them changes and they are powerless to stop it. But a lot of the change is for the better because it’s the right thing to do – it’s fairer.

  139. The legacy of slavery – racial discrimination – was and is a big problem.******Yes it is and It’s a money maker for race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, Lewis Farrakhan….As Booker T. Washington pointed out, “There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the black race before the public. They have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs, partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want blacks to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.” Obama is a racist, based on his history, including his racist church. But what I think is happening here is political opportunism. Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson have made a career out of race baiting and extortion. They are all multi-millionaires as a result of a lifetime of extracting money from hapless victims of their race baiting.

    1. Yeah, I can’t say I’m a big fan of any of those 3 guys or their methods.
      But Obama a racist? I don’t think so.

    2. No cc. As I’ve pointed out Brazil was the slave capitol of the hemisphere. Nobody close. In 1861 the Brazilian economy was more dependent on slave labor than the Lower South. By 1885 it was dead there due to the inefficient and expensive nature of labor in bondage, increasing automation, rapidly increasing levels of cheap immigrant labor. The moral factor ranked behind all those and all were in play in the US at the same time.

      For the same reasons slavery ended in Puerto Rico in 1874 and in Cuba between 1885 and 1890. No war.

      When the South left the Union they gave up, if they ever intended, extending slavery into the territories. They belonged to the United States. The terrain West of Texas is mostly unsuited for the large scale agricultural operations required to make slavery economically viable even in 1861.

      It would be worth your trouble to actually look at the restrictions on slavery and black people in the territories as they existed in 1861. It’s instructive because it shows the views of slavery and race from the perspective of the time rather than that of the 2015 Georgetown faculty. The entrance if black people was frequently prohibited.

      Reading the words of the so called “free soil” politicians it’s very easy to conclude their intention was territories free of black people, free and slave alike. It’s easy to conclude this because that’s exactly what they said in exactly those words. Start with Senator David Wilmot ( Wilmot Proviso). Lincoln said exactly that in 1856.

      Every decade or so pockets of slavery are found in remote portions of Brazil.

      Cordially

  140. it’s selected to represent countries most like our own in cultural norms, religion, government set-up and effectiveness, similarity of economies, election processes, etc.******* the only comparison that can be made about anything between countries is that they are all countries !!! Profoundly more disturbing than your lack of analytic thinking in your argument, is an apparent unawareness of any distinction between analysis and your illformed cursory conclusions. Many people noted that apples fell off of trees long before Isaac Newton, but they did not say “the same thing” as Newton.

    1. Tom, no matter how much you’d like to ignore comparable figures between comparable countries, they still exist. What you do is you take a mix of different criteria –

      some form of democracy
      some form of capitalist economic system
      Judeo-Christian history
      Language roots – latin, germanic, etc
      similar corruption levels
      similar strength of gov’t institutions
      historical and cultural linkages
      income distribution

      And from things like this and more – you have a list. If you’d step back from how you’d like things to be to how things actually are, it makes moving forward a bit easier.

      Oh and I forgot to add Australia and New Zealand to the list.

    2. cc: the net of homicide and violent crime hasn’t gotten better after what was essentially a confiscation of a substantial percent of the firearms in Australia. This many years would have shown the improvement you say follows these measures.

      That makes my point. It makes no difference. The reason people kill others isn’t because there is a firearm available.

      Cordially

    3. There have been several significant studies done – the results from ONE report, sponsored by a gun rights organization, said that there was no effect on homicides, but did admit there was a substantial reduction in suicides. The more unbiased reports all reported a decline in homicide – as high as 59%. Let’s go with the middle ground – still a big deal.

      But as important as the actual figures is the more difficult idea of reducing the influence of gun culture, in general. And don’t forget – Australians can still possess firearms.

  141. CS- I do not often resort to name calling, or judging the intent of others. But you, sir, are an over-educated, self deprecating, Fool!, for which there is no help! The WMDs were there, and our government drug their heels, thus allowing them to be removed to Syria-a proven fact as evidenced by Syria’s recent deployment of same against its own citizenry. Get your head out your azz and do some real research. with a truly open mind, forgetting everything you have so eagerly swallowed up to this point in your pathetic life, you will come to the same opinions as those expressed by a majority of participants in this discussion. Of this I have no doubt. As I previously posted, your brush is defective-get a new one!

  142. A modern day equivalent is when I hear people say that at time of the Iraq invasion, everyone agreed it was the right thing. ******* At no time is everyone in agreement about anything. But , not to be a ” name dropper”, Hillary, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen, just to name a few, all support the war. But they’re all expedient ” flip floppers” with selective memory, like Pelosi being for waterboarding, before she was against it.

  143. If southern states had their way, it would have expanded west,******In August 1862, Lincoln stated: “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” In fact, by that time, immense pressure was building to end slavery and Lincoln had privately concluded that he could save the Union only by issuing an emancipation proclamation, which he had already drafted. This kind of selective memory – or historical amnesia – or poor education is why we have these stupid disagreements. You’re as ignorant as log. Slavery existed all over the world, since Babylonian times. I’m sure that there were many against slavery, especially those enslaved. The west was in fact the first to actually move to abolish it.

  144. Thanks,Bill for attempting to set CS on the to true freedom. I am still reeling at his attempts to convince us repeatedly of how those of his ilk have all the the answers, and that those answers are more gun control. Thank you, Bill, for your much more realistic take on the subject.

  145. Unless you live in a bubble, you’d know that the 2nd A has been debated for quite some time.****** Yes it has, by a progressive scourge of Socialist, Communist and Marxist, that have been around since before the turn of the century, In stead debating them we should have been eliminating them. Now its part of the landscape that in time will be the demise of this once great Republic! You sir, although insignificant, are a party to that scourge !

  146. Martin, I’m sure that it must wonderful, the liberal vision of the world and how it works.Liberalism has a very causal relationship with reality, The only world you and I can live in is the one of reality, akin to the Serengeti, and most certainly not Strawberry Fields.

    1. Tom- that liberal vision of “Strawberry Fields Forever” , as you and I are aware, is absolutely wonderful. Anyone who has actually spent any time at all in one of the many countries where the political elite have already accomplished the socialist agenda end game knows that it, unfortunately, is just that-only a wonderful dream. In the world of reality the concept is unworkable, the end result being self-imprisonment to protect oneself and family from the evil which is greed and lust for power over another human life. Someone will always desire what others have worked for, no matter how much they may already have of either. The much older”civilized” country of our motherland is proof as you pointed out. Thanks for taking the time to pull the correct figures and factual evidence, so that others reading this blog, who may not have formed an opinion yet, would not be totally taken in by the seeming “super-intellect” of CS. As the old saying goes”he’s a legend, in his own mind.” He stated he was using this blog to ” brush up on his math” . He needs a new brush, the one he is using is defective. Thanks

    2. Tom- I have know idea how the ph # got in that post, nor do I know who’s it is. Wierd. Replace it with ” socialist agenda” and all is well..thanks again for standing with us

  147. The Federalist Papers as well as the Anti-Federalist writings remain as germane today as the day written and debated. They explain what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish, the discussions that took place and how we can succeed as a nation. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE in that discussion was restricting or eliminating the right for citizens to bear arms even suggested, just as nowhere was the discussion about the governments power over the people. Liberals wanting to interpret, rewrite or otherwise eliminate altogether the 2nd Amendment, are either ignorant, or complicit in forwarding an agenda that is unpatriotic and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose but as a warning to others !

  148. Hello again, Tom- still following this discussion. CitySlicker’s fact and figure ago nary totals keep piling up and he just keeps on inventing new ones. GOSH!! That seems to be the norm these days for left wing progressives these days, so am I surprised? No, not at all. Have you noticed that the 2A only seems to be vague and confusing to those who in actuality do not agree with it. To you and I, who are not trying to nitpick what “the definition of the word is, is” it is perfectly clear what the founders intended by their carefully chosen words. And the rewording of those same intentions by each one of the thirteen colony states when crafting their own state constitutions only serves to intensify the clarity. This self-proclaimed”expert ” on the necessity of clarification and redefining the founders intentions has not taken a break in three days now. Using his logic about this fact, he must be either a machine, in which case he has no rights, a government plant actually multiple persons working in shifts, or a non- productive, narcissistic socialist, subsisting on unneeded FS and Social services. Or possibly independently wealthy, trust fund baby, with nothing but time on his hands to invent new facts and figures trying to support his own belief that he is the world’s next political genius. We already have one of those in the WhiteHouse, and O don’t know about you, but I personally believe one at a time is more than the world can actually bear, as evidenced by the present state of affairs in this country under its current leadership. ” What This Country Needs Is a Good, 5 cent Cigar”! Sorry, but inserting that here makes as much sense as the malarkey this individual has been spouting non-stop for 3plus days. Must not have a job right now, and to me at least, it seems logical that he has way to much time on his hands. After making this fairly apparent observation, I have no doubt that there will be a retort wherein a real job will be invented along with fabricated figures stating years of employment and the awesome free- time his advanced position in this marvelous company affords him. My mother and her mother before told me on more than one occasion ” it’s not possible to teach a thing to someone who already knows everything there is to know.” Sorry , CitySlicker, but IMHO, you are the very person they were advising me about. Good night, I get to go to work again tomorrow, even though I am disabled. And tomorrow night I will eat food that work provided for me, and sleep on the bed that work made possible for me to purchase. Not miraculously appearing out of vapor, as a majority of your statements have been

    1. Hey Marty, the reason I’ve been posting so much is because I’ve found it’s a great way to brush up on my math.

      Unless you live in a bubble, you’d know that the 2nd A has been debated for quite some time. You’d know that some people don’t view it’s meaning as you do.

      As for me, if I had to choose a meaning, I’d go with time and place, and the musket/militia argument. It’s most logical. But my real point is – it’s not clear. And the reality is, as we all sit here today, we really have no idea it’s true intention. A lot of the Constitution was written and approved in a great compromise, with the idea that the Supreme Court would be the final word. And that’s how it is today. It’s a pretty cool system, but certain areas could use a bit more specificity.

  149. Honduras
    Venezuela
    El Salvador
    Jamaica 39.74
    Swaziland
    Guatemala
    Colombia
    South Africa
    Brazil
    Panama
    Uruguay
    Mexico

    Theses are the countries that lead the US in rates of firearm deaths. Each has more strict gun laws than the U.S.

    1. Did you copy and paste that list with a straight face?

      Post the list of western European countries along with Canada.

  150. My take is that the 2nd A is an individual right in the context of a collective right. ****** Of course you do, as your a dunce that can’t read and can’t reason…

  151. . You do realize that all of these other countries have black people too – in varying amounts. In even with their black people counted, their homicide rates are extremely low. It’s not really a black problem, it’s an American problem.****** Yeah, that’s why the top 30 countries with the highest murder rates are all in Africa. You’ll say damn near anything huh, Sparky !

  152. People of every race and color were enslaved — and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed. Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century — and then only in Western civilization. The same can be said for invading land occupied by the indian American Indians nor the European invaders believed it wrong. Both took other people’s land by force — as did Asians, Africans and others. The Indians no doubt regretted losing so many battles. But that is wholly different from saying that they thought battles were the wrong way to settle ownership of land. These are a classic example of trying to look at the past with the assumptions — and the ignorance — of the present, and the avenue that liberal educators have used to brain wash students and destroy the U.S. educational system.

    1. Nice history lesson, except for it being wrong. Fact is, there were plenty of people, including notables, who were against slavery going back to the 13th century. There is plenty of documentation. Although the Brits engaged in slave trade on the seas and in foreign lands – the one’s who came here came from a country that had essentially no slavery and hadn’t for several hundred years and then embraced it as Americans. All through the times of the colonies, through the early years of the US, there were plenty of people speaking out against slavery. It was pretty big deal. The country itself set up along those very lines. I guess it still is.

