I’m fed up with the lily-livered liberal anti-gun nuts.
And just because the president is the president why the hell should his kids have ARMED GUARDS protecting them when YOUR kids and MY kids have to go to school WITHOUT ANY GUARDS at all??? What a hypocrite. Elitist even. Just like the NRA said. Those people have our best interests at heart.
If every school had armed guards this stuff would never happen, and we’d be teaching our kids the MOST IMPORTANT message of all, that the world is a very scary place and school is a very dangerous place, and we must be ON GUARD at ALL TIMES, especially school where we have VULNERABLE children, and protect them like OBAMA does.
Every school should have at least one, if not several Thompson submachine guns handy and at the ready. And so should I. I have NO IDEA why such effective, anti-bad guy tools are so hard to get and use. If some bad guy walked into a school and there’s the young lady principal with a Thompson in her hand, pointed right at the bastard, well then, HA!
She should never be without it. It would be easy enough, just a sling resting comfortably at her side as she greeted kids coming in, met with parents, did all the things a principal should do, ESPECIALLY PROTECT OUR KIDS!!!
That’s what the 2nd Amendments all about; just read it fer Chis’ sake. Just read it. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s what I’m talking about. With that kind of exact clearness, why the hell should I be denied MY RIGHT to have a Thompson? What the hell kind of namby-pamby tree-hugging liberal swill is that? Anybody with HALF A BRAIN can see I have an absolute CONSTITUTIONAL right to a Thompson. There’s nothing in there about the useless, ineffective regulations. If we all were carrying Thompsons, there WOULD BE NO CRIME! No criminal would have a chance. It’s a liberal plot to take our guns away, and THEY’RE COMING AFTER OUR GUNS NOW!!
Right your Congress man now folks. We need to protect ourselves. They’re trying to limit the size of the clips we put in LEGAL assault rifles, they’re trying to limit our ammunition. I know that you’re out there right now, buying up more ammunition, buying more guns, because the gun dealers are having record sales. BUY MORE!! NOW!! Soon you won’t be able to if this administration has its way, we WON’T BE ABLE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AT SCHOOL!! We need guns in every school and we need them now. The good folks of the NRA will help find a way to fund it, don’t you worry. Gun classes at school too; the kids should be trained to handle guns at school. What if the principal goes down? WHO WOULD BE LEFT? Just the helpless, vulnerable kids. Mandatory weapons training no later than 5th grade. A ten-year-old should be able to protect his classmates if need be. Especially at school. The most proficient could then stand guard along with the principal, on a rotating basis, always alert for the predators stalking our country.
Don’t let the liberals get away with it folks. There against everything this country stands for. Especially guns. Guns aren’t the problem. Guns are the SOLUTION!! In this frightening, dangerous place called America, the Founding Fathers would be appalled that EVERY CITIZEN was not fully armed with the latest in military hardware, much less some semi-automatic relatively harmless assault rifle. TAKE A STAND America, demand fully automatic weapons for yourself, for your family, FOR YOUR COUNTY!!! Support your NRA; the NRA supports YOU!!
Simple enough: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Get em away from the bad guys and you can have mine. Oh, and that militia thingy? That's for protecting us from tyranny, as you know. A lot can be said in fewer words....
Posted by: Curt | January 17, 2013 at 08:53 PM
I was married once to someone who basically spoke pretty much as this blog was written, all in CAPS, and soaked in exclamation marks!!!!! I used to say, "I hear you please calm it down some." But Emotional anger has a way of revealing itself with basic typos, FULL METAL JACKET reverse rhetoric, and content that is basically the mirror reverse of what the author truly believes. These folks, who cannot determine what is a human being and what is not, ought to place in their yards a sign reading , "WE IN THIS HOME, OWN NO WEAPONS, WANT NO WEAPONS, AND WILL HAVE NO WEAPONS." That should be their yard sign. Why this demonstrably false commitment to the sweet goodness of humanity, and faith in human beings? Keep in mind these folks generally displace God, deny sin, re-define evil, all while having no ultimate ground by which to justify evil's existence. So of course they will worship the creature rather then the creator. It is this semi deification of humanity that has been shown to be blatantly false down through history. But these silly folks keep on singing their song that man is sovereign, and now they have a king of their own named Obama, and they are rightly maddened that the NRA has shown him to be naked with no clothes.
