Gun Conversation: The Lie Within “No-one Is Saying That”….

You keep hearing *them* in the gun control movement use the term “no-one is saying that” in regard to complete gun confiscation.   Why?  Because they need to seem more moderate than the argument they support.   Yes, indeed people are saying that…. yes.

fabian-400-glassEssentially… The Last Refuge (Treehouse) position has been sharing information, and connecting dots about gun control, based on historical research references into the ideological goals of the progressive left surrounding President Obama.

While we each have individual opinions on all the various aspects of gun ownership, that point, meaning our opinion, is essentially moot in regard to sharing this information.   The aspect we share is predictive in nature – meaning:

            • ‘who are they’
            • ‘what are they doing’
            • ‘why are they doing it’, and…
            • ‘what they will do’.

The economy, jobs, homelessness, hunger, inflationary impact of a diminished dollar, housing, energy costs, the price of gasoline, burdensome tax rates and a nation in financial crisis are irrelevant to President Obama.   FIRST, ACCEPT THAT.   They do not care about that stuff – it is an annoyance and irrelevant to the “why” behind their goals.

They deal with those “annoyances” like swatting away gnats.   To the extent they are trying to get more time to focus on the stuff that is more important.   Remember this key truth:

We do that which is important to us…

Meaning, by human nature, and absent of outside pressure to leverage behavior, given options of activity – we exert energy only on those things we find of value.   “What” we value is based on our upbringing and compass points – or goals.  “Actions speak louder than words” is a historically wise saying that reflects the same concept.

This is a baseline that must be clearly understood if you are to engage in understanding what lay ahead regarding “gun control” and the progressive ideology.

Clinton - Ya gotta make it look like ya mean it though   Obama - ooooohh gotchaIn the 1990’s President Clinton had two major attempts at massive ideological progress for Fabian Socialists, or modern-day progressives.   Healthcare reform, spearheaded by First Lady Clinton – which failed miserably, and Gun Control – Which passed as the “Assault Weapons Ban” but only with a 10 year sunset provision.  Then his penis caused all the problems.

Fast forward to absentee Senator Obama 06’/07′ who became President Obama.   The same rookie players who Clinton had are at work within this Obama administration only all grown up, smarter, more manipulative and well-studied on bypassing congressional roadblocks.   In addition they are now colleagues with even more radical Alinskyites in the mold of the Weather Underground types created from within the bowels of the Center for American Progress, the modern (Fabian socialist) progressive think tank.

The big “gets” which define the goals of modern Progressives (the Fabian Socialists) are:  (1) Control of Healthcare  (2) Control of Finance, Banking and Treasury aspects.  (3) Control of Energy use/production.  (4) Control of Food supply/production.  (5) Control of citizenry [meaning gun control] to insure that all prior controls are not reversed, and there are no consequences for their behaviors.   [gallows control]

Delivery Methods:

            • 1.   =  Obamacare
            • 2.  =  Dodd/Frank, and Consumer Protection Agency (Elizabeth Warren brainchild)
            • 3.  =  Environmental Protection Agency overreach – regulation.
            • 4.  =  Environmental Protection Agency overreach – regulation.  Farm Bills.
            • 5.  =   ?   Currently TBD 

When you understand the “goal” you can see the “approach”.   Everything taking place, all the people being moved around, every position being filled, is with the specifics of the longer goals in mind.

Pay attention to the language they use, and the pressure tests they use with “trial balloons”, or intentional leaks.   Within the leaks you see their moves;  and that narrows their options.

Questions:

  1. Why ask NRA to visit White House if legislation already written?
  2. Why ask Wal-Mart and Dicks Sporting Goods to White House?
  3. Why is CNN trotting out the most whacko of all gun control whacknuts “Alex Jones”? …
  4. Why is Jack Lew the primary candidate for Treasury Sec?

These are rhetorical questions because you already know the answers.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Clinton(s), Communist, Dem Hypocrisy, Harry Reid, media bias, Obama Research/Discovery, Obamacare, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Predictions, Socialist, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Gun Conversation: The Lie Within “No-one Is Saying That”….

  1. howie says:

    Who are they?…CPUSA
    What are they doing?…Fundamentally changing America from a constitutional republic to a democratic national socialist state.
    Why are they doing it?…They are communists. Communism and an armed populace to not co-exist.
    What will they do?…Couch the confiscation and emasculation of guns and their owners as “Gun Safety.” Reasonable measures to protect children and families from harm.

    Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      Read the comments.