      And that argument that would have withered away is specious at best. Slavery in the US was still growing in the early 19th century. If southern states had their way, it would have expanded west, of course. And even if it would have petered out “in time” – that’s how we should treat one of the most repulsive things humans do to other humans? Let economics take it’s course? Sad.

      This kind of selective memory – or historical amnesia – or poor education is why we have these stupid disagreements.

      A modern day equivalent is when I hear people say that at time of the Iraq invasion, everyone agreed it was the right thing. Everyone agreed with the WMD story. There was no real opposition. This is also ridiculous. There were millions of people protesting in the streets all over the world, including cities all over the US. We KNEW the story was bulls#% then, as we know now. But of course it did no good. And the world was screwed up for for who knows how long.

  153. cc: In the 2013-14 election cycle the evil Koch brothers, who are more Libertarian than anything else, ranked about number 30 or so in money donated.

    Contributors, in both numbers and money, in the top 30 were far more likely to be identified with the political left than “conservative.”

    Cordially

  154. cc: The amendment addresses that clearly enough. It says “keep and bear” so individual small arms are protected. Crew served weapons like, for example, mortars, 50 caliber machine guns and, obviously, heavier weapons like howitzers and armored fighting vehicles would be prohibited. Essentially, small arms capable of being borne and operated by one person would be protected.

    Reference an earlier exchange, yes I was aware that 2.5 rate left out the, by far, most violent cohort and that’s highly relevant.. A 2.5 rate compares favorably with Canada with something like 1.5 and puts us below the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world. An infinitesimally small difference such as that makes it difficult to say firearms are the catalyst for murder the modern urbanite insists.

    In the UK physical assault is a common companion to the “hot” burglaries if a resident resists having their property or the fruits of their labor taken from them. Repeat burglaries of the same people are common. So, yes, I think it’s just fine if a criminal who has breached the walls of someone’s home with criminal intent fears violence for stealing things.

    Cordially

    1. A decent potential interpretation of “keep and bear” but far too vague. Small arms? One person? There are ground to air missiles that are quite small and designed for 1 person. 50 cal machine guns no good because it’s too heavy for one person? But a smaller round version is ok? Too vague.

      I took out the black figures just to illustrate that the rate is still unacceptably high as compared to other COMPARABLE countries. You do realize that all of these other countries have black people too – in varying amounts. In even with their black people counted, their homicide rates are extremely low. It’s not really a black problem, it’s an American problem.

      Hot burglaries, etal. – I still maintain minimal homicide rates trump burglary rates. Don’t you see the problem? Add guns back into the equation and what do you have? Less burglaries and whole lot more homicides. Just like the US. The answer is to find solutions to reduce burglaries (of which there are many), not increase gun use.

    2. CC: It’s an entirely workable definition. Rocket launchers and man portable air defense weapons are crew served and aren’t considered small arms in any case. Full autos of any caliber already have significant restrictions and have since 1934 though they would fall within the definition of “small arms.’

      You, again, are very selective about what is comparable. The point you are ignoring is the outright prohibition of legal private firearms ownership in countries with astronomical homicide rates.

      I do indeed see the problem. There are things you can do to reduce burglaries. You can live in a very expensive gated community though even that is far from a guarantee. The majority of the population can’t afford to live in places like that.

      In the UK citizens generally get no help from the constabulary when
      there’s a break in being attempted. If the physical barriers they have constructed are breached and they frequently are ( no one lives in a bank vault ) the residents are at the mercy of the criminals.

      You have every right to give up anything you have, including your life, rather than resist if resistance is so distasteful too you. You do not have the right to impose that on others and choosing to give up your property or your life rather than fight is not an indication of either moral or intellectual superiority, regardless of what present day conventional wisdom dictates.

      As from an earlier post check the homicide rates for El Paso vs Juarez. Legal gun ownership in Mexico is beyond difficult and expensive. Texas, as we are constantly reminded, is full of crazy gun slinging cowboys. The worst year in Juarez was nearly 3,000 which of course was later revised upward to closer to 4,000. The same year El Paso, no small city, had about 20.

      The concept of guns as a catalyst for murder is convenient and demonstrably mistaken. Gun control as It’s presently proposed is simply the unilateral disarmament of the law abiding.

      Cordially

    3. It’s very important that only comparable countries be compared. Of course the list is selective – it’s selected to represent countries most like our own in cultural norms, religion, government set-up and effectiveness, similarity of economies, election processes, etc.

      Comparing countries that are either culturally alien to ours, or have incredibly corrupt and poorly functioning gov’t institutions, is pointless – regardless of how strict their gun laws are. Keep it apples to apples – otherwise the figures have no validity.

      Within these incredibly reasonable parameters, the US doesn’t fare all that well, and you know this. But just because you know it and it doesn’t support your narrative, doesn’t mean you should ignore it.

      I see there have been some posts about 2nd A rewrites – interesting stuff I need to get around to reading. It’s nice that some people like to think about these things (including you). Too many people are just angry and have lost their ability to critically think in the abstract. The result is name calling – pointless and not helpful, whether on a message board, or in politics.

    4. While there are indeed “blacks” in other countries of various quantities and percentages America is the only country where the populace have divided themselves into distinctly different ethnic groups…. Asian Americans, Mexican American, “Native” American, Afro (aka black) American, hell I was born here, and I’m like whatever generational group that trace themselves back to the 1700s (my great-great-great-great-great-etc..) grandfather was a German mercenary during the Revolutionary war and I have to be a “white” American? The problem is not an American problem, the problem is that no one wants to be an American, and I can’t remember when that happened. Where I grew up everyone was an American, there was no Black Congressional Caucus, I don’t even recall an NAACP back then.. everyone was an American and everyone who was not, wanted to be an American. We had the greatest manufacturing base in the free world and the strongest sense of National pride in the world period. If you told some auto worker that a Japanese car was better than the Ford or Chevy he built you would quickly understand the error of your ways as you picked your ass up off the floor apologizing profusely. Today nobody cares because nobody is an American-American any more. It is NOT an American problem it is a human problem and the fact that people have lost sight of the unity and the pride that we used to feel when we were all Americans.. Fifty years ago this continuing argument would mot have even been considered because this question would have been considered not only highly improbable but absolutely unthinkable…

    5. Some good points – I agree that we as Americans do spend too much time dividing ourselves into groups. But I also don’t think that it’s a distinctly American problem. I see it all over the world. Sometimes it’s just regional, sometimes ethnic, sometimes religious, sometimes language, sometimes political – and a whole bunch of other reasons. I do find it a bit crazy at times. I also think that although it happens all over the world, in most cases it has unique qualities to that area. In this sense, ours is an American problem. For instance – the UK didn’t have large scale plantation slavery so their relationship with the black population is different – more colonial based.

      FYI – the NAACP was founded in 1909. I’m guessing you’re not THAT old? In which case it’s existed your entire life.

      They were still lynching black people in those days. I guess you could say they still are, in different forms. The legacy of slavery – racial discrimination – was and is a big problem.

    6. No, 1909 would pre date me a bit, however that actually validates my point. The fact that the NAACP was doing whatever it did 40 years before I was born and yet I nor those people sharing that particular geographical location and time had any need for their services.. There were no lynchings of anyone black, white, brown, red, yellow, blue, green or purple.. male, female or even someone whom might check “other” if given that option as an answer to the “sex” question. You know, this just is not fun any more, I could continue to point out what a…. no, never mind, you can fill in the blanks, I promised Moose I would make him and his play mates (several cats and a small fuzzy dog) some fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy w/mac & cheese and broccoli for their last meal together and somehow that seems considerably more important right now than the ridiculous line of B S that you have turned this into. Sorry but as the hour approaches I find myself wishing I could slow time and I know that by One P.M. tomorrow when it is over wasting my focus on something so trivial as this would be pathetic.. I would advise you to get a life but you have made it obvious that you would miss the point of that just as you have everything else that has been printed in here.. Mostly it has been to play you, when you first showed up it was kind of fun, a bit of a distraction if you will, now it’s just boring to see the same crap about all of those highly civilized forward thinking European countries that you are so proud of… Who gives a shet, you are an indoctrinated, kool aid swilling prime example of the reason people like me want to get as far away from people like you as possible. You are a condescending, self promoting, boor with a tunnel vision view of the world and I am tired of playing this game with you, maybe it is the predictability, I can almost word for word formulate your response to anything that anyone says, but obviously you are the smartest person you know and you need everyone to understand that… Mission accomplished, I’m tired of this, but I’m sure someone will keep feeding you, just not me…..

  155. So you would support the idea of campaign contributions being limited to individuals only?***** It can’t be done without an amendment and the ” unintended consequences” that come with it.

    As for the Electoral College – I think it’s original purpose still serves. Without it, you’d have the same 6 cities electing every president. You’re cool with that? Something tells me this isn’t really a big issue for you. ******* i believe voter turn out to be low, because people no longer believe they have a voice in the process. I think that it will improve turnout and political awareness. A change is needed, because it’s become all to evident that the no one can get elected by appealing to the top 10% of people that pay the government freight, which is why Democrats have controlled Congress for 56 of the past 80 years, and Republicans haven’t had sustained majorities, why entitlement debt, and immigration have failed to be addressed. As Carly said last night, we’ve been talking about the border for 25 years, but then that’s the Democrats future electorate.

  156. Add a few words, a comma here and there and let’s put this time wasting baby to rest.*******During the ratification process, several state legislatures expressed concern over the lack of protection of individual liberties. In response, the first Congress passed twelve amendments to the Constitution, ten of these which were ratified by the states and became known collectively as the Bill of Rights…….. So why would anyone consider that the 2A should stand alone as a collective right…… anyone but some liberal loon that is…… see ya

    1. I’ll type more slowly….

      My take is that the 2nd A is an individual right in the context of a collective right. I see nothing odd about it, nor would it surprise me to know exactly how the wording came about.

  157. Long term, if campaign finance was limited to individuals only, it would have many beneficial effects on our democracy – and not one bad one that I can think of. You have any?****** I believe that presidential elections have become spending contests, but I see more problem with the election process itself, in the Electoral College, where popular vote loses…

    1. So you would support the idea of campaign contributions being limited to individuals only?

      As for the Electoral College – I think it’s original purpose still serves. Without it, you’d have the same 6 cities electing every president. You’re cool with that? Something tells me this isn’t really a big issue for you.

  158. As for the 2nd A – I don’t really like or dislike it. I just think it’s worded poorly. ******* I think that it’s pretty straight forward..

    The Constitution is not of the “collective rights” If it were, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’ That’s not what they wrote, however, the ‘subordinate’ clause, “ a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state”, is in explanation of the independent clause as why the right to keep and bear arms ( of individuals) requires protecting. A collective right can’t exist without first the existence of the individual right.
    With the understanding that the Constitution is a collection of ‘ individual’ rights, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear, concise and unambiguous.

    1. Ha – well, I understand that to be your (and others) interpretation. Then there are others that believe it’s an individual right granted only within a collective context. 2 interpretations of a poorly written right – and either way, you’ve really got to jump through hoops to make it work for whichever side you’re on. Add a few words, a comma here and there and let’s put this time wasting baby to rest.

  159. I’m quite aware of the definition of ” dark money” as a boat load of it elected Obama via Soros, MoveOn.org.,Acorn, Media Matters, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler et al, 527 groups.