To these folks, the elimination of crime, violence, etc... is found in the removal of guns. Much like outlawing haunted houses because they cause fear, corvettes because they cause high speed collisions,bikinis because they provoke rape, forks for causing obesity, and 15 round clips because they cause shooting. These folks live to attack the symptom rather than the disease because they don't believe in the disease, they believe in the symptoms. Nevertheless,
I FOUND THE BLOG REFRESHING, IT TOOK ME BACK TO WHEN I WAS MARRIED TO SOMEONE WHO ALSO LOVED CAPS!!!!!!!!
Calm down honey.
Posted by: rmm | January 18, 2013 at 07:28 AM
What about my Thompson Curt? Should I have the right to own one? I think it would be an extremely useful weapon for close-quarters self defense.
Randy, I don't believe weapons cause crime and violence, but I do believe they make it much easier for the perpetrators to pursue their goals. And in reference to treating the symptom, while attempting to eradicate disease people in the medical profession still do treat symptoms to try and help those suffering from the disease. When I contracted Dengue Fever while serving in the Peace Corps, I was very happy to be able to at least treat the symptoms.
Posted by: Roger German | January 18, 2013 at 07:40 AM
Of course you should be able to have a Thompson. Pass a background check and shoot away! Why is it the gun denial advocates want to take guns away from the GOOD guys but never have a plan to get em away from the BAD guys? And seems to me the good guys need those armor piercing thingys now that Homeland Security has over 1.4 billion rounds of hollow point bullets ordered! Why is that you think? Any thoughts?
Posted by: Curt | January 20, 2013 at 05:14 PM
Curt...you really believe we should be carrying Thompson submachine guns...?
Posted by: Roger German | January 21, 2013 at 08:32 AM
I didn't say that. I said you should be able to have one if you want one. That's way different. Given all five of the last firearm mass murderers were all Progressive Democrats or from Progressive Democratic families, maybe we should look at that connection. Weird, eh? Maybe it's not just radical Conservatives clinging to their guns!
And again, how about them DHS bullet purchases? Any answers? Maybe we SHOULD all have Thompsons!
Posted by: Curt | January 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Why dont liberals just give everyone the right to choose? They have a fervor to extend that right to abort an infant. The crossover is in the subtle assumption made by Roger, one I would have made too, but that possessing the right to own one, does not translate into the axiom that we must own one. There is the amendment in action. The right is/should be there, and only Democrats have ever sought to tamper with the 2nd. But if Rog believes, ie has faith that the presence of guns make it easier to kill or maim, why not find that same connection with alcohol? Its blind faith to assume a causal connection with the mechanical gun, and actual violence. There is much more than just blind faith as verification for the direct causal connection between booze and death on the roads and elsewhere.
Posted by: rmm | January 21, 2013 at 04:25 PM
No answers from anyone yet on why OUR Department of Homeland Security has ordered over One billion rounds of hollow point and sniper related ammo. Doesn't that just beg for an answer? Even the DHS spokesperson gave two different answers, and then went silent. Come on! Get that Tommy now Roger!
Posted by: Curt | January 21, 2013 at 07:54 PM
Curt; I can't find a credible news source for the billion plus bullet purchase; shows up on Infowars blog, Americanthinker blog, but doesn't reference where the info comes from. Snopes pans it, There was a purchase with paperwork for Special Forces, but again, I have no idea how much ammo the military buys, when or why. I would actually like to know that, because I would not prefer that we support all the gun/ammo manufacturers to that degree...and it seems you agree with me. Alt-Market.com did a pretty good job of breaking down ammunition purchases over the last 8 years, starting with Bush's inception of Homeland Security. The orders it shows reflect the contracts being written as up-to a certain number of rounds, but not necessarily purchased rounds, as they were written during Bush's term too. Luckily for me, I saw no Thompson rounds begin purchased, so I should be OK...that is, when I finally am able to get my Tommy...