      Like

    • cajunkelly says:

      From the comments:
      What this amendment ACTUALLY says is that health care coverage, premium rates, and any participation in health and wellness programs shall not be affected by an individual’s lawful ownership, use, or storage of firearms or ammunition, nor shall such data be collected on individuals (Sec. 10101)

      This is a restriction placed on health care providers NOT the government. It neither strengthens or weakens the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

      Like

      • howie says:

        I think they will start with a title for guns, like a car, and a license for gun owners, like a driver. A “fee” will of course be charged. An expansion of the FFL rules will be included in the “package.” Citizens will be forced to sign the dotted line of implied consent. waiving their constitutional rights. That is how they do everything else.

        Like

  2. brocahontas says:

    I kind of like Alex Jones. He injected more off script memes in 5 minutes into the CNN audience than they will here ever expressed in the MSM. They will remember what he said even if they don’t remember who said it. He is better at the media’s game than they are. He does come across as a nut job, but that may protect him.

    Pretty crazy how broad of a push this is. Assault rifles account for less than one percent of gun homicides. That information needs to get out there. And if they push for a gun ban it must apply to government officials as well.

    Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      IDK. Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut. I got caught up in his game long ago but then came to my senses. I fail to see how anything he says will prevent gun control but OTH, I do not see how anything anyone says will make a difference.

      I tend to think he was “used” by CNN and Jones, unwittingly, participated.

      Like

      • brocahontas says:

        That is how they will spin it but everything he said was true. I take Jones with a huge grain of salt and find him pretty funny. The need for calm “rational” conversation proposed by most liberals is simply a cocoon of comforf weak minded people like to wrap themselves in. Jones attacks that sense of comfort in an extremely obnoxious, humorous and direct way. They kicked him off because be didn’t play by their rules. Look at how they treated the NRA guy. That is what they do, or they team up on you, when you try to have an honest conversation.

        Like

    • ThatOldGuy says:

      http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/01/09/wednesday-open-thread-january-9th/#comment-284616

      I touch on what you said here. I think Jones actually did a decent job too, and that he–and Morgan–planned the interview more carefully than it may seem to most.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      Listening to Alex jones is like trying to watch a movie with Gary Busey… exhausting and you feel all nervous, anxious and sweaty.

      AJ is not representative of gun owners. But that is not what CNN was looking for. They were looking for the wing-nut who would look stupid on TV – mission accomplished.

      Alex Jones defending gun ownership is about as useful as Mitch McConnell defending conservatives. Which is to say.. not really.

      Like

      • elvischupacabra says:

        Yes, the media will make Jones the face of the Second Amendment. Somebody needs to tell him to just STFU, butch-up and take a chill pill. Or several.

        Like

  3. jordan2222 says:

    Has anyone seen any reliable projections and/or estimates of the economic impact all of this will have?

    One more thing: It is hard to believe that sensible people actually follow Alex Jones. I am concerned that his inflammatory, threatening diatribes are only going to cause someone to go over the edge.. violently.

    Like

    • Bongo says:

      While that was certainly not Alex Jones’ best tv performance, he has many avid followers who agree with his gun rights views. We have witnessed Piers Morgan lose control on air and resort to name calling and childish behavior when he had no logical retort to questions posed to him by a guest.

      But, in answer to your question, I think thousands of citizens will be put out of work in the gun industry and many more thousands, maybe even millions will be convicted of felonies for “illegal” gun possession. Many lives will be lost if gun confiscation is actually ordered by Obama. We could easily have another Civil War. I really hope the majority of Americans don’t want this.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        Most of what has happened to us in the last 3 years has had absolutely nothing to do with “what we want.”

        Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        It doesn’t matter what we want. They will do what they want to do.

        Like

      • jwoop66 says:

        Exactly. Morgan freaked out and you don’t see any left wing media or left wing bloggers calling him on it. Alex Jones wigs out; only a little, I thought, and everyone who claims to be right wing is ragging on him. Maybe he is a nut, but we gotta stop eating our own. He should be a lesson for right wingers on tv. Maybe you don’t want to go off like he did, but he gave it to Morgan. He didn’t wait to be told he was wrong and then look for a chance to apologize, like every other right winger I see on tv. Its time to stop playing their passive-aggressive game. We have to start going for their throats, figuratively speaking. We have to encourage our politicians to do the same. AND STOP BEING AFRAID TO CALL SOCIALISTS, SOCIALIST! Call them what they are and continue the attack!

        Like

  4. Brook says:

    Bottom line — we would not be having this conversation without Sandy Hook. The smoking gun proof that the Lanza’s did not own the Honda Civic Adam supposedly drove has been confirmed. Now, you have multiple people involved, which means you have a plan. No one wants to believe the worst, but we are dealing with the real power behind Obama centered in Chicago, and these people are utterly ruthless in their objective.

    Like

  5. Sharon says:

    Yeah, I about spit some nails when I heard the news about Jack Lew going to Treasury. Right. Another one with massive experience in handling things financial. Not.

    He’s an obedient puppy. That’s why he’s going to Treasury.

