Richard Day's picture

    TAKING SHOTS AT THE WHITE HOUSE; CHAPTER TWO

    By Richard Day on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 8:42pm |

     

    I wrote about a strange occurrence on November 12, 2011. Someone shot 11 bullets into the White House! I do not think that 'they' even told us about the 11 shells they found at that time!

    Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez was arrested days after the Nov. 11 shooting and was formally charged Tuesday by a grand jury in Washington. (And here)

    In a December 15 (2011) document arguing Ortega-Hernandez should not be released on bail, prosecutors said he "was deadly serious about eliminating the president and took many substantial steps toward achieving his end," including buying a rifle in March and making a 2,000-mile drive from Idaho to the East Coast in 

    October. (and here.)

    Ortega-Hernandez charged that Obama is the Anti-Christ!

    So we had ONE psycho who attempted to kill the President of the United States of America! Okay?

    I googled this guy—actually I Yahooed him but who cares? And got nothing really.

    We have this 7 Days in May mentality and I get it.

    Keep this crap out of MSM as much as you can so that some ding a lings sitting in their bunkers do not attempt the same craziness!

    But there have certainly been other shots at the White House by psychos since November of 2011.

    A SIMPLE RESOLUTION PASSED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    JAMES YEAGER THREATENS TO 'START SHOOTING'.

    (AND HERE)

    ALEX JONES IS READY TO DECLARE WAR UPON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

    (12/29/12) & this.

    TED NUGENT (4/17/12)

    Nugent said, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will be either dead or in jail by this time next year,” and he went on to compare the leader’s administration to “coyotes” who needed to be shot, adding, “We need to ride into the battlefield and chop their heads off in November."

    BEFORE OBAMA EVEN TOOK OFFICE, HERITAGE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER IDIOT FACTIONS WERE CALLING FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA.

    MCCONNELL'S FIRST PRIORITY IS TO MAKE OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT.

    REPRESENTATIVE WALTER JONES (R-N CAROLINA) CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA OVER SYRIA? (3/12/12) & (HERE)

    REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL BURGESS (R-TEXAS) CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA (FOR NO REASON I CAN DISCERN)

    TOM TANCREDO CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA OVER IMMIGRATION REFORM.

    REPUBLICAN GROUPS CALL FOR OBAMA'S IMPEACHMENT OVER BENGHAZI...ETC.

    EDWIN MEESE CALLS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA AND MEESE IS A PIG!

    I was going to get into why I KNOW that Meese is a pig, but it really is irrelevant.

    Meese would not know what the LAW was if it bit him in the ass which it never did because of cowards in law enforcement and such!

    You you know why I wrote this post?

    Nobody will probably read it anyway.

    But my biggest fear since November of 2008 was that some idiot would murder my President.

    Barack Obama shows up in public forums all the time.

    He never walks, he dances.

    The man is one of the single bravest personages on the face of the Earth.

    I was going to wait a few years (as if I KNOW that somehow I will be around in a 'few years')!

    The repubs along with McConnell will not limit President Obama to one term—that is if we can hold on for the next five days or so.

    But McConnell and other repubs (MANY REPUBS) fuel and continue to fuel the UnAmerican perspective that Obama is a false icon, a false representative of our nation, a false God!

    And I am sick and tired of this.

    Make no mistake. The repubs have several imperatives to their purpose.

    Limit President Obama to 1.2 terms and then 1.4 terms and then 1.6 terms...

    Repubs scare the hell out of me.

    I am skeered as some say, and I am abashed at the hypocrisy and the unrelenting rhetoric of the right during these trying times.

    I AM WORRIED.

    The end

     

     

     

    Comments

    Tomorrow should be another opportunity for fireworks from the wacko-right brigade.

    I am sick of the far right extremists screaming about instigating armed revolution if Obama does an executive order in regards to gun control.  I am sick of the intensity of their insanity, the vehemence of their anger and the yearning of their bloodlust.  I am sick of their childish behavior and I'm sick of the non-crazy people being the focus of their insane rages.  I am sick of the far right's desire to strangle the country's economy with their obstructions simply because of a difference in economic policy.  I am sick of all of the far right crazies. (Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. )  


    by MrSmith1 on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 11:45pm

    Just before i went to bed there was Curly Rand Paul on the tellie threatening that all means and measures will be used to go after President Obama; depending on the 'executive Orders' he dispenses.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/rand-paul-gives-obama-the-royal-treatment/

    The new line is to call President Obama 'King' thereby referencing 1776 and...


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:22am

    Taking pot shots at the white house, final chapter:

    The NRA is running an ad which calls Pres Obama a hypocrite because his kids are protected by armed guards while regular kids have to go to school in "gun free zones." 

    I have seen this meme floating around since Newtown but I did not think anyone would embrace the evil of actually owning it. To bring in the president's kids is low lower and lowest.

    Richard, I too am scared for that family especially the little girls and too sad to say anything more or even punctuate appropriately

    good night

     


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 1:28am

    I saw that NRA ad on MSNBC, and it is despicable.  You're right, Erica, it is a new low indeed.  This is truly getting scary.   People's emotions are being toyed with and encouraged towards violence.  It is sick and no matter how the media tries to play the "both sides do it", America knows the truth; it is not both sides doing it, it is the extreme right and the extreme right alone. 


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:59am

    Erica, is the ad true?

    We have one standard for the elites and one for the peasants?

    "We're not worthy"

     


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:56am

    No, it's not true. There are many schools that also have armed guards, and even someone with a little imagination will understand that the President's daughters are in greater danger than typical children their age.