  160. corporate personhood fiasco.******If a free market and corporate accountability is the issue, abolishing corporate personhood is the last thing you’d want to do, seeing as how corporate personhood was created in order to hold corporations accountable before the law. Without corporate personhood, corporations couldn’t be prosecuted for crimes, sued, taxed…ect. In short the loss of the ability to do any of the things that you think should be done!

    1. The fiasco part is that corporate personhood needn’t be simply a free for all in the courts. I think there has been more than enough time (and court cases) to logically attempt to address when a corporation is a “person” and when it is not. And that’s what Citizens United was about. Now, as it relates to campaign finance – since the FEC unsuccessfully attempted to limit corporate campaign spending there are a couple of options; try to pass legislation that won’t run a foul of the Courts ruling, or amend the Constitution. Something limited in scope such as this would have no ill effects on the free market – nor would it effect any of the other benefits and rights of corporate personhood. Long term, if campaign finance was limited to individuals only, it would have many beneficial effects on our democracy – and not one bad one that I can think of. You have any?

  161. CS….It’s pretty rich that you’re quoting a slave owning judge who himself “interpreted” the Constitution – as a matter of fact, he made up something that wasn’t even there – to justify a terrible decision. ******* So let me make sure I understand, that his decision was bad because it was based on the actual wording of the Constitution, but ” interpretations” are good as long as you agree with them?

    And you think that the 2a was poorly written, because you don’t like it?
    Got it!

    1. For me, decisions are bad or good based on the result they have for the country. However, I support the Supreme Courts decisions. Both liberal and conservative judges interpret the Constitution. That’s their job. If enough people on one side or the other don’t like the decision, there are remedies, also spelled out in the Constitution.

      As for the 2nd A – I don’t really like or dislike it. I just think it’s worded poorly. If it were reworded to something like Funeralguy said, it would save a lot of time and trouble.

    2. cc: The Constitution did clearly recognize and protect slavery both North and South. It was the way of most of the world at the time and still is in far more of the world than many want to admit.

      The slave capitol of the hemisphere was Brazil. Nobody was even close. One million salves from Africa had arrived in Brazil and the Caribbean before the first one arrived in what would become America . That’s at least double the total number that would come to America. Ever.

      Slavery began over a century earlier than in the US and lasted a generation longer. It ended for reasons, all in play in the US at the time, twenty years after our war without one.

      The Constitution recognized and protected slavery and the court decisions that said that are correct. The procedure for amendments is straightforward if somewhat time consuming as it was intended to be.

      Cordially

  162. Interesting take I hadn’t thought of. I always think of the non-hunter who have been buying guns over the last seven years as they’ve watched the rise of ISIS, Obama inflaming the black community, and just the general unrest in the country. I see them at the range, learning about and enjoying their firearms. I can’t see these people just willingly turning in their property.

  163. CS—–Wouldn’t you support clearer wording?*******Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905) as said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, “It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen, and, as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States.
    I think that the words are perfectly clear, with the only ones wishing to change there meaning being those that don’t agree with them.

    1. Hey Tom – if you click “reply” before you post, you reply actually goes under the post you’re replying to.

      It’s pretty rich that you’re quoting a slave owning judge who himself “interpreted” the Constitution – as a matter of fact, he made up something that wasn’t even there – to justify a terrible decision. But I guess all in all, it was ok, because it helped to bring on the Civil War, and although a horrible war in the cost of human life, it ended the most backward and repulsive period ever experienced in this country.

      Back to the 2nd A – it’s terribly written, probably intentionally as a result of compromise.

  164. CS…..Take for instance, the SCOTUS decision Citizens United – a well written amendment that says the corporations do not have the same protections as individuals and that they can be regulated by the States and by the Federal gov’t would invalidate the decision and any which follow. Very simple.***** This is exemplary of my comment…… Corporate personhood has never been adjudicated. Although deleting it from it’s legal being would now leave a large vacuum and unintended consequences

    1. This is a copout of an answer. There is a case history going back to the early 19th century. The real issue here is election campaign finance reform. There are no unintended consequences to eliminating corporate, Super PACS, unions, etc donations to election campaigns other than it perhaps it resulting in less money in general. Hardly a bad thing. That’s the very least that should be addressed in this corporate personhood fiasco.

  165. CS…….it’s often impossible to know who is really behind the dark money.****** Well let me give you some help Scooter, Democrats control the majority of the wealthiest voting districts in the country, which is not saying that Republicans are destitute, but dark money is dark money!

    1. Another copout. Dark money isn’t about voting districts and you know it. It’s about corporate money being funneled through Super PACS. Try again.

  166. A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

    There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .
    Allow me to restate that number.
    Over the last several months, Wisconsin ‘s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
    More men under arms than in Iran .
    More than in France and Germany combined.
    These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
    That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan ‘s 700,000 hunters,
    All of whom have now returned home.
    Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that
    The hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
    The point?
    America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

    Hunting — it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national security.
    Add that to all of the other states put in the figure of people that don’t hunt andown a fire arm for various other reasons. What do you end up with, a lot of people that believe in the 2nd amendment. I would put that army of people against any attempt to try a national gun confiscation.

  167. You pose a good question. As long as it made it clear that it was an individual right I could entertain it. The problem (and I’m just spitballing here) how do you make clear what weapons would be allowed for citizens? Specificity would require a re-write every time a new technology came along. Again, just off the top of my head, how about a clause that says. “Any weapon that is commonly used by the majority of American police departments will be available for ownership and use by all citizens not otherwise prohibited from owning such weapons.” That would cover those that are already prohibited my owning firearms. Although a process to petition the restoration of gun rights might be a good idea to include in our fantasy amendment. There are a lot of men (and some women) who have lost their gun rights through false accusations by spouses. Also, our out of control justice system in this country has made some men into felons that shouldn’t be. I could come up with more fine tuning (with the help of my attorney brother) but it’s an interesting excercise. Thanks for bringing it up.

    1. Last night we were kicking around hoe we would re-write the Second Amendment to take some of the ambiguity out. I came up with this. I am not a lawyer.

      Sent from my iPad

      Begin forwarded message:

      From: David Carroll
      Date: September 17, 2015 at 9:15:52 PM PDT
      To: William Carroll
      Subject: Re: Revised Second Amendment

      Hi Bill,

      Up late, enjoying a Bourbon, so this might kit make as much sense as I would like, but here goes:

      1. Tuhe right of any individual to keep and bear arms shall not be yinfringed by the federal government. Infringement includes, but is not limiyted to, any and all registration, licensing, limits on ammunition, limits on imagine capacity for any firearm, insurance requirement, storage requirement, limits on manufacture, or any other attempt to limit the ownership, manufacture, supplying, or carrying of any firearm by any citizen of the United States who is not under any disability imposed by any state of territory. This does not limit the states from disabling the mentally ill or violent felons or misdemeanants from the right to keep and bear arms .

      2. The right of any person, whether or not a citizen, to self defense shall not be infringed by the federal government or by any state. Self defense includes any defense of the person or another from the threat of serious bodily harm.

      3. No person shall be denied the right to bring an action against any federal official who violates or threatens to violate the rights described herein, for damages, for an injunction, or for criminal penalties as may be established by law. Congress shall establish criminal penalties for government officials who infringe on the rights enumerated in this amendment.

      My humble attempt. elect me emperor and make all gun owners happier.

      Love,
      David

      On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:46 PM, William Carroll wrote:
      Hey David,

      Like I said in a previous email I was on a thread and they posited how would you rewrite the 2nd Amendment to make it more ironclad. I know I have more time on my hands than you, but if you’d like to take a look at what I’ve come up with (partially) I’d love to hear your thoughts. Right track wrong track. Too long, whatever. Remember I’m not a lawyer.

      Love,
      B

      THE SECOND AMENDMENT (REVISED)
      The Right of an Individual Citizen of The United States of America to Keep and Bear Arms and Ammunition Shall not be Infringed through confiscation, registration, nor special or onerous taxation by the Federal Government, State Governments or Local Governments.

      For the purposes of this Amendment the Definition of Arms and Ammunition will be as follows. Arms are defined as any sidearm, long gun, shotgun, bladed weapon, non-lethal spray and its ammunition that is the same or functionally similar to what is currently used now or in the future by the majority of American Police Departments.

      MANUFACTURERS AND PURVEYORS
      (I’d like to see a
      decisions based on prudent lending practices.)

      Sent from my iPad

    2. Please forgive the extraneous text. I meant to just copy and paste but was having trouble with my iPad. My brother is a lawyer and I caught him at cocktail time so read around the typos. He’s David, I’m Bill. I’m a retired funeral director. So his proposal is better than mine.

  168. Agreed. I don’t want to trust any of my rights being decided on how Justice Anthony Kennedy feels like when he rolls out of bed on any given day.

    1. 200 years ago it was someone else, and 200 years from now, it’ll be someone else. That’s how they roll – out of bed.

  169. I came in late on this. I assume you’re talking about a Constitutional Convention. I’m a little nervous about such an approach. I could see a lot of mischief being made by people with no sense of history, a lack of respect for the Founders and their writings, and an agenda of turning us into Europe. As to the wording of the Second Amendment, most honest Constitutional scholars have come down on the side of the “individual right” interpretation. (Commen sense begs the question: Why would the founders make all the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to individual citizens except one, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms?). Liberals, Leftists and wannabe Euro-weenies find the Second Amendment embarrassing. Too bad. The Founders knew the importance of an armed citizenry. As Constitutional scholar, Harvard Professor, and perennial short-list Supreme Court nominee Laurence Tribe put it when he came came to believe that The Second Amendment was a protected individual right. “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise. I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.” As I tell my anti-gun friends, “The Founders left us a process to amend the Constitution. So I suggest you get your ass off of Twitter and Facebook and start knocking on doors. Amending the constitution is difficult. By design. Good luck.”

    1. Whether the rights are individual or collective, there is an acceptance amongst nearly everyone that there are limits. Wouldn’t you support clearer wording?

  170. CS……..I, for one, am not that pessimistic as it relates to amending the Constitution. As a matter of fact, if one felt the Constitution had been “rewritten”, it would absolutely essential that amendments be considered to rectify a wrong or wrongs. Take for instance, the SCOTUS decision Citizens United – a well written amendment that says the corporations do not have the same protections as individuals and that they can be regulated by the States and by the Federal gov’t would invalidate the decision and any which follow. Very simple.**** How old are you , eleven?

    1. Tom: I consider myself a Libertarian/Conservative so I’m always for more free speech as opposed to less. If I could wave my magic wand I would do away with all Campaign Finance laws. Let the money flow. Billionaires, Corporations I really don’t care. I would insist on one proviso (since this is my fantasy) all donations–amount and to whom must be posted on a dedicated website for all to access. Let the money flow and let the people decide whether a candidate warrants your vote based on where they get their finances.

    2. This exists in some forms already. It doesn’t work. One problem is that it’s often impossible to know who is really behind the dark money. Another problem is that there is job related coercion in both corporate and union groups. True campaign finance reform would require that money only come from actual people – individuals, and that all donations be disclosed, as you said.

  171. CS If you don’t like that system – well…..there is a remedy. Constitutional amendment.*****

    I’m of the opinion that we have gone down the progressive road so far, a road paved with one baseless court precedent serving as an argument for the next baseless precedent, that much of the constitution has already been ” rewritten” rendering the amendment process has useless…..This administration has served to highlight that, as the most divisive POTUS since Lincoln. We certainly don’t need another one, as the 2nd amendment is but only one of our sovereign rights that will be ” reevaluated” ……

    1. I, for one, am not that pessimistic as it relates to amending the Constitution. As a matter of fact, if one felt the Constitution had been “rewritten”, it would absolutely essential that amendments be considered to rectify a wrong or wrongs. Take for instance, the SCOTUS decision Citizens United – a well written amendment that says the corporations do not have the same protections as individuals and that they can be regulated by the States and by the Federal gov’t would invalidate the decision and any which follow. Very simple.