    Like

  6. akathesob says:

    Knowing from personal family contact what I know of autism spectrum issues that kid Adam sure as hell did not do this. And yes the Honda Civic and the gun in its trunk. hmmmmmmm Yes there was a plan and its all BS.

    Like

  7. taqiyyologist says:

    OT

    but not really, when you think about it

    What I’ve said tonight on the nets, first few comments.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/former-abu-ghraib-prisoners-paid-5-28-million-for-naked-pyramid-other-stunts/#comments

    Key: people are so naive.

    Like

  8. elvischupacabra says:

    Meanwhile, in upstate Watertown, NY a veteran recovering from training injuries, Michael Haddad, was arrested for having 5, empty hi-capacity AR-15 magazines in his car. He can get 5-7 years in prison for each magazine. So far, it’s just a local case, so spread it far and wide, folks.

    http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130107/NEWS07/701079944

    Meanwhile, in Texas, our A.G. says he’ll sue to stop any gun ban by Congress or the POTUS. He compares “gun free” Juarez, one of the most dangerous cities on the planet, with El Paso, where guns are legal, but it’s one of the safest big cities in America.

    http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10672432

    Like

    • howie says:

      Righto. I tell ya. Hey get about 1500 ATF agents and sweep the Hoodz of Chicago, house to house and confiscate everything they got,then Miami, then call me back.

      Like

  9. ThatOldGuy says:

    Larry Pratt on Piers Morgan Round Two. Larry Pratt does brilliantly.

    Like

    • ThatOldGuy says:

      http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

      An article that clarifies how the British government under reports crime, and that there was no *change* in the rate of gun homicides as a result of the bans passed across the pond.

      ‘To begin with, More Guns, Less Crime author John Lott has recently explained that this is a misleading representation of the statistics: Yes, the gun murder rate is relatively low in England and Wales, but it was already low before the ban, and the stats do not show a decrease in murders committed with guns (nor overall murders) since the ban was instituted, as Morgan implies. “There is a difference between levels and changes,” he notes. Meanwhile, The Telegraph reported in 2009 that gun crime had “almost doubled in the last decade”.’

      ‘In this article, the authors explained that “the violent crime rate has risen dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted,” and that Britain had accordingly lost its reputation as an “unusually safe and crime-free nation”.’

      ‘Quoting from these articles, Pratt noted the following:

      –“Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics.”
      –Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. “The crime figures are meaningless,” he said. “Police everywhere know exactly what is going on.”
      –“Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

      But that’s only through 2000. Has this problem gone away in recent years? No. ‘

      Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        ThatOldGuy
        I missed this somehow but I think it’s absurd that he keeps comparing us to the UK. I’ve never heard him mention Mexico where guns are banned or Switzerland where they are required.

        Since Piers is from the UK certainly he knows how we could have never gained our freedom from tyranny without guns. Yet he thinks any argument that our primary reason for the second amendment is to prevent tyranny from ever recurring here is ridiculous.

        I guess only gun nuts believe that history can actually repeat itself. I seriously wonder if he really believes what he says. He sounds either totally ignorant or just plain stupid.

        Like

        • ThatOldGuy says:

          I agree about the comparisons. I actually posted about Jones vs. Morgan here (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/01/09/wednesday-open-thread-january-9th/#comment-284616) and get into the comparisons a bit.

          One of the main things that bothered me was how Piers keeps asserting that “it’s 35 versus 11,000″ as if the comparison is meaningful. Societies ain’t physics quantities. People aren’t atoms, as it were, with definite mathematical and predictable properties/actions (except for “action” itself). If we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that these measures are meaningful, then shouldn’t we at least factor for the fact that one population is five times the size of the other? We do that, take these “gun murders” as percentages of the population, and we can compare the absolute difference between countries… which is about four thousandths of *ONE* percent. So one government has absolute control and the other has not so much and the difference between “gun murders” as a percentage of the population is virtually nothing. The choice is… obvious?

          I think people like Piers Morgan just don’t like guns. He doesn’t see the need for having one, so (as the meme goes with liberals) no one else can have one (whereas, according to the same meme, conservatives do not buy a gun if this is the case with them). If you listen to the Jones-Morgan interview, which is on the thread I link to above, you’ll see that Morgan isn’t all that concerned with UK crime rates, he only cares about the “gun murder” rates between countries. That may be because these rates (superficially) support his side, or he actually thinks that reducing gun crimes reduces crime over all (a big assumption that he hasn’t demonstrated and, as Jones notes and Morgan ignores, evidence contradicts–the EU calls the UK the crime capitol of Europe, and for good reason).

