22 Dec

The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

                                       

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.

Korean-men-defending-Koreatown-during-the-1992-LA-riot

There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.

onenationundersocialism

Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

YouTube Preview Image
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Mass Murders. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 22nd, 2012 at 10:02 pm
| 2,490 views

339 Responses to The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

  1. Redteam says: 301

    @ilovebeeswarzone: all those you mention would be ok

    ReplyReply
  2. Redteam
    yes
    did you visit the POST OF ; DO FELON DESERVE….
    RIGHT HERE ON THIS FLOPPING ACES,
    VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW MORE, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE REAL AMERICANS
    ARE GOING THROUGH FOR MANY IS ONE MISTAKE, AS TEENAGE STUPIDITY DECISIONS.
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  3. retire05 says: 303

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Well, lookie here; Richard Wheeler, one of our resident leftists, wants to drag the Good Lord into his argument. Nevermind that Richard supports the administration that wanted to prevent FDR’s June 6, 1944 prayer to the nation from being put on the WWII memorial in Washington, D. C.

    See, the left has progressed to the point where it no longer believes this nation needs God in it, and God, like all things with the left, is only used when He suits their purposes. Then they drag the Good Lord out, dust Him off and use Him to give credence to their talking points.

    Sorry, Richard, you are exactly what H.R. called you.

    ReplyReply
  4. C J
    HI,
    YOUR ZING BRING US TO 304
    you never thought a zing would go so far out

    ReplyReply
  5. Richard Wheeler says: 306

    Life is about having loving relationships and being able to help the less fortunate.
    It’s certainly not about concern over paying 37% or 39 % in taxes,or having enough firepower to kill the bad guys or overthrow the govt.
    Christ reminds us “It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle:” help the least the lost and the lonely.

    Bees That’s 306 Tebow A good Christian but a lousy NFL QB

    ReplyReply
  6. http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com

    –It is absolutely vital to get the above video shown in highschool history classes. Watch the video yourself, and then make the attempt. Do it for the kids. Do it for the women and minorities who will pay the ultimate price if you don’t. One would think that all liberals would be arguing for gun rights, to the maximum. That they are not, only indicates how far liberals have fallen in intelligence and education since the time of Hayek.

    All conservatives and liberals should read Hayek’s “Why I am Not a Conservative.” It’s free online in many places. Google it, and get the education you deserve. :)

    Really, only racist retrogrades can be anti-gun. The entire purpose of the Civil War was to allow blacks to own and carry arms.

    ReplyReply
  7. Jake Witmer
    thank you for the link,
    it will be educative also, for all the people
    there won’t be no more excuse to be ignorant
    of the most important document, written for AMERICANS ONLY,
    IT IS THE TREASURE OF AMERICA,
    best to you

    ReplyReply
  8. Richard Wheeler
    good to know and we have more help than expected to get to 700
    bye

    ReplyReply
  9. Redteam says: 310

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Well, I certainly am working on getting the number up

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 311

    @Richard Wheeler:

    “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in Heaven.

    Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the snyagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have not receieved their reward. But when you give to the needy,do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

    Matthew 6:1-4

    Apparently, Rich, you seem to think that your bragging about what a charitable person you are makes you blessed in the eyes of the Lord. It does not. I makes you only the “hypocrite” as spoken about in the Bible. Christ’s instructions are clear; keep your charitable works private. Do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Your boasting of how charitable you are is simply a facade to puff your own self-importance up, not for the glory of the Lord.

    Yet, you would not raise your sword against those who would take away the rights granted us by God. Instead, you support those who would remove those rights, and chastise those who would lift their swords in His name.

    As to your comment about taxes: the Bible is quite clear, you should pay your taxes. But taxes are to be equal, not progressive. Each man is to pay one shekel, be he rich, or poor, and the Bible is also quite clear that a man is to leave an inheritance for his sons, not to be stolen by the “prince” (i.e. the government). And why, in your liberal mind, should a person be required to pay more in taxes than the 10% the Lord ordered us to tithe? Is the “prince” (the government) more needy that the Lord’s Church? Does the “prince” have a right to demand more than the Lord?

    You on the left love to use the ‘eye of the camel’ parable, but sadly, you don’t understand it. Instead, you brag of your charity, which gains you nothing and support those (Democrats) who would remove all signs of Christian faith from the public view.

    Instead of being, as the Lord spoke of, a hypocrite, and dusting Him off, trying to use Him for your own nefarious means, I suggest you dust off your Bible and learn the real meaning of His words.