      I’d like to hear how people would reword the 2nd A so that it suited their position and wasn’t open to debate. There certainly are ways to do it.

  172. CS it’s the SCOTUS who decides if a case meets or fails to meet Constitutional muster.*** sorry pal, you continue to not ” get it”*******If the Const. is vague on a subject and the Supreme Court rules on the exact words and makes a decision the populace doesn’t like it’s Senators and other representatives can be forced by the people to amend the Const. That’s what the Founding Fathers wanted, a Const. based upon the People and their agreement with the Government and certain explicit powers of the government, explicit rights of the people, and the 9th amendment, serving to indicate that it didn’t serve to list the explicit liberties of the people. The Supreme Court’s ability to “imply” what they wish from it is not in the Constitution, was self-bestowed, and is the prerequisite to one-branch over-powering. Constant cases that expanded government power based on a flimsy loose connection to a Supreme-Court Stated implication found in the Commerce Clause is evidence of the fact that the Supreme Courts decision to give itself the power to squint their eyes and “imply” whatever they want from the Constitution is the prerequisite to Big Government tyranny.
    If the People are angry at the gov for not following the Constitution but the Gov replies it’s following THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Const., then how can the people EVER be assured their government wont get too powerful and big? The Supreme Court was never intended to have authority over the Constitution as it has usurped.

    1. I’m not exactly sure if this is different than your other post – it does seem that many, maybe even the majority of people didn’t like the Citizens United decision. And there seems to be a bit of a movement underway to amend the Constitution because of it. I guess we’ll see how much “the people” don’t like it. Because if they can get up a head of steam about it, maybe something will happen.

      I’m actually pretty surprised that with all the complaining the gun groups do, they don’t seem to feel the need to address the 2nd A. Obviously it’s being interpreted in a way you don’t like. And of course it would be – look how it’s worded! Why don’t you do something about it? Where is the NRA on this? Why would people not want a clearer, non-debatable Amendment?

  173. Stvenkng,***** great post.
    Progressives have been chipping away at this country since Woodrow Wilson, the first Progressive, having disdain for the Constitution, a huge ego and a narcissticly exaggerated estimate of his abilities , his “vision” for the path of our nation, set us in the direction we are now headed….. . Wilson’s “Statolatry” New Freedom opened the door of Constitutional abuse that further gave the country Roosevelt’s Square Deal, FDR’s New Deal and the welfare-state policies of the 1930s and ’40s, Truman’s Fair Deal, LBJ’s Great Society Democrat have contolled the Congress for 56 of the past 80 years ( 44 consecutive at one stretch, destroying the morality and work ethic of the poor and middle class.

  174. Cs—–I think it’s safe to assume that all 3 branches of government are going to do what they think is “right”.

    But most people, from studies I’ve seen, also seem to agree that certain restrictions are allowable – even sensible.*****meaning you and most liberals

    wouldn’t it make sense to update the 2nd Amendment? If the amended 2nd said something like – “the right of the people to bear all weapons ever invented…No it wouldn’t ! Why don’t we update the first and say that you don’t have freedom of speech on TV, or the better yet the internet…. Depending on who’s in power, one of us is going to get the short end of that.

    You post some of the dumbest sht I’ve ever encountered and i’ve encountered more of your ilk than I care to remember.

    1. I don’t think there are people running around claiming the 2nd A should allow anyone to have missiles or tanks. Are you saying there is nothing that should be restricted? If so, then it is you who are posting dumb sh@#. I guessing you do believe that some restrictions are allowable.

      As for the the 1st Amendment free speech clause – I don’t think it needs amending, do you? It seems to work fairly well, even in modern times. I don’t think everyone understands it – people seem to think it protects them from things like getting fired from their jobs when they go on racist rants on social media, but i suppose that’s ok. It thins the herd!

  175. cityslicker……
    [Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]

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

     [Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]

        “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.”

    [Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    The 10 Amendments were written and added to the Constitution by the Anti-Federalist, as a guarantee by the people, that American citizens would not be deprived of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, not collective freedoms.
    Moreover, the Constitution was written by American citizens, not an American legislature.”
    The original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn’t intend for the commerce clause to govern much of our lives.

    Founders never meant for the government of the Republic to solve the nation’s problems. The government’s role under the Constitution is narrowly defined. The Constitution commands the government to insure ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’, nothing more. The rest is up to you. National problem solving isn’t to be found anywhere in the document. Every time the government steps outside of its constitutional limits (which has become the rule rather than the exception), bad things happen to the private sector and the nation’s people.”

    Every progressive agenda sets out to undermine everyone of those Amendments !

    1. See, this is what always gets me…

      You say – “Every time the government steps outside of its constitutional limits (which has become the rule rather than the exception), bad things happen to the private sector and the nation’s people.”

      Now, this is just an opinion. You must know that?

      Regardless, if someone, or a group of people believe the “government” has done something outside of it’s Constitutional limits, they generally sue the gov’t. And, if the courts agree – you win! If the courts don’t agree – you lose!
      And if you don’t like losing, then amend the Constitution to make it beyond clear.

      The bottom line it all this is that it is the SCOTUS who decides whether a case has merit and standing to hear, from a Constitutional perspective, and it’s the SCOTUS who decides if a case meets or fails to meet Constitutional muster.

      If you don’t like that system – well…..there is a remedy. Constitutional amendment.

  176. And that is the wild card in the whole gun confiscation scenario, i.e. What will LE and the military do? Most military are patriots who know some history, LE probably less so. Be that as it may, you are asking people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution to turn their arms on their fellow citizens. That will include their fathers, brothers,sons, daughters, and other family nembers. Not for any crime, mind you, for possessing a piece of property. I have a hard time beleiving there’s much stomach for that. Especially when there are guns pointing back at you.

  177. I would call that civil war, government against its people, what else would you call something like that, the government taking guns from law abiting people leaving the criminals and government the only ones with guns we would be prisoners in our owne homes criminals could go to anybody’s house and have there way with you and your loved ones.

  178. I’m so sick of this bull, about gun control, gun control mean I have control of my gun!,I say give people guns and training so they know how to use a gun, I always say how come criminals and other disturbed people never rob or hold up a plolice station the answer is because they know the cops have guns and they could die,think about a movie theater full of guns and well posted do you think a sick person is going in there to start something I don’t think so,unless there on subside mission, arm the people and train them to control there gun, I protect myself and others around me with my gun,

  179. It’s important to keep in mind that the Federalist papers were basically written to support the point of view of one group during the Constitutional ratification process. ******* In also reading the anti- federalist ( the other side) who were responsible for the addition of the Bill of Rights, I see nowhere on either side that where the government has the power to reign in the people…The powers of the Federal government are ” specific and limited….. When the Supreme Court bestowed itself the power in particular cases to decide what parts of the Const. trump others and furthermore, gave themselves the power to not interpret the constitution based on wording and intent, but rather on what they feel is “implied” (Implied Powers) by the words, didn’t they REALLY usurp power from the Congress and States to change the Constitution when they see fit?

    1. I think it’s safe to assume that all 3 branches of government are going to do what they think is “right”. Sometimes, some of us agree with decisions a branch makes, and sometimes we do not. But what I do know is that there are mechanisms in place to counteract, repeal, replace, amend, and change whatever “the people” disagree with. Now, keep in mind that “the people” themselves aren’t one singular group. They have differing opinions. But if enough of “the people” agree on one thing, then things can truly happen.

      Let’s take gun control, as an example. Most everyone agrees that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to possess arms. But most people, from studies I’ve seen, also seem to agree that certain restrictions are allowable – even sensible. So then, the point of contention becomes; what restrictions are allowable? Without getting into some crazy discussion about muskets and missiles, wouldn’t it make sense to update the 2nd Amendment? If the amended 2nd said something like – “the right of the people to bear all weapons ever invented, and weapons which don’t even exist but shall be invented in the future, shall not be abridged” – then you’ve given clear directives to the people and all 3 branches of gov’t. At the other end, it could be amended to take a more states rights approach and say “the right of the people to bear arms shall be left to the discretion of each state”. This would be the same as eliminating the 2nd Amendment, in theory. And everything in-between.

      There are many who believe the courts have relied on “implied powers” when ruling that the right to bear arms is not just a militia based idea.

      And so the argument goes on and on.

      A lot of gun advocates want it both ways – on one hand they argue that you’ve got to look at the Constitution EXACTLY as written and ratified. If one were to do that, you’d have to consider that we were talking about muskets, and not assault rifles and missiles. On the other hand, they want to possess weapons that were NEVER envisioned and certainly would not be allowed by the FF’s – ignoring their idea that only STRICT readings on the Constitution are allowable.

      But for me, none of this is really a problem, since if we had the motivation, we could amend things to reflect what “we the people” really want.

  180. CS….. You see, I’m a patriot.
    I’ve lived in 6 states from East Coast to West. and there’s good reason that i came home to Texas, from NY, FL to CO, CA and OR, the politics were absurd, as Liberals are absurd, self serving narcissist.

  181. CS-You see, there are issues in which BOTH sides think the court has made the wrong decision. But the fact is, the decisions aren’t wrong. They are just the decisions. ******

    From the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton counterbalances the tone of “judicial supremacists” who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.
    Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
    Hamilton continues. . .
    It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body

    1. TW – more good stuff. Again, it shows that the debate is still the same.

      This is interesting –

      “It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. ”

      What this means to me is that, in general, the courts should give the legislature the benefit of the doubt.

      It’s important to keep in mind that the Federalist papers were basically written to support the point of view of one group during the Constitutional ratification process. They also were against the Bill of Rights – saying they were unnecessary. In the end, the Constitution was a grand compromise, written in a way to gain passage amongst a group of different thinkers. There were some pretty contentious issues, as there are today. But thankfully, they also put into place a way to amend, if truly needed.

  182. SillyClicker- since StvnKng has addressed this I will add to it. Written by someone much more intelligent then either me or YOU! Mr Thomas Jefferson in 1823, weote,” on every question of the Comstitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, re-collect the spirit manifested in the many debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the most probable one which it was passed.” That sentiment was shared by every major statesman until The Civil War-which by the way was also started because of an illegal action by THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Not the Southern Confederacy as you liberal leftist “free thinkers” would have the world believe. The Feds did it once without any regard for the outcome, why do you onsist that it will not do it again? One of the criteria for determination of insanity is” trying the same action repeatedly and expecting a different outcome”. Drink your Kool-Aid and, “have a nice life” to quote you directly.

    1. Martin, thanks for posting from Jefferson’s letters. I alway enjoy reading him, although if I lived at the time, I would probably be in line with the Federalists of the day. But he was brilliant, for sure.

      It’s important to note that there was disagreement then, as now, between Federalists and States rights groups. All major statesmen of the day in fact DID NOT agree with Jefferson. That’s the entire point of this letter.

      Please note that Jefferson used the term, “re-collect the spirit” and also, “conform to the MOST PROBABLE”. I believe that whether I agree or disagree with a Court decision, this is what Justices try to do.

      What is also important is that Jefferson also wrote –

      “But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.”

      What he is saying here is that if there is some sort of seemingly unfixable issue, the people need to call for a Constitutional Convention, and fix what is wrong.

      To repeat Jefferson’s last sentence –

      “And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.”

      The point is, if gun advocates think that their rights are being infringed by legislation and court interpretations which are too loose, then AMEND the Constitution. You see, there are issues in which BOTH sides think the court has made the wrong decision. But the fact is, the decisions aren’t wrong. They are just the decisions. There are peaceful methods of “fixing” these decisions.

