The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    TAKING SHOTS AT THE WHITE HOUSE

    By Richard Day on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 8:30am |

    The White House
    The South Portico of the White House

     

    AK-47[1]
    Rifle AK-47.jpg
    Standard AK-47
     

    Every so often I come across some 'insignificant article' and if I bother to take the time, I find some significance.

    Not that I am not guilty of spinning things into something they are not; from time to time.

    Frankly I just get bored with the same old, same old crap; day after day; basic cable or network news; larger web sites....

    Rich and powerful men like Cain feel beholden to only those peeps who help them stay rich and powerful.

    And rich and powerful men like Cain do not like people who question their personal history or who attempt to dredge up old sins. You seek there are no rich and powerful men who do not have old sins; usually buried through normal channels.

    And finally, rich and powerful men have strong libidos.

    Rich and powerful men use people. They use minimum wage workers. They use every loop hole in the law that they can avail; legal or quasi-legal.

    And they LOVE to use and abuse less powerful women.

    And Hannity and Rush and all the rest will contradict everything they were saying 12 years ago:

    You are innocent until proven guilty!

    Ha

    Anyway I come across a page ten story at Washpo involving military weapons, gunshots and chaotic havoc right in from of the White House; Friday night!

    Shots apparently were fired near the White House on Friday night, possibly in a confrontation between occupants of two vehicles on Constitution Avenue, according to the accounts of federal law enforcement officials.

    After a broadcast alarm was issued about the incident, a vehicle was found abandoned in the District, near the Roosevelt Bridge a few blocks away, and a weapon believed to be an assault rifle, possibly an AK-47, was found inside, according to a Secret Service spokesman

    So we are not merely dealing with your run of the mill road rage here.

    An AK-47? What?

    Boy I tell ya, the NRA has surely been more victorious in their lobbying efforts that I would have ever predicted decades ago.

    We have civilians with AK-47s running amok in front of the White House?

    But it was the lead investigator's statement that really hit me:

    “The reason why this is of interest is because of the location,” said Sgt. David Schlosser, the spokesman.

    Duh? Yeah!

    Finally, I am quite taken by puns and I cannot believe the author of this Washpo article was not funning a little when he closed his article thusly:

    As of late Friday no injuries had been reported, and there was no indication that anybody had been taken into custody. Part of Constitution was closed for a time.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2011/11/11/gIQA0lRqDN_story.html

    And if this type of activity continues parts of THE Constitution may be closed down for a long long time!

     

    Comments

    Obama was not home fortunately.

    He was in San Diego on the USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70, for the 'Quicken Carrier Classic', on the way to Asia. The event is not a classic yet as it was a first, a college basketball game held on an aircraft carrier. The Vinson crew disposed of OBL's remains into the Indian Ocean. There were no Mission Accomplished signs hanging over the flight deck.

    An interview was done by ESPN during the game with Obama,  link. ESPN also has Obama's opening address.


    by NCD on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 10:43am

    The Prez had a good gig.

    I am reminded of w telling us the Iraq war was over--9 years before the fact. ha

    At any rate, it appears that DC is a dangerous place but when they take military weapons to the White House....

    Something aint right. hahahaha


    by Richard Day on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 7:59pm

    Maybe we could round up all of AK-47's and give them to the protestors in Syria?

    That would sure get President Bashar al-Assad to listen up, wouldn't it?

    Nothing else appears to be working

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/12/arab-league-suspends-syria-from-meetings/

    The U.N. estimates some 3,500 people have been killed in the Syrian crackdown since the uprising began eight months ago, inspired by the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.



    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/12/arab-league-suspends-syria-from-meetings/#ixzz1dY0m9K7V

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 9:14pm

    Maybe the mighty Hezbollah in Lebanon can fight to end oppression in Syria by their buddy Assad, the guy they get weapons from, instead of preparing for the next pointless and destructive Syrian/Iranian backed conflict with Israel.


    by NCD on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 10:07pm

    It appears only the oppressors and criminals have guns?


    by Resistance on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 10:51pm

    When I read your headline, "Taking Shots at the White House", I assumed that you meant that the President was playing BBall on an aircraft carrier and the First Lady was having a 'night out' with the girls, (Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al) and the First Kids were sitting around with their baby-sitter, doing Jell-o shots.   But that would be wrong, wouldn't it? Very wrong.  