    What would be hypocritical would be if he bought them assault rifles, which he has not.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:03am

    I find it totally hypocritical, that we can put armed guards in the banks and a military presence and heavily armed guards around Fort Knox.

    Then to hear politicians, bemoan the Second Amendment, using Sandy Hook Elementary, as a back drop, telling us "WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR MOST PRECIOUS ASSETS, our children." 

     and even someone with a little imagination will understand that the President's daughters are in greater danger than typical children their age.

    Really!!!? We protect the Unknown soldier who is dead, WE protect the gold and money  and the self serving politicos have the gall to "Wave the Bloody Shirt", telling us that we need a gun ban, to protect our most precious asset and then deprive us less important folks  of being able to protect OUR most precious assets, as people of status do for their own children.

    No VA, it doesn't take much imagination to understand what is going on here. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:58am

    Guess who "waves the bloody shirt" around these parts the most? I'll give you a clue: his name begins with "R" and ends with "esistance".

    If you've got a logical point to make, make it. Please, please stop rambling and going into histrionics.*

    *Note: This does not infringe on your freedom of speech in any manner. It is merely a request.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:46am

    I totally agree with your analysis here.

    One problem is the hysterics are often amusing, and then too, every once in a while, he'll throw in a quip that might be intentionally humorous. So one thinks when one sees him really go over the top: maybe I should say something, maybe he doesn't really mean to come off this way? But if you do so, sometimes the rants and sermons go worse over the top. So it's always a crap shoot..

    That you felt the need to include that footnote says what I just said, I thinkwink


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:04am

    You know; what you can do with your request.

    I don't think you need a clue? Or do you? 

    But if you're as clueless; as you are respecting civility?


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 1:59pm

    Nobody is trying to deprive you of the ownership of the kind of guns and ammunition that a bank guard carries. That's  the really weak part of your argument, the part that makes it fail, sounds irrational, paranoid. When you start on this kind of slippery slope stuff, then we see someone irrational, and ya know what?--ironically then it's easy to jump to another thought: heck, I give up, this guy is so irrational about high power assault weapons, maybe he's one who shouldn't be allowed to have any guns at all! Why can't you see that support for some restrictions on the most powerful weapons (bazookas et. al.) with strong enforcement, is the actually the best way to make sure most people can always continue to own basic firearms? It's only the "all or nothing" threat that makes more people start to consider the "nothing," because it's irrational.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:06am

    Thank you, AA.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:07am

    I noticed you avoided the lie, intended to stir up sedition "We need to protect our most valuable asset" apparently a slogan by some, intended to divide and separate our love of the Constitution.

    Those of us who know how to protect our most valuable assets, know to rely upon the Second Amendment to assure us that ability.

    Not some lying politicians and their dupes, scoring political points, trying to coax our love away.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 2:29pm

    Last time I heard the 2nd Ammendment, including the line WELL REGULATED MILITIA, is alive and well....and in no danger from anyone, you paranoid gun-nut!


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:51am

    Up to this point I hadn't  focused your attention upon the issue,  of "a well armed militia" because I was sure you wouldn't be able to handle too much information.

    So before you become a part of the open mouth and insert foot association,  I suggest you familiarize yourself, on that part of the Amendment.

    The Supreme Court has already determined, The Right to Bear Arms, is not contingent upon military involvement.  

     you paranoid gun-nut!

    Look who's freaking out about the Right to Bear Arms;  it's those of you who want to infringe.

    Keep crying, keep tearing your outer garments and throwing ashes over your heads in lamentation, keep stamping your feet, till someone takes notice.

     I am so appreciative our Forefathers made it the Second Amendment, so we would have the superior position, instead of the other way around. Whooo hooo  


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:36pm

    Gun nuts. tm.
     Salted then heavily dosed with preservatives before being slow roasted in their own shell. They come mostly in the can and are great treats at informal gatherings of un-serious people such as  costume parties and Congressional caucuses.  They are  home grown by natural methods in areas scattered all over our great country. They are available in a wide variety of sizes and shapes and one is always enough.

    Your reference to gun nuts started me having brainfarts about the term. I am a supporter of gun rights. Resistance is not all wrong, its just his area of nuttiness, something he can get his teeth into. Folks here lean more towards granola and warm milk and wish all our actual gun nuts would just go away or just get written out of the script. They won’t. That is, unless they sign up, put on identical clothes that make them easy to spot, and then go to some other country far enough away that we can stay emotionally removed enough to support their fun and games.

    Call me nutty too, I am, but a kid is a kid is a kid, whether or not we hear the wails of their aggrieved parents which should be empathized with and understood in any language.

    Like our President said, nothing will change unless we demand it. In six months, or maybe 15 minutes, Sandhook will be mostly forgotten as we still send guns all over the world and not only kill kids but justify it.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 1:37pm

    Re: Gun nuts. tm. , just an aside. I found out the other day the term really is sort of "trademarked" in Canada as it were. Here's the urban dictionary on it

    CanadianGunNutz - A Internet forum composing of firearm enthusiast from hunting, target shooting, self defense, and collecting. It has been touted as an organized lobby group by Gun Control organization such as Coalition for Gun Control a lobby group.
    I go on CGN every day
    And here's their main internet forum:
     
    http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/
     
    First it struck me like this: maybe the NRA could do itself some good with a little more self-deprecation and sense of humor. But then I thought again: maybe not, look at the different results.
     