  183. CittyBoy… The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… Now where the hell do people like you get the banning of religion from everything associated with the government. Let me help you and apparently most of the rest of the country and the Supreme Court. It is as simple as picking up a dictionary, maybe it’s that ass backwards writing thing, how about “Hey, Congress you guys can not (A) form a religion or (B) pick one of the already existing ones in the world and force the populace to acknowledge it as the one NATIONAL CHURCH like those assholes in Briton did with the Church of England and oh yeah, by the way… You will not be running around telling the people when and where the people can worship whomever they want too. What is so hard about that? How can such allegedly “educated” individuals read “Susie and Billy can’t say a prayer in school in the words of that sentence?” This is exactly why the Constitution was written and it was not intended to be picked apart and “amended” without the process they put in place and it was not intended to be open to interpretation!.. A word is a word and none of the words used in that sentence have more than one radically different meaning. Ignorance is bliss as long as it is only you being harmed by “your own” ignorance, however ignorance is no excuse when your ignorance begins to infringe upon another persons rights be they God given or Constitutionally ordained. I am sick to death of all of this so called “Liberal Progressivism”. The only progress I can see is leading everyone straight to some Socio-Fascist-Commie hybrid that sees Islam as it’s religion and man that is going to hurt some feelings, especially you kool aid swilling sheep whom believe all the lies and honestly think the ultimate goal of these people is to build a land where everyone is equal and there is no pain or suffering… Good luck with that, I’ll most likely be dead long before they finish taking over every facet of our lives, but I have a feeling that I will be the one to make the decision as to when and where, most likely when they come after my remaining rights, but that’s cool, I’ve been ready for a long time…… Drink up, give the White House to Hillary and she’ll give the U.N. to Bill and that will be that…..

    1. Stvenkng, I’m pretty sure my response to Martin covers this. But I am curious about a couple of things – which rights have been taken away from you personally? And how do you make the jump from separation of Church and State to the US becoming an Islamic nation? Personally, I find Islam repulsively backwards and ignorant, even more so than most other religions. Why on earth would anyone want that?

    2. AHHH the Eye of Mordor has turned it’s gaze upon me, Perhaps you should check the new Common Core education “system” coming to a school near you. Teachers are being “encouraged” to teach the fundamentals of Islam, children are being taught arabic and are even reciting the pledge of allegiance in some schools in Arabic, field trips to Mosques with an emphasis on secrecy, World history classes in Tenn elementary schools are teaching Allah is the one true God (parents are pissed)a seventh grade exercise includes a project on the “five pillars of Islam” which includes translation of the pillar of Shahada as being “Allah is the one true God, Muhammad is his Prophet” to be a part of the finals for the class. How offensive do you find “One Nation Under Allah”. Maybe the “Federalist” in you thinks it’s okay to teach about Islam while continuing to exclude Christianity and Judaism. Should this be more appropriate as a High School or even a College elective? They have time for Muhammad but not for the Founders? Did you know there are kids are in high school and college whom do not know what happened on 9/11, who Ben Franklin was? How can anyone that supposedly knows so much about all the statistics about gun control in Europe and Australia not also see what else is happening there as well as here? And if you are okay with some asshole strolling in and walking out with your stuff maybe you would like to publish your address, save some punks life he can come take your stuff without worry make his life a little easier. I see that you are in lock step agreement with your illustrious Leader (I’m not surprised) you even have the talking points down pat. “if one life is saved” really? Obama was talking about a child now you have extended that protection to a fargin criminal? What about that robbery victim that was murdered because they were unarmed? If owning a gun had saved their life, at the expense of the life of the criminal, would that not be worth it? You condone the banning of only certain guns, but what if I can only afford one that must protect my home and feed my family? You sound like your early life was fairly comfy and a bit sheltered, but I grew up hunting and fishing to supplement what we could afford and in the fall I spent much of my youth shelling peas and snapping green beans while my Grand Mother cooked and canned them. In the Winter most of our veggies came from Mason jars from the cellar, milk was straight from the cow fresh that day, eggs from the same hen that might wind up as Sunday dinner, bacon from one of the hogs I had helped string up and bleed out, and various cuts of exotic delicacies from rabbit, squirrel, deer, quail, pheasant. You know it’s now against the law to drink raw unpasteurized milk? I can’t hunt a deer on my own land without a permit? Hell, I’m building a log home on my own little piece of a mountain and one third of the cost is permits and inspections, I grew up in a home built by my Grand Father and his Brothers, how many permits do you suppose they needed? That house is over 100 years old and still occupied by family. Do a little exercise… Find out who publishes the materials for the Common Core curriculum and then look up the major investors, it will help you understand. If you are not aware of the little changes that have been taking place in this country in the past 50 to 60 years then you have spent way too much time looking at European life (which has also undergone some changes) and Australia’s laws. I spent a week there in 1969 on R&R from Vietnam. Did you know that they did not allow black people to immigrate there? or that the Aborigines were restricted to certain parts of Sydney and only as visitors not residents (hell, they were there before the American Indian settled in North America). Australia is a very beautiful place, or at least it was then, only problem is just about every animal and insect down there is lethal to humans and not very friendly… I feel sorry for you and those like you, we have failed you, left you in the clutches of Commie liberal teachers and college professors, let you get a head full of ideologies that you believe should be imposed upon everyone and that you are the smartest person in the room. Good luck with that, I have problems of my own that would be meaningless to you so go on with your rising medical costs under Obamacare, keep your gun grabber mentality I could care less, continue to use those great nations of Europe as a model of excellence, keep telling yourself that your opinion is the only one that matters because we lower life forms need the great thinkers like you to protect us from ourselves and never stop and think that much of the escalation in violence, crime and murder can be correlated directly with the decline in manufacturing and the economy since Jimmy Carter became President and the EPA was taken over by a bunch of tree hugging radical whale savers.. Last night I tried to remember the last time I really had fun and you know what? I could not remember anyone over 60 that can is a liar or a liberal. It seems like my whole adult life has been spent trying to stay one step ahead of you progressive “life savers” and somehow, I got distracted, I merely blinked and the Rieds, the Pelosis, Schumer, McCain, the Clintons, the Bushes people whom were supposed to have my back while I rested have turned, It’s like a disease from which so few are immune.. If you people are so convinced that Socialism and Communism are the only answer to humanity then why the hell don’t you go live somewhere that is already established? Go live in Canada (but, where will you go now for real medical care? Oh yeah, we’re friends with Cuba again, perfect timing.) or England, they are still Socialist. Give France a shot but watch those Nazi’s they’ve got a grip in Greece and turned an eye upon Spain and France while the Marxists look to Italy as Russia and China cautiously join forces in hopes of taking over what ever remains of the world economy hoping to bring Comrade Nikitas haunting rant to fruition as he pounded his shoe upon the desk shouting “We will bury you without firing a shot” A mountain of debt would be our demise and we laughed at him, no way in hell could the then Soviet Union ever hope to do any sort of economic harm to the all powerful U.S. well, guess what sports fans. You know, I hope Obama gets what he wants, a race war.. he’s got blacks killing cops, blacks killing whites, cops killing blacks, blacks rioting and destroying their own homes and neighborhoods.. meanwhile my best friends problem that has consumed most of my time for the past year is about to end.. My English Mastiff was diagnosed with Squamous Cell Carcinoma (a nasty form of cancer, aggressive, destructive and always eventually fatal, sounds a lot like the far left) and I spent over $7000.00 trying to get him through this past year, just to make his tenth birthday. I have failed, the cancer has returned and in the past month has progressed to the roof of his mouth and soon the tumor will rupture causing him to bleed out on my floor or the tumor will reach his brain causing uncontrollable seizures or worse, I’m out of time so Saturday, if he makes it that long, he will be put to rest just about six weeks short of his birthday. After that I’m going to the mountain for awhile and if I am lucky it will all go to hell while I’m there and if I’m even luckier it will start in your neighborhood first, giving you an opportunity to reason with them and maybe negotiate a treaty give them your home and all your stuff as well as your bank account. That is much better than having to kill one of them, right? See I’m learning, you already have me thinking somewhat like you. Good luck with that too… Bye now

    3. Now that was an amazing post, in so many ways.

      Sorry to hear about your dog. That’s the worst.

      I’m sure you’ve done the same…. every time I’ve had to put a dog down, I tell myself, never again – it’s too painful But then I get one, because the right dog is the greatest. And for as painful as it is at the end, remember all the years before that were the best, for both you and your best friend.

      Bye.

  184. I’m retired military, it would be suicide for military and law enforcement to disarm the American citizens, besides I like where my ass hangs, I would stand with the American citizens anyway, telling the chain of command to respectively kiss my ass, with all dues respect of course

  185. With regard to the original question, What would a Nationwide Gun Confiscation look like? I tend to think it may resemble a Civ*l #ar.

  186. CS……..”But I’d be pretty certain that if everyone in NYC were carrying a gun, it would be quite the debacle when the bars let out!”****** is that what your crystal ball shows. Having been licensed to carry for years, I’ve never taken a firearm into a bar…… because it’s ” Illegal”…… I’m sure however that every know felon has no qualms about breaking that law.

    For two days you have made post after post of unwarranted, disproven statements, ignoring every verifiable statistic, moving the goal post or attempting to change the rules that blows through your agenda. It just goes to prove that if you tell a lie long enough someone will believe it, the political strategy of the Left.

  187. As for the Constitution lacking SCOTUS judicial review – I’m sure the FF’s intended it that way. Of course they also put in a mechanism to change that. It’s called an amendment. I don’t see a lot of support for it.****** Well there is at least one Supreme Justice that is: “Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good
    idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
    ~Anthony Scalia
    Of course he’s a strict constructionist, understanding that, if the Constitution is open to interpretation, as a “living Constitution” it is in fact a “ dying Constitution”, leaving us to become a Socialist Society comparable to the French…….. There’s a great idea. Why don’t you go be French,,,,, and take some of you friends with you.

    1. Ah, the “why don’t you go live somewhere else” argument.

      Well, I’m a happy and active American. I’m at least as American as you are.

      I’ve lived in several parts of the country and I love this country. And although I get frustrated with politics, laws, court decisions, etc., my response isn’t to threaten civil war, or tell people to leave, suggest that certain people need to die, etc. My response is to be politically active, and support causes and candidates for office. I also highly support the US Constitution and it’s processes. You see, I’m a patriot.

  188. CS………”Now, regarding violent crime figures in the UK, you are correct. UK violent crime rates are twice as high as in the US”.***** they only became such after the gun grab….. So you think it’s OK to disarm innocent people giving thieves free reign of their home ?

    Have you put your ” gun free zone” sign on your door yet…You should, it’s the only fair thing for you to do.

    1. I think it’s correct to try to do what one can do to reduce homicide. And in the UK, they have tried to do that. I’m not sure if you’ve visited the UK – London and such – but people there aren’t living in fear, you know.

      In my neighborhood, which has a fair amount of break-ins, it’s always good to have locks that work, don’t leave windows wide open, and look out for your neighbors. Signs aren’t necessary.

  189. Tom- forgive me for not prefacing my reply with who it was actually directed to. Your numbers and quotes have all been extremely accurate and I agree 100% with every post you have made. My reply was directed to CS and mis-posted. My mistake and again I apologize.

  190. CS—(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
    The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.
    African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths.
    The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

  191. Martin – point taken, but I was talking in philosophical terms.***** Number first, stop attempting to move the goal posts, when pointed out that you’re clearly wrong……. number next, the ” interpretation” of the establishment clause MAY be the reason, just as the SCOTUS has trampled on state’s rights withe Commerce clause, and individual rights via the Equal Rights Amendment. Allowing federal judges to rewrite and redefine the Constitution will result in a victory for individual liberty is ridiculous, never mind that there is no Constitutional power of judicial review bestowed on the SCOTUS to begin with.

