The American Ruling Class

[the bob]

I don't think the government should push their luck to far on gun control. look up Dick act of 1902 or HR.11654.

[dutchdivco]

By the By

Unlike Rick, (see his first post), I DO watch the network news a lot; not that I BELIEVE any of it, just under the theory that you can discern a lot, by the lies they tell.
Anyway, to add to the conspiracy talk here, i DID notice a definite 'ramping up' of the gun control arguments, in the weeks BEFORE the Sandy Hook 'incident'; Diane Fienstien was on the Sunday a.m 'news' shows, several weeks before, and making the stale old argument that 'the only purpose for large capacity ammo clips, and these 'assault' weapons, is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, and they should only be for the military and the police; NOT for 'civilians'; hunting rifles is a different matter.

Again, speaking to the Choir; The second amendment does NOT guarantee the citisens the right to keep and bear for 'Sporting purposes', or even 'hunting'; and reading not only the second amendment, but the writings of the founding fathers, (as Rick has so abley pointed out) makes it clear; They had just 'overthrown' an over-intrusive, over-taxing Gov't, (King George), by,.....FORCE of ARMS. They recognised the BEST way to prevent the Government THEY had just formed, from someday morphing into a similarly over-intrusive, over-taxing Government, was to have a well armed citisenry.
One only has to look at whats been going on in Syria and lybia; the citisenry peacefully petitioned their Gov't, and were shot (for their troubles) by initially, the police, and then the military. They formed (wait for it!),....MILITIAS; which OBVIOUSLY were not Gov't 'backed', or 'approved' or anything of the kind, JUST like our Founding Fathers initially did.These citisen militias THEN 'joined up' to form a 'revolutionary force' which 'took on' the Gov't troops; (again, just like our founding fathers did. Initially, they got their *sses kicked! Why? Firstly, because they were 'untrained'; they were Dr.'s. Lawyers, store clerks, etc. But, SECONDLY, because all they had were,....HUNTING rifles, with 5 round clips.Thats all they were allowed, in Syria and Lybia. When your in a 'firefight', and your opponent has 50 round clips, (as well as fully automatic weapons) and all you have is semi-automatics with 5 round clips, you are at a distinct dis-advantage!) Gradually, they got better weaponry, by capturing Gov't stockpiles, and by smuggling them in from outside the country.
Point is, this is the OTHER reason why average citisens SHOULD continue to be able to buy large capacity ammo clips (you dumb b*tch) Fienstien!
Is it JUST a coincidence that the same people who are harping about 'gun control' (Fienstien, Dumb/Durbin, et al) are ALSO the people who want to INCREASE Gov't intrusion, regulation and taxation in our daily lives? I don't think so,.....
"Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security will end up with neither", boy, is that true! Unfortunately, there are those who will 'sell' just such a bargain with the Devil, and they will have no shortage of gullible customers!Jim

[Mineko]

It's all a play on the mind.

Unlike Rick, (see his first post), I DO watch the network news a lot; not that I BELIEVE any of it, just under the theory that you can discern a lot, by the lies they tell.
Anyway, to add to the conspiracy talk here, i DID notice a definite 'ramping up' of the gun control arguments, in the weeks BEFORE the Sandy Hook 'incident'; Diane Fienstien was on the Sunday a.m 'news' shows, several weeks before, and making the stale old argument that 'the only purpose for large capacity ammo clips, and these 'assault' weapons, is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, and they should only be for the military and the police; NOT for 'civilians'; hunting rifles is a different matter.

Again, speaking to the Choir; The second amendment does NOT guarantee the citisens the right to keep and bear for 'Sporting purposes', or even 'hunting'; and reading not only the second amendment, but the writings of the founding fathers, (as Rick has so abley pointed out) makes it clear; They had just 'overthrown' an over-intrusive, over-taxing Gov't, (King George), by,.....FORCE of ARMS. They recognised the BEST way to prevent the Government THEY had just formed, from someday morphing into a similarly over-intrusive, over-taxing Government, was to have a well armed citisenry.
One only has to look at whats been going on in Syria and lybia; the citisenry peacefully petitioned their Gov't, and were shot (for their troubles) by initially, the police, and then the military. They formed (wait for it!),....MILITIAS; which OBVIOUSLY were not Gov't 'backed', or 'approved' or anything of the kind, JUST like our Founding Fathers initially did.These citisen militias THEN 'joined up' to form a 'revolutionary force' which 'took on' the Gov't troops; (again, just like our founding fathers did. Initially, they got their *sses kicked! Why? Firstly, because they were 'untrained'; they were Dr.'s. Lawyers, store clerks, etc. But, SECONDLY, because all they had were,....HUNTING rifles, with 5 round clips.Thats all they were allowed, in Syria and Lybia. When your in a 'firefight', and your opponent has 50 round clips, (as well as fully automatic weapons) and all you have is semi-automatics with 5 round clips, you are at a distinct dis-advantage!) Gradually, they got better weaponry, by capturing Gov't stockpiles, and by smuggling them in from outside the country.
Point is, this is the OTHER reason why average citisens SHOULD continue to be able to buy large capacity ammo clips (you dumb b*tch) Fienstien!
Is it JUST a coincidence that the same people who are harping about 'gun control' (Fienstien, Dumb/Durbin, et al) are ALSO the people who want to INCREASE Gov't intrusion, regulation and taxation in our daily lives? I don't think so,.....
"Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security will end up with neither", boy, is that true! Unfortunately, there are those who will 'sell' just such a bargain with the Devil, and they will have no shortage of gullible customers!Jim