    ReplyReply
  11. Richard Wheeler says: 312

    Retire 05 ” Using The Lord for my own nefarious needs” What a crock..

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 313

    @Richard Wheeler:

    The only crock is how you liberals, who constantly tell us how God must be removed from all public view, seems to be quite willing to drag God into the debate when it suits your agenda.

    I posted you should read FDR’s June 6, 1944 prayer, asking God to guide our soldiers as they went into war, yes, Richard, with guns. There was no doubt in FDR’s mind that we, the Americans, were on the side of rightousness in God’s Name. Yet, you back a party that didn’t want that prayer on the WWII memorial because, well, I can’t really think of a good reason except that again, you prefer a secular (i.e. Godless) nation so you had no comment.

    So please, don’t insult those of us who do think that God stands on the side of rightousness and that we can declare war, be it on the Nazis, or the criminals who would harm us, in His name, asking for his protection. And frankly, for you to even try to pretend that you are a religious man, when you vote for the party that supports the murder of millions of children who are literally ripped from their mother’s womb by disreputable doctors, you take hypocracy to a new level. And please, don’t come back and tell me that crap about how you “personally” don’t believe in abortion but you vote for those who do. That dog won’t hunt. When you vote for those that promote infanticide, you support it.

    The Bible is clear; your good works should be done in secret, not blasted all across my computer screen as you brag what a charitable man you are. So before you start spouting about doing “God’s” work, perhaps you should learn a thing or two about His rules and reguirements.

    So, want to talk about what a leech you are as you benefited from taxpayer dollars when you “refinanced” your $625,000.00 home? And what a liar you are when you claimed to have been able to have a conversation with your elected Congressman within 28 minutes of one of my posts?

    Your resume is growing, Richard, and none of it is good.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05
    yes the DEMOCRATS SHOWED IT ON THEIR CHARLOTTE ASSEMBLY,
    BY ASKING THE PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE GOD,
    AND THE ARAB LEAGUE CLAP AND YELLED LOUD, THEY ARE THE ONE LOBBYING
    FOR GETTING GOD OUT, JOINED BY THE ATHEIST WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MUSLIMS TO GET THEIR GODLESS AGENDA IN , WHICH THEY NEVER DID BEFORE,
    BUT AS TIME FLY, THEY ARE BRINGING MORE OF THOSE AGAINST GOD IN AMERICA,
    AND THEY ALREADY HAVE PROVEN TO CHASE GOD FROM SCHOOL AND PUBLIC PLACE ALONG WITH THE AMERICAN FLAG, NOW IMAGINE THE NEXT DEMOCRATS ASSEMBLY HOW MUCH MORE NUMEROUS THERE WILL BE MORE VOCAL, AND THEY HAVE THE AGREEMENT
    FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, SO DON’T BE SURPRISE THE NEXT TIME SOON COMING , THE BALANCE WILL HAVE GAIN WEIGHT,
    how can one say; SO HELP ME GOD? and not believe it,
    is it treason?

    ReplyReply
  14. retire05 says: 315

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Remember, Bees, Richard Wheeler supports the poltical party that booed the name of God at their last convention. End of story.

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 316

    Retire 05 I know it’s tough for you to accept the Dems.have won the Presidency in o8 and 2012 and continue to hold the Senate. Conspiracy and voter fraud claims not withstanding.
    I respect the honest zeal of those on the right who want to bring a change and I’ll say again I’ve learned much from authors like Word,Aye and Mata.
    For the record I refinanced my home, like many Americans, at terms suggested by my lender Wells Fargo based on appraised value,verifiable income and good credit.
    My Republican Congressman Ken Calvert,who I voted for and contributed to, has been VERY accessible. Probably a reason he continues to get re-elected.

    Bees 316 Keep pushing I’ll be on an Anniversary trip with my better half for the next 12 days.
    Expect 500 + when I get back—Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler
    have yourselves a beautiful trip vacation,
    don’t waste any second on it , just go on a spending spree like a good liberal do including OBAMA,
    WHO NOW WARN THE REPUBLICANS AGAIN OF CUTTING THE MILITARY’S CHECKS IF HE DOESN’T GET
    HIS MONEY, HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE DEBTS, HE KNOWS HE’S ON HIS WAY OUT,AND
    SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE STUCK WITH IT, WHO HAVEN’T BEEN BORN YET,

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 318

    @Richard Wheeler:

    While I admit that I am disappointed in the fact that the nation decided to re-elect a man whose first term was a miserable failure (just check the unemployment rate) and who cannot seem to accept any blame for his failures, choosing to continue to “blame Bush” for the fact that he is inept at his job, I also understand that the pendulum never swings just one way and then stops. The political pendulum will swing back again and when it does, it will be in the way of conservative values as the way of the liberals continues to be failed policies.