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:19am

    No Jello shots Smith. hahahahaha

    Did you know they were having another repub reality show tonite? Now those idiots were actually taking shots at the White House.

    I was just struck by the shootings and then the discovery of an abandoned car with a WMD just outside the WH.

    And the Park Police spokesman acted like this was an everyday thing in DC.


    by Richard Day on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:23am

    Sadly, the gun culture is entrenched ... and monied and will never see beyond their own self-interest.  Personally, I think that every legal gun-owner in America should be notified that they will now be assumed to be in the militia and the government therefore reserves the right to call them up for active duty at any time.

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:13am

    Too many people seem to think the 2nd amendment was to protect the government. WRONG.

    The government already had the constitutional right to Tax for the benefit off it's defense.

    Private ownership; as guaranteed by the Second amendment; assured the People the right to be armed.

    Never again would the colonists be disarmed, they could provide for their own defenses despite whatever form of governance.

    Either that provision was agreed upon as a right, or I suspect there would have been no United States.

    We agreed to form a more perfect Union and included safeguards against a government that encroached upon the PEOPLES rights.

    The Right to bear arms is non- negotiable  

    Considering the colonist knew from experience,  no government could assure them safety; especially after the French incited the Indians along the frontier.

    NO WAY, NO HOW would they give up the right, to defend THEMSELVES.


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:36pm

    I don't know anyone that thinks the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the government.  The right to keep and bear arms meant something much different in the 18th century than it does today.  In a time when there could be hostiles behind every tree and the vast majority of Americans killed animals both out of protecting their family from harm and for their own food, a rifle was a necessary part of life.  Today? Are guns really necessary to the average citizen?  The defense of individual Liberty is an argument that gun-owners and the NRA fall back on to justify everyone owning and carrying guns.  But do you really believe a bunch of gun-totin' Americans could overthrow the U.S. government if it had gone rogue and subverted our Liberty?  A government with nuclear weapons and drone missiles and God knows what else?   Really?  Individuals with guns are necessary to maintain our Liberty?  That's as much a delusion as the trickle down theory of economics, in my opinion.  


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:38pm

    MrSmith get a grip

    You wrote

    I don't know anyone that thinks the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the government.

    You did when you wrote this

    I think that every legal gun-owner in America should be notified that they will now be assumed to be in the militia and the government therefore reserves the right to call them up for active duty at any time

    Why would you give the authority to the government, the right to call them up for active duty? To serve whose purpose MrSmith?

    continuing with more of your delusion, you wrote

    The right to keep and bear arms meant something much different in the 18th century than it does today.

    Get a clue MrSmith the colonist trusted NO GOVERNMENT.  

    The Second Amendment was agreed upon, to satisfy the mistrust.

    No amount of your revisionist history will change the reason.

    You republicans are always trying to change the constitution.

    Of course they have drones, laser guided and infrared, so of course they'll always be more heavily armed. They want the people to fear the government.

    But do you really believe a bunch of gun-totin' Americans could overthrow the U.S. government if it had gone rogue and subverted our Liberty?

    It's not about overthrowing the government it's all about FEAR. With all the might and war experience of the British army, they still had a hard time with guerilla warfare.   

    The Constitution was about, WE THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWING LIMITED  GOVERNMENT.

    Do you understand the concept of limit?  What do you suppose the people thought was the best way to assure the government didn't exceed it's limits?

    Do you think, WE THE PEOPLE WERE WISE ENOUGH to give ourselves a clause in the contract, a protection; that if the government usurps more power, than the people allowed, when they spelled out the limits of the ruling class. the peoples had a way to address the usurpation of the power? More than just  'Don't do that, pretty please! ?

    You need to get out of your dream world MrSmith,  absolute power corrupts absolutely. and our forefathers knew, governments tend to abuse their authority,

    That's why our Constitution makes US different  That is why we have the right to bear arms and you are deluding yourself to think it was all about hunting. 

    Our forefathers remembered, going to King George begging for our grievances to be heard and in return King George hardened his heart and allowed atrocities to occur.

    Our forefathers assured, all following generations the opportunity to do more than beg

    They gave us the right to bear arms to send a message, You should fear US, if you violate our rights

    Fear of violating our rights helps to assure compliance; at least that was the plan.

