Devastating billboard angers the MSM, other left

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's what the start of transition to a dictatorship looks like for a place like America:

AP EXCLUSIVE: IRS KNEW TEA PARTY TARGETED IN 2011
by Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
May 11, 2013

From the article:

Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

and

IRS Inquisition Update
By Kevin Williamson
May 11, 2013

From the article:

Along with targeting tea-party groups, the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.

Jews and Tea Party, huh?

Nice.

This was to ensure Obama got reelected. This was a corruption of the election process.

Now, for those who turn a blind eye to Obama's constant efforts to increase government powers to do things like infringe the Second Amendment, let's project in the future a bit.

Let's suppose a gun restriction gets passed, then another and another and so on, each with more and more restrictions put on gun ownership and registration until it is near impossible to own guns. (See Australia for a good example of how that works in record time.)

Now imagine the Democrats staying in power a long, long time because they do all these dirty tricks with the IRS--including other abuses of power--to corrupt the electoral process. Imagine how that increased power can feel to an IRS agent and how the feeling can grow, especially against an increasingly unarmed population. Has anyone ever heard of an IRS agent bullying someone? Hmmm? Hmmm? Is there any reason to believe they will become more polite and considerate with more power than they now have?

Anyway, the Dems are running the show and after a while we have a nice bloated government with lots of nice IRS agent thugs and bullies (among others) who make people absolutely terrified to speak out against the powers that be.

Now imagine a scandal or something disrupts the Democrats and a strongman Republican Progressive gets elected--even against all the dirty tricks. You know, someone who makes George Bush look like a pussycat.

Now imagine America after he is handed all that power on a silver platter...

Good thought?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And here's how you control the media so no one gets any traction. At this point, it doesn't matter if the Second Amendment gets infringed. People will forget about it over time and become good little cattle.

Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi
By Noel Sheppard
May 11, 2013
Newsbusters

From the article:

"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."

So stated political consultant and media commentator Richard Grenell on Saturday's Fox News Watch

. . .

For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

As for David Rhodes' brother Ben, he is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.

. . .

Consider, too, that CBS News executives possibly including Rhodes have allegedly come down on their own investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson for "wading dangerously close to advocacy on" Benghazi.

Can anyone imagine a strongman figure ignoring the effectiveness of this?

Lots of wars are just waiting to be fought. It's nice to have a sales team in family.

Michael

[Guyau]

Michael,

#101

There was this same "start" by Nixon. America was saved.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

America was smaller then in resources and less deadly (and I don't mean guns).

Also, Nixon was not nearly as competent as Obama. Before Watergate, he blew his credibility with the wage price freezes.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

We do not require the assistance of the kooky wing of the NRA to keep our guns. Never have.

I have no idea how you have determined what we do and do not "need" in this regard. I'm not even active in the movement against gun laws. Are you? I'm therefore thankful for anyone who defends this important right. Historically, people we might consider religious kooks, including people who have been willing to be burned at the stake rather than recant their heresies, were at the forefront of the battle for religious freedom. And what could seem more "kooky" to many moderns than to submit to a painful death over a seemingly trivial point about, say, the Trinity.

I don't own any guns and I haven't even fired a gun in over 30 years, so I don't have a lot of emotional investment in this issue. But I am thankful for those who do, including "gun nuts," for they are the ones most likely to vigorously defend a right that I regard as extremely important.

That we have taxation does not mean that we will eventually have 100% taxation or state ownership of everything. That we have weapons prohibited to all private citizens does not mean that eventually all weapons, shotguns and rifles in particular, will eventually be prohibited to all private citizens.

This is not a matter of all or nothing. In case you haven't noticed, governmental power has increased substantially over the past 50 years in a variety of areas, thanks to both Democrats and Republicans. So what makes you think that it won't continue to increase without determined opposition?

[Guyau]

I am significantly more free today overall than I was 50 years ago due to one reduction in the power of the government across levels.* It is a gain very significant to me. It is also a gain that the military draft was stopped, significant to me though I would no longer personally be subject to it anyway. We did not succeed in stopping the return of draft registration, on which I worked a lot, but so far, young men have enjoyed the greater liberty of not being drafted into the service that so many did not enjoy 50 years ago.