    Edit to add, note their logo in the middle of the ads atop the site:

    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 2:44pm

    Here is a video demonstrating the power of the guns we want to ban versus those we are okay with leaving available, at least for those of us who are honest in their support of leaving some kinds of firearms available for sport and home defense. I wanted to put it somewhere so this seems a good a place as any.
     The video is not above critique. The speaker makes note that different rounds are used in the standard weapons but does not explain that a round of the same type in an assault weapon would show very much the same result to the watermelon. The video does though show that banning "assault weapons" alone would accomplish something between zero and very, very little. 

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:03pm

    Heres the video Lulu

     


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:24pm

    Thanks Lulu, I did watch it and it does indeed make some of the currently proposed regulations look quite silly. (Deadman's post weeks ago tried to do similar but this does a much better job.)


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:56pm

    Glad you watched it and I hope others did too even if they keep their conclusions to themselves. That said, since we seem to be largely in agreement I think I will watch it again and double check. wink


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 1:06pm

    I would like to add that we need other kinds of facts, too; John Cassidy basically asks a good question here:  can we thwart the NRA in preventing Congress authorizing gathering these facts, as they are wont to do?  Not to mention it would be sooo easy to thwart while budget cutting is the topic du jour....and states are already claiming they're going to ignore anything he has signed on the matter.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 2:03pm

    I agree that we need other kinds of facts too, also that John Cassidy asks a good question. But, it’s a slow day so I will bicker a bit with part of his essay.


     By collecting detailed information on every road death—such as the make, model, and year of the car; the speed at which it was travelling; and which seats the passengers were sitting in—the N.H.T.S.A. transformed policy making. “We know what works,” Hemenway explained in a 2004 interview. “We know that speed kills, so if you raise speed limits, expect to see more highway deaths. Motorcycle helmets work; seat belts work. Car inspections and driver education have no effect. Right-on-red laws mean more pedestrians hit by cars.”

    Since the late nineteen-sixties, when policy makers started getting serious about preventing road deaths, the annual number of motor-vehicle fatalities relative to the total population has been cut in half. With better data and better policy, there is no reason why we shouldn’t see a similar reduction in gun fatalities, which are currently running at about thirty thousand a year. (About a third are homicides; most of the rest are suicides.)

    Automobile fatalities and their reduction just does not hold up as an analogy of how to reduce gun fatalities.  My arguments assume that firearms will not be banned for the general population and that they will therefore also be available to the criminal population.
     How will “better data” affect better gun policy thereby reducing deaths in the way it has affected auto design and auto safety features. Motor vehicles have been made much safer for the occupants. There is no modification to guns that is equivalent to seat belts and airbags that save so many lives in car accidents. Cars are virtually never used to commit murder. Nobody uses a car to threaten a robbery victim and then run over that victim if the crime goes bad.  I see no equivalent for gun safety to better roads which often have barrier divided opposing lanes.

    Motor vehicles are almost certainly used sometimes to commit suicide but it appears to be an insignificantly rare method, although accurate figures will probably never be available. I don’t see regulations ever reducing the high number of gun suicides.


    During the eighties and early nineties, numerous studies of this nature were carried out under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control—and they generated some fascinating facts, such as the finding that households with guns were three times more likely to have homicides and five times more likely to have suicides than homes without guns.

    How could this data be used to reduce those numbers short of removing the guns from all households?

     
     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 3:06pm

    I have to disagree. The video was silly and DF's post was much better. One can simplify the discussion and leave our relevant information to "prove" any point, both to ban a weapon or to fight against that ban.

    I'm not a gun expert. I own a 12 gauge shotgun and a 22. In army basic training I shot an M-16 quite often which is the military equivalent of the AR-15 used in many of these mass shootings. I have some general knowledge about other weapons. Not nearly the amount that DF has, but even with my limited knowledge I could see how this video leaves out relevant information to create a false impression. One can lie very effectively by telling half the truth.

    For example the 12 gauge shotgun that totally decimated the watermelon. Its likely that if it had been a human that same shot wouldn't have killed him. Shotguns are designed to shoot birds and small game. A 12 gauge shotgun shell is filled with small BB pellets which create a spread so that if only a few pellets hit the bird it will kill it. Each BB has low  power. Even if all the pellets strike a human in the chest its likely that most will hit a bone in the rib cage and stop there.

    Many shotguns can't take a clip. If the shotgun does take a clip a 10 round clip is as large as a 30 round clip on an AR-15. I doubt you could get a 30 round 12 gauge clip but it its available it would be so unwieldy that it would make the gun nearly impossible to use.

    In the video its pointed out that one of the high powered rifles doesn't take a clip, but the bullets can be stored in a cylinder running along the barrel of the gun. What they don't say is less than 10 bullets could be stored there.

    A lot of the gun control groups don't know what they're talking about when they discuss guns but just as often those who oppose gun control take advantage of that lack of knowledge to post distorted videos like this one. The destructive power of a gun is not simply the size of the bullet. Even the same size bullet can have different destructive power, bullets that fragment in the body or can pierce armor easily, or bullets with explosive charges. A larger bore rifle can be less destructive than a smaller bore if it fires faster and carries more bullets. The amount of kickback can make it hard to aim and fire rapidly. Destructive power is a complex relationship between bullet size, type of bullet, amount of bullets before reloading, trigger speed, kickback, etc.

    Most often posts on this subject start with an agenda and choose the information to share to prove that point. I don't have enough knowledge to write a post about the different types of guns and relative destructive power but I do know enough to often spot weaknesses and distortions. DF's post was one of the best I've seen on the technical aspects of guns yet even there I think he left out some relevant information.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 3:03pm

    Our weapon experience and where we got it is very similar. I trained initially with the M-14 but carried a 16 for a year. I own three 22‘s and a Remington Wingmaster 12 gauge shotgun. In the last 35 years  have fired one of the 22‘s a couple times. I don’t currently own any ammunition. Some folks would call that nutty but when I lived in a different sort of place I did have my shotgun loaded.  