I agree, this is what it all seems like at first glance, however if you look deeper, the truth is much more horrible.

I'll start with the children: Government is going to implement armed guards at every school, making it SEEM like having armed guards EVERYWHERE is normal, so when they grow up in a police state... I think you know.

As far as guns go, more people buy guns when things like the Sandy Hook shooting happen, we aren't being led to a gun-less society, we're being led to a gun-full society, in which we all begin to fear each other.

And this is when those two connect.. "We" will beg for a police state so we don't shoot each other to death out of fear, in which the kids were trained to be raised in, and essentially, the power that be.. Win.

This is "they're" plan, whether or not we're stupid enough for it to go through.. Will be seen.

[rickoff]

Gun control advocates basically fall into two categories:
1. Those who don't know what they are talking about, but fall for the disinformation which they are spoon fed by the "government" and the media.
2. Those who do understand the true facts, but who ignore them while continuing to support the gun control agenda and persuading others to follow their lead.

If we think about it, what are some of the most commonly heard arguments which gun control advocates use over and over again as attacks upon our right to bear arms? Perhaps the most common one is to claim that the Founding Fathers never meant for the Constitution to grant citizens the right to possess multiple firearms, or firearms capable of inflicting serious harm to multiple people within a short period of time. Control advocates point out that at the time the Constitution was written, the most common military weapon was the single shot musket, which was difficult to use and took considerable time to reload. While that is true, other far more formidable weapons were also available for military and public use as well, including canons and the 50 caliber Kentucky/Pennsylvania long rifles (so named because of their 42 to 46 inch long barrel) used by sharpshooters who, it is said, could easily pull off a head shot at 200 yards, and consistently hit a target at up to 400 yards distance.

The Founding Fathers obviously did mean for citizens to have the right to bear firearms which would be just as powerful and effective as any which might potentially be used against them by a tyrannical government. To understand what right to bear arms the Founding Fathers meant to affirm in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, we only need read their words:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." – George Washington

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." – Thomas Paine

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
– James Madison

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." – Alexander Hamilton

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." – George Mason

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed, that everyone who is able might have a gun." – Patrick Henry

[dutchdivco]

Yes Rick

I knew you could provide many such pertinent quotes from the founders.
Additionally, they try to say that 'well regulated militia' somehow means some kind of Gov't 'sponsored' or 'authorised' orgANISATION, LIKE THE NATIONAL GUARD. I haven't bothered to look up Webster's definition, but the recent news from the middle east makes it clear; Citisens in Lybia and Syria, IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, formed up into groups, MILITIAS, to arm themselves and oppose the government; same thing that happened prior to/during the founding of our country.
Well regulated meant not a 'rabble', but volonteers, united in a common cause, who would train to establish discipline, such as any 'fighting force' needs, if they hyave any hope of prevailing. I'm pretty sure the founders talked about that somewhere,..got any quotes on The founders 'thoughts' on 'well regulated militia', Rick?
Jim

[rickoff]

I knew you could provide many such pertinent quotes from the Founders. Additionally, they [gun control advocates] try to say that a 'well regulated militia' somehow means some kind of Gov't 'sponsored' or 'authorized' organization, like the NATIONAL GUARD. Well regulated meant not a 'rabble', but volunteers, united in a common cause, who would train to establish discipline, such as any 'fighting force' needs, if they have any hope of prevailing. I'm pretty sure the Founders talked about that somewhere. Got any quotes on the Founders 'thoughts' on 'well regulated militia,' Rick?

