The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Thoughts,

5150; If one is LOOKING, for 'signs' of the end times, you will find them in aplenty; I've been seeing them, for YEARS! Never the less, the good bok says "No one will know the exact time of HIS coming", (parapharasing, here), and also NO ONE will recognise the Beast, when he appears on the scene; in fact, people will mistakenly see Him as the savior, when in fact he is the opposite.

Rick, Yes, the 'Gun Free School Zone FEDERAL Law' is a good example of why declaring such a zone DOESN'T work, and does JUST the opposite. Chicago is another clear example.

The FLAWED logic of GC is 2-fold; A) The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. B) Since thats the case, LAWS restricting gun access, will inherently reduce Gun violence.

THIS is the 'phylosophy' GC advocates are really pushing, although they don't express it in those terms. And, to those they are appealing to, it SEEMS 'logical'. EXCEPT, it only 'works' in the absolute; IF you eliminate ALL guns, every where in the world, and keep people from making any more, THEN the 2 part premise 'works'. Otherwise, it does not.

AND, it totally disregards the fundamental aspect of Laws, and Law Enforcement; BOTH are 'reactive', not Pro-active; a LAW doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, it just says "IF you do, and IF we catch you, and IF the prosecutor decides he has a good enough case, and IF you don't have a good lawyer, THEN HERE is the consequence the 'state' will impose; Fines, jail time, probation, community service, etc.

And, it totally disregards the key element in the 'job dicription' for "Criminal"; which is a total disregard for the Law.

Oh, by-the-by, Mexico is ALSO a good example. Their Gun control laws have done a GREAT JOB, (with the help of Eric Holders Injustice Dept.) of reducing Gun Violence, by restricting lawful citisens access to guns and ammo, hey?!!!

I would LIKE to see the debate focus on this 'underlieing phylosophy', rather than on ephemerals, like 'assault weaponns' (and what is and isn't one), and high capacity magazines. So long as GC advocates can use lies, to make there positions (on these ephemeral issues) SEEM 'reasonable' to those they are 'pitching to', (people who don't own guns, and perhaps 'fear' them), they 'win' the argument. Because they can 'sound-bite' their lies, and the rational explanation of WHY what they are saying is BS takes 'too long', fto explain to someone who knows nothing about guns to begin with.

On the other hand, this phylosophy IS'fatally flawed', and CAN be disputed, which is why GC advocates don't actually verbalise it.

Mind you, what I would LIKE, won't happen..

THEY will continue to bring up extraneous issues, and 'chip away', and Gun rights advocates will continue to scream about the 2nd amendment, which will fall on 'deaf ears', in trying to persuade some non gun owning soccer Mom, who's afraid her kids are going to get shot at their school, that Gun free school zones is a bad idea, and banning guns is a worse one.

Politics is the 'art' of the possible, they say. I THINK O'bummer is going to keep campaigning, ostensibly for 'his' and dems/liberals 'issues'; but he'll concentrate on those that A) He and dems CAN do,and B) will be politically advantageous in 2014. So, he'll push hard on Immigration reform, and NOT so hard on GC, MAYBE getting the Universal Background check. He's hoping (I think) to get what he had in the 1st part of his first term; majorities in both houses. And, he thinks this 'campaigning' he's doing, ostensibly on his issues, will HELP get THAT result.
Then, he WON'T 'waste' (from his point of view) time trying to get Repub sign on, like he did with O'bummer careless, he'll just RAM through the rest of his agenda, with NO repub. 'buy in', and disregarding the 1/2 of the people, who oppose what he's doing.

I'm not at all 'Happy' with the 'mainstream' Repub party, they are the ones who shoved Romoney down 'our' throats, and 'gamed' the system, in all sorts of ways, (which we've already covered in previous posts) in order to 'insure' he got the nomination. Now, they are blaming 'tea party' candidates for Romoneys loss, and the lie seems to be 'sticking'.

But, God help us if Dems get the majority in 2014! While I don't LIKE Repubs, they are the only thing, (other than the courts) restaining O'bummer. And, I DO think the Courts WILL 'chime in' at SOME point. Unfortunately, it takes time for a case to get to the SCOTUS.

Rick; do you know if anyone ever took the LAST 'assault weapon ban' law to SCOTUS? I'm thinking NOT. I should THINK such a Ban, or a ban on 'high capacity' magazines, or 'cop-killer' bullets would be overturned, but then, I was confident O'bummercare would be overturned, so 'who knows'?Jim

[dutchdivco]

More on Dormer

Noticed in the News, last night, the LAPD 'chief' was saying he, (Dormer) is a 'major threat to Public safety, and we will not rest until we get him", and couldn't help but think "Hold it, he hasn't actually killed any 'civilians'. That is, he's a threat to Law enforcement officers, and their families, (that he's threatened) but he hasn't killed, or (as far as i know, I haven't actually read his 'manifesto') even threatened to kill anyone else.