    I think you are completely wrong about the killing capacity of the 12 gauge at the range demonstrated in the video. Hit at that range with any standard load you would die. Also, shotgun shells are available over the counter in quite a range of types and power. Years ago one of my sisters wanted to try out my shotgun. I loaded it with two field load bird-shot shells [light] and then a magnum load shell with double aught buckshot. That shot is heavy enough that there are only five or six in the shell and this load is sometimes used by deer hunters. I warned her that the third shot would kick much harder than the first two. She fired two shots and I warned her again before the third. The kick knocked her down and satisfied her curiosity about shooting that gun.
     Hunting laws restrict a shotgun to three rounds of ammunition so the magazine which could hold four has a removable plug which limits it to three. By removing that plug and putting in four rounds plus one in the chamber the gun can carry five rounds. I believe this is almost a universal configuration for anything but single shot shotguns.

    'In the video its pointed out that one of the high powered rifles doesn't take a clip, but the bullets can be stored in a cylinder running along the barrel of the gun. What they don't say is less than 10 bullets could be stored there.'

    The shooter demonstrated how many rounds his rifle would hold by firing it until empty. I didn’t count the number. My pump action 22 hold a various number depending on whether they are short, long, or long-rifle shells. This type rifle is much slower to reload that one fed by a removable clip.

    I pointed out that while the video did identify that different type rounds were used it did not explain how this affected their performance. It did not demonstrate any round which would not kill. I also pointed out, about the time Deadman was contributing, that in most cases you would rather be hit by a jacketed bullet or better yet an armor piercing bullet. The reason being that they would not mushroom on impact and rip a progressively bigger hole in your body as they traveled through it.

     "Destructive power is a complex relationship between bullet size, type of bullet, amount of bullets before reloading, trigger speed, kickback, etc."

    I agree that that is a perfectly accurate statement but vital organs are quite easily destroyed by objects passing through them, even small ones.
     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 4:11pm

    I copied this sub-discussion over on my news thread on the New York state law because I just posted there on related.

    Since I did so, anyone please feel free to continue it there if you want a place with wider margins. I probably won't participate because I need to learn more on these matters, just read things people post..

    (I am quite certain, though, that I will not participate and furthermore will ignore if it deteriorates into yet more poorly done abstract polemics about the meaning of the Second Amendment. I feel real strongly that people need more factual information and knowledge about what kind of laws would work and what wouldn't, and I feel abstract "discussions" about the Second Amendment are not just a distraction,  but in the NRA's case a purposeful distraction.. Especially since democratic processes will not be deciding those issues, but judicial ones. Like it or not, we have no say with the judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution; we can only challenge them to interpret with new laws.)


    by artappraiser on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 5:11pm

    Yes, there are several different types of shotgun shells, perhaps I should have mentioned that. One of the problems in discussing this is its complex and hard not to leave something out. And yes, a single shotgun BB can go through an organ and kill someone. But what are the odds?

    To someone who knows nothing about guns that shotgun blast totally obliterating a watermelon makes it appear that a 12 gauge is the most destructive weapon in the video. There was no discussion of why a shotgun would obliterate a watermelon and what it means. I think we can probably agree that if the shooters at Aurora or Columbine, etc. had a 12 gauge instead of an AR-15 less people would have died.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 10:13pm

    I think we can probably agree that if the shooters at Aurora or Columbine, etc. had a 12 gauge instead of an AR-15 less people would have died.

    I don't believe that to be necessarily true. If a crowd is gathered together the likely hood of many people being injured with one shell, is greater than if the people are spread out.

    Years ago, I overheard a group of hunters, who had gone out quail hunting. They spotted a covey that ran behind a low bush. One of the hunters shot into the bush , and when they went to recover the quail, they discovered 12 dead birds. 12 killed with one shot.

    Had the birds, been dispersed, the hunter would only have bagged one.


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 11:33pm

    One thing you can't agree on is to leave each other alone. Remember it was you who attacked me, insulted me, and demanded that I leave you alone. I simply agreed and asked for reciprocity. I knew you could never stop posting to me even though you demanded I stop  posting to you. That's why I tried so hard to get a clear unequivocal agreement from you when I agreed to your demand. Remember how you called me an untrustworthy liar who would never keep his word to leave you alone? Well I kept my word. So what does that make you?

    As for your comment, I said died not injured. A human being is not a duck and is considerably harder to kill. While more people in a tightly packed crowd may be injured with a shotgun fewer will be killed. Many of the injuries would be very minor.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 12:07am

    OMG you're right. I slipped up, I hadn't  noticed who I was addressing.

    Believe me when I say;  I had no intention of waking a troll.


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 12:18am

    It is a problem kat, but he can't stop himself.  Now his game will include the accusation of trollery to everyone who disagrees with him which is incredibly ironic!  Like I said earlier, he either truly believes all the incoherent rants he posts or he is a marginally talented but annoying satirist who gets his rocks off bugging the hell out of people.

    One of the effects of social media is that it acts to concentrate and compact real-time communication rules seemingly making the individual feel like they operate in a place where the rules of common decency not longer apply.  Because of this a delusional power is created and the troll continues to operate without ethics or restraint. Their online behavior is reactive, emotion becomes the template for every response.  He assumes his outrage is a legitimate way of interacting with others in the digital world, however, IRL, he would never interact this way, or he be referred to as the village loon. He feels free to do this because there are no real world penalties for what he does. This describes every troll out there adequately.  And Ramona is correct about not feeding the resident troll, but at times there seems nothing left to do but call him out, because he takes pleasure in destroying comment threads.