          People always seem to think that “it can’t happen here.” We’ve had tyrants at the helm of our government before, and with them has accompanied a massive loss of freedoms (especially when the country was at war). Read the histories of tyrants abroad and their thoughts on firearms, some of the episodes that occurred when guns were not legal: Hutus/Tutsis, Nazis, Soviets, Castro, Pol Pot, Hussein, Armenian Genocide, Mussolini et al. It isn’t an odd proposition to state that liberty is the exception to the rule, that tyranny is predominant through history. This is what history tells us.

          Morgan really doesn’t seem interested in attempting to appear kind and tolerant (this is probably why, as I hear, his show isn’t doing all that well–maybe the Jones interview would help him get views when other MSM outlets point out how ridiculous the interview was bound to be… hmm). Compare his interview with Pratt to the interview with Jones. It’s obvious that the interview with Jones was planned to go that way and that the interview with Pratt wasn’t planned to go that way (Pratt destroying Morgan, Morgan calling Pratt an idiot). What Morgan didn’t account for is how Jones would actually have fun with it. That made the interview hysterical (even better: Jones says he was asked to leave by a crying producer instead of sticking around to debate Dershowtiz as was originally intended). Another thing is, Morgan’s just plain dishonest. Pratt knew that he was kicking Morgan around and, yeah, he *CHUCKLED* for a brief second when Morgan kept cutting him off; what does Morgan do? He yells at him to stop laughing, repeatedly, in order to make it seem like Pratt is laughing at the tragedy. He goes on like this for probably ten seconds, even when Pratt is making his next contention. That really got my stomach acid built up. Morgan did that twice to Pratt, when it’s obvious that Pratt was neither laughing nor laughing at the tragedies, once in each interview with him.

          Morgan has always seemed like an arrogant jerk to me, which is just another way that he makes me a special kind of angry whenever I see/hear him.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            I actually do not mind watching him show how little he knows about our country, it’s Constitution, as well as our history and that of others who have succumbed to tyranny. He makes a great case FOR the second amendment.

            Like

            • ThatOldGuy says:

              Maybe to you, you clearly know better than he.

              The problem is that the man has an audience. He has a segment of his audience that actually believe what he does and think he’s right. No doubt, in the coming weeks with friends (probably a product of where I live), someone will mention guns, probably by talking about Sandy Hook first, and someone will bring up the nominal stats that bother me. There are people who say that they’re for the second amendment, but want to outright ban certain types of firearms–if not all of them–and will resort to Morgan’s “data” as justification for their side (regardless of their [lack of] understanding of the last four words of that amendment). I would argue that these data don’t tell us anything about policy or what is the “right” move to do. Statistics are history; in this context, they record changes in the past.

              I watch Morgan whenever there’s someone fun on the show (Ventura, Jones, Gillette) and, even then, only on YouTube. There are times where he’s tolerable, but those are rare.

              I do see what you mean, though.

              Like

    • howie says:

      Freeze frame at :30. Print it. It says it all.

      Like

  10. jordan2222 says:

    The federal government’s role is to protect us from “foreign” enemies, not from each other.

    Like

    • ThatOldGuy says:

      There was a segment Napolitano had with Brett Baier where he emphasized that point. That segment concluded at about the time at your post. … .. ;)

      Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        I follow the Judge and Stossel. They are two of my favorite people. They took away the Judge’s show and I bet Fox will do the same with Stossel. I have conservative friends who said they learned more about our history from the Judge than they ever did in school.

        I hate labels but a Constitutional Conservative with Libertarian leanings best defines me. I followed Ron Paul for many years. If it were not for him, I probably would have never delved into the FED but he inspired to get my degree in Finance and Economics.

        I am convinced that the FED is the root of our problems. Why the citizenry does not demand full regular audits simply defies logic but I think the majority of Americans really do not understand money and banking. You would think that partial audit we got would have opened some eyes.. instead, nothing but crickets. Holy crap. For lack of knowledge. My people perish.

        Yes, I watched part of that show today but got interrupted. Did he expound on that?

        Like

        • ThatOldGuy says:

          I’m not to sure about Stossel getting kicked off Fox Biz like the Judge. I sure hope he doesn’t. I feel like the small government movement (Republicans, libertarians, conservatives etc.) would is shooting itself in the foot with these recent changes in the crowd. Kicking Stossel out of the picture, much like he was kicked off of ABC, wouldn’t help things for the party.

          Granted, Stossel is libertarian. His style of presentation is a bit more different than the Judge. Stossel seemed to play more of the devil’s advocate with moderate guests from the other side or, the most “radical,” people from the CATO Institute. I really like Stossel’s presentation. Throughout the show he plays the interventionist-leaning, but curious, “average joe” as it were with people who have niches in certain subjects and finishing the show with a wrap up message that freedom makes for shiny, happy people. From this basis, it can sort of seem to outsiders that Stossel’s clearly a libertarian, but he can still