Posted by: Roger German | January 22, 2013 at 10:30 AM
First of all, a little research on Snopes would show that THEY need to be panned. And they panned SSA and NOAA purchases, not DHS. The purchase by DHS is a given. Many articles and no denials by DHS. Our military uses about 70 million rounds per year in Iraq and Afghanistan. A billion rounds is just crazy. It's about the money, eh? Maybe it is about buying up all the bullets...
Posted by: Curt | January 22, 2013 at 08:46 PM
David and Barbara Mikkelson, someone to put your faith in.
Posted by: rmm | January 23, 2013 at 05:38 AM
Curt, perhaps you can direct me to a credible news source for the 1.4 billion rounds bought...I still can only find blogs asserting that figure without a timeline or source other than other blogs. I did try other fact check sites besides Snopes, but none of them verified it either.
And you are then proposing that I and anyone else who can pass some fairly limited litmus test should be able to buy a fully automatic Tommy Gun?
Randy...good point on sorting out the causal connection between a gun and violence. That I do think would be erroneous...what I was attempting to point out is how much easier it is to create mayhem with a semi-automatic weapon than with other weapons, and the distance a person can maintain while killing. Those I think are important factors to consider. And I do agree with you on the link between alcohol and death on the highways, but I'm not sure what point you are making with that one...that is why alcohol is a regulated, controlled substance requiring licensing to sell, age limits to buy and penalties imposed for abuse.
Posted by: Roger German | January 23, 2013 at 07:25 AM
My first point is one for us all Rog, that is if we place our trust in any source in this country, Snopes or otherwise we should hold them all suspect. Causal connection between guns/violence, versus beer/car wrecks is not even close in my opinion. I think as you said, alcohol is currently regulated. You establish my point then that so too are guns regulated. The question I was raising is given the statistical imbalance of alcohol deaths, which are far more than gun deaths, why not seek for more regulation for alcohol rather than guns or in addition to guns? Booze and guns require licenses to buy, sell, with age limits and penalties imposed for abuse.These regulations have not stemmed the consequences of either. Your logic that more guns make it easier to commit killings goes both ways, so why not say that more booze makes it easier for domestic violence and death to occur? Alcohol could be said then to be a creator of mayhem with massive casualties. Why not seek to regulate the gun involved in the highest number of killings, which are pistols? Why just pick on semi weapons? Why constantly rush the the ledge of the Tommy? Take the guns that do the most killing? Do you think you could argue for that proposition?
Posted by: rmm | January 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM
How about this. We've tried it your way for the last 50 or so years...why not try it our way for the next 50 and see what happens?? If nothing changes then we'll go back to your way. Deal? Oh and INFANTS are not aborted...LEGAL MEDICAL definition is a fetus. Infant is a baby that is out of the mother and breathing on it's own.
Posted by: MDG | January 23, 2013 at 02:48 PM
Ya guns. More guns. And make sure you know how to shoot em or this happens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaV629VZzzA
Posted by: Faye | January 23, 2013 at 04:33 PM
Or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djFMlaKh8dY
Or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGPTkvt3Bw0
Guns. Absolutely the answer.
Oh whoops
ANSWER!!!
Posted by: Faye | January 23, 2013 at 04:36 PM
MDG. That would be great by me. Lets do it. But how? Even reducing the number of guns will be impossible. Take away every gun on earth, and we'll all fight hand to hand. Psychotic Killers will still be among us. I don't think we can ever get there. On infants, sorry about the momentary linguistic imprecision. Some late 3rd t-mester kids would probably want you to call them infants if they could speak up for themselves, but of course they are helpless, aren't they? I was born but on oxygen for a time not breathing on my own, was I not an infant? On the other posts, I couldn't stop laughing. All but one where the stupid idiot is teaching his 3 year old daughter how to shoot a 45. That guy needs examination by a doctor.My friendly question to Roger delt with the connection between alcohol and mayhem, versus guns and mayhem. Lets outlaw margaritas? But then I couldn't play the guitar near as good as I think I can after 3 of Rogers mixed drinks.