    Anyway, I very much enjoy reading your comments. They are always well thought out and informative. Good weekend to you!


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 10:07am

    We need Gandalf; this place is full of Trolls.

    Here’s the link Ramona provided me, so that I could identify Trolls and avoid acting like them. I believe your comment to me violates # 3 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) especially #4   

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll+


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 12:46pm

    Pigeon flesh ain't human skin 'n bones, and pellets aren't the same as bullets, especially over a longer distance or through a theater seat. An overcoat won't make much difference to a bullet.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 1:59am

    .


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 4:39am

    Resistance: God help us if people like you are all that is there to protect our children. You are a True American Fruitcake.

    Why does Obama have Secret Service protection, not you?

    Why does the 'elitist hypocrite' live in the White House, yet you are deprived from living there?

    Why does Obama get an armored limo paid for by taxpayers?

    Why can't we all expect to have armed Marines guarding our graves like unknown soldiers?

    Isn't the work you do trolling here as important as meeting with foreign leaders?

    ...and the question you have never answered, it's been 16 years since Australia confiscated  guns, what are they using to stop Doomsday Tyranny......stuffed koala bears?


    by NCD on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:10am

    I guess it was too much for you, to connect the dots all by yourself?

    I mentioned the Australian Aborigines in hopes , you might see another perspective than just your own myopic viewpoint

    The Australians screwed the Aborigines big time and from the point of view of the aborigines they have suffered under the tyranny, and their isn't much else they can do, but continue to suffer the indignities.  

    I suppose I would have to connect the dots for you again, as it relates to the viewpoint of our own indigenous tribes. Shoved onto reservations and decimated as a culture, because they were outgunned, they had to suffer the lies and the brutality, the tyranny of the Great White Father.

    Or those in our Nations history who suffered under the tyranny of Slavery?

    While the stupid liberals, cry about their precious SS, Medicare and safety nets being under attack;  all the while; the elite class exempts themselves and consumes tax dollars, to support a separate safety net for themselves.

    People of wealth and status, receiving a far better justice than those unable to afford justice.

    Maybe you should read OUR Declaration of Independence so you can see how to connect the dots?  How people under tyranny and injustices become a free people.

    If no one is above the law, how does a free people bring to justice, those who act as if they are above the law and that we are of equal station and we all live under the same SS and Medicare plan, we don't accept class distinction.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    At what point, will the people "DEMAND" justice? Will the idiots protest in front of Congress saying, "please take us seriously or else?

    Or else what?   Peasant


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 12:34pm

    Maybe you should read OUR Declaration of Independence so you can see how to connect the dots?  How people under tyranny and injustices become a free people.

    OIC, what you want to insure your freedom is you want the right to have a foreign navy at your beck and call? cheeky

    * Wikipedia: French involvement proved decisive[10] yet expensive, ruining France's economy and driving the country into massive debt.[11] A French naval victory just outside Chesapeake Bay led to a siege by combined French and Continental armies that forced a second British army to surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. Fighting continued throughout 1782, while peace negotiations began.

    At what point, will the people "DEMAND" justice?

    You are thinking of threatening Congress with guns to do your will? There is no smiley on the menu for that.

    Edit to add: Richard, what have you to say on the latter? Oops, sorry, I guess  you basically said it with this post?


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 1:45pm

    AA your problem is “You can’t handle the Truth”

    "But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

    You are thinking of threatening Congress with guns to do your will?

     No AA, our forefathers gave us the ability to threaten them, if  they ever refused to protect OUR rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

    One opinion among others of American Judges, who agree. 

    we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny…

    11

    The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process.

    https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/328/328.F3d.567.01-15098.html


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 2:20pm

    There's this thing called the "European Union", which somehow has brought a bunch of heathen countries speaking gibberish in something like 25 languages, and oddly enough it doesn't seem to be a "tyranny", in fact the trains run on time, highways are better than ours, people are kinda pacifistic, and they have good coffee, bischotti and cheese boards. And somehow, the populace has few guns or stinger missiles. How can that be? Why a Mussolini could waltz right in and mop up the joint, no?

    Most tyrannies be they South America or Burma grab the police force and army and use that to subjugate the people. There are very few examples where a few citizens with guns fought back against this (even though Finns with shotguns did manage to kill a few Nazi paratroopers in the snow). What might happen is that part of the police or army will storm a weapons depot and take a cache to fight back - and then we get a proper civil war, or like in Venezuela, the proper government is restored. But do we really need a 2nd Amendment to tell us "when the shit hits the fan, find whatever armaments you can and hit the woods"? And are we really using this maybe once in 150 years event to drive our lives - maybe we should all have weapons stashes like they had nuclear bunkers in the 50's? (and how many times have the armed militias been the tyranny, not the government - say Pol Pot, Sierra Leone, Shining Path - or call it a draw, like Batista vs. Castro)

    One thing people don't seem to notice is that in 1783, revolutions and military turmoil were pretty common in Europe and America. In the US this subsided once we got rid of all those pesky natives, while in Europe they decided by 1945 that getting rid of pesky natives was no longer an operable strategy and instead declared open borders. (okay, in the Balkans they needed remedial after school time, as usual). Somehow the Founding Fathers didn't have F-16's, Hueys, drones or satellite surveillance. No tear gas or stun grenades to clear a house (and they hadn't invented the skyscraper yet). And in those quaint homelife days, someone was always home, whereas now people go out for work, shopping, school, and there's an astonishing lack of servants around. So the feds could just lock up your front door while you're out, and sadly that mass accumulated pile of strategic nuclear weapons is useless inside your padlocked storage shed. Oh what to do?