    1. I’m not moving goal posts, Tom, nor am I wrong. The Constitution, as interpreted by Supreme Court (that’s their job, btw), has consistently upheld separation of church and state, since the beginning. Regardless of whether you or I agree with a decision is irrelevant. The system works as designed. As for the Constitution lacking SCOTUS judicial review – I’m sure the FF’s intended it that way. Of course they also put in a mechanism to change that. It’s called an amendment. I don’t see a lot of support for it.

      I’m not sure what you’re on about regarding the Equal Rights Amendment. I’m pretty sure that died a long time ago.

      Lastly, I am aware of the report to quoted. This is what I said in a previous post –

      “The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

      I wouldn’t find any problem with these conclusions. This isn’t addressing what Australia did, for instance. Also, I don’t think RTC laws, in and of themselves, are the problem. I mean, they’re crazy, and they serve to romanticize and fetishize guns, but I doubt they are a direct cause of increased homicide rates – AT THIS TIME. But I’d be pretty certain that if everyone in NYC were carrying a gun, it would be quite the debacle when the bars let out!

  192. Just to set the record straight- the founding fathers did not ban God from public schools! Only from the governing process. And as public schools had not even been considered until over 100 years after the constitution was crafted, that argument has no validity whatsoever. Sorry. I am glad you were afforded the opportunity to attend Catholic schools. I grew up working class however, without shoes many times. And yet I do understand the importance of allowing God to guide my thoughts and decisions, political and otherwise. I cannot make any excuse for the way “Christian” people choose to dress, nor do I Care to judge them fir it. I am responsible only for my own behavior, just as you are. I got involved with this blog to answer the question Posed by it’s administrator. You, however, seem to have become involved to convince everyone else here just how super intelligent you are and how stupid they are. The question here is still” What Woild a Nationwide Gun Confiscation Look Like.” Not “Could A Nationwide Gun Confiscation Take Place” I have checked your posts carefully and the second, unasked question is the ONLY one you have offered an answer to. And I do apologize for allowing myself to become embroiled in that debate with you. My answer to the actual question posed was, and still is, ” a nationwide gun confiscation has been underway since 1934, and is moving along at the snails pace envisioned at its inception, just as was foreseen from the beginning.”

    1. Martin – point taken, but I was talking in philosophical terms. In other words, the Establishment Clause would ban God from public schools whenever they existed. Because they’re public schools, not private. So, in that sense, yes, the Constitution did ban things like this at it’s inception. in the same way it bans God from some public institution which doesn’t yet exist.

      As for getting back to the original question – “gun confiscation” is a pretty loaded term. When considering what Australia did, it would more accurately be called a gun reduction law. And of course that could work here. It doesn’t confiscate everyone’s guns. It removes large amounts of certain types of guns. And I’d say it goes a long way towards moving away from fetishizing a gun culture. This would serve to START to reduce the influences which lead to gun use in conflict resolution. Additionally, I think we have quite the mish-mash of gun laws across the country. I would like to see mandatory prison time for illegally possessing a gun outside of one’s home. Make it strict, make it mandatory and over time, people will seriously think twice about walking out of the house with a gun. But these things will take time.

      FYI – Neither Australia, nor Obama, nor any presidential candidate, nor even lowly me is suggesting that gun ownership be made illegal. What people are trying to do it to reduce the influence of guns in our way of life. The go-to tool people should use is their brain – not their gun. This applies to everyone – white, black, Christian, or otherwise. Whether there are more guns in the ghetto or in the white suburbs, it results in more gun deaths.

    2. CS- one more observation that I just can’t seem to get past. While I believe that EVERYONE in this country had the “God-given(underline) right to protect themselves against an oppressive, tyrannical Government” your statements seem to indicate that you believe that right should only be applicable to an elite group who believe as you do. I will defend to the death your right to those beliefs, although I do not believe you would defend my right to my beliefs to any extent. I hope that someday you will become less judgemental and a little more open to others rights as our founders intended. Only time will tell, though. So long for now.

    3. First off, I am anti-elitist.
      Secondly, I don’t obsess about an oppressive, tyrannical government.

      I’m much more concerned about the corporate/elitist takeover over of government. Or the joining of forces of the rich, the multi-nationals and the government. Because that equates to fascism, and that I do not like. But we don’t need guns to defeat this (that doesn’t work in 2015 anyway). We need votes.

      So long for now.

  193. You want to fix something Cityslicker? FIX THIS……..Nationwide, the black homicide victimization rate in 2011 was 17.51 per 100,000. The overall national homicide victimization rate was 4.44 per 100,000, and among white Americans, the homicide victimization rate was 2.64 per 100,000. The homicide crisis in the black community is overwhelmingly a gun violence problem. Nationwide, when the weapon used could be identified, 82 percent of black homicide victims were shot and killed with guns. Among the victims killed with guns, 77 percent were killed with handguns.

  194. But I think the consensus is that there is either no effect or they cause more deaths than they save.******Who’s consensus is that, yours?
    More guns = more gun deaths. ******* More cars mean more deaths, more swimming pools mean more drownings, more Rx drugs, mean more overdoes’, More of anything has unintended consequences……. When are liberal loons going to stop trying to save us from ourselves….. focusing on something besides abortion, gun control,climate change, and from whose pocket the next ” Free Lunch” is coming out of…… What a worthless lot of self serving, Idealist turds they are ~!

  195. CS- but only in towns where those prohibitions were actually enforced. Enforcement beg the key word here. In towns where the carry bans were not enforced,” gun fighters”- the thugs of the day- ruled, usually causing the demise of the local constabulary first. That is to say, if we are to take our history of the ” Wild West” from fictional accounts and movies, there were more gunfights and people killed by gun fighters than actually existed in the western frontier. Except the carefully documented mining areas, where claim jumpers did actually myrder many peace loving, law-abiding citizens, most of whom were CitySlicker’s just chasing a dream who had no concept that truly evil people really existed in the real world and living under the assumption that having a gun under their pillow or tucked into their belt would protect them. My great-grandfather lived through those times in Sumerton AZ, and Sacramento, CA and I was fortunate enough to have known him for the last 22 years of his life. He had many stories of real life and many warnings which he freely shared. None of them remotely resembled the Wild West as you are trying to portray it. People were mostly courteous to each other when even “fine ladies” most likely carried a firearm of some type and everybody knew that to be the norm.

  196. And yet dressing nicely while in public- combing one’s hair, bathing,etc.- also went by the wayside at the same time God was banned from attending public schools. And yet the correlation still escapes you. I do not deny your right to be a non-believer- it’s one of the rights I fought to preserve and would fight for again if needed. Denying God’s existence doesn’t make Him disappear. Just one of His many attributes. I lived and attended public schools through the transitional years, was raised in a home where the only reference to Fod was while cursing, served in SE Asia 7 yrs, without recognition of an all powerful God. And yet one only has to marvel at the miracle of creation to see His hand in everything, every where we turn. Just to say, at one time I was as ignorant as you on the subject of God’s existence. Note the word choice”ignorant”. Ignorance is temporary, changeable by education. Stupid is forever, un teachable, unable to be overcome. Ignorant people can choose to be stupid about any matter. I chose to be teachable. Can you make the same statement?

    1. Martin, with all due respect, God was banned from public schools by the founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution. And it’s been affirmed by the courts, as the Constitution requires.

      Unlike you, I attended Catholic schools and I have a very firm background in God, religion, scripture. But it doesn’t guide my politics nor my ability to critically examine an issue, such as gun control.

      On a side note, I see plenty of poorly dressed Christians out there – church- going, gun-toting, uneducated, bigoted and lacking an iota of common sense. Kind of makes your whole argument silly, I’m afraid.

  197. Cityslicker, Even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved. That trade-off is the real issue,

  198. Cityslicker…we’d have a much nicer world.***** I think if everyone open carried a .45 on their belt, we’d be a lot more polite…. As Texas Ranger Charlie Miller replied when a concerned citizen came up to him, noted the hammer cocked back on the big 1911 dangling from his belt, and asked, “Isn’t that dangerous?” Charlie replied, “I wouldn’t carry the son-of-a-bitch if it wasn’t dangerous.”

    1. Tom, studies on whether guns save more lives than they kill are pretty hotly debated. But I think the consensus is that there is either no effect or they cause more deaths than they save.

      But studies on countries, states, cultures where there are more guns per person than areas with less consistently show that there are more homicides. More guns = more gun deaths.

      As for a return to the Wild West where everyone is slinging a .45 from their belt? No thanks. Homicide rates in the Wild West – 19 century, e.g., – were astonishingly high. From small towns to say San Francisco, rates were 10 to 30 times higher than they are now.

      An interesting note regarding Wild West towns – there have been studies that show that homicide rates in towns where people were not allowed to carry (concealed or open) within the city limits were much lower than in towns where people were allowed to carry in the city.

  199. @Bill.
    “The Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan have survived all the things you seem to say destroyed them.”

    Yet, oddly, they can only randomly blow up markets or cars and a democratic government prevails.
    Yep, we failed.
    Why, the Taliban still run the failed nation.

    Oops, we’ve prevailed, generated recruitment for the adversary, but still managed to retain control.
    Only the distant areas are problematic, save when they try to come into the core of the nation and most get intercepted.

    But hey, they ejected us back in 200x.
    Considering the massive draw down that has long been ongoing.

    1. Wzrd: The “distant areas” are problematic because they are Afghanistan. The central government exerts little or no control over much of the country. I suspect you know this.

      I am not the enemy, at least not on this.

      We had every right to go to Afghanistan. It was a failed state being used to launch attacks against us and we had every right to do whatever it took to stop it.

      Then we decided to make a country where much of the population lives happily in the fourteenth century into Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts with big mountains. We never had anywhere near the mass or the will to kill the enemy to the extent that they were truly defeated even if we could have. We never really got close. Instead we said we were there to make them follow our rules. That is, the right number of women doing the right jobs, all the things the Harvard faculty would approve of including of course greater opportunity for homosexuals. For this, all the American lives and the thousands of limbs and genitals blown off.

      We didn’t defeat them because, wrong as they may be, to this moment they refuse to submit. There’s a lesson there that’s inconvenient.

      Respectfully

  200. Actually, I don’t make a target of myself by saying things that could garner unwanted attention.
    There’s an old proverb, the tallest tree in the forest gets chopped down first.

  201. Tom- I learned a long time ago, and you probably did as well, that in order to truly help someone, they have to want to be helped. CitySlicker and Wzrd1 have both obviously decided that any one who fears the Federal government is to be ridiculed and belittled, thereby making them feel they are much more intelligent, ie smarter than that group. As such they cannot be convinced and will continue to invent facts and figures to prove their point just as nearly all leftist liberals are wont to do. They cannot be helped to understand that which they are closed to. As such when/if guns are confiscated they behave just as the good Jewish population of Germany did prior to WWII and allow themselves to be disarmed” for the common good”. That much at least they have both made clear. It is a pity as I truly think they believe themselves to be good and Patriotic Anericans. They are, however, obviously already so taken in by the inaccurate reporting and outright lies that there can be no admission or possibility that they may be mistaken in their eyes. When confronted with indisputable proof of our Government’s continued willingness to deceive and rob its citizens in so many different ways they resort to childish retorts and name calling foolishly believing themselves to be sounding smarter and more intelligent. I don’t pretend to be the best cookie in the jar, but I know enough to question and distrust EVERYTHING a leftist liberal says or does. There is no help for these two.