    You refinanced your home on money that taxpayers gave to Wells Fargo. And I damn sure wouldn’t be bragging about that, just like you shouldn’t be bragging about your charitable work. There are three reasons you would have refinanced your home: a) you couldn’t make the payments b) you did not want to honor the contract you agreed to c) you knew you could scam the system so you went for it. Which is it, Richard?

    You utilized a program that cost other taxpayers, who were being faithful to their legal contracts (their mortgages) paid that tax money and received no benefit from. So much for equality from the left. Frankly, I would be ashamed to admit that I reniged on a contract that I agreed to simply because I could scam the system. You seem to have no problem with that. I guess that whole “Honor” thing the Marines subscribe to held no meaning for you.

    So enjoy your 12 day vacation that you can afford partly due to other American taxpayers.

    You have no shame. No wonder you are a liberal.

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler says: 319

    Retire05 I was a mortgage banker for many years and helped hundreds of people refinance to lower their payments and or take out equity. The banks do not make loans they feel are detrimental to their best interests at closing. My refinance was beneficial to me and to Wells Fargo who was happy to assist a borrower who had never been late on a payment,had verifiable income and Fico scores over 700. Contracts are between a willing lender and a qualified borrower.Obviously a contract can be changed or re written if both parties so agree.
    I will enjoy my vacation—-Thanks
    BTW The Repub. Party needs to do much soul searching if they intend on being a viable alternative to the Dems anytime soon.

    ReplyReply
  19. Richard Wheeler
    do you have any suggestion to your notation about the REPUBLICANS?
    BRING IT ON

    ReplyReply
  20. retire05 says: 321

    @Richard Wheeler:

    The banks do not make loans they feel are detrimental to their best interests at closing.

    Really, Richard? I guess since you are a jack ass of many trades, you were not a very good mortgage banker if you did not understand that the CRA put pressure on banks, and other mortgage lending agencies, to hand out loans that were doomed from the start to be foreclosure candidates? It was those mortgages that created the crash of mortgage backed securities in 2008. Or did you think you could throw that b/s out and I would just accept whatever you said because you claim to have been a mortgage “banker?” Odd, you seem to support the very party that has demonized mortgage bankers instead of accepting that designer mortgage rates, created to fulfill the CRA requirements, was the problem.

    Yes, contracts can be renegotiated, but yours was renegotiated at the expense of other taxpayers. And why did you feel the need to renegotiate your loan? You said you were making the payments. You said your credit rating was 700. Did you just want to take advantage of taxpayer largess? If so, that makes you blood sucking scum.

    Wells Fargo took a $25 billion bailout from the taxpayers. They used that money, interest free, to help pay for their CEOs tony salary increases. Yeah, they returned the money, but only after they used it to make even more. But the problem is, they paid that money back before they became financially solvent, consequently, the chances are they will have financial stability problems in the future. That makes them, and you, bedfellows to the core.

    Nothing has changed. The CRA is still in effect and it will eventually cause another financial meltdown. People, like you, buying homes that you later decide you don’t want to pay for, at least not according to your initial contract. I hope your wife has more security than you give to your fellow taxpayers. And how nice that you can now afford a lengthy vacation, helped paid for by other taxpayers.

    You are a dispicable person, Richard.

    ReplyReply
  21. Richard Wheeler says: 322

    Retireo5 You needn’t worry about the solvency of Wells Fargo. CK their stock and earnings.
    It seems the only thing you’re good at is calling people vile names
    I know you’re a sad frustrated 75 year old woman but you’ll live longer and healthier if you lighten up a bit.
    I’m on vacation—-ramble on.
    Bees With ranting old ladies like o5 as the face of the Repub Party the Dems. are in good shape for ???
    Keep pushing.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  22. retire05 says: 323

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Your ability to guess my age is as deplorable as your lack of honor. But then, you seem to have something against senior citizens. I guess someone like you would support euthanizing them so there would be more for a greedy liberal like you.