Freedom to own a rifle and shotgun, as 50 years ago, is also significant to me. It is not the case that people defending the right to own semiautomatic weapons with a capacity of thirty rounds were defending my right to own shotgun or rifle, notwithstanding their slippery-slope fantasies to the contrary in this area.

I still think the real prospect for substantial reduction of freedom over the next decade has nothing to do with slippery-slope speculations in any area. It is, as I mentioned on another thread a couple of weeks ago, the public debt and the higher taxes and devalued money that will be required to meet it. Reducing the federal budget for the sake of people’s better material liberty is a worthy and level-headed defense of freedom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll bring that earlier post forward.

.

George,

Yes. I quite agree that there are many things that at some time or other Americans were free to do and took for granted as a rightful freedom, but that later were prohibited. Similarly, there are significant things formerly prohibited, taken for granted to be rightly prohibited, and which we are now free to do.

No. We do not require the assistance of the kooky wing of the NRA to keep our guns. Never have. Many, many American families own guns, have horse sense, and vote. And the fact that they belong to the NRA does not mean they are aligned with its kooky and deceitful (or ignorant) elements, such as would put up such a billboard. My families, Indian or White, know better than that; most all belong to the NRA. Yes, I resent the stereotype representation of Indian history in that display (as well as in portrayals of Indians of yore as environmentalists).

That we have taxation does not mean that we will eventually have 100% taxation or state ownership of everything. That we have weapons prohibited to all private citizens does not mean that eventually all weapons, shotguns and rifles in particular, will eventually be prohibited to all private citizens. Other points besides 0 or 100 in the social dynamic can be equilibria or at least points about which there is oscillation on and on.

No. America and its freedoms are not about to crash. Been hearing the alarmists for decades. Not happening.

When evangelists I used to meet in public places in Chicago would get around to telling me about Hell, I would say "Now that. That idea is a human error and not a very nice one." The coming economic collapse and rioting in America we've been hearing about from 1957, before, and since is I would bet mostly the result not from such vengeful wishful thinking (as with the fideist) as from mistaken, inadequate theory of our society. A very forgivable inadequacy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I don't recall anywhere in the Second Amendment where "right to bear arms" was limited to rifles and shotguns and excluded new inventions in weapons.

Using a rifle or shotgun only against attackers outfitted with semiautomatics would be akin to people using bows and arrows against the guns of yesteryear.

It's something, and that's better than nothing, but it's not really what you need to protect yourself.

Like the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gunfight unless you don't mind being shot...

Anyway, the spirit of the Second Amendment was not about protecting your right to bring a knife to a gunfight if bad guys show up. It was about being able to adequately protect yourself, your family, and your neighbors, if need be, against anyone, especially a government that decided to oppress its citizens. And that means having the right to have similar weapons.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

[KacyRay]

I sorta like the idea of good non-lethal weapons. If I could taze (and then pummel) an intruder, that would be a story I'd love telling for the rest of my life.

Shooting them would be anticlimactic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I actually resonate with your sentiment. I love the image.

But here's the reality check. Which is the work of rights.

Supposing you did get confronted by a situation with an armed assailant.

Would you bet your wife's life or your children's lives on being able to tell a good story? Or would you just go ahead and shoot the bastard and worry about the dramatic elements of the situation later?

Michael

[KacyRay]

Assuming I was able to identify that an intruder was armed, of course I'd shoot him. Then I'd probably shoot him again.

Then I'd call 911. Then I'd probably shoot him again.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

LOL...

You and I are a lot more alike than one could assume from our discourse.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Rifles and shotguns are too cumbersome if confronting intruders in the narrow confines of a home, particularly hallways & bathrooms. Add to that most rifle rounds and in particular, a .223 round, will easily penetrate walls, thus posing a danger to anyone behind them. A 15 + 1, .40 cal semi auto, loaded with hollow points, with several spare magazines, is my first choice. If you want a shotgun, a 20 gauge, with pistol grip instead of the rear stock & an 8 round capacity is what I would recommend. Unlike a 12 gauge, a 20 gauge's recoil can easily be handled by women & children, with sufficient stopping power.

[Guyau]

Thanks all for the technical information.

Michael, I have not concluded whether assault-style weapons should ever have been legal or not. (I do support the right to own handguns, notwithstanding all the down side.) If I understand correctly, in federal law, private citizens are allowed to own machine guns. Maybe it is the relative popularity of assault weapons over machine guns that brought the issue to a head.