If he wants to pull a major mind f*ck, he'll just stay hidden.(If he hasn't 'taken himself out', in such a way that they will never find the body, which would work, too.) How long can they continue to 24 hr./day guard 50 families, and keep all police stations in 'lockdown', etc.

And, if they relax their guard, (after weeks, or months) he's just liable to 'pop up' again. They reported (?) finding several rifles, in his burned out truck, which is why I'm speculating he may have checked out, for good. Otherwise, why burn a perfectly good rifle? Coarse, no way of knowing, but IF they never find him, those people he named can NEVER sleep soundly. Quite a dastardly plan, I must say! Jim

[5150]

They reported (?) finding several rifles, in his burned out truck, which is why I'm speculating he may have checked out, for good. Otherwise, why burn a perfectly good rifle?

So the weapons wouldn't fall in the hands of other people as he had to leave them behind since he can not cross into Mexico with weapons.

His move to Mexico would be a VERY smart tactical move. There the police are not as gun-ho for him. He has a better chance of surviving a police encounter inside of Mexico then he does in the USA.

The main reason for him to flee to Mexico is the fact Mexico will not extradite him back to the USA until a signed agreement is made not to give him the death penalty. So by him going to Mexico allows him that tactical judicial advantage and thus why he might have had to leave the guns behind.

but then again the burned out guns could also be a decoy move we wont know about until later.

[rickoff]

Rick; do you know if anyone ever took the LAST 'assault weapon ban' law to SCOTUS? I'm thinking NOT. I should THINK such a Ban, or a ban on 'high capacity' magazines, or 'cop-killer' bullets would be overturned, but then, I was confident O'bummercare would be overturned, so 'who knows'?Jim

I'm fairly certain that SCOTUS never considered the legality of the 1994 assault weapons ban. If it was presented to them for consideration then they must have decided not to hear the case, because the last gun case heard and decided by SCOTUS, prior to the 2009 Heller vs District of Columbia case, was the US vs Miller case of 1939. The Miller case involved a sawed off shotgun, whereas in the Heller case Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. In that case, SCOTUS ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the 2nd Amendment. In his writing for the SCOTUS majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. You'd think that would have been a unanimous decision, but the majority only won a 5:4 ruling. In a dissenting opinion statement by
Justice John Paul Stevens, he wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," and he said that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

How absurd! It would appear that Stevens never read the words of the Constitution's Framers which stated the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and that he was unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence as well.

[rickoff]

You are probably aware that New York State just recently passed some very strict gun control legislation which is said to be the toughest in the nation. On February 15th, a group known as The New York Committeemen will file a challenge case in New York's Supreme Court. As the NY Supreme Court is a "Court of Record," the group is able to file a Common Law case against NY State authorities for passing legislation that is unconstitutional both in regards to the US Constitution and the NY Constitution. This is the right way to proceed and win the case against gun control legislation, as the defendants will have no legal leg to stand on. And once won in New York, this will set precedent in cases brought in other states.

The final draft of the case filing is not completed yet, but the 6th and most recent draft can be viewed here. And a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Action can be viewed here. As stated within the Memorandum, "This Memorandum of Law provides history, intent, purpose and the unanimous agreement among our Founding Fathers, in their own words, concerning the unambiguous meaning of We the Peoples' unalienable right to bear arms, ordained and established for the United States, under the Second Amendment." This Memorandum is very worthwhile reading material for anyone interested in the 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, and Common Law. These folks have done their research, and will be presenting a formidable case to which New York state authorities will have no defense.

[rickoff]

Tonight, I'm sure you aware, Barry will give his State of The Union speech at 9:00 pm Eastern Standard Time. Marco Rubio was chosen by the Republican Party to present the establishment Republican response directly afterwards. What you may not be aware of is that Senator Rand Paul is going to present the TEA Party response, which is expected to begin somewhere around 10:30 pm EST. I think we an count on Rand to call out both the Democrat and Republican parties for their uncontrolled spending, big government power grabs, and Constitution shredding initiatives, including proposed gun control legislation. So even if you see none of the rest, do try to tune in to Rand as he will be promoting the same ideals that we talk about here. Let's hope that he will succeed in waking up some sleeping sheeple.

[5150]

Although Christopher Dorner is now dead I personally feel there will be a residual effect from his cause. There is such a hatred and distrust with the LAPD and rightfully so that I think we will see a spur of violence raged against the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies.

