Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
Let’s agree you can have any man-portable firearm, that George Washington could have owned.
Adam, let’s agree we can have any man-invented firearm, that George Washington would have died for, huh?
Suitably adjusted for the technology of the time, yes.
Hey, Adam, as soon as the police (who work for me; “the people”) go back to muskets, I will too, OHH KAY?
What does portability have to do with it?
Try to have your teenage son purchase powder, and other parts for his flintlock; then take it to school in his personal vehicle, or otherwise carry it with him…as is his right granted by the US Constitution and God…without being infringed. Or worse.
Try to present a coherent statement there “ex”.
Hey Adam! Let’s both be pro-choice. Let’s agree that YOU can carry a musket, and I will carry whatever I choose!
Hey Adam, just thinking here, that perhaps you deserve a less flippant answer, but consider this: If the 2nd Amendment is limited to muskets and swords, then freedom of speech must be limited to un-amplified voice and paper broadsheets. No radio, no TV, no internet or recording devices — nothing that Washington didn’t have, right? Same with freedom of religion; no New Age, no Baha’i…
My rather obvious point is that the limitations placed on government powers by the Bill of Rights are based on principles, not on specific but undefined technologies. If you have not read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers, they are worth looking at to see the reasoning behind the writings.
Private individuals (merchant ships) were not only allowed to own cannon, they were encouraged to. So why limit it to man-portable firearms?
Adam, do you also agree that we should have the right to own slaves like GW did? How’s about only giving property (land) owners the right to vote like Franklin believed?
Remember that in Washington’s time a private citizen could legally own any ship of war, or other weapon like a cannon. Does that mean that I can own a self-propelled howitzer as long as I buy a tag for it if I wish to drive it down a public road? It is after all man or driver portable
If you can’t own a self-propelled howitzer your freedom is limited .Where would you draw the line ? In the land of the blind one-eye is king.
A gentleman a few miles up the road from here has a 105mm howitzer standing outside his house.
Finest garden ornament I ever did see, beats the sh!t out of gnomes!
Washington owned slaves therefore everything the Founding Fathers did is wrong. By that logic, the FFs owned slaves and therefore there should be no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, no right to privacy, no representative government, etc.
The reason that slavery was not addressed in the Constitution was that it was dying out at the time and they projected that it would cease altogether. However, cotton was found to be a great cash crop in the South but it required lots of manual labor, which slavery provided. It was an unfortunate turn of events and it took another 80 years for it to be violently rejected.
To claim the FF’s were all wrong because of one prediction not coming true is too simplistic. Your thinking process is flawed, egregiously. You clearly have a Yes or No view of the world. What a shame. Read Judge Napolitano’s book on the Constitution—you might learn something of the shades of Yes and No.
Uh, I think I know that. In fact, if you a do search for “founding fathers” and slavery in GoogleBooks, my book comes up fifth: http://goo.gl/QXR5Ge
Hey Higley! Our founders did address slavery in the a constitution, stealthily. Mainly it came in the ‘Three Fifths Compromise’, which reduced the power of slave holding states by reducing their representation. If you don’t believe me, listen to what a former slave had to say about it…
“Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.
The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.”
Frederick Douglass (June 1863)
And his false teeth were wooden. Glad mine aren’t.
Hoplophobe.
My wife has an English Civil War musket – all perfectly legal and proofed to boot.
All the paraphernalia necessary to maintain it is freely available to those in the know.
You would certainly do better to take a hit from practically any modern firearm than the big soft lead ball that thing spits out.
How ingenuous of you. Back in those times private citizens had armaments that were sometimes even better than the military’s. Privateers, privately owned ships, were fully armed and given papers allowing them to be aggressors against the enemy.
The only way a free citizenry can ensure that their government will not try to oppress and take total control of them is for them to be able to own arms just as good or even better than the military and the government. The people need to be able to mount an armed revolt. Why else would every mass shooting be claimed to involve an AR-15 regardless of whether there was one at the scene or not? They have to demonize long guns and try to take them, knowing that there is no way a people could mount a revolt with just handguns.
We have about 30 million hunters whose goals are stealth and one-shot-one-kill. That’s great for us. We did make the mistake of agreeing to take fully automatic weapons off the table, but machine guns are mainly for making the enemy keep their heads down while our snipers get into position to take them out one at a time.