    In short, the 2nd Amendment is so archaic and out-of-place, aside from the idea that you could have a gun by your bedside to keep the odd prowler from stealing or raping (no longer many farms/estates to protect, though we invented the barbed-wire fence & burglar detectors in the meantime too) - yes, that's not a bad thing, even though too many idiots let their kids get those guns so we have more accidental deaths than self-defense deaths. But this whole vigilante self-help protect-against-tyrrany scenario is so far-fetched and bullshit it's hard to see why people take it seriously. A tenth of that energy invested in coming up with sane policy and government oversight would probably do much more good. But then again, that might be expecting "Ode to Joy" from grade school piano class.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:39am

    Pesky natives? hahahahaha

    I have a new day here so I must render unto Peracles the Dayly Comment of the New Day Award for this here Dagblog site given to all of you from all of me with emphasis upon this gem of all time:

     

    There's this thing called the "European Union", which somehow has brought a bunch of heathen countries speaking gibberish in something like 25 languages, and oddly enough it doesn't seem to be a "tyranny", in fact the trains run on time, highways are better than ours, people are kinda pacifistic, and they have good coffee, bischotti and cheese boards. And somehow, the populace has few guns or stinger missiles. How can that be? Why a Mussolini could waltz right in and mop up the joint, no?

     
    Regardless of point, this is one of the funniest paragraphs I have ever read in my entire life and I am a fan of the old National Lampoon as well as Q and others. hahahaah
     
    I will remember this till the day I die; assuming that day is coming soon. haahahah
     
    This is nonpolitical. This is just plain funny.

    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:09am

    Nice to be appreciated - I do try to be funny at times amidst all the important wrangling where we save the world every day...


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:48pm

    I really hate to be in a disagreement with you Peracles. A 99.9% approval rating is what I usually give you  

    Ireland and Greece are amongst the members of the EU .

    Isn't the SHTF in both those places, or about to spill over or out?  into civil war ?   

    Cyprus is also a member and it has had it's share of violence, but is quiet, for now.  

    http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/adressen/eu.html

    Do you really believe, we've finally brought the drug cartel under control?

    Especially after the Justice Department sold them guns, and that is just the ones they identified. As I suspect the DOJ  played CYA?

    A tenth of that energy invested in coming up with sane policy and government oversight would probably do much more good.

    DAVID KEENE: And the other thing -- let me say one other thing. In the last year, 77,000 people who were on the prohibited list tried to buy firearms. That, in itself, is a crime. You know how many have been prosecuted? Seventy.

    70 /77,000

    I'm poor at math Peracles, what percentage is that?

    Maybe we could get at least a tenth of productivity; from our government that tells us about how to protect our most precious assets.  

    God knows, they sure are not using their resources, to go after the banks?

    I'll take that tenth, because I believe it would go along ways in solving the problem of guns in the wrong hands.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 6:46am

    Thanks for the praise.

    Cyprus is an outlier - they were foolishly let into the EU despite not settling the squabble with Turkey, though even there, the physical fighting is non-existent and they destroyed the dividing wall some years back.

    Am I supposed to feel bad that average Greeks don't have enough guns? First, despite the fault of the banks, Greece also has 50% non-payment of taxes - the financial crisis is as much the people's fault as Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank.

    But no, it's not going to civil war, even less of a chance in Ireland. Protests can be angry without being militant.

    And what do I care about the drug cartel - any chance it'll become anything like gang wars in Ciudad Juarez? In Amsterdam hash is hunky dory, in Barcelona and Prague you can smoke legally and drink absynthe, and heroin is for all intents decriminalized in various spots, while Berlin is just one eXtasy techno party in the new old Alexanderplatz. No need to bust a gut over this stuff - you'd then need to rely on socialist European health care... ;-)

    As for "trying to buy guns", well, maybe it's not a crime people should go to jail for - maybe prosecuting 70 is just fine, as long as 77,000 don't succeed (your quote doesn't say)


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:47pm

    As for "trying to buy guns"

    To illustrate, a robber should be punished, if they try to breach the fence or enter a pried side window, although they weren't able to finish the job they set out to do, because the alarm was set off, foiling their plan    

    If a person who has been adjudicated as being unfit or declared to have forfeited their rights in respects to guns, knowingly tries to breach the safeguards, of a data base containing the names, of those who are to be denied access to guns; they are just as guilty of trying to foil or find a gap in the fence or an open window of opportunity.  

    The alarm went off; they knew they were not to enter, as they attempted to take an action prohibited

    Just like leaving fingerprints at the scene; you may not have been caught immediately, but with a good investigation, the culprit is apprehended.

    They'll think twice before attempting another violation or condition placed upon them 

    77,000 felons or those deprived of the "right to bear arms" taken off the streets, would go a long ways in bringing security, to law abiding citizens.   


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 1:21pm

    I don't know that all 77,000 are bad eggs, and no, putting people in jail is about policy, not necessarily right or wrong. Buying cigarettes as a minor is also illegal, but would it be great to put every smoking minor in jail? For the 77,000 I simply don't know the background well enough to comment whether it's good or bad policy, and whether those are likely the next generation of criminals, or whether there are a million and we're looking at a few percent of possibly a problem.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:14pm

    People of status do not send their kids to schools protected by armed guards. They send them to Montessori and Waldorf schools so they can be taught how to make dandelion salad by people whose wealth is a fraction of their own.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:11am

    Resistance, FOUR Presidents have been assassinated by guns. FOUR others have been shot and survived. I can't think of a more horrendous (and therefore tempting) target for a crazed gunman than the President's children.  My children, and the children of most of us are simply not in that category. If they get shot it will most likely be a random act. Do you see the difference?  I didn't think so, because you are incapable of rationality. 