    What do you suppose our forefathers would think to hear, American citizens are targeted by drones by the Government, and the people have no armaments to defend themselves?


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:16am

    Gee, I can't remember ever being called a Republican before ... ever.   Your enthusiasm is duly noted.  Your outrage, well, thanks for bloviating.  

    First off, I never said it was all about hunting.  I never said that Government should be absolute and that the colonists trusted government.   You've mistakenly taken my wise-ass remark and made it into a credo which you assume I live by.  Just showing once again, that all gun-owners are completely over the top when it comes to the topic of gun ownership.

    Every debate I've ever had with a gun-owner has them getting rabid at any possible disagreement with their position. As if anyone who mentions the second amendment without genuflecting has somehow betrayed core American values and pissed on the Constitution.  It's an amazingly consistent reaction and a false one.   

    "They gave us the right to bear arms to send a message, You should fear US, if you violate our rights ..."

    And you've seen how well that's worked out for us.

    As with nearly all gun-lovers, there is no reasonable position for anyone other than the one you espouse. You want your guns and no-one can pry them from your cold dead hands.  Fine.  You've made a lot of accusations about me that are complete fantasies.  It's no use explaining all of them to you, because you'll just find more reasons to argue and call me names and tell me I live in a dream world.    So, you're right. Guns are the manna from heaven that keeps our democracy vital.  I don't know what I was thinking to ever say anything that might have, even jokingly, contradicted that notion.  The End.

    P.S. If you ever call me a Republican again, I will eat your heart in the marketplace.


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:38am

    Well, you have to admit, Republicans are kind of known for ignoring the second amendment. They're always trying to take away our guns!


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:44am

    Exactly!  That's what got me so confused.  ;-)


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:05pm

    You know who else would be confused by this?

    Republicans.

    Just sayin'...


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:11pm

    I wouldn't trust the republicans to protect any of our rights.

    Of course they'll give lip service to the Constitution to garner support. All a facade to make people believe the corporatists republicans are friends of gun owners.  

    Sounding more like the left   "Vote for a gun protector republican, it beats the alternative"   

    Go ahead you can own a gun, until they can trump up enough laws, to make everyone a felon, because everyone knows, felons can't own guns legally. 

    You can't accuse them, of trying to take the guns from legal gun owners, but you can accuse them, for narrowing the field, of those who can own them.  

    Corporate overlords will have the right, to not only direct the military against an angry crowd  but also a means to defend themselves. 

    The peasants armed only with pitchforks, will find they are no match against a superior. armed force.  

    "Go ahead dummies, disarm yourself."


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:49pm

    I'm having a hard time preventing my eyes from rolling too far back into my forehead for fear that my colleagues will think I'm having a seizure.

    Please name some recent instances of national politicians passing a law that you think is too strict with respect to gun ownership. I can't think of even one. I'll assume you can't, but prove me wrong if you can.

    So, we'll go for a lower bar: state politicians. I still can't think of any recent examples of over-restrictive gun laws, unless you're just upset that it's not legal in all states to bring guns into bars, churches, or national parks.

    The only place you might have any merit is on the lowest bar: city politicians. If you're confusing city politicians with national ones, please let me know.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:06pm

    Please name some recent instances of national politicians passing a law that you think is too strict with respect to gun ownership.

    Is that you RUSH?

    A deceptive inquiry? Some RECENT instances" 

    Of course no matter how I answer, it'll give you the excuse to reply "I said recent"

    http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news197.htm

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:04pm

    Please tell me you're kidding. That's not a law. It's not even real. It's make-believe. It's imaginary. It's non-existent. (To keep with the Monty Python theme, I'd say it's ex-reality, but that would assume it at one time was real. It wasn't.)

    OK, if you're afraid I'll split hairs on "recent", I'll be more precise: Please name some instances of national politicians passing a law that you think is too strict with respect to gun ownership that have happened within the last ten years. If that's too hard, give me an example in the last twenty or thirty years. It does need to be an actual law, however, and not a paranoid figment of NWV's imagination. Here's one that's 17 years old:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

    Did you find that law to be infringing on your second amendment rights? If so, can you be specific?


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:18pm

    Go away pest.

    The earlier discussion was about the opponents objectives.

    You changed the subject to specifics.