There were so many people who felt he crossed the line when he began killing “innocent” people but to those people I say, “Pull your head out of your arse”

I’m just glad he was able to take out one more police officer before he was taken out.

Only time will tell though if such a spur of violence does occur

As for the State of the Union, what a den of criminal liars and thieves that place is when they all gather. I sometimes want to watch it live just hoping something major like a huge bomb gets detonated or a nuke wipes that place off the face of the earth. To see the scum in there like Eric Holder walking around after sending illegal guns to the Mexican Cartel with immunity or seeing Nancy “We have to pass the bill first so you can see what’s in it” Pelosi and the many other criminal scum it just amazes me how any American can sit there and be proud of their leadership in DC.

After Obama claimed the economy is back on tract and doing better I know it won’t be long before there is some financial crisis or collapse. Obama’s words are the same shallow words but he has lost the ability to even have the zeal or confidence to believe them himself.



Do I sound like a bitter "hater" or do I have justification for my frustration, anger, and disdain for government and authority when there are so many examples of criminal and abusive behaviors by them? its a rhetorical question as I really don't care what others think of my opinions but i just thought I'd put that out there.

[dutchdivco]

Biden said it,

And O'Bummer repeatred it in his "State of the union'; "Police are being 'outgunned', (therefore we need to 'Ban assault weapons').

How absurd! Do they think no one sees the numerous photos of the cops, at Sandy Hook, or going after Dormer? They ALL have 'assault weapons', even in a small town in Conneticut. They keep them in their trunk of their squad cars, because they don't need them THAT often. If they were needing them more frequently, they would have them locked in a rack, up in the front of their cars.

So, exactly how are they being 'outgunned'? The vast majority of gun homincides involve HANDGUNS, usually semi-auto, most commonly 9mm.

In the vast majority of 'officer involved shootings' (Dormers antics being an exception) the weapons being aimed at, shot at, and shooting police officers are,...HANDGUNS! usually semi-auto, most commonly 9mm.

So, again, exactly WHERE does this notion come from, that the Police are being 'out-gunned'? The only place where this mis-statement of fact MIGHT apply, is along the Arizona border, where (Thanks to Holders Injustice Dept., the drug/human smugglers MAY, in fact, have larger caliber weaponry.

Although Arpaio (Sherriff) has a 50 caliber fully auto, mounted on the roof of an RV, that he uses when he goes down to do 'interdiction work' on the southern border of Maracopa County. Says he can reliably hit a target, a mile away!

Anyway, just one more lie, in a long list!
"The Police are being 'out-gunned'!
There is no LEGITIMATE purpose for high capacity magazines, except to kill a lot of people!"
"No one hunts deer, with an assault rifle"
"We don't allow 'ordinary citisens to own fully automatic weapons" (well, actually Joe, YES! 'we' (BATF) DO, in fact, 'allow' ordinary citisens to own fully automatic weapons! (*******!)
"We have no intention of taking away the guns of 'law abiding citisens" Yeah right! And O'bummercare won't raise your premiums, etc.!

Reminds me of the quote, attributed to (I THINK) a minister (Presbeterian?) in Germany. Something like "When they rounded up the Gypseys, I wasn't a Gypsey, so I didn't do anything. When they rounded up the Jews, I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't protest. etc. When they came for me, I looked around, but there was no one left, to help me resist."
SOMETHING like that, anyway.

So, I could see "When they took away assault rifles, and high capacity magazines, I didn't own any, so didn't care. Then (after several 'spree shootings' involving shotguns), they took away shotguns.I didn't OWN a shotgun, so didn't protest. NOW they are wanting to take away my HANDGUN, and I'm looking around, and there is no one to help me resist.
AND the 'guys' who are coming to take away my handgun, are wearing tactical body armour, (which I ALSO can't own), and carrying assault weapons and shotguns!)

Probably the MOST insidious legislation being proposed, is by Fienstien, (I believe) and would require all gun owners to be registered on a list. Anyone (Rick) know how far thats gotten? Another one that SEEMS reaonable, (if you are an IDIOT!); We just want to know who HAS the guns. We're not going to take away law abiding citisens guns, we just want to know who has them, so we COULD confiscate them, if we wanted to, which we don't! Yeah, right!
O'bummer's 'high point' of his speach was the "Give them a vote' moment. So, O.K. GIVE them a vote; lets see how many Democratic Senators are willing to torpedo their political career, by voting to Ban 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines! Might actually give the Repubs a majority in 2014! That is, if the Repubs can get their act together.

