Kveldulf • 43 minutes ago −
"Common-sense measures"..... "large-capacity weapons"... what amusing labels...
Interesting that they neglect the consideration the second amendment was written with the intent to protect the people (against foreign and domestic issues), not restrict. Such clarification of what the second amendment "really means" is not within their legitimate right to redefine for the people. The wording of the second amendment affirm this.... It means a handheld weapon equated to what is on the typical infantryman (organized militia).... a select fire rifle of any size, and sidearm.
I'm so thankful our governing overlords have found that corruption has more to do with the people than they themselves.... and never mind the rule of law....
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
From Lew Rockwell...
"Since it is impermissible for people to believe that government agents will carry out paramilitary raids to confiscate firearms, a paramilitary squad was sent to Girard’s home to confiscate his firearms."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/william-norman-grigg/california-gun-grabbing/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/william-norman-grigg/california-gun-grabbing/
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
MGTOW...Boomers worked hard for NOTHING
Al_Porter
35 Fans
The millennial men have witnessed their fathers and another men of my generation slave away, only to to be robbed by their wives through divorce, child support or just plain spending all the man's money (my ex). So they are not only MGTOW's, they are determined to enjoy life in the ways their fathers often never did.
19 OCT 2013 12:42 AM
35 Fans
The millennial men have witnessed their fathers and another men of my generation slave away, only to to be robbed by their wives through divorce, child support or just plain spending all the man's money (my ex). So they are not only MGTOW's, they are determined to enjoy life in the ways their fathers often never did.
19 OCT 2013 12:42 AM
Monday, January 27, 2014
HSBC gets off...BTCKing doesn't: FEDS DOUBLE STANDARD
Hunter • 4 minutes ago −
(Reuters - Dec 11, 2012) - "HSBC Holdings Plc
agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for
allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out
of Mexico"
(Forbs March 26, 2013) - "Standard Chartered, Britain’s second largest bank, paid $327 million to the Feds in December over alleged illegal transactions with Iran,
Sudan, Libya, and Burma that involved millions of dollars being moved
between 2001 and 2007 illegally through the U.S. financial system on
behalf of Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan and Burmese entities."
The list goes on and on. I hope that these guys have plenty of BTC on hand to payoff the Feds.
(Reuters - Dec 11, 2012) - "HSBC Holdings Plc
agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for
allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out
of Mexico"
(Forbs March 26, 2013) - "Standard Chartered, Britain’s second largest bank, paid $327 million to the Feds in December over alleged illegal transactions with Iran,
Sudan, Libya, and Burma that involved millions of dollars being moved
between 2001 and 2007 illegally through the U.S. financial system on
behalf of Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan and Burmese entities."
The list goes on and on. I hope that these guys have plenty of BTC on hand to payoff the Feds.
Frederich the Smoker is taking it on the chin...
Frank in reply to Frederich • 14 hours ago −
Your hedonistic lifestyle of fine food, liquor and black market tobacco sounds quite enjoyable. It's great that you don't mind dying a few years before the rest of us, because you will. Unfortunately, you're death will most likely be a very slow one due to the health effects of your lifestyle. The costs of your prolonged medical care will be exorbitant. They will be so high that it will be will utterly impossible for you to pay for them out of pocket. The costs will initially be absorbed by your healthcare provider, insurance company and the government. The costs will ultimately be passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher health care costs and higher taxes. You are the true parasite, enslaving the rest of us so you can eat, drink and smoke as much as you please.
Your hedonistic lifestyle of fine food, liquor and black market tobacco sounds quite enjoyable. It's great that you don't mind dying a few years before the rest of us, because you will. Unfortunately, you're death will most likely be a very slow one due to the health effects of your lifestyle. The costs of your prolonged medical care will be exorbitant. They will be so high that it will be will utterly impossible for you to pay for them out of pocket. The costs will initially be absorbed by your healthcare provider, insurance company and the government. The costs will ultimately be passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher health care costs and higher taxes. You are the true parasite, enslaving the rest of us so you can eat, drink and smoke as much as you please.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
"...desire for gun ownership is biological doesn't that make me a protected class?"
Bubba • 12 hours ago −
If my desire for gun ownership is biological doesn't that make me a protected class? Is it not discrimination to prevent me from carrying in NYC?