    The objective; Get the guns out of the hands of the peasant class, before they can turn them on the perceived enemies of the working class.  

    The corrupt political, economic rulers; who subject the working class to serving their selfish needs. 

    The elites saying to the government they bought,  "GET THE WEAPONS especially the assault weapons.

    The elite class telling their lackey politicians ; we don't care how you get the weapons, just do it.

    Even if it means sell guns to cartel members, *  allowing the elites to say "see we told you, we needed to ban the assault weapons.

    The elites will blame the guns and then convince the idiots how right they were. GET THE GUNS. 

    The peasants so in the dark of the reality, the Government of the elites whose OBJECTIVE  was to create havoc,  sold the guns to the criminals, knowing they would use them. 

    The objective was paramount, even if it was responsible for the cause of death to a federal agent and countless lives of the peasant class.

    The objective; find a reason to get public opinion to turn against it's own self interest GO AFTER THE GUNS.  

    Guns that threaten the Status Quo of the corrupt system.  

    ftn * Fast and Furious,  Ironic isn't it and an appropriate name, for an objective.

    Sell them fast and hope the ferociousness, makes the peasant class cry out for laws and the government of the Elites, more than willing to give the stupid peasants what they demand.   

    Elites "if only we could get you dumb peasants to fear the thing we fear. You will disarm yourself of the only thing we elites fear; a peasant class powerful enough to get recognition, to force us to meet your demands for equality"  Disarm yourself. and save us.  

    Remember the Magna Carta?  The king out of fear,  signed the law.


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:47pm

    Yes, I changed the subject to specifics. I find it's much easier to have a meaningful discussion when talking about specifics than when talking about hand-waving imaginary scenarios.

    I'm sorry if you find it too hard to have a conversation that deals with specifics instead of with generic non sequiturs.

    Please understand that it's impossible for me to have a rational dialog dealing with unsubstantiated misrepresentations of other people's inferred "objectives".

    P.S. You're coming across as increasingly irate. (E.g., "Go away pest" and your comments to MrSmith1.) I hope everything is going well with you. If not, maybe it'd be good to spend some time with a loved one, a pet, or just with nature. It usually helps me to feel better.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:56pm

    P.S. If you ever call me a Republican again, I will eat your heart in the marketplace.

    Don't let fear or common sense stop you. wink


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:56pm

    You've mistakenly taken my wise-ass remark

    Doh! It did appear you were some kind, but I didn't associate you with wise.

    "They gave us the right to bear arms to send a message, You should fear US, if you violate our rights ..."

    And you've seen how well that's worked out for us.

    Despite corporatism march to enslave us, all is not lost YET,  seeing as how they own the economic, political and the judicial  system.

    You want your guns and no-one can pry them from your cold dead hands.

    Are you blind?  IT'S THEY ( and their dupes) WHO WANT OUR GUNS. 

    We the People don't need your permission to keep OUR guns; our forefathers had the wisdom to have it put into the Constitution to keep wise/dumb asses, from taking them.  

    Is the below quote by you, another wise ass remark?

    So, you're right. Guns are the manna from heaven that keeps our democracy vital.

    I never knew sticks and stones alone would keep democracy safe,

    It's evident, words have lost their power, to persuade the powerful to do the right thing for the people. 

    As for me, I'm all for the time, when All the nations "beat their swords into plowshares".

    But I am not foolish enough to be blind to those bent on domination who would love it, if we disarmed.

    A disarmed people are weak,  against an opponent who has domination in mind.

    Maybe you just don't get it ?  Maybe you're not as wise as you think you are?


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:24pm

    "We the People don't need your permission to keep OUR guns; our forefathers had the wisdom to have it put into the Constitution to keep wise/dumb asses, from taking them."

    What the hell are you talking about?  You really need to stop putting words into my mouth.

    "Maybe you're not as wise as you think you are?"

    Probably so.  And perhaps you're more full of it than you think you are. 

    What's with all the name calling anyway?  Have I really written something so offensive that you feel a need to treat me with such derision and disrespect?  I know you're easily set off, but this is pretty silly and far-fetched, even for you.   If this is your idea of vibrant debate, you're sorely mistaken.  It's simply you going off on me for not being what you'd like me to be; in complete agreement with you.  Sorry if I'm not Liberal enough or gun-loving enough or whatever enough to fit your standard of 'excellence'.  I don't think less of you for your opinions, why do you feel it necessary to denigrate me for mine?