    You are one sick puppy. If I could I would certainly take your guns away from you. But in case you, in your paranoid delirium, are not aware, I CAN'T TAKE YOUR PRECIOUS GUNS AWAY FROM YOU. Too bad for society. 

    I can imagine the day after you shoot and kill your neighbor's teenager who drunkenly mistook your house for his, everyone saying:  "We'll, truthfully I always thought that guy was dangerous, but what could I do?"

    ....and you screaming, as they (hopefully) drag you off to jail, "I have a right to shoot anyone who comes into my yard!!!!!"


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:02pm

    Get a grip CVille, or get back on your meds?

    You're living in some fabricated fantasy world, where you envision that I am careless.

    Do you assume every one is careless? How paranoid is that.

    I feel sorry for the little ones who happens to be behind or in front of your car when your rage boils over. 

    Are you at the same place NCD is? He's sees lots of loons where he is. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:47pm

    You're living in some fabricated fantasy world, where you envision that I am careless.

     

    Resistance, you really are decompensating. I will not add to your mental problems by posting truth back at you. I feel sorry for anyone who has the bad luck to depend on you in any way. Good luck with your delusions. I hope you can bring yourself to get some help. 


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:36pm

    I hope

    For some reason, I don't sense any sincerity in your comment, other than another attack.

    My response to others are based upon my values and I am willing to risk the disapproval of others to live MY life; which is determined by the freedom I have.

    That is what are forefathers believed and they passed it down to those, seeking life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Resistance, you really are decompensating

    No CVille that is not decompensating,  

    It is living a life for and in the service of others to give to another generation, the freedom I received, in the hopes future generations benefit.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 5:23pm

    Resistance, the following (thanks to a Sullivan reader) seems to prove the NRA ad /assertions is not factual as it relates to armed guards at the school attended by Obama's daughters:

    I am a graduate of Sidwell Friends, in the same class as Chelsea Clinton (1997), so I know what I'm talking about on the issue of Presidential protection on campus. To respond to your misinformed readers, a few points:

    St. Albans and Sidwell have never had armed guards on campus. At Sidwell, this claim is particularly noxious, as it is a Quaker school. There was a great deal of uproar within the Sidwell community as to how to address the security needs of the President and his daughter against the school's core value of nonviolence. An accommodation was made, but for the most part, Agents did not accompany Chelsea to classes, and were not visible on campus. A detail sat in an SUV in the parking lot, another monitored what happened in the building in an office with CCTV. While I am sure they were armed, it was not obvious, so the claim of "armed guards" is ridiculous.

    Again, the NRA does not care about publishing the facts and truths.  It is law that children of POTUS have secret service protection.


    by Aunt Sam on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 8:15pm

    Good night indeed.

    Piers was continuing his panel last night and some would-be Miss America with tooooo tooooo much make-up is talking about how everyone needs to keep their machine guns so that they can defend themselves against government...

    In 1952 many would call these messages 'treason'.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:24am

    The Second Amendment say's "shall not infringe"

    Any who do, are to be recognized as working against the law.

    Treason? Maybe  

    More like

    Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 12:57pm

    I thought people were worried about Obama's assassination since Hillary's RFK comment.

    If all wingnuts are as crazy and ineffective as some idiot firing an AK-47 a few blocks south, Obama will live a long life.

    Of course it's strange the NRA arguing against protecting the president's kids, who are an obvious target for violence and kidnap. You'd think people would then argue against the president living in the White House - that's not equal - why not a townhouse or a fraternity house, or he can sleep in the park like thousands of homeless?

    Political dialog is just incredibly stupid these days. How did we get here?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:49am

    There is hardly a message spoken or written out there by lobbyists or pundits or politicians that were not created in some think tank.

    They all get their memos in the early AM and they all spew out the same garbage except now the message from the right is bordering treason! 


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:36am

    Ah, we took the sub(liminal) way.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 11:07am

    Oscar takes back everything he said under duress, says he was just on vacation, just thought you ought to know!


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 6:38pm

    THANK YOU!

    I get mental blocks....so what's new?

    Amazing, just amazing.

    There he is.

    Of course if you are nuts; your memory aint so good sometimes. hahahaha

    Yeah I wanted to know for sure!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:04pm

    The FBI's record of entrapping wannabe gangstas and losing transcripts/ recordings of proceedings is pretty awful. So we're left in a "I just don't know" situation. Christ, you'd think a case like this could at least be simple, and now it's degenerated into "he says, she says"


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 2:18am

    I fall right into conspiracy theories, which really is why I wrote my first blog on this subject in November of 2011.

    Here is an abandoned car a football field away from the White House? And they 'find' an AK-47 (turns out not Russian made but Romanian for chrissakes) and there were 'shots' fired at the White House and I discover all these 'findings' in some afterthought of a blog. 

    And recall the greatest line I have read in some MSM blog ever:

    And the police had to shut down Constitution.

    Meaning Constitution Avenue but the writer knew damn well the pun insinuated in all of this! hahahah

    And it was not a couple of shots, it was 11 shots and we know the Prez was out of town at the time but...

    And ArtAppraiser finds this squib 14 months later about how this mad man is recanting nothing.