And, as mentioned below, it is ingenious to think that only man-portable weapons are “arms.”
disingenuous? “ingenious” is incoherent.
Only if you agree only to exercise your first-amendment rights using a medium available to George Washington.
Good one, Steve.
What part of “the right of the People” do some have trouble understanding? It means what the average infantry man would carry as a sidearm and long gun/rifle. Yesterday, and today.
Hi Steve, OT, but this morning I was looking out my window at snow-coated Long’s Peak and wondering how much had accumulated over the last day or two. Wunderground has easy access to snow data, so I slunk over to check it out. A glance at the US Snow Depth map had me puzzled as it indicated only about 8″ in the mountains west of FC. Animating the map shows a massive melt-off over the last week. How can this be? Looking at the Snotel data for Deadman Hill, the current depth is 74 inches and the snow water equivalent is the highest recorded since measurements began in 1979. Going to the NOAA website I found this snow depth map for Colorado: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/recent.php?period=c®ion=05
It shows 3 inches on Deadman Hill! Could this be another case of data tampering? Does this discrepancy migrate to drought maps, for example? I thought this might interest you due to your inquiries into dataset revisions and your physical location.
I’ve rarely seen as much snow up there as now, but I can’t think of any motivation for that to be misreported?
Snow pack is the enemy of drought, the friend of the Alarmists. Which, inconveniently, results from cold and dry conditions. FUBAR.
Great poster, Steven. Would love to have a poster size blowup of this.
This will incense the Left. For that, I am well pleased.
The problem now is that the federal gov’t has much more powerful weapons. The only advantage we have is in the numbers of citizens but it would take massive numbers of deaths to win if at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak
Rifles are cheap, tech weapons are not. This situation will slowly change but in the meantime Democracy keeps going.
You forget about bullets. Without bullets, rifles are worthless. The Feds have the ability to cause massive deaths right away. It just depends on who is in charge of the military. It took Hilter, Lenin, etc a while to have complete control. So far, Obama had 5 years… three more to go.
And Obama has FIRED MORE MILITARY BRASS than any other president.
Why has Obama Fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years? (nine Generals in 2013)?
This excerpt from the 133 page FOIA document may be one reason. It was obtained from the Department of Defence and is entiled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN
the whole document obtained by Judicial Watch.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-department-teaching-documents-suggest-mainstream-conservative-views-extremist/
This is now a part of the training for our military! Some how I can see traditional military types having a pit of a problem with this document as just one example of the “NEW, IMPROVED OBAMA ARMY”
#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.
#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn’t.
#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
#6. I vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.
#5. I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.
#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.
#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.
#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
.And the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it’s better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish here in America. We don’t care about the beetles, gophers or fish in those other countries.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. – Albert Einstein
Good List. 6 could be amended. “I vote democratic because only the president should have the right to sell untraceable guns to drug cartels and Islamist terrorists.
I hope sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs) of tyrannical one-world rule can end without violence.
It could if leaders of the scientific community would step forward to address nine pages of precise experimental data from the world’s best laboratories that falsify standard (post-1945 consensus) models of:
1. Heavy nuclei
2. Ordinary stars
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
No member of the US NAS , the UK’s RS, or the UN’s IPCC has accepted a standing invitation to publicly address nine pages (19-27) of precise experimental data from the world’s top research facilities that falsify their post-1945 standard (consensus) models of:
1. Stars
2. Nuclei
Thread bomber.
from the highly unpopular Dred Scott decision in 1857.For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went… and about the territories..For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government top the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
so we see that in 1857, the supreme court knew what the 2nd amendment meant.
jerry, yes, the very first gun control laws were written to keep non-whites from owning weapons. Such racist thinking was the primary justification to prevent slaves from being recognized as potentially free human beings. “Why, if black folk have the same rights as whites, then they would have the right to be armed!!!”