4 •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
tagalog Bubba • 12 hours ago
Exactly right. There must be minimal regulation of this genetically basic and fundamental need. For New York City or Chicago or any other U.S. community to regulate firearms is highly suspect. They should be subsidizing Gun Rights Days, where we can parade down the streets with our firearms fully exposed for all to see.
Anything else would constitute invidious discrimination.
President Obama could declare a new nationwide policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in which it could be left to all people to own firearms or not and to decide entirely on their own whether to carry at all, carry concealed, or carry openly, and what if anything to say about it if asked. Or would that be too much liberty for the Obama Administration?
If my desire for gun ownership is biological doesn't that make me a protected class? Is it not discrimination to prevent me from carrying in NYC?
4 •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
tagalog Bubba • 12 hours ago
Exactly right. There must be minimal regulation of this genetically basic and fundamental need. For New York City or Chicago or any other U.S. community to regulate firearms is highly suspect. They should be subsidizing Gun Rights Days, where we can parade down the streets with our firearms fully exposed for all to see.
Anything else would constitute invidious discrimination.
President Obama could declare a new nationwide policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in which it could be left to all people to own firearms or not and to decide entirely on their own whether to carry at all, carry concealed, or carry openly, and what if anything to say about it if asked. Or would that be too much liberty for the Obama Administration?
"un-invent gunpowder."
Werbil GeorgeVreelandHill2 • 10 hours ago −
By all means, get involved politically, and get that "outdated" second amendment repealed. All you will need to do is get 3/4 of the states to buy into the New England JOM's bogus stats, ratify a constitutional amendment, confiscate a few hundred million guns, un-invent gunpowder, and then win the civil war that is certain to follow such an obvious abridgement of individual freedoms.
By all means, get involved politically, and get that "outdated" second amendment repealed. All you will need to do is get 3/4 of the states to buy into the New England JOM's bogus stats, ratify a constitutional amendment, confiscate a few hundred million guns, un-invent gunpowder, and then win the civil war that is certain to follow such an obvious abridgement of individual freedoms.
One side of the "gun conversation" lies...
Jack Meirod 4 days ago
First, haven't we been having a "conversation" for years? Gun control/gun rights has been debated ad nauseum in the media (with the media usually coming down on the gun control side) and in the political arena. The gun control side has, for the most part, not advanced it's cause or accomplished any of its goals. Gun deaths and violent crime rates have been falling for years. So what is it, exactly, that we need to "solve"? Are we to engage in a futile and dangerous effort to create a utopia? Are you saying we haven't had a "conversation" until gun control advocates accomplish what they want, which is the elimination of civilian gun ownership?
Second, it's impossible to have a "conversation" when one side lies. Gun rights proponents are generally straightforward and honest about their beliefs: the Constitution guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms; the exercise of such right by responsible people is a net benefit for society; people have a fundamental right to protect themselves and their families and are not required to rely on the government to do so. Gun control advocates claim to just want 'reasonable' or 'common sense' restrictions yet support any and every restrictive measure no matter how illogical or lacking in supporting data -- often while giving lip service to "supporting the second amendment." The measures they support simply do not reflect the facile, self-serving propaganda.
First, haven't we been having a "conversation" for years? Gun control/gun rights has been debated ad nauseum in the media (with the media usually coming down on the gun control side) and in the political arena. The gun control side has, for the most part, not advanced it's cause or accomplished any of its goals. Gun deaths and violent crime rates have been falling for years. So what is it, exactly, that we need to "solve"? Are we to engage in a futile and dangerous effort to create a utopia? Are you saying we haven't had a "conversation" until gun control advocates accomplish what they want, which is the elimination of civilian gun ownership?
Second, it's impossible to have a "conversation" when one side lies. Gun rights proponents are generally straightforward and honest about their beliefs: the Constitution guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms; the exercise of such right by responsible people is a net benefit for society; people have a fundamental right to protect themselves and their families and are not required to rely on the government to do so. Gun control advocates claim to just want 'reasonable' or 'common sense' restrictions yet support any and every restrictive measure no matter how illogical or lacking in supporting data -- often while giving lip service to "supporting the second amendment." The measures they support simply do not reflect the facile, self-serving propaganda.
Don't believe the (Neuro) Hype?
spencer60 • 8 hours ago −
The fundamental problem with the approach mentioned in the article is that both sides need to be honest about their actual goals for it to possibly work.