Rick; none of the lamestream media carried Rand Pauls responce, just Rubio.
Rubio looked like a nervous kid, asking permission to sit at the big kids table; very disappointing. How did Rand do, and where/how was his responce broadcast? Jim

[gene gene]

Thanks in part to the great time slot. Most of the sheeple were most likely already asleep! (NOT FUNNY) and probably will never even see or hear this before MSM gives it their spin.

Rands response to state of the union 2013 can be heard here. Tea Party Response to State of the Union 2013: Rand Paul - YouTube

[rickoff]

Rick; none of the lamestream media carried Rand Paul's response, just Rubio.
Rubio looked like a nervous kid, asking permission to sit at the big kids table; very disappointing. How did Rand do, and where/how was his response broadcast? Jim

I had received an e-mail from Rand telling me it was confirmed that CNN would be broadcasting his response to Barry's speech at around 10:30 EST. I tuned in at 10:15, but never saw Rand, and I also tried CSPAN without any luck. Something I read this morning said that Rand's response was videotaped in a room at the National Press Club. Surely this was made available to CNN, but from what I saw last night they probably dropped Rand's speech to report on a lot of nothing about Dorner. This morning on CNN they played parts from Barry's speech, and Rubio's response (most notably him reaching for a drink of water from a bottle), and when it came to Rand they merely showed a photo of him and said that Rand had faulted both parties for their unsustainable spending. They didn't show Rand saying anything. It figures, of course, since they didn't want people to hear the only man who had something sensible to say, but that is really poor reporting.

Thanks to Gene for providing a YouTube link to Rand's response.

Here are some highlights of Rand's response:

“Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.”

“It is time for a new bipartisan consensus. It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud. The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation."

“Washington acts in a way that your family never could – they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem.”

Regarding the automatic spending cuts (Sequester) scheduled to take place in 3 weeks if Congress does not agree to raise the debt ceiling, Rand said, "The sequester must go forward. Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America’s credit rating. Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess."

[rickoff]

Do I sound like a bitter "hater" or do I have justification for my frustration, anger, and disdain for government and authority when there are so many examples of criminal and abusive behaviors by them?

I don't like what the police did to Dorner, but I also can't condone anyone going off on a killing spree (if that's what Dorner did) as being justified. Granted, some cops are bad, but there are good ones too. The bad ones should have been prosecuted and sent to prison, not killed. That makes the killer just as bad or worse than the bad cops, in my opinion. If Dorner did kill, as the LA police claim, and if others step in now to carry his killing spree forward, I'd say that is a really bad mistake, especially if those persons think that they will become adored martyrs.

[DrStiffler]

I don't like what the police did to Dorner, but I also can't condone anyone going off on a killing spree (if that's what Dorner did) as being justified. Granted, some cops are bad, but there are good ones too. The bad ones should have been prosecuted and sent to prison, not killed. That makes the killer just as bad or worse than the bad cops, in my opinion. If Dorner did kill, as the LA police claim, and if others step in now to carry his killing spree forward, I'd say that is a really bad mistake, especially if those persons think that they will become adored martyrs.

What is so shocking about the burn-out?

No one should forget Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Over use of power for powers sake.

[rickoff]

What is so shocking about the burn-out?

No one should forget Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Over use of power for powers sake.

I was surprised that the MSM 'let the cat out of the bag' and played audio of the San Bernadino police which made it known that they intentionally set the fire that consumed the cabin. I had figured that the official story would be that Dorner had started the fire himself, choosing to die in a blazing inferno rather than surrender. If not for one of the reporters at the scene catching that bit of audio, it's likely that's how the story would have gone. I'm sure they will somehow justify the burn-out because of the fact that one officer was killed and another wounded already in a shootout with Dorner, but there had to be a better way. Couldn't they at least have tried sending in a robot to lay down some tear gas if all else failed, or thought of some other way that would have avoided a shootout and then a burn-out. I think so. But it was clear from the start that they wanted Dorner dead.

[aljhoa]

Or Dyeline 9 1 1

Americans have long maintained that a man’s
home is his castle and that he has the right to
defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately,
that right may be disappearing. Over the
last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization
of its civilian law enforcement, along
with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of
paramilitary police units (most commonly called
Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine
police work. The most common use of SWAT
teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually
with forced, unannounced entry into the
home.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...paper_2006.pdf

Al

[Web000x]

Gun Ban in Full Force, Internet Regulation Next?

God help us all if the general public of the United States doesn't wake up soon.

Federal Reserve confirms its Web site was hacked | Security & Privacy - CNET News

Hackers use alert system for zombie warnings - Technology on NBCNews.com

Obama signs executive order on cybersecurity — RT


Slowly, they will encroach on forum freedom of speech. It was nice talking to you all.

Dave