Modern gun control advocates are just as prejudiced today. Oh, maybe not about skin color — today;s prejudice is based on clothing. If you wear a special uniform or a certain hat or badge, why THEN you have a right to be armed. If you are just an ordinary person (no matter how law abiding, how ethical or how proficient), well, you cannot be allowed to defend yourself. Your Lords may carry weapons, but YOU? Pshaw… YOU are not a real human…
Jason get a life, I only showed that the right to keep and bear arms is a right and was recognized by everyone in the late 1700’s thru the 1930’s when they outlawed automatic weapons for citizens, just because Dred Scott isn’t acceptable today, it shows what people knew about the 2nd amendement
sorry I misread your reply at first, after rereading it. I screwed up.Sorry
Hey Jerry! Misunderstanding? No big deal, I sometimes let my sarcasm get away from me! Anyway, glad we are on the same side on this issue. Seriously, the “Progressives” seem not to realize that they have hit a breaking point with this issue. I pray that the USA does not see violence and a civil war — but if the control freaks of this nation continue their disarmament push, there will be problems. If push comes to shove, the liberals will have part of the military and 100 million unarmed civilians on their side. We will have part of the military and 100 million armed citizens on our side.
If the Progressives are even a fraction as smart as they imagine they are, they had better retreat and declare victim now.
Darned spell check… victim = victory Although it is a nice little Freudian switch…
Whatever you opinion is on guns and legislating them, the following article will change your view;
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
I am not from the US, but my attitude comes from the same place as driving licences. To drive a car on public roads, you need to have a registered, insured vehicle that has gone through some basic checks for roadworthiness and the driver has had to learn the road rules, pass theoretical and practical tests with a probationary period before a license is given. I have no problem with a person that has a registered and maintained weapon who has passed theoretical and practical tests regarding safety, maintenance and the use of a weapon from owning that weapon. For those that point to the US constitution, let me just remind that the relevant sentence starts with “In the interest of maintaining a well-regulated militia …”. That bit seems to be conveniently overlooked in this debate.
How do you stop criminals from using guns? You don’t. Laws will not stop criminals from doing anything because they are criminals who break the law. Laws do not stop criminal behaviour, they just define a society’s response to it. My suggestion is that if a gun (real or fake) is used during a criminal activity, just add 10 years to the sentence on top of what the offence itself will bring. So, a robbery is worth 5 years and a robbery with a gun gets 15. That 10 years should be served first before any parole or any other sentence discounting mechanism takes effect.
Truthseeker says:
March 9, 2014 at 2:16 am
Sir, you have no clue what you are talking about. Please read Federalist 28 and 29.
Did you read the article in the link that I posted?
Clearly not. I also think that Federalist 28 and 29 support my argument.
I have no problem with a person that has a registered and maintained weapon who has passed theoretical and practical tests regarding safety, maintenance and the use of a weapon from owning that weapon.
——————————
Would you have the equivalent types of qualifications required for the right to exercise freedom of speech or vote?
Gun control is all about the left’s desire for a monopoly on lethal force. When the left wants to initiate their draconian policies they don’t want any resistance.
I liked the old cold war, didn’t you? Mutually-assured destruction (MAD). The principle applies at the local level, as well. Who’s going to blink first when the communists come to steal your property?
Nice straw man there Justa Joe. I was comparing owning a gun to owning a car. You are comparing owning a gun to freedom of speech. Cars and guns can physically hurt people. Words cannot. Being offended or psychologically affected by whatever someone else says is a choice. Free speech starts with allowing someone to say what you disagree with.
“Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.”
Sound familiar?
‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.’
Sticks and stones won’t do the job and all registered guns will be confiscated.
Words spoken by despots kill in large numbers. Some can do it with a pen and a phone.
If you heed the US Constitution, which you apparently don’t, The right to keep and bear arms is a god given right just like speech. Operating automobiles on public thoroughfares is not an enumerated right as far as I know. On that basis your claims of “straw man” don’t appear to be valid.
Forgetting your first paragraph, the second suggestion is worthy of thought.
David A, thank you for looking at the entire comment. Please note that the first paragraph does not block your freedom to own a gun, it just ensures that you take responsibility for doing so. Freedom not only means choice but it also means accepting the responsibility of the outcome of that choice.
There’s nothing really novel about Enhanced Criminal Penalties for crimes involving a gun. They’re already prevalent throughout criminal law. It doesn’t appear to have made much of an impact on the criminal use of guns that I can observe.