During the debates, I once heard it argued that citizens need assault weapons to protect themselves if attacked by a gang. I’ve never heard an actual case of such defense. As far as the argument that citizens should be allowed these weapons so the people could better succeed in a revolt against the government, I would note that these weapons numerous among the citizens would also result in higher casualties in a civil war. I don’t think the idea that the citizens should have all the weapons of government forces is sound. If citizens had shoulder-launched rockets, sooner or latter there would be mass murder by a nut case shooting down commercial aircraft.

I gather that so far the main use of assault weapons by the citizens is for entertainment. Evidently that was its use by the mother of the Newtown murderer. I am familiar with the entertainment aspect of firearms. I have fond memories of us kids loading shotgun shells upstairs at the grandparents’ farmhouse. Every now and then, we would put in a little extra powder to give the shooter a surprise. The reason we had taken to loading our own shells was for cost savings. And the reason that was an issue at all was not because of the amount of ammo we were using in hunting, but in shooting skeet, which we did from the yard off into the pasture. It is a lot of fun and improves skill for hunting, especially our quail hunting in tight brush. I imagine the assault-weapons set gets some analogous sort of enjoyment.

[Brant Gaede]

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Rifles and shotguns are too cumbersome if confronting intruders in the narrow confines of a home, particularly hallways & bathrooms. Add to that most rifle rounds and in particular, a .223 round, will easily penetrate walls, thus posing a danger to anyone behind them. A 15 + 1, .40 cal semi auto, loaded with hollow points, with several spare magazines, is my first choice. If you want a shotgun, a 20 gauge, with pistol grip instead of the rear stock & an 8 round capacity is what I would recommend. Unlike a 12 gauge, a 20 gauge's recoil can easily be handled by women & children, with sufficient stopping power.

In my house a .223 would work fine. A 16 gauge shotgun is probably the best all around of the four common gauges for the reasons you stated. I like the .223 for the greater rate of fire than the shotgun and higher capacity magazine. I don't want the bad guys to manage to penetrate the structure; I don't need their blood all over my carpet. I like your handgun choice but it looks too cumbersome for concealed carry.so I'd likely go with a .38 special sub nose revolver. What's nice about any revolver is you need devote no time to wondering if the safety is on or off.

--Brant

love a woman who packs heat--not like that ditz in Fargo

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks all for the technical information.

Michael, I have not concluded whether assault-style weapons should ever have been legal or not. (I do support the right to own handguns, notwithstanding all the down side.) If I understand correctly, in federal law, private citizens are allowed to own machine guns. Maybe it is the relative popularity of assault weapons over machine guns that brought the issue to a head.

During the debates, I once heard it argued that citizens need assault weapons to protect themselves if attacked by a gang. I’ve never heard an actual case of such defense. As far as the argument that citizens should be allowed these weapons so the people could better succeed in a revolt against the government, I would note that these weapons numerous among the citizens would also result in higher casualties in a civil war. I don’t think the idea that the citizens should have all the weapons of government forces is sound. If citizens had shoulder-launched rockets, sooner or latter there would be mass murder by a nut case shooting down commercial aircraft.

I gather that so far the main use of assault weapons by the citizens is for entertainment. Evidently that was its use by the mother of the Newtown murderer. I am familiar with the entertainment aspect of firearms. I have fond memories of us kids loading shotgun shells upstairs at the grandparents’ farmhouse. Every now and then, we would put in a little extra powder to give the shooter a surprise. The reason we had taken to loading our own shells was for cost savings. And the reason that was an issue at all was not because of the amount of ammo we were using in hunting, but in shooting skeet, which we did from the yard off into the pasture. It is a lot of fun and improves skill for hunting, especially our quail hunting in tight brush. I imagine the assault-weapons set gets some analogous sort of enjoyment.

Private citizens can own machine guns with a Federal permit. People who enjoy firing them are typically dealers too. The 2nd Amendment is too broad and inclusive. Basically the Constitition is a structured way to protect rights from Federal authority, never mind the contradictions. The 2nd is derived from the primary right to self defense and to a much less extent from the right to acquire and own property. The virtue of the 2nd is the courts are too stupid today to understand what a right is unless they get bitch-slapped in the face wth it. That wasn't the case when the Constitution was proposed, but it was the feared case, hence The Bill of Rights was tacked onto it so the damn thing would get ratified even though it was rightfully feared strong central governance would ruin the country, which it did, right off the bat starting with the "first" President of the States United.

--Brant

the present-day battle isn't over my right to have nuclear bombs and chemical weapons and IEDs in my garage

The primary purpose of The Bill of Rights was ratification of the new constitution--secondarily it was to reserve to the people and the states their rights--presumably the states could regulate weapons and militia and the federalies could fear them marching on Washington if they got too uppity--Hamilton knew better; he got what he wanted and Jefferson and even Madison got screwed in the fullness of time even though my grandfather was criticized for citing Madison in Congressional testimony supporting aspects of Rossevelt's New Deal, if not the packing of the Supreme Court which has seemingly intimidated the third branch to this day in its refusal to overturn any Federal statute since

[Backlighting]

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Scoped rifles give civilians a distinct advantage over attackers with semi-automatic weapons. It's the ancillary equipment available to the military that gives it the overall advantage. The military, of course, has sniper rifles civilians can only dream of. In a home invasion I'd favor a semi-automatic .223 assault rifle over a 12-gauge tactical shotgun over a handgun. None would do much good if I were taken by surprise. Alarms, video, strong doors, dogs, fortified rooms, etc--all are more important. Going outside you give up all advantage unless you've set up something sweet. Actually getting into a gunfight isn't smart; you might lose. I wouldn't consider it a gun fight if I did all the shooting. That's the way I like it.

--Brant

Rifles and shotguns are too cumbersome if confronting intruders in the narrow confines of a home, particularly hallways & bathrooms. Add to that most rifle rounds and in particular, a .223 round, will easily penetrate walls, thus posing a danger to anyone behind them. A 15 + 1, .40 cal semi auto, loaded with hollow points, with several spare magazines, is my first choice. If you want a shotgun, a 20 gauge, with pistol grip instead of the rear stock & an 8 round capacity is what I would recommend. Unlike a 12 gauge, a 20 gauge's recoil can easily be handled by women & children, with sufficient stopping power.

In my house a .223 would work fine. A 16 gauge shotgun is probably the best all around of the four common gauges for the reasons you stated. I like the .223 for the greater rate of fire than the shotgun and higher capacity magazine. I don't want the bad guys to manage to penetrate the structure; I don't need their blood all over my carpet. I like your handgun choice but it looks too cumbersome for concealed carry.so I'd likely go with a .38 special sub nose revolver. What's nice about any revolver is you need devote no time to wondering if the safety is on or off.

--Brant

love a woman who packs heat--not like that ditz in Fargo

Glocks have no safeties to fumble with-they're all business. .38 specials, unless hand-loaded up to their potential, are not reliable stoppers. A Charter Bulldog .44 special I believe would be a better choice. As for the blood on my rug, I'd rather have the intruders spilled there than mine. Small price to pay.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a real Second Amendment headache for the government, and it involves Internet privacy and a host of other areas.

3D Printing.

It is now possible to print a plastic gun that fires.

Here's the government response so far. Go to this site (ahem... er... I kinda go to places that are... well... you'll see... )

Defcad

It is run by Defense Distributed

Here is the purpose of this last:

HOME OF THE WIKI WEAPON PROJECT. A NONPROFIT EFFORT TO CREATE FREELY AVAILABLE PLANS FOR 3D PRINTABLE GUNS.

Here is part of the welcome message of Defcad:

This site is a makeshift response to Makerbot Industries' decision to censor files uploaded in good faith at Thingiverse, specifically firearms-related files. We are hosting as many of the pulled files as we can find.

And here is a red banner running on top of the Defcad site:

DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls. Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.

Isn't that John Kerry?

Anyway, there is going to be a horrible push by the government to contain this information, but the cat's out of the bag. Guns might eventually become really hard to own, but how about if you can print your own guns and ammo from plastic?

It's only a matter of time--and not all that much time at that--before they improve this technology by quantum leaps.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Anyone will be able to print a gun soon?

I know a lot of folks who think that will make the world a much safer place.

Guess we're going to find out.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

They already do print guns.

It's just a bit expensive right now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Things just keep getting better and better on the gun control side of the debate.

Now Iran--yes, that Iran--is going to chair the United Nations forum on arms control (see here).

That's refreshing.

Maybe they can teach the world something by example...

Michael