  202. Here’s the fun part, I’m only 53.****** Then why are so afraid to give it up to protect what you and others fought for? 650.000 died between 1860 and 1865, for just that reason.

  203. @Tom, infantry units, combat medic, later operations. Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Got osteoarthritis all over the place, knees gone, back gone, don’t know of any non-creaking joints. I retired when it started hurting too much to put all of that crap on.
    Crap that saved me life a couple of times too, cracked ribs on the right when an RPG sent a large fragment into the right side ESAPI plate. Beats having that fragment go through though. Significant hearing loss, with tinnitus, secondary to an IED that killed a vehicle full of buddies and trauma induced cataracts.
    Here’s the fun part, I’m only 53.

  204. @Scooter, you take a powder, child. At least I served for 27 years, 8 months and retired.******* As what? Clerk typist ?……. I thank you for your service ( I’m sure you deserve your benefits , but am happy that you never had to stand a real war time post !

  205. @Scooter, you take a powder, child. At least I served for 27 years, 8 months and retired.
    I was speaking of US militias, not the French underground that we supplied.

    @Martin, unorganized small groups if civilians with AR’s and AK’s against all of the remote weapons systems, artillery, etc don’t do well. Ask the Taliban how well it worked for them when we took their country from them. Ask Al Qaeda, who is not merely a franchise operation whose greatest claim to fame today was an ineffective shoe bomb, diaper bomb and printer bombs that never reached the US.

    1. Wzrd: As I’m pretty sure you are aware we, from any long term perspective, haven’t ” taken their country from them” nor anything remotely like it. The Taliban, in their various manifestations, have, unfortunately, thwarted all the things you say are impervious to defeat. They are doing it as I type this. You know that.

      If you want to argue that all manner of restrictions and the rules of engagement led to the world’s most lethal army defeating itself then argue that. The Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan have survived all the things you seem to say destroyed them.

      At one point about 40% of US combat power was in Iraq and Afghanistan and the best we could, again unfortunately, was to avoid abject defeat.

      History, from the first page, is full of examples of determined amateurs that defeated established armies. Many failed and many were successful. That’s just what’s happened and it still is.

      Cordially

  206. Wzrd1……Still, a review of militia effectiveness in our various conflicts shows that historically, they get their butts handed to them***************** Tell that to the French Underground…… you’re historically ignorant and pathetically unpatriotic…. take a powder, Scooter.

  207. CitySlicker- there are several accurate valid points to that statement,ie: black conviction rates, black homicide rates, et al- but your remaining conclusion that homicides are still 3 times higher is in error. Get your facts and numbers straightened out please, and stop with the wishful thinking. BTW, I am also a non- white. I am an American through and through though. And like many other Americans I fought to preserve the rights of people here to be what they want to be, and find happiness where they will. Guns have always been a part of my life, just as motorcycles have. I find enjoyment in shooting them, admiring the ingenuity which is apparent in all of them, their usefulness as a tool. I enjoy modifying them to make them fit my needs and desires better. And in all the years I have had them in my possession, I have never threatened or shot anyone that did not already have a weapon ready to use against me. When I was a young child we played with sticks or “pop” guns. Cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers. When a dispute broke out as to whether one of us was shot or not, we wrestled it out or shouted at each other. Not once did anyone consider going into the house to get one of usually several loaded guns to come back and actually shoot the other. We respected life and knew that a real gun would most likely end that persons life. When the respect for life got lost in the shuffle( somewhere around the same time God and prayer were barred from public schools) killing someone over a silly argument began to be more prevalent. And it seems obvious, to me at least, that if a person has no respect for themselves, there is no reason for that person to respect any other. Overall I would have to believe by observation that this country has a huge problem with a complete lack of respect which pervades all areas of society as a whole. Self respect is only gained when a person feels useful and productive. And that is an unalterable fact. It is lost when ANY person is made to feel that he/she is either in the way, or useless. Such a person’s normal response is depression, accompanied by anger. These, too, are unalterable facts. Giving any group of people special dispensation for any reason whatsoever brings with it a feeling of despair, hopelessness, depression, accompanied by anger. Note the fact that I said ” any group of people”. That means exactly what it says, and has no special meaning whatsoever. If I single out Cowboys as an unnecessary,useless group, Cowboys react exactly as I have stated. If I single out soldiers, they will react exactly as I have stated. If I single out ANY group as being unnecessary, or no longer useful they will react exactly the same way. It’s called ” human nature”. And defensive posturing is a part of the anger process. If you really wish to solve most of the problems in this country, do not strive to make ANY group of people feel that you think they are unnecessary or useless. Instead do all you can to help them feel worthwhile and needed. Except illegal immigrants. They have already made their statement as to whether or not they respect the law of the land when they chose to cross in illegally. And having made that decision how can we expect them to respect any laws in this country? Just saying.

    1. Martin – some very good points made.

      But let me say that my figures are accurate. US homicide rates are almost 5 per 100k. In western Europe, rates range from below 1 to perhaps 1.5 per 100k. So even if you cut the US rate in half (take out black homicide), you’ve got the US at almost 2.5 per 100k. This is double the average western Europe rate and in some cases triple or more.

      As for your argument re: respect, I couldn’t agree more. I just disagree on the causes. I don’t think God, or the lack thereof, has anything to do with it.
      I’d be more like to suggest it correlates with when people stopped dressing nice when they go out in public. I think if everyone wore suits, top hats and dresses, instead of cargo shorts and flip flops, we’d have a much nicer world. I’m not even kidding there. Have you been to a baseball game lately?

    2. cityslicker: You’re being more than highly selective, you’re ignoring the stats for the majority of the planet.

      A 2.5 per homicide rate or a bit less puts us deep into the bottom one quarter of the world’s countries. The overwhelming majority of those above that rate have restrictions on firearms that range from strict to outright prohibition.

      The rate for all violent crimes in the UK is much higher than the US rate. Again, hot burglaries, that is burglaries knowingly committed with occupants present, are a way of life in the UK and relatively rare in the US. Why might that be and what is it worth?

      Your answer and the answer of the majority of the US population are likely different.

      Cordially

    3. Hi Bill – In a sense I’m being selective in that I’m talking about homicide rates. So you’re correct there. But these figures are important. Well, they’re all important. Yours, too.

      First off – that US 2.5 figure is homicides, less black homicides. So let’s get back to the original figure, which is just under 5 per 100k. I’m comparing it ONLY to Western Europe countries and Canada because we have the most in common with them. It doesn’t serve any purpose to say that we’re doing well compared to Syria, or Nigeria, or Mexico, or the Ukraine, for that matter. Very different cultures, and very different circumstances.

      Now, regarding violent crime figures in the UK, you are correct. UK violent crime rates are twice as high as in the US. But they don’t result in many homicides at all. Why? The answer is obvious. They rarely involve guns. Now one could argue that the UK is putting more importance on keeping homicides down at the expense of someone losing their computer or iPhone and I suppose they’d be correct. But is that so wrong?

  208. Hamilton’s writings were worthy in their time, but against a modern military, ludicrous.
    Still, a review of militia effectiveness in our various conflicts shows that historically, they get their butts handed to them in every conflict until Iraq, when they finally held their own.

    I read a great deal of the Founding Fathers writings, I was a teen during the bicentennial and lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Such reading was commonplace then.

    1. Wized1- having read those journals and treatises as you say, how do you justify the feeling that Hamilton’s observations are”ludicrous against modern military.”? War College teaches very nearly the same opinions held by Hamilton and even against modern military have proven true.

  209. wzrd…These claimed confiscations have been claimed since before Obama took office, still haven’t happened.*****If 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 own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29……… and you still don’t get it……..

  210. @Martin, my firearms are secured in safes bolted to the frame of the building. They’d have a tough time trying to get those open if I’m not at home.
    If I am home, they’d get a 230 grain dose of lead.

    These claimed confiscations have been claimed since before Obama took office, still haven’t happened.

  211. Tom- that sounds very much like gun confiscation to me. “If it walks like a duck, etc..” But somehow I feel that SillyClicker and Wzrd1 will have to explain to us how it is not. With a dozen guns in Wzrd1’s home and likely a similar number in CitySlicker’s, a “gangsta” or two could arm their entire block with only two quick home invasions. We better let someone know about that dangerous possibility!

  212. Tom- that sounds very much like gun confiscation to me. “If it walks like a duck, etc..” But somehow I feel that SillyClicker and Wzrd1 will have to explain to us how it is not. With a dozen guns in Wzrd1’s home and likely a similar number in CitySlicker’s, a “gangsta” or two could a their entire block with only two quick home invasions. We better let someone know about that dangerous possibility!

  213. Without picking nits over percentage points I think it would be safe to say if you removed the gun crimes in the black community from the stats the murder rates would be a lot closer to countries with…shall we say…a less diverse population.

    As to the question at hand, i.e. What would gun confiscation look like in this country? I would say it would look like a lot a Government agents getting shot at. Americans are very protective of their Constitutional Rights. Especially, the Second Amendment. The compliance rate for AR type rifles being turned in in Connecticut was ESTIMATED (meaning they’re guessing) at 15%. Even after an editorial in the Hartford-Courant urging the authorities to start going door-to-door. The government quietly chose to ignore this helpful advice. This tells me that all scenarios gamed out into live fire skirmishes that would inflame the American public. Americans started out as serfs and soon found a monarchy not to their liking. We were born in revolution. The Second Amendment guarantees that we stay citizens. We will not give that up lightly.

  214. Sillyclicker- since monitoring your posts pretty much all day it has become apparent from your facetious postings that you pretty much consider yourself to be above EVERYONE else. That would make you the FICUS, so good riddance to you.

  215. cityslicker……Tom, the figures I use are only homicide – one person causing another’s death. Not suicide.******* So when someone kills their entire family before they commit suicide it’s ” no harm, no foul, huh, DUDE. I’m pretty much through conversing with a Ficus. Have a nice life. It’s said that ignorance is bliss.

  216. cityslicker….If you removed black homicide convictions from the equations, US homicide rates would still be at least double and in most case triple the rate of the other culturally similar countries. That’s white folks, folks…….Considering almost 2’3s of firearm deaths are suicides ( not to mention how many also include multiple murders), along with the occasional deranged white guy doing a mass shooting, perhaps it’s not the ” gun” that society should be focusing on, but the mental health of said society, or why black families have become ” fatherless”, with kids turning to gangs and drugs as a replacement……HuH, DUDE!?

    1. Tom, the figures I use are only homicide – one person causing another’s death. Not suicide.

      To address drugs for a sec – whites, as a percentage, use drugs in much higher numbers than blacks. Blacks are convicted of drug offenses in much higher numbers than whites.

      And yes, mental health is an issue. But I don’t see it as one or the other. It’s both. A pretty bad cocktail.

  217. cityslicker……And lets not forget that conviction rates for blacks are much higher for whites. Food for thought?******* I’m assuming that you mean ‘than whites’, not ” for whites”…. \

    Why do you think that both arrests and conviction rates are higher for blacks ( and hispanics) than whites? Could it be, that black neighborhoods are where the crime occurs? Could it be, that’s why police departments send the majority of their assets there? How effective do you think that cops would be if the department sent them into low crime neighborhoods. and riddle me this, why are black neighbor hoods the most violent of all minority neighborhoods?