    As to Wells Fargo stock, it was at 39.80 on 9/15/08 but cratered to 8.61 on 3/02/09. Guess being paid $1,000 a pop to refinance the loans of dishonorable people like you paid off, so what if the taxpayer took it in the rear for you? Today, it’s at 34.78 so four and a half years later, it has not fully come back.

    Ranting old ladies? You really are an asshole, aren’t you, Richard? Weren’t you the one that was just complaining (post #322) about being called vile names? Project much, Richard? Or is it just your normal double standard that all socialists, like you, have?

    ReplyReply
  23. Redteam says: 324

    @retire05: 05, I’m not sure the nation chose to re-elect Obama. I believe the numbers now show that Romney won every state that requires voter ID and Obama won all the states that illegal aliens and dead people can vote in. when someone gets 175% voter turnout, there’s something at work there besides voters. I’m not sure how or when we’re going to actually go back to ‘electing’ people.

    ReplyReply
  24. Redteam says: 325

    @retire05: 05, one other thing about this mortgage bit. I have been requested by my mortgage holder several times to ‘refinance’ my house. Here’s the deal, they actually send me the requests by special overnight UPS delivery. Refinance it at ‘no charge’ to me. Apparently one of these ‘stimulus’ deals includes a provision where your mortgage lender can refinance your home if you are current on payments and do not increase the principal. They pay (or the government does) 100% of the closing costs. Absolutely no cost to mortgage holder. Government (that’s us) pays it all. I have not chosen to do it, but I’m sure a lot of people will. Main reason I don’t is I owe only a small amount, so it’s not worth my time to do it. But it is ‘free money’ and the socialists, deadbeats, freeloaders love that ‘free money’. (I’m not saying Richard is any of these)

    ReplyReply
  25. retire05 says: 326

    @Redteam:

    I get letter in the mail all the time asking if I want to “finance” my home. Why would I? I paid if off early, honoring the contract I signed with the bank.

    And yes, Richard is a freeloader, as are all those who reduced their mortgages on the backs of other taxpayers. But then, Richard IS a liberal so he is not required to have any honor. But he will preach to you about what Jesus wants. “Hypocrite” doesn’t begin to describe Richard Wheeler.

    ReplyReply
  26. Hard Right says: 327

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    I missed that one Bees. Was it an AR-15 or a shotgun?

    ReplyReply
  27. Hard Right
    if you mean the one I was hold up with, I SAID A SHOT GUN ,AND afterword
    SHOULD HAVE COME BACK TO RETRACT AND SAY A CUT OFF RIFLE,
    THAT’S WHAT I MEANT, AND THOUGHT IT MEANT THE SAME THING. in ENGLISH,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  28. Hard Right says: 329

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    That’s ok.

    How do you know when someone who knows nothing about guns is talking? They call semi-auto rifles “high powered assault rifles”.
    They are neither assault rifles or high powered. Anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

    ReplyReply
  29. Hard Right
    yes I am ignorant myself, I only know of the that cut off rifle, and the 2 other guns pointed at me
    on 2 other incidents,
    it made me think that I was a good target for the killers or thieves at that time,
    funny that I never thought of having me one gun, maybe I was stupid enough to think that only
    criminals and law enforcement officer had gun,
    another encounter when I was 7 years old,
    I WAS AWAKEN BY A NOISE ON THE window of my bedroom IT WAS OPEN BUT
    THERE WAS WOOD SLAT SHUTTLES OVER IT, I see a shadow thru it moving,
    I runn to my aunt tel her that , she come and yell get out or I shoot,
    we where on a second floor, and that was the back long porch narrow,
    then A NOISE OF RUNNING , AND DOWN THE STAIRS, SO FAST,
    MY AUNT SHUT THE WINDOW AND LOOK AT ME SILENT, SHE LEFT TO HER BED,
    AND ME TO MINE, SLEEPING ONE EYE OPEN FOR MANY NIGHT AFTER,
    SHE DID NOT HAVE A GUN, JUST A BIG BUTCHER KNIFE