It’s a cliché, but none of the training or control measures have any effect on the criminals who do the vast bulk of the firearm killing. You are controlling those who don’t need it, and those who do simply avail themselves of the black market. They are greatly aided by disarming of potential victims. Gun control is strongly negatively associated with victim safety and survival.
O-Finger is well aware of the above.
@ Truthseeker “To drive a car on public roads, you need to have a registered, insured vehicle that has gone through some basic checks for roadworthiness and the driver has had to learn the road rules, pass theoretical and practical tests with a probationary period before a license is given. I have no problem with a person that has a registered and maintained weapon who has passed theoretical and practical tests regarding safety, maintenance and the use of a weapon from owning that weapon.”
I really do see why such an opinion seems reasonable. I disagree strongly, but I can see the appeal of it. My disagreement — and it is a deal breaker for me — is this: Once you impose mandatory training, permitting, insurance or licensing, you have completely defeated the main reason for having a right to bear arms. Any right which can only be exercised when the authorities agree, is no longer a right. The right to bear arms is so that the population may discourage tyranny. Give the potential tyrant the legal authority to set standards, to issue permits, to require insurance, to regulate and mandate training and you have given the potential tyrant the ability to disarm the populace.
Driving a car is not a God-given right, enshrined in the Constitution using the strongest language found in the whole of that document. Thus, the analogy completely falls apart.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures that the People have the means both to act in self-defense against an aggressor, and also to act in deterrence to a tyrannical government. Those are the fundamental reasons why the Constitution states not that Congress shall make no laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, but rather that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period.
No laws, no restrictions, no regulations. Government cannot be trusted to legislate, regulate, or restrict law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.
Driving is not a right it is a privilege. That privilege can be revoked. Owning a gun is a right. You can lose that right and other rights such as voting by becoming a felon.
Margaret Berger, I believe that being able to travel from place to place is a right, as is the choice of the mode of travel. The requirements to get a driving licence is accepting the responsibility of driving a car on public roads.
don’t think you need a license to ride a horse or get on a train, so again you are wrong. try reading the 2nd amendment again and look for the commas
Steve, you forgot to picture New Jersey State Senate President Steven Sweeney, an otherwise “rough-and-tumble,” “throw homos off of the high steel,” leader of Ironworkers Local 399 of Camden, NJ. He kind of looks like Karl Marx, yet without the beard. He’s also the ironworker’s international representative that’s trying to ballwash the feds into not prosecuting the thugs of Philadelphia Ironworkers Local 401 that torched CHURCHES. Hey–at least they didn’t have guns. Gas cans and Zippos work well when one is not facing the heat of the moment.
He was at one time an advocate for those who owned firearms–“hunters,” as he redefined his position. Secretly, he must still be an advocate for hunters, because he carries loaded. One never knows when an eight point buck will cross your path in front of the State House in Trenton, NJ. He was at one time also an advocate for throwing homos off of the high steel. Since he’s been elected by the majority of the leftist population of NJ, however, he is now their best advocate for gay (faggot) marriage, and wants to limit magazine capacities for the Remington 870 Wingmaster that Mantua Township, NJ police Chief Graham Land stole from my home after my idiot ex-wife placed it under her chin. I lost the gun, but I gained freedom from a psychotic, fearful idiot.
This girl’s got it right:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151312030446726
I. Lou Minotti said at 5:14 am This girl’s got it right:
Yes indeed, as the lady said, the 2nd Amendment is there for us to protect ourselves from all of you guys sitting up there. (Charles Schumer & others)
Steve my comment got booted (too many links) It doesn’t even show as awaiting moderation!
Truthseeker
You can believe whatever you wish. That doesn’t make you correct. Driving in this country is not legally a right protected by the constitution. Owning a gun is a right protected by the constitution. I understand that makes a lot people unhappy and that since they can’t take away that right by a vote (majority of Americans want guns) they are trying to change that by parsing the meaning of the constitution or getting rid of it altogether. We get it. That is what this is all about. We want our guns, we have a right to our guns, and we are going to fight to keep them.