    I guess it is not the 'conspiracy' but the treatment of this mess by MSM (submsm really since I do not recall hearing or seeing any of this on cable) is really weird.

    I do not believe you can kill the President of the United States by sitting on Constitution Avenue with an AK-47 in a car. Who knows?

    And as to your point; I mean look at the OJ trial and the California police....they screw up all the time. And I am not pointing fingers...I mean how many files/cases is each agent working on?

    If I had ten grand I would fly to DC and check out all the court records I could. The records are most probably marked 'top secret' but it would be fun as hell to speak with that blogger and see if I could connect with the cops and who knows?

    Remember the initial report was that this was some 'gang matter' and this stuff happens all the time in DC.

    I still find it the most fascinating story of 2011!

    I guess I went on a little bit too much here? hahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:32am

    Abandoned car was near the Roosevelt Bridge, 10 blocks away. The shots were supposedly fired at 750 years - 8 football fields.

    Ortega - dangerous criminal:

    A report in the Idaho Statesman said Ortega has racked up 18 citations in Idaho related to theft, drug paraphernalia possession, domestic abuse, underage drinking, numerous driving violations and, most recently, failure to affix a tag to his dog’s collar, according to the state of Idaho’s online citation database.

    That dog collar bit has me worried - it's a known gateway crime.

    9 shots were fired - don't know how many hit. (the 29 shots/11 hit were from a 1994 incident)

    BTW - do you own a dog?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:11am

    As I told Larry the other day when he asked why I had so much hate in my heart;

    I am getting older still, I have bad teeth, I buried my dog and I lack of any real aim in life.

    hahahahahahahah

    One of the links or two? now tell me there were 11 shots.

    8 football fields; damn I saw some stuff on TLC or some such and three football fields was some sort of limit? 

    Did the 'machine' have a scope?

    Was Mark Wahlberg involved?

    These are the questions which try men's souls?


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:19am

    "The Jackal" 1997 

    With Bruce Willis  the bad guy, and the range was over 762 meters

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


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 6:06am

    Did the dog have 3 legs, blind in left eye, missing right ear, tail broken, and accidentally neutered… Answered to the name “Lucky”?


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 5:34am

    Just a note, everyone, there is a discussion at 3pm ET on TPM prime about current policy, especially gun policy. I plan on participating.  Hope to see you there.

    (Yes, I broke down and bought a membership. Whatever Josh's flaws around technology, a chance for intelligent discussion is what it is.)


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 3:54pm

    Oh I am not mad at Josh.

    Mike is having problems keeping this blog site going.

    I missed this 'membership' thing and I shall look into it.

    I did not know there was a TPM prime.

    I will take a look.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 4:06pm

    TPM wants 50 bucks.

    I do not have 50 bucks right now.

    I could go five bucks a month.

    But I don't have it right now.

    I should be ashamed.

    I just don't have it.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 5:20pm

     I trust you Richard, you want a loan and you can pay me back? 


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 5:50pm

    No, I do not agree to postponed payments anymore.

    You do know that I could shoot you sometimes? Of course I never have owned a gun. hahahahahah

    As a matter of fact, I have offered Genghis (how might one deny a man called Genghis?) a few bucks a month to continue here. I like this blog site. I was mad when I never had the opportunity to be on the masthead.

    Frankly, I would rather send this blog 5 bucks a month than TPM which threw me under the bus. hahahahah

    Do you sell or do you not sell?

    Frankly I have come to the conclusion that I do not sell. hahahaha

    I did receive two computers over the last five years. hahahaha

    Anyway, thank you.

    Just QUIT FUCKING AROUND WITH AMMO AND GUNS.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


    by Richard Day on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 5:51pm

    Frankly, I would rather send this blog 5 bucks a month than TPM which threw me under the bus.

    I agree, but doesn't it seem that members of TPM get National recognition.

    Just QUIT FUCKING AROUND WITH AMMO AND GUNS.

    You must have me confused with someone who is careless.

    Do you appreciate a police officer performing a duty, to protect and to serve?


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 6:14pm

    I DO NOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH YOU?

    hahahhaahahah

    Resistance you are a nice man.

    But when you wish to discuss anarchy, I am lost. hahahahahah

    I am speechless. hahahahah

    We have to keep our children safe, we have to keep our teachers safe, we have to keep our mall visitors safe, we have to keep our worshippers safe...

    I dunno, I give up. hahahahah


    by Richard Day on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 6:21pm

    I DON'T WANT ANARCHY

    I only want to be prepared for it.

    First aid kid - Check , Water and food - Check,  Flashlight - Check

    Self Protection - Check


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 6:26pm

    hahahahahahahahahaha

    I dunno, you do make me laugh at times.

    JUST GIVE UP YOUR LOVE OF ANARCHY.

    hhahahahahahahahahah

    The Taliban is there for self protection.

    hahahahahah

    I am sorry.

    I am just in a mooooooooooooood. hahahahah


    by Richard Day on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 6:39pm

    The Taliban is there for self protection.

    Depends on individual perspective.

    If the people, hate the Karzai governments corruption; the folks living there, might think the Taliban restores lost values.

    I don't care for their values, I think it is barbaric, 

    But I didn't buy Bushes excuses either; "they hate us for our values" and then we turn around and prop up corrupt dictators.

    Google karzai corruption.

    One can't help thinking, we might be propping up the wrong man?

    One that the people hate and we're his protectors.

    I am confused. Damned if you do and damned if you don't 

    In hindsight, Maybe Carter should have protected the Shah?


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 7:13pm

    Latest Comments