    1. We’re talking about conviction rates as a percentage. So it’s not a matter of whether blacks are arrested in higher numbers but a matter of the rate of conviction after arrest. One would think (or hope) that a person’s journey through the criminal justice system, after arrest, would be color neutral. In fact it is not. From bail, to conviction, to sentencing it is not neutral.

      http://www.law.seattleu.edu/Documents/korematsu/race%20and%20criminal%20justice/Harris_Becket_Sup_Ct_3-2-11%5B1%5D.pdf

      To get back on topic – this isn’t a black problem. It’s an American problem. Culturally, we’re screwed up and it’ll take time to effect change.

  218. cityslicker…….See, you only get counted as one gun owner, even if you have 50 guns. Capisce?****** Yeah, I capisce…… but there’s not 300 million Americans that don’t own guns. Therefore there can’t be 30% that do, because 300-100= 200 that don’t own guns ! capisce?!

    1. Tom, maybe I forgot a comma, maybe you misread my post.

      Dude 1: 300 million American gun owners are going to kick your ass.
      Dude 2: Dude, there aren’t 300 million American gun owners. There are 100 million American gun owners.
      Dude 1: Really dude? How is that possible?
      Dude 2: I don’t know. Math, I guess.
      Dude 1: Rad.

  219. @cityslicker, “Now here’s a riddle for you. If 100 million Americans own 300 million guns, what is the likelihood you shoot or are shot by a family member before you purchase your 3rd gun?”

    Doesn’t depend upon many factors, such as how the weapon is secured, keeping the weapon in a safe configuration, etc?
    I own a dozen firearms, haven’t shot at any of my family and vice versa over the court of a 33+ year marriage.

  220. cityslicker “300 million Americans DON’T own guns. Less than 1/3 of Americans own a gun”********Really? You don’t see anything wrong with that statement? …….

    1. Tom, someone, maybe you, posted that if the gub’mint did so and so, 300 million gun owners would destroy them. Or something to that effect. All I am saying is that there are not 300 million American gun owners. There are 300 million guns with about 100 million owners. See, you only get counted as one gun owner, even if you have 50 guns. Capisce?

  221. cityslicker……This is of course a tricky issue – culture. We have to try to remember that for the most part, we are all Americans. There are many who lead the gangster life. Yes, many blacks. But also many “Aryans”, hispanic, Armenian, and even asian. And there are a whole lot of white people who think it’s cool to live the gangsta life,******* You seem to be unable to get that point off your head, so that you can see it…. When 12% of the population ( and it’s actually much smaller than that as for the most part these are you blacks starting at age 12-13 ) commit 50% of the violent crime,and the statistic is ignored by the media and the race baiters that promote this sht AND the White House, that’s not A problem, it’s the problem. Did you ever hear that “The fish rots from the head down” !?

    1. Tom, this is a point well taken. I don’t think anyone ignores it. It’s a big problem. But it’s an American problem and it’s not unrelated to other problems and other groups. And lets not forget that conviction rates for blacks are much higher for whites. Food for thought?

      Putting aside the fact that a disproportionate amount of blacks commit homicide relative to their numbers – consider these raw figures. Of the total amount of homicides committed each year, the number committed by blacks vs. whites aren’t all that far apart. In other words, white people kill a lot of people, too.

      If you removed black homicide convictions from the equations, US homicide rates would still be at least double and in most case triple the rate of the other culturally similar countries. That’s white folks, folks.

  222. cityslicker…….When we compare homicide rates, we’re using per capita rates. If one country has a rate of 1 per 100k, and another has a rate of 2 per 100k, that’s twice as high.******* is there a point other than the one on top of your head? That’s exactly why most crime stats are reported as a percentage of the population. When firearm deaths occur, it’s more than relevant to see who’s doing the killing, and who’s being killed, as well as circumstances, i.e., homicide, suicide, accident. There was a time when highway deaths out numbered firearm deaths. But we didn’t ban cars, or eliminate certain types of cars from the street…. No, we looked at the stats and determined that the cause of the majority of accidents were cause by DUI, so we beefed up the laws agains the these offenders, then we demanded safer cars and more educated and qualified driving instruction. We put DARE programs in schools……
    There was a time when the NRA was know for gun safety training and shooting sports. While they continue to be involved. The organization now spends the majority of its time ” and money” in court, fight morons like you.

  223. cityslicker…..you might want to learn – 300 million Americans DON’T own guns. Less than 1/3 of Americans own a gun.****** There are at most 320 million in the U.S. , so by your ” off the wall” ( more like out of your ass) calculation, some where around 100 million do own firearms…do you see the error here, Scooter….. and by the way about about 100 million are under 18, 10-20 million are here illegally and god only knows how many convicted felons, both in and out of prison…what a dope.

    1. You got it right Tom – about 100 million Americans own a gun. I’m not sure what you’re missing.

      Now here’s a riddle for you. If 100 million Americans own 300 million guns, what is the likelihood you shoot or are shot by a family member before you purchase your 3rd gun?

  224. I guess if you can’t provide a constructive answer to the question posed by the blog you resort to unfounded name calling. You go sityclicker

  225. Alas, with the national furor over multiple new gun restrictions being proposed by President Obama via “executive action,” in Congress, in state legislatures and in municipalities, the plan being forwarded by officials in Guntersville, Ala., this week drew scarcely a mention in the media.

    Mayor Leigh Dollar says that in case of an emergency or crisis, she wants police officers to have the authority to “disarm individuals, if necessary.”

    “We are not trying to infringe upon anyone constitutional rights whatsoever,” she says. “It’s just to protect the workers working out there in a disaster.”

    The ordinance is up for debate at the city council meeting next week.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/see-police-confiscate-guns-from-americans/#JIf1PDpes68KXy8W.99

  226. “What Would a Nationwide Gun Confiscation Look Like?” President Obama standing on your front step in a K-pot and a tac vest, dragging an empty trash can behind him that has “GUNS” written on it, begging you for your guns FOR THE CHILDREN. No, really, because if he really wants them, that’s what he’s going to have to do because nobody else wants to get run out of office, fired, sued, or shot for him. Please note a week later Hurricane Rita hit Lake Charles and nobody got their guns seized.

  227. StvnKng- I believe the liberal you want bash would be calling himself CitySlicker today. Had a defense contractor employee last night spouting the same rhetoric (BS). Liberal gun owners- talk about oxy-MORONS.

  228. Stvenkng…..I’m too old to waste any more time looking up stuff trying to set you liberal gun grabbers straight… but if you want to throw numbers around make sure they are right. ******* I’m not the ” liberal gun grabber” here and not sure how you came to that conclusion. All the crime stats are available either/or from the FBI ( though they still lump white and hispanic together) and the CDC. If you’re not too busy to look them up.

    1. My apologies dude, that’s what happens when you don’t take time to trace these things back to see what started it….

  229. Happy birthday early, bro. You have a couple on me. I get to draw Soc in Jan.Catch you on the highway sometime. Keep the rubber side down. Ooh Rah!

  230. Amen. If you feed a stray cat that would ordinarily hunt, it will be back tomorrow. If you feed it again the next day, it moves in with you, stops hunting, and lays around having kittens for you to feed. Just saying.

  231. martin..Since black violence accounts for more than 50% of crime in America, should being black be outlawed? Please don’t answer that!******* it’s not ” being black” that should be outlawed. The governments answer of throwing money at education, welfare, and healthcare is not nurturing private achievement and self reliance, rather it only continues to treat the Black Community as the second class citizens that they are. It is sad that people think they are doing blacks a favor by exempting them from standards that others are expected to meet, that should be outlawed. Racism is not unlike other blights on society, IT IS A MONEY MAKER, and is promoted as by liberal Democrats for votes as much as it is by drug dealers, insuring a continued growth market.Liberals also see the value in using these lopsided crime statistics to further their cause of disarming the law abiding citizens. So, let’s place blame where it belongs and not on the “ southern racists “ , but on the Democratic Party insuring their own growth.

  232. Exactly! Now let’s remove all gun violence statistics where blacks are the perps from gun violence stats and see where we stand in relation to the other cultures CitySlicker listed and see where we stand. If my figuring is correct ( and it may be off by a small margin) that would drop us to either third or fourth worldwide. Then take away suicide which does account for the largest percentage of gun related violent death and our stats drop to fifth or sixth. Suicide will be accomplished by the most expedient means at hand. Since black violence accounts for more than 50% of crime in America, should being black be outlawed? Please don’t answer that!

  233. Well Suzanne,,, first off you need to tell the truth about Australia.
    That is,,, since guns were confiscated from its law abiding citizens,
    the murder and gun related crime rate has actually tripled in that country.
    And,,, yes they still have had recent mass shootings.
    That said, are you really foolish enough to believe, that here in the USA, the criminal element in our Country is actually going to offer up their weapons to the Government like good little citizens?
    Left wing Socialists, AKA Communists, like Obama, Bloomberg, Hillary, and their cronies fear a well armed citizenry.
    They want this to be an unarmed country not to protect us from crime, but rather to protect themselves by reducing the chances of any insurrections. Think I’m kidding,,, look at what Hitler did to the countries that he invaded. First thing,,, disarm the citizens!
    By the way, the people in Australia, as well as Great Britain and several other European Countries, are now demanding that their rights to own weapons be restored.
    Why do you think that Japan never invaded Mainland USA?
    It’s because they knew that they would run up against and get their butts kicked by the largest militia the world has ever seen.
    This Countries Founding Fathers new what they were doing.
    The Constitution, and its amendments, were created to help stop any lawless tyrants, like Obama, from destroying the freedoms that they sacrificed so much for.
    As for giving up my guns,,,, What’s that old saying about out of my cold dead hands. Me and three hundred million other fellow gun owners,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    1. Trainman, this is all a bunch of hoo-ha. Throwing out figures which are false (obviously there is no cited evidence), is not really making an argument. And again, all weapons were no confiscated – just certain weapons. All told, it was about 1/3 of the weapons held. Hell, if you had to give up 1/3 of yours, you’d still have at least 20. Here’s some figures you might want to learn – 300 million Americans DON’T own guns. Less than 1/3 of Americans own a gun. The 300 million gun figure is because kooks like you have an armory in your double wide.

  234. cityslicker……..”Culturally, the US would be in the group including Canada, western Europe and Australia/New Zealand. Among this group, US homicides rates are generally 4 to 5 times higher than every other country. This is not debatable. Mexico would not be in this group.”******* Black commit over 50% of all violent crime, with a handgun being their weapon of choice….. This is also not open for debate and is as culturally relevant in this discussion as is comparing when comparing it to a lack of gun violence among the Japanese, although there is nothing ” apples to apples” about it.

    1. Another relevant fact entering into that equation,Tom, is of 50% of all violent crime being committed by blacks in this country is that more than 70% of those crimes are black on black. Comitted with handguns obtained illegally. No background check, and carried concealed without permit. But ” Black Lives Matter”. That is the ” gun culture” CitySlicker should be targeting, not law abiding citizens just doing their best to ensure their families and their own pritection from these lawless thugs. There has been a division of beliefs between city dwellers and rural residents since the very beginning in this country which still exists. City dwellers tend toward relegating responsibility for their protection to hired “professionals” , while rural residents understand that there can never be enough man power to be there when they are needed and therefore choose to take the responsibility for their own safety more personally. This debate has been with us since the country began.

    2. Just a side note there Tom.. if you don’t mind…. The U.S. population is 4 to 5 times higher than several of those countries “combined” (7 times Australia alone. that, is not debatable) so okay, maybe your stat is correct though I’m not convinced it is, per capita numbers will look a lot different, so come back with hard numbers, I’m too old to waste any more time looking up stuff trying to set you liberal gun grabbers straight… but if you want to throw numbers around make sure they are right. And are you stating homicides only or does your homicide stat include all violence related deaths…(like justifiable homicides) And oh yea everything is open to debate, except the number of primary debates Hilary is willing to entertain. And what I said was not…