As to driving, try weaving in and out of lanes at three in the morning. If you are stopped and can’t walk a straight line and refuse a breath test your privilege to drive that car will be taken away from you on the spot, no trial or anything. That is why drunks bail and run after crashes.
margaret,
Yesterday I had a classic example of “AMERICA land of REGULATION home of the WIMP.”
We were stopped by a police officer and told we needed a permit from the city to engage in activities that have been common in parks since before the USA existed. We were not causing any harm what so ever or engaging in anything that normally requires licensing of any type however from the point of view of government bureaucRats, unless an activity is EXPRESSLY PERMITTED it is outlawed.
By the way we also want to keep our rifles, as well as our guns.
margaret berger says:
March 9, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Truthseeker
You can believe whatever you wish. That doesn’t make you correct. Driving in this country is not legally a right protected by the constitution. Owning a gun is a right protected by the constitution….
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
….
The one that the US Government has very blatantly mangled is:
AMENDMENT VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Here is what has been done:
Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:
We have slowly had our RIGHTS taken away by fast talking, double dealing politicians, lawyers and a Supreme Court that really needs to grow a pair and READ THE DARN CONSTITUTION and the Federalist Papers. The intent of the Constitution is made clear in those papers: thomas(DOT)loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
Mark Stoval BTW had an article up about how Prosecuting Lawyers and Judges are busy writing their own laws!!!!
We are no longer a country ruled by the rule of law but by the wimps of the ruling class and that should frighten the wits out of anyone with half a brain which ever side of the left/right debate they are on.
UNless of course you are on the side FOR TYRANY hoping to be one of the favored few.
Gail,
Wow, you go girl!
Personally, I prefer to hear from Truth Tellers that don’t hide behind self aggrandizing avatars.
A Truth Teller in the news who has won my heart is James Craig. He is a realist. He has a very difficult job. He is the police chief of Detroit. He knows that he and his staff can not protect the citizens of Detroit in the way they should be protected. He understands that the criminals are armed and dangerous. He has urged the law abiding citizens to arm themselves. Smart man, brave man.
Once again it seems that a number of posters fail to understand that gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.
Indeed.
As the quote goes: He who would control your actions, sees himself as your master.
“You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.” – Blondie, 1966
And to add insult to injury, Obama in his picture is clearly giving us The Finger. Says it all, really.
Another of his descriptive monikers: OFinger.
Ask your lib friends if they can think of, or even imagine, another President, past or future, who issues images of himself flipping (the country) the bird.
Uncle Barry wants YOU!
Poor old King George, bit harsh on him !
Andy
higley7 says:
March 10, 2014 at 1:48 am
“The reason that slavery was not addressed in the Constitution was that it was dying out at the time and they projected that it would cease altogether.”
Gator69 partially addressed higley7’s inaccurate sentence. Now here’s the other shoe: The Constitution forbade Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves prior to 1808. And no, it used the euphemism, “such persons” rather than the word, “slaves.”
Congress first tried to end US participation in the slave trade in 1794, from Wiki…
“On March 22, 1794, Congress passed the Slave Trade Act of 1794, which prohibited making, loading, outfitting, equipping, or dispatching of any ship to be used in the trade of slaves.[2] Then on August 5, 1797, John Brown of Providence, Rhode Island, was tried in federal court as the first American to be tried under the 1794 law. Brown was convicted and was forced to forfeit his ship Hope.[3] On April 7, 1798, the fifth Congress passed an act that imposed a three hundred dollar per slave penalty on persons convicted of performing the illegal importation of slaves. It was an indication of the type of behavior and course of events soon to become commonplace in the Congress.”
Jefferson himself declared slavery a “human rights” issue and signed a bill in 1807 that eventually made slave trafficking punishable by death. By 1819, our flagship the USS Constitution sat off the west coast of Africa, and it’s sole mission was capturing slavers.
In response to Adam Gallon’s comment,
KevinK says:
March 8, 2014 at 10:20 pm
“Hey, Adam, as soon as the police (who work for me; “the people”) go back to muskets, I will too, OHH KAY?”
Muskets? Yes, King George’s army was stuck with these inaccurate smoothbore weapons. But in terms of small arms, they were outgunned by the colonials, who had state-of-the-art Kentucky Rifles.
http://willstarr.hubpages.com/hub/The-Kentucky-Rifle