Nice.

Douglas county, just south of Denver, is doing something along those same lines. PD officers are sitting in school parking lots during their lunch breaks and either doing paperwork in their cars, or they are invited inside and get a free lunch (or they bring their own), which they're more than happy to sit with the kids.

Eating with the kids is a nice touch - if the proper officers are sent, it can develop a positive opinion of law enforcement and provide role models for those children who are lacking in either. It can also remind police officers that kids don't always make the best decisions, but that doesn't make them criminals.

Excellent ideas developed at the local level - more fodder for the Talking Points.

Nice to see; that's where it's at. (Solutions, that is.)

"One of the local towns here in the Phoenix area has a good idea. An elementary school principle asked the local police if they would like to utilize an empty office at the school as a police substation. The police agreed and now the police can do paperwork, make phone calls etc from that substation without the need to return the police HQ and get the small stuff done." TS

And they can hit on the young, hot teachers...

Here is a father of a victim of the Columbine shooting's testimony to Congress in May of 1999. Together with the testimony of the father of a child who was immersed in the Sandy Hook tragedy one of sound mind would think that the lawless will commit crime no matter what the law is. This can only prove that the movement to disarm Americans can only have evil intent. IMO this hits a nerve concerning the decay of our society.

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

Source: Snopes says this speech was made to a sub committee in May 1999

Snopes says this speech was made to a sub committee in May 1999

Outstanding. Thanks.

Leave my wife out of this!:D

The reaction to gun laws by the people of the North Country
 

I apologize if this has already been posted in this thread or others like it. These videos (the first being a quick summary and the second being a longer version of the first) is the people's reaction to gun laws in the North Country ie Northern New York. If you have a moment, enjoy

shorter version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhV...pOS9KQ&index=1

longer version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights
 

Outstanding piece in the Polemicist blog. I've been struggling with articulating my views on gun rights with friends, family and even strangers I've sat next to on planes. Not getting emotional or reacting to their irrational frothing, but sticking to the basic arguments and facts.

This is a pro-gun rights piece, but written by a New Yorker who considers himself a "left-socialist". He is not a gun owner, but believes in a full definition of the 2A. I could not have worded it any better than he did, and will borrow heavily for discussions with those in my AO.

(I didn't post the full blog here, as there are embedded videos and charts.)


The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights [LINK]

Excellent argument!

I disagree with his premise that the right is a "political" right. It is a right, pre-dating any sort of Government. The intention of the 2ndA is simply a protection of that right. The right itself is not written. The reason it is not written is because once you write down a right, that then permits lawyers to dissect the right, just like people try to do with a simple statement like the 2ndA. That is the reason the right is not written as "We the people have the right to hunt." or "We the people have the right to use firearms to fight a corrupt Government." It is not written because it existed before the USofA. The simple right to have and use firearms for any legitimate purpose imagined. Even just for the hell of it if we want.
So, I disagree with the "political" reason for his description of why the 2ndA was needed when written. It is (IMHO) simply a statement insuring a right is not infringed upon. Also (IMHO) it is not doing its intended job. We are not allowing it to do its intended job.
Ever since 1934 the Government has been doing exactly what this statement (the 2ndA) prohibits. Infringing. Funny how almost every other right has been expanded. The speech right has been extended to the point of people being allowed to tell LEOs to fuck off, give them the finger, and so on. Say bad words on the radio, show tits and ass on TV, and so on and so on. The right to vote has also been expanded, from once only allowing property owners (white type, one each) to vote. That right has since been expanded to allow women, minorities, and such to vote. All this expansion is no doubt, good for the American Citizen. For some reason however, the right to bear firearms has been more and more restricted. I find this funny (not in a haha way) and sad at the same time. Why are we, as American Citizens allowing this to happen? Why are we not fighting this tooth and nail? Why did people allow this to happen in 1934 and onward?
:) Just some food for thought.

Dan Bongino: “In a society of wolves you DO NOT fight back by creating more sheep.”

http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome...eople-control/

A short story on gun control from our neighbors to the north.

REGISTERING FOR CONFISCATION

January 8, 2013

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2081848359001

I agree with you on that. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

Since 25-30% of gun owners are Dems, I would expect a lot more Dems to be sounding off about not wanting additional gun controls. I've tried googling for articles, blogs, etc from Dems arguing for gun rights. I can't find much. I did find the web site for "Democrats for Gun Ownership" [LINK].

No Democrat in the Senate has come out against Obama's gun plan. None. I don't view the Second Amendment as a Dem vs Rep issue but apparently we can't do what's right anymore, because it doesn't follow the party line.

As you say, grog18b, there are points in the Polemicist's "Rifle on the Wall" that might not fit my views, but I was delighted to find someone left of center who was willing to speak up for the 2A. I wonder if anyone is listening to him...

Excellent Letter.

In my personal view the Second Amendment's intent was for Military Style Weapons, current ones too. Still kicking myself for not buying that suppressed mp5 they had in the now closed Scottsdale gun shop in 03. Thought 10k was too much! I guess not being woken up by the ATF doing surprise visits to check on it is some consolation...nice :rolleyes:

Can't imagine the uproar if the vacuous puttered with the First Amendment in the same manner they do with others, it couldn't possibly be self serving, could it?