    But now that you've taken everything I've written and successfully twisted it to fit the argument you wish to have with yourself, I have to ask myself what's the point in my responding any further?


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:18pm

    From my perspective you got exactly what you dished out. Backhanded derision will be met with direct derision.

    This gun issue is paramount to our Nations security,

    Corporate power has no allegiance to our nation or much cares for the People .

    "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"   

    http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Gettysburg_Address_[Full_Text]

    Despite the machinations of corporations and the government they buy; we will not perish if we are able to defend ourselves. 


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:00pm

    Well then, your perspective sucks.  You think I'm the enemy? That I somehow am on the side of corporations and a fascist government?   That's as mistaken an assertion as I've ever seen made by anyone on this or any other website in the 16 years I've been on the internet.

    Congratulations, your bullshit has turned another person off on contributing to this website.


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:20pm

    There are times when I literally suspect that's his goal.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:35pm

    Clicking on the apposite link (NWV) pretty much caps it--I worry that Partner Res has access, to let alone the inclination to disseminate, crap like that.

    #forensic fail.

    But on a wider note, and reminding all that this is officially the Century of Good Mental Health, (when, for instance, it is our firm and stated intention to strive to Recognize and Follow Good Advice--two seperate desiderata, might I add...) bearing, then, in mind the standards of the century, I fear that Res has become so inflamed by fantasies of firearms as the defense of a set of liberties that the bastards stole from us years ago, as to make him an unreliable analyst of social and political trends.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:08pm

    your b..... has turned another person off on contributing to this website.

    [deleted]

    You don't have to own a gun, but don't come looking to take others.

    There are boogey men out in the real world. but don't worry, you liberals, there are many who have devoted their lives to protect even the faint of heart.

    Did you ever stop to think  End poverty in America, end the slums in America, end the insane war on drugs, and maybe guns wouldn't be so prevalent?.

    You think  MAYBE gun ownership is a symptom of distrust, THE PEOPLES  lack of a sense of  SECURITY?

    WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE WILL HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY, WHEN THE SAFETY NET IS GONE? 

    Liberal cry: "Hallelujah no one will have a gun"

    ( never mind they'll probably have machetes, baseball bats and all kinds of other instruments of death) 

     "The Rwandan genocide resulted from the conscious choice of the elite to promote hatred and fear to keep itself in power. This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda. Then, faced with RPF success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, these few power holders transformed the strategy of ethnic division into genocide"

    http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

    [deleted]


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:04pm

    For sure, if the excrement hits the fan and we are returned to a state that Hobbes referred to as a war between each person against other people, having a gun will put you above others who don't. Leaving aside the arguments over whether that struggle is inevitable or not, it is worth pointing out that such a form of life really sucks. It certainly isn't a life of "freedom."

     

     


    by moat on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:36pm

    Well stated Moat, 

    I believe that is exactly where we are or are headed.

    The people of the world are ANGRY and it appears no viable solution is forthcoming.

    There is NO peace or security,

    When they tell you there is, it's a lie. 

    The status quo doesn't want their privileged status to end, whereas; the downtrodden wants the suffering to end.   

    I don't see signs the privileged class wants to compromise voluntarily.  

    The battle lines are being formed.


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:59pm

    MrSmith get a grip

    LOL! I'd venture a guess that he's not the one who is sounding hysterical to most readers of this thread!

    Do you realize you are making these arguments about conspiracies to take away guns under a post that, among other things, reports that there was a gunfight between two drivers in near the White House and the police found an AK-47 in one of the related autos? It therefore strikes me as kind of a strange place to complain that Americans are threatened  by the oligarchy with the loss of the right to bear firearms. They seem to have little trouble getting close to the White House with them in their cars, unless they let off they've got some by shooting at fellow citizens.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:26pm

    I really did not know how to respond!

    You are correct!

    I have written hundreds of times on the fact that the NRA won.

    But damn, you cannot permit AK-47's near the WH and you should never permit them in an urban area and probably--I will get shot down on this--AK-47's have no business being in our country except on military bases and since they are Soviet made--what in the f*&k are they doing in the hands of civilians?

    THIS IS NUTS!