First, Jim, let's take a look at exactly what the Founders wrote about this in the Constitution. There are actually several different versions available, but the differences are in capitalization or punctuation. For the sake of exploring this I will use the version that was ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, serving then as Secretary of State:

"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."

Now consider what Thomas Jefferson said about correct understanding of what is written in the Constitution:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves 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." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

I'd say it is very clear that what is being said here has nothing to do with a federal militia, and has everything to do with maintaining the security of each free state within the Republic. The Constitution does grant Congress full authority to organize the federal militia (a standing army) for purposes of national defense, however Congressional legislation concerning the federal militia did not preclude the states from adopting whatever militia laws they deemed necessary to preserve and regulate their respective militias. Such authority, including the arming of the militia, was essential for each state to protect itself from whatever internal dangers may arise and, more importantly, provided the means to exercise the sovereign right of self-preservation. Quite obviously, for that very reason, the Founders/Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State." A militia so regulated might not be separate or free enough from the federal government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." The states never specifically granted the federal government any such power within the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution). As to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense whatsoever to suggest that this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (either federal or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the federal government exactly where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

I believe that the overriding purpose of the Founders/Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." To illustrate this, I'd first point to the words of Noah Webster, who printed and distributed a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution after the Bill of Rights had been added. His words pointed to precisely the reason why the 2nd Amendment was written:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe."

George Mason was a Founding Father who, along with James Madison, is known as a Father of the Bill of Rights, and was also a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The Bill of Rights was based upon the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights which Mason had drafted. Mason refused to sign the Constitution unless the specific state and individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights was included, and he succeeded in convincing the federalists to do just that. The whole idea of including the Bill of Rights was to present a written and formidable check against increased federal powers. Remarking to his Virginia delegates concerning the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people," Mason stated that would have been "the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Therefore, as you can see, it would have made no sense whatsoever for Mason to have written a clause allowing a tyrannically motivated federal government, or state government for that matter, of the future to gain control over the state militias and force compliance with federal mandates through legislated regulations.

I leave you with one final quote which comes from Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, and makes it very clear that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to not only arm the People to allow their defense against a dictatorial, tyrannical government, but to assure that right would arm the People as well as, or better than, any standing federal army which might be set against the People. This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29:

" . . . but 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . ."

[dutchdivco]

On 'armed guards' in schools

I'm not at all sure even THAT would necesarily do much to prevent a 'colombine' or Sandy hook type attack.
Firstly, what is going to be the training and experience of these 'armed guards'; are they going to be 'rent-a-cops', from a local security company? Not to denigrate people who work in private security, but like anything else, you get what you pay for.
Secondly, (regardless of training), these guys and gals are going to be expensive, and (if their 'job' is to 'protect' the school from arnmed assailents) they are going to have a very BORING job, as most schools, most of the time, AREN'T being attacked. There will be a 'natural' tendency to say 'we've GOT these 'security people', drawing a paycheck, we might as well USE them. And so, they will be used to break up fights between students, investigate drug use and staling, etc. All of which means in the event a nut attacks the school, the 'armed guards' will be in the middle of investigating some infantile BS, or writing a report.
I DO think eliminating the 'gun-free' school zone idea, and allowing some teachersto concealed carry, MIGHT be something to consider; eliminate the certainty that an attacker will be the only person in the school with a gun. Also, perhaps re-think the current ideas on what the school should do, with the students 'hunkering down' in their classrooms; makes them an easy target for the shooter.
Anyway, overall, this is one more in a whole series of problems we humans have created for ourselves; problems where there really ARE no 'answers'; problems which all started when we made the choice to have 'civilisation'.

Certainly, there is NOTHING coming out of D.C., which is addressing any of these problems; it (Gov't) is in fact the SOURCE of most of these problems.

Oh, and thanks Rick; My confidence that you could find clear quotes from the founders on what they meant by 'militias' was well justified. Jim

[mbrownn]

Never let a crisis go to waist.

We should not be reactive, that is reacting to what the tyrants are imposing upon us. We should be proactive, pushing for the DE REGULATION of guns as it is a right. Not only that we should be pushing for the banning of psychotropic drugs, the cause of such mass shooting events.

There should be two adults in every classroom, not only does this provide extra security especially if at least one is armed, but also halves the chance of pedophilia. How could this be funded? Abolish taxes for teachers and school personnel, this would mean we could reduce the gross pay of teachers (keeping the net pay the same) and use the money saved to pay the extra staff.

This is direct use of "taxation", cutting out the middle man (Banksters). I am sure that this method of deregulation of taxes could also be applied to policing, hospitals and many other systems.