Posted by: rmm | January 23, 2013 at 06:01 PM
One more thing. Here is proof positive that alcohol kills. It's way, way, way worse than firearms.
http://crazy-frankenstein.com/pictures-files/drunk-pictures/animal-drinking-party.jpg
Posted by: rmm | January 23, 2013 at 06:46 PM
Where is the conversation on mental health. ALL shooters in the last five mass killings were either on prescribed medicine or had just quit. Without a gun they may have used a hammer, which by the way, killed three times as many folks as mass killers last year. I am sick of this opportunistic gun control crap. Tighter gun regulations Do Not Work to reduce killings by guns or Chicago would be Shan-Gra-La. Again, taking guns, clips, bullets, magazines or whatever, away from law abiding citizens does not reduce gun crime. Good grief. Do facts mean nothing anymore? Lets talk about something that kills way more folks. Red meat maybe?
Posted by: Curt | January 23, 2013 at 08:32 PM
I'll admit red meat is pretty dangerous, but I do choose to live on that lean, medium rare edge.
It's a tough nut, this gun issue.
There are competing claims and counter-claims, each with some degree of truth. Apparently regulations on guns did not work in Chicago; apparently gun regulations in Australia did work. I don't know why there is that difference.
I do know that hammers have been used in killings, but as a carpenter, I also know the primary use of hammers is for driving nails into wood. The primary use for a gun is to kill. It seems to make sense that if we limited access to hammers, there would be fewer nails driven into wood. It seems to make sense that if we limited access to guns, there would be fewer people killed with guns.
Perhaps all people who kill are in some sense mentally ill; I don't know. Lt. Colonel (ret) David Grossman, Army Ranger, West Point instructor and psychologist makes some good points about this in his book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society."
I know we in America are awash in guns, so beginning a process of decreasing that number is daunting at best. But it does seem to be a reasonable idea.
Posted by: Roger German | January 24, 2013 at 07:45 AM
I was hoping you would comment on the great margaritas you make, but you passed it by. I would disagree completely on one item. The primary function of a gun is not to kill, the primary function of a gun is to defend yourself. If insane lunatics use guns to kill they must be prosecuted. The liberal agenda of Obama is not to regulate weapons, it's to weaken the second amendment in my opinion. Outlaw hammers, and killers will use bricks. Outlaw bricks they will use a pipe. Where is the freedom to choose group in the liberal wing? If I want an AR 15 for the defense of my home, why move your bones to say it's only to kill? Why crank the terminology up so high? Because the argument wont work if you use the words ,defend yourself. You have to audibly say it's to Kill. Gun banners hold to a weak position because of the constitution in general and the 2nd ammendment specifically.
Posted by: rmm | January 24, 2013 at 08:37 AM
I appreciate you commentary on my margaritas...has been a while since I've tried my hand at those. And it looks like we will disagree on the purpose of a gun. It is designed and built with one purpose in mind, and that is to kill. However you want to parse "defending yourself", the gun in your hand and/or your adversary's hand is there to kill. If you think you are pulling a gun to intimidate, or wound, you misunderstand the purpose of a gun. I was told often and clearly that if you need to pull a gun, you better intend to use it and you better be aiming for center mass. I think Curt would agree with me on this one? I know Terry does.
Posted by: Roger German | January 24, 2013 at 09:56 AM
Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the easiest factor to be mindful of. I say to you, I certainly get irked even as folks consider issues that they plainly don't understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest as smartly as|and also|and} outlined out the entire thing without having side effect , folks can take a signal. Will probably be again to get more. Thank you!
Posted by: berenika | January 28, 2013 at 07:48 AM
Have you ever thought about publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other blogs? I have a blog based upon on the same information you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my subscribers would enjoy your work. If you're even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an email.
Posted by: aleksandra | January 30, 2013 at 08:59 AM
Normally I don't learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, quite great article.
Posted by: eleonora | February 02, 2013 at 10:32 AM