    Ground to air missiles should not be allowed to the citizenry.

    GOD HOW I HATE THE NRA!

    Damn!

    Muskets. The 2nd Amendment dealt with muskets and added that the purpose of the muskets were for organizing a national guard for chrissakes!

    The repub Chief Justice Warren Burger used to give lectures about how the 2nd Amendment applied to nothing!

    Damn!

    Yeah I am with Smith.

    This entire blog just got out of hand!


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:45pm

    I think a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment shows that the part about the militia was an aside, and that the real reason was so that civilians would collectively be able to defend themselves against unjust governments, whether they be foreign or domestic. Thus, the only logical conclusions is that we should all be allowed our right to bear tactical nuclear missiles. (I'm actually serious about the first sentence.)


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:50pm

    Not to mention things like a schizophrenic having no trouble getting a firearm to express his dissatisfaction with Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' representation.

    Hey, remember the whole like-Rodney-King-said mood after that incident? Whatever happened with that? devil


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:12pm

    Thank God he didn't rent a Ryder truck and put fertilizer and diesel fuel in the back and drive it into the parking lot. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:36am

    Ground to air missiles should not be allowed to the citizenry.

    Richard, will you reconsider that position; when the Beckerheads of America, use drones on the citizenry? wink


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:59pm

    P.S. There is absolutely zero evidence of  anyone trying to take guns away from U.S. citizens. Just the opposite. Wal-mart, for one example that some might consider the oligarchy, would like to sell U.S. citizens as many as they can.

    From a quick google, I see that firearms sales and FBI firearms background checks have been going up by very large percentages since 2009. (And no, I don't see any reports of people doing it to start another revolution; many give reasons like protecting their property in a bad economy.)

    You like quotes. Try this one:

    I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.
    - Jay Gould, "robber baron"

    These days, it's more like this: "sell them the guns, and they'll do it themselves, and you can make a profit off of it."


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:37pm

    My side lost a long time ago.

    The NRA won.

    Now it is only an argument over degree.

    And once again, Soviet Armaments should not be allowed in the good ole US of A. ha


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:53pm

    I do seem to recall Resistance complaining about products produced by foreign workers once or twice. cheeky


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:25pm

    Oy, a day late and a dollar short on my compilation of evidence here. I only just now had a chance to look at my paper copy of today's New York Times.

    And the left side large-type two-column headline is:

    FELONS FINDING IT EASY TO REGAIN GUN RIGHTS

    In Some States, Process is Open Even To Those With Violent Records

    By Michael Luo


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:59pm

    felon disenfranchisement
    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

    by Resistance on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:41pm

    Are you saying that taking away a felon's right to vote is akin to taking away a felon's right to bear arms?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:32am

    From a quick google, I see that firearms sales and FBI firearms background checks have been going up by very large percentages since 2009. (And no, I don't see any reports of people doing it to start another revolution; many give reasons like protecting their property in a bad economy.)

    I have two nephews who are big into firearms, to the degree that they frequent gun-friendly discussion boards. Luckily, they are otherwise sane individuals. They told me about how many posters were convinced that Obama would take away their guns and ammo, and that this fear caused a significant price hike, especially in ammo, as demand out-paced supply.* I suspect that might be a significant factor in that increase in firearms sales.

    *My nephews are a little peeved about this, as they enjoy going to the shooting range, and are upset that the crazies have increased the price of this sport for others.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:24pm

    Get a grip Resistance.

    Guns might have been a major factor in warfare in 1776, but they aren't today. With armaments budgets in the hundreds of billions, your gun doesn't 'scare' the government, your vote does scare them. Unions scare them, and money not in their control scares them.

    That is why the GOP tries to stop people from voting.

    They let you, and even felons and the insane, have the modern warfare equivalent of pea shooters. They have the heavy weapons, the surveillance, your phone and email tapped, the courts in line, GITMO, and water boarding if the GOP gets back in. You have a gun, good luck, don't accidently shoot yourself with it.

    Reality: when has any government been toppled with just guns in the last 100 years? Iraq? Libya? Did guns help the nutcases at Waco or Ruby Ridge? Even the fanatical Taliban have RPG's, and loads of bomb making material which is illegal in the US. Your gun ain't gonna save you, your vote might.


    by NCD on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:39pm

    From what I heard on NBC Nightly News, peaceful protests have failed and it turns out the people with guns might be bringing down the Syrian Government.