Don't feed the enemy

Dismantle the control system.

[jdodson]

We should be proactive, pushing for the DE REGULATION of guns as it is a right.

Absolutely! I think that's the one thing we all agree on. Every human being who has never hurt anyone should have the right to protect themselves from those who have. What would make anyone think responsible citizens can not stop a crime themselves. You don't need a badge to be a hero. You don't even need to be a cop to place someone under arrest! If I were carry a gun and seen a massacre taking place, I would put a bullet in the shooters head. I believe a super majority of us would.

As far as security what I don't think you guys are seeing is that simply knowing a building has armed security is a deterrent by itself. Even if you just train and arm Principals, as long as everyone knows there is armed security that ALONE will prevent shooting attacks. Its the same reason random marshals are placed on airplanes.

Placing a house alarm security system "sign" in front of your house lowers the chance of your house being broken into by 40%

[rickoff]

Never let a crisis go to waist.

Was that an intended pun, or simply a misspelling?

Abolish taxes for teachers and school personnel, this would mean we could reduce the gross pay of teachers (keeping the net pay the same) and use the money saved to pay the extra staff. This is direct use of "taxation", cutting out the middle man (Banksters). I am sure that this method of deregulation of taxes could also be applied to policing, hospitals and many other systems.

Why not simply apply this method to everyone and everything, abolishing taxes altogether?

[mbrownn]

Was that an intended pun, or simply a misspelling?

Why not simply apply this method to everyone and everything, abolishing taxes altogether?

A misspelling hehe the computer thinks it knows how to spell not me

Agreed but it will take small steps in the right direction, there is no way we can do it in one step without a full on revolution. At the moment we are making ourselves victims shouting don't take away our rights. One step forward two steps back. Go on the offensive, two steps forward and one step back. If you notice my post is constructed in this way.

Demand deregulation of guns and offer two solutions to the mass shootings with a method of financing it, but the key here is the attack on the power structure, removing the taxes. Taxation, ie money is their power, remove that and the game is up for them.

The attack on the psychotropic drugs is something that will really gain momentum too. Again we need to keep pointing out that all these incidents have a direct link to the known effects government approved drugs.

The benefits are more security, less intrusiveness and more employment, I think everyone wants that and so it will be difficult for them to put this down.

They are undermining the reasons for owning a gun and if we do not go on the offensive they will sooner or later win. We need to undermine their power base.

If successful it is a win win win situation but more likely we will win on one or two of these and just increase public awareness of the others. Hopefully we will not loose our ability to defend ourselves.

The boxing analogy is combination punches.

[Mineko]

John Titor

Anybody remember ye olde John Titor?

Seems like a lot of what he said is similar to what's happening now.

Not the same, but similar.

[dutchdivco]

Good thoughts

On putting 2 people in every classroom, I thought of that awhile back, as a way to reduce pedophilia; problem is, the history with the church has shown that pedophiles work together, for their common 'end'.
But yeah, what other job is there, where there is no real 'evaluation' of how well you are doing your job, or even IF you are doing your job?
Administrators are too busy negotiating kick-back deals for textbooks, etc. to spend their time in the classrooms, actually monitoring whats going on.
I say, abolish the 'Dept. of education', myself.
If one needs an example of the negative influence of Unions, the 'education system' is a prime example.We've got a nation of idiots, as a result of the 'Dept. of education'.Jim

[5150]

Rick,

What are your thoughts (and anyone else please feel free to chime in here) regarding convicted felons having the right to own and possess guns after they have served their time?

For me I find preventing anyone including criminals from owning guns a violation of the constitution as the "shall not be infringed" is just that, but they get away with it with passing a law that then makes it legal to infringe because they say the person "lost" their privilege or right to have a gun.

I personally think everyone who is out on the street should be able to have a gun

[Mad Scientist]

Rick,

What are your thoughts (and anyone else please feel free to chime in here) regarding convicted felons having the right to own and possess guns after they have served their time?

I would say that would have to depend on the type of crime committed and then a review a judge, panel, committee,(?), etc. to try and determine if the individual will be a threat to society.

Anybody remember ye olde John Titor?

Yes at one "time" I recall hearing about him and his predictions.
But the problem with predictions is that they are only good at the time they were made. Free will, personal choice can change and alter the time line thus voiding out a perfectly good prediction.

According to the PTB old time line we were supposed to be in WWIII by now. The party was all set up and in place and ready to go, but then no one decided to come to the party.
Instead the PTB found their power structure, the banking system, was under an all out attack by the good guys, putting them into a panic mode, thus the false flag attacks and the anti-gun talk.