An entertaining thought; current leaders draft a new Amendment, only four hundred pages long.

I fear the subtleties of complex, realistic, and profound thought combined with language craftsmanship are long gone from our elected leaders, and has been replaced with let's do something...whatever it is, we'll know what's in it when it is passed...

'Fundamental transformation' means destroying the basis. Doesn't require any more subtle, complex, realistic or profound thought than does using an ax to chop down a tree.

This is excellent and sums up the problem entirely! Thank you for posting this.

And that is why I will always practice civil disobedience when it comes to registering.

Good point...fools still have to understand it

I agree with you on all the post, Most excellent thinking. Especially the RED
portions. "salute"

Thank you for sharing this Team Sergeant. It's an honor to witness what I believe is a pivotal moment in American History. I quoted this because blanco5 made a comment typical of someone who chooses his 1A over his 2A. We have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason, and if the typical liberal listened more they would understand that our 1A doesn't mean much without our 2A. Non thinking people like him are what will ultimately lead to the demise of our liberties. The most recent election proved they are the majority IMO.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

And for the politicians who are doing everything they falsely believe will better our society, or the ones who propose legislation that infringes on my safety to push a liberal agenda in an effort to be re elected-

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I appreciate the 1100 Quiet Professionals who made their stance known.

dido!

and there many others like yourself whom will not wavier.

Yours Truly,

Tired of wimps, whiners, freeloaders, lairs, and emotionally void intellectuals with poor reading comprehension and logic skills imposing their fears and limitations on others.

Boy that felt good...

How ironic!

Indeed :D

Looks like some has the intestinal fortitude to just say it! ( Ie balls)

I'm not sure what you meant by the above... with the :D, but I was attempting to point out the irony of your criticism of people with "poor reading comprehension and logic skills" in a post filled with poor spelling and punctuation.

Spellcheck is your friend.

(Note to Newbies:
Some might say this is not important, but it is. The value of your words is lessened by poor spelling and grammar. Take your time. If what you have to say is important, it is worth saying well.)

After watching the POTUS give the SOTU address my thoughts...

I agree with one thing BHO said: Let's have a vote!


Put YOUR name on the line that strips the 2nd A from us! Let us know where YOU stand!

Congress, let's have a vote!

Thanks, I'll use my friend next time...and will correct the post when near a PC.

Too late. First impressions and such. Good luck in your next life.

Richard :munchin

And so it goes...

Originally Posted by Richard
Too late. First impressions and such. Good luck in your next life.
Richard

Originally Posted by Badshot
and so it goes...

Badshot

oh snap :p

NRA found this document
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

Memo from DOJ

http://americanvisionnews.com/5476/n...mo#commentlist

:munchin

How embarassing for the NRA. Even the 2nd source reference gets it wrong, calling it a DoJ memo and then citing what it really is, a study by the Nat'l Institute of Justice. One is a Big Gov agency, the other a think-tank that takes grants & does studies. (They also did a similar one that examined the efficacy of the Clinton AWB.)

If you will give a reasonable read of the document you will see they are documenting what the prevalent thought process is for simplistic advocates of gun control, then what the actual measures needed are to make such an idiocy work, and then a discussion.

They get grant money sometimes from DoJ but when the result comes out looking like this - as many of the post-Clinton CDC studies did - you'll notice that the DoJ is not very quick to publish and say, "a-HA!"

Finally, 'cause I'm tired, they get their source of illegal gun information from....
drum roll please....
the ATF. If you look at the chart/graphic they provide you'll see that this is not saying 47% of sales are straw purchases, it's 47% of the illegal guns, which is an unknowable number even if you're a Big G agency running sting storefronts in Milwaukee. (sorry, bad example)

Frankly, one of the things that drives despots crazy with the issue of private sales of any kind is that they don't have the widget they can count. They know there are hundreds of millions of firearms out there based on 4473 actions. But - what - about - the - ones - they - don't - know - about ?

It's a study, worthy of a thorough read, not just the Adobe highlights added by a blog.

Good explaination. Most importantly as I see it is the "plan" of the administration and DOJ to have universal background checks, registration of all firearms, nationwide gun buy back ( will not work). This all leads to a confiscation program no doubt. It is the intent to 'control' the population by disarmament.

I agree that would be some of their goals. I'm just also pointing out that their own studies, which objectively told them in all candor one (of many) ways ahead, have also told them it won't accomplish much. Other than to disarm citizens.

This is a case where both sides are highlighting their favorite parts of the same page. For one it's to sound a klaxon, for the other it's to help them in their playbook & talking points. Both miss the results of all these studies that indicate - THIS STUFF DOESN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING in terms of mitigating what their rhetoric says is their concern, something the QP's published treatise has addressed most eloquently.

With the volume of state gun control legislation - there is little doubt that our highest court will be rendering a decision on the matter in the near future.

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Washington Examiner
Paul Bedard
February 13, 2013 | 11:28 am | Modified: February 13, 2013 at 11:30 am

"Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America's demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned."

"Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets."

"And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he's softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns."

<snip>

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521413

New Ad from the NRA
 

Hard Hitting Video

Maybe the ''Low Information" will finally get it.

That is an awesome ad. It is about time someone brought this fact to light.

Crip