    Guns work, signs don't?  DOH!

    As for fearing the voters? I can see them shaking in their boots now, as they give themselves another raise.

    We are beyond a vote making it better; been there done that.

    Gore won by over 500K votes, Bush won after getting only 300.

    The game is rigged. 

    As for the shooting at the Whitehouse, I am relieved to hear no one was hurt; but the message it sent should wake up those in power. They do need to fear the voters who feel the leaders have only given lip service, to the needs of the people.

    A disgruntled population isn't interested in a rigged voting game or machine.

    ps. NCD  ....whatever happened for the push for a paper trail using the Diebold voting machines?  


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:15am

    I would just take your argument about the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency further and say that it's not any traditional weapons that helped them most, but suicide bombing. No weapons or smart tactics can beat it for insurgency, partly because it causes any opponent who won't use it too to twist their own standards into knots.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:18am

    Update: turns out your post title can be taken literally. The reported incident you noticed turns out to have included actual bullets aimed at the White House and one hitting a White House window. They just didn't know it right away (kind of alarming in itself):

    After Bullet Hits White House, a Manhunt and Arrest
    By Charlie Savage, Brian Knowlton and Mark Landller, Ne York Times, Nov. 16, 2011

    WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement authorities on Wednesday arrested a 21-year-old Idaho man suspected of shooting with a semiautomatic rifle at the White House on Friday night, as the Secret Service reported finding that at least one bullet had indeed struck the presidential residence....

    Gunfire was heard in the vicinity of the White House late Friday night, and a man abandoned a car several blocks away, fleeing on foot and leaving behind an AK-47 semiautomatic rifle. It was not clear for several days that someone had deliberately fired at the White House.

    Investigators have been examining evidence found in the car and talking with relatives of Mr. Ortega.

    Another law enforcement official, Sgt. David Schlosser of the Park Police, said that any motive would not be clear “until we can talk to this guy.” The Park Police had already issued an arrest warrant charging Mr. Ortega with a felony count of carrying a deadly weapon.....

    Secret Service agents heard multiple shots on Friday and witnessed a car speeding away, westbound, on Constitution Avenue, according to a Secret Service official. The car and a semiautomatic assault weapon were found, abandoned, at a corner of Constitution Avenue and 23rd Street within a couple of minutes, this official said....


    by artappraiser on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 2:53pm

    I just caught this on MSNBC and then the NYT.

    Incredible is it not?

    I thought this blog was off the page until I saw you commented.

    BULLETS ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN?

    I laughed at the comments from the Park Police, but I bet the Secret Service aint pooh poohing this matter at all!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 3:18pm

    Re: I thought this blog was off the page until I saw you commented.

    No blog with this software is ever really "off-the-page" to anyone who participated on it. If you wrote it or participated on it, any comments or updates will bump it up to the top of each participant's My Account/Track page, with a link in red to what is new on it. Granted, a lot of people don't look at their "Track" page often, but in my experience they eventually do, and look at any updates.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 3:32pm

    Meanwhile, while that was on the front page of most news sites, this was going on:

    Gun-rights advocates scored a key victory Wednesday with the passage of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act — a bill that would allow states to recognize each other’s concealed-carry permits for firearms. The legislation still has to clear the Senate, where its fate is unclear. The House vote was 272-154, with 43 Democrats joining an overwhelming majority of Republicans to pass the bill.

    So much for the oligarchy working to take the guns away.....


    by artappraiser on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:51pm

    Thank the NRA for resisting the oligarchs and their dupes attempts, to make laws to prevent concealed carry permits.

    I'm sure some woman in a parking garage, going to her car  will feel a little safer. She wont have to call 911 after the assault.

    How do I answer this question posed by many; "Wheres a cop when you need one'?


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:26am

    That law is really the limit, when the Rethugs came out with that there was a reporter, might have been Motherjones, who got a Florida gun license and gun in Florida when he listed his home address in ANOTHER state.

    Basically, anyone could legally have a loaded gun anywhere if this passes, at least police now can separate most bad guys and gang bangers out by checking who has a legal permit and who doesn't, in states that have some requirements for carrying.


    by NCD on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 8:54am