On the pro-rights side it's pretty simple. We want the government to respect the Second Amendment the same way it respects the other constitutional rights.
At a minimum, any legislation impacting the right to keep and bear arms should fall under the 'strict scrutiny' aspect of our legal system.
That means that the benefit to public safety must be proven, and the harm to the right minimized, in order to pass constitutional muster.
The problem comes up with the gun control lobby's side of the 'negotiation'.
The plain truth is that they want to eliminate the Second Amendment, and remove the right to keep and bear arms from our Constitution.
This is not paranoia...Leaders in the gun control lobby have publicly said this many, many times over the last 30 years, usually when talking to their 'base'.
Spend 15 minute with any search engine and you will have no problem finding this to be the case. You can start with Sen. Feinstein and her 'turn them all in' quote.
Yet they know that this is an impossibility in the current political environment. They would lose all of their support in a heartbeat if they openly stated this for public consumption.
Negotiation requires that both sides are honest about their goals, yet the gun control lobby cannot do that.
Instead they must operate under the subterfuge that they want to limit firearms only for criminals, while in reality trying to pass laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
Until the gun control lobby has the intellectual honesty to publicly support their true position, there can be no 'negotiation' of any kind with them.
The fundamental problem with the approach mentioned in the article is that both sides need to be honest about their actual goals for it to possibly work.
On the pro-rights side it's pretty simple. We want the government to respect the Second Amendment the same way it respects the other constitutional rights.
At a minimum, any legislation impacting the right to keep and bear arms should fall under the 'strict scrutiny' aspect of our legal system.
That means that the benefit to public safety must be proven, and the harm to the right minimized, in order to pass constitutional muster.
The problem comes up with the gun control lobby's side of the 'negotiation'.
The plain truth is that they want to eliminate the Second Amendment, and remove the right to keep and bear arms from our Constitution.
This is not paranoia...Leaders in the gun control lobby have publicly said this many, many times over the last 30 years, usually when talking to their 'base'.
Spend 15 minute with any search engine and you will have no problem finding this to be the case. You can start with Sen. Feinstein and her 'turn them all in' quote.
Yet they know that this is an impossibility in the current political environment. They would lose all of their support in a heartbeat if they openly stated this for public consumption.
Negotiation requires that both sides are honest about their goals, yet the gun control lobby cannot do that.
Instead they must operate under the subterfuge that they want to limit firearms only for criminals, while in reality trying to pass laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
Until the gun control lobby has the intellectual honesty to publicly support their true position, there can be no 'negotiation' of any kind with them.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
A bad driver gets what he deserved...
Brian Adams • 3 hours ago −
I've logged over 4 million accident and citation free miles as a commercial truck driver over the last 20 years. I've seen countless instances of road rage initiate and escalate on our interstate highways during this time. I don't buy the claim the victim is completely innocent for once second. Things turn out like this when two stubborn idiots get mad at each other and escalate things into an all out war.
In the last 10 years the victim, Mr. Davidson, has had 9 speeding tickets, 3 "crashes", and has had his license suspended 3 times. Road Rage instigators often feel invincible behind the wheel of large vehicles like the one the victim was driving. The fact that he was pushed off the road by a little biddy ford ranger means the victim ran into a better bully and lost. Let this be a lesson to others out there who have trouble controlling their anger impulses. You just might run into someone just like you.
RE:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/victim-suspected-road-rage-case-made-multiple-911/story?id=21505191
I've logged over 4 million accident and citation free miles as a commercial truck driver over the last 20 years. I've seen countless instances of road rage initiate and escalate on our interstate highways during this time. I don't buy the claim the victim is completely innocent for once second. Things turn out like this when two stubborn idiots get mad at each other and escalate things into an all out war.
In the last 10 years the victim, Mr. Davidson, has had 9 speeding tickets, 3 "crashes", and has had his license suspended 3 times. Road Rage instigators often feel invincible behind the wheel of large vehicles like the one the victim was driving. The fact that he was pushed off the road by a little biddy ford ranger means the victim ran into a better bully and lost. Let this be a lesson to others out there who have trouble controlling their anger impulses. You just might run into someone just like you.
RE:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/victim-suspected-road-rage-case-made-multiple-911/story?id=21505191
Will IBM's Watson replace Doctors?