    ReplyReply
  30. C J
    I Saw a very disturbing news on FOX, IT WAS A COUNT OF THE MILITARY WHO KILLED THEMSELVES IN AFGHANISTAN, I copied it but can’t find my paper, I think it’s shocking,
    about 140’s for ARMY, AND IN THE 50 S FOR OTHERS EACH, MARINES, AIR FORCE,
    THAT’S OVER 250 SUICIDES,
    THIS CAN’T BE CONTINUE, THOSE BRAVES ARE OVER WORK, DEPRESS TO THEIR LIMITS,
    HURT SO BAD, THEY CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE,
    WE MUST GET THIS NON WAR, WORSE THAN WAR, ENDED SOONER,
    AND TOMOROW,
    OBAMA PUTTING THE BRAVES IN DANGER, THEY TURN ON THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THEY ARE FORBIDEN TO KILL THE ENEMY, IT’S AGAINST THEIR NATURE OF WARRIORS THOSE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY.
    AMERICA DON’T LET THE BRAVES KILL THEMSELVES OUT OF DESPAIR, THEY RETURNED SO MANY TIMES, THEY HIT THEIR LIMITS AND DESTROY THEMSELVES,
    GOD IT HURT TO HEAR SUCH A NEWS,OBAMA HAS REACH THE BREAKING POINT OF THE BRAVEST,
    DAM YOU.

    ReplyReply
  31. Redteam says: 332

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, it is terrible that the numbers are so high, but I’m not sure that ‘not killing the enemy’ is what the problem is. I was in the Navy, and I was never trained to ‘kill anyone’. Yes, actions taken as a result of me doing my job might could cause the enemy to die. but it would be at long distance, and I wouldn’t know much about it. Having said that, I don’t know what is behind the people being frustrated enough to take their lives. I hope they figure out what the problem is and fix the problem. We need good military people.

    ReplyReply
  32. Skookum says: 333

    The problem is here. We have people who put their lives on the line for months and years, to come back and find a population wrapped up in Kardashian Crap and American Idol. This nation is silliness personified.

    ReplyReply
  33. Redteam says: 334

    @Skookum: Sadly Skookum’s I think you’re probably right. Hope we get that straightened out.

    ReplyReply
  34. Redteam
    hi,
    this is not the only number, there where more before,
    I heard of that problem a few years ago, they provide counseling on the stage of the war,
    maybe you said never killed the enemies, is the problem
    they put them in prison and eventually they escape to kill the troops again,
    OBAMA SAYS TO KEEP MORAL, he means not kill them, that could be the cause of the suicides,
    when you see your buddy being blown into pieces, moral my foot, you want to kill them,
    and prevented to do so.
    I bet KARZEI CAME IN PERSON because he had to tell himself how the talk to TALIBANS WHERE,
    IT WAS TOO SECRET TO SEND THE MESSAGE ON OTHER WAY, FOR PUBLIC NOT TO KNOW,
    THAT’S WHAT I THINK.

    ReplyReply
  35. SKOOKUM
    HI,
    I think anything OBAMA will sign as law, won’t change the angry
    mentaly negative person to seek VENGANCE AGAINST HIS TARGET,
    DOWNTOWN ST LOUIS, STEVEN SCHOOL, A YOUNG 23 YEAR OLD
    IS SHOOTING THERE,
    ALREADY 2 WHERE SHOT.

    ReplyReply
  36. C J
    I strongly believe that SARGENT BANE SHOULD NOT FACE DEATH PENALTY,
    HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY MURDER,
    he was on a stage of WAR, with the mindset from his training as a WARRIOR,
    MEANT TO KILL HIS ENEMIES,
    HE WAS PUT IN THIS SITUATION BY AN ORDER, AND EXECUTE THE ORDER WITH THE BEST OF HIS KNOW HOW CONSIDERING THE THREAT HE WAS ORDER IN.
    IF HE EXECUTE THE PEOPLE IT WAS BECAUSE THEY PROJECT A THREAT TO HIM ,AS HE CONCLUDE THE SITUATION, AND ALL THIS TIME IT WAS DONE ON THE STAGE OF WAR,
    BY THE WAY, WOULD THE JUDGE AND PROCECUTOR HAVE PREFER TO SEE THE OTHER CONCLUSION WHICH IS FOR HIM TO KILL HIMSELF? AS IT IS DONE QUITE OFTEN BY THE NUMBERS COMING,
    SO FORGET THE DEATH PENALTY TO A BRAVE SOLDIER WHO FOUGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING HIM.

    ReplyReply
  37. why does AMERICA BUT GAS FROM QUESTIONABLE COUNTRIES?
    WHEN THE CAN BUY IT AT THEIR CLOSEST NORTHEN NEIGHBOR, WHO ARE MOST THRUST WORTHY DEPENDABLE

    ReplyReply
  38. Pingback: U.S. Citizens Prepare For Insurrection: Citizens Arming Themselves At Record Pace! | Political Vel Craft

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>