Louie Helm • 2 days ago −
Doctors don't bother to stay up to date on medical literature out of lack of time and laziness. PubMed and Google don't change that... which is probably for the best. Doctors aren't magically smart in all areas, and most practicing physicians are too statistically illiterate to properly interpret studies done by today's researchers. Watson is probably not better than the best doctors right now, but I expect that soon it will be better than the average (if it's not already). In a decade, it will be doing more of the intellectual work in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases than even the best doctors.
In 10 years, doctors are more likely to be obsolete functionaries who cling to their jobs via lobbying for state regulation (much like realtors today) so that they can avoid being entirely replaced by superior performing websites (like travel agents were).
Doctors don't bother to stay up to date on medical literature out of lack of time and laziness. PubMed and Google don't change that... which is probably for the best. Doctors aren't magically smart in all areas, and most practicing physicians are too statistically illiterate to properly interpret studies done by today's researchers. Watson is probably not better than the best doctors right now, but I expect that soon it will be better than the average (if it's not already). In a decade, it will be doing more of the intellectual work in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases than even the best doctors.
In 10 years, doctors are more likely to be obsolete functionaries who cling to their jobs via lobbying for state regulation (much like realtors today) so that they can avoid being entirely replaced by superior performing websites (like travel agents were).
Does she lose her 2A rights?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/maryville-teen-daisy-colemans-mother-brother-reveal-reaction/story?id=21492788
I would not venture a guess as to whether a crime of rape has or has not been committed in the initial allegations leading to this media spectacle.
I would not venture a guess as to whether a crime of rape has or has not been committed in the initial allegations leading to this media spectacle.
And I am also extremely skeptical whenever dead animals show up as evidence of a "campaign of heinous harassment."
However, can anyone tell me that, since the (media labeled) victim has been admitted to hospital for psychological distress and purportedly attempted suicide, will she be denied her firearm rights?
How can we ask the nation if this person should be denied a NICS check, etc. for firearm in the future?
http://www.news.com.au/world/
I think it sends a great message that women seeking treatment for sexual assault should become defacto criminals. That this particular victim (depending on whether a crime was in fact committed)
went one step further and "attempted suicide" is certainly grounds for her to be denied 2A rights from here on out...AMIRITE?
Friday, January 3, 2014
Comment regarding Just announced mental Health Obama gun grab initiative...
kemboi 4 minutes ago
On the surface this looks reasonable. However wait until some nut job official that Obama appointed interprets it to mean if you cried, or did not cry at a funeral you are unworthy to possess a fire arm.
On the surface this looks reasonable. However wait until some nut job official that Obama appointed interprets it to mean if you cried, or did not cry at a funeral you are unworthy to possess a fire arm.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
On the cali power grid attack we r just now hearing about...
zengphoo 1 day ago
MiddleAmericaMS Google Ayers+White+House+visit for bigger worries than fictitious agitprop memes bouncing along our internet superspyway. For extra points run Obama+CIA+Wayne+Madsen.
@ELCID My neighborhood grid drops in a light wind once a month. You're falling for fear p0rn security theater. Sure there are easy ways. But they lack the fear factor. A shoot-em-up has drama and, more to the point, calls for SECURITY GOON SQUADS.
The PTB could deploy backup mains transformers on standby in strategic node locations, complete with mineral oil tankers ready to roll. Big transformers have ordering lead times in years. The Corps of Engineers do such logistics even in battle zones. We plebes don't get them in peacetime. Instead the PTB buy hollow-point bullets by the boatload.
@all
If the PTB cared about your power, they'd unlock natsec secrecy slapped on stand-alone energy gen patents. The grid is long obsolete.
Triphase HV is century-old, horse-and-buggy tech for sheeple fleecing and control. Smart meters play a role, but think bigger. Think domination by energy and food. Do your Kissinger homework and google IMF+Riots.
Solar panels with decent efficiency are stamped secret or banned from import. You get only low-yield, expensive crapware. The PTB cannot suffer competition to energy monopoly. An illusion of choice is all you get.
Genius policy wonks: brush up on 'petrodollar' and 'interdependence' concepts. Plebes are meant to hang by threads, terrified of catastrophes requiring government moves. The playbook chapter is problem-reaction-solution.
Historians at CFR know Nimrod's playbook. He dispatched soldiers dressed as brigands into cities to make terror, but then promised deliverance from his uniformed army if only invited through the gates. Your final homework google term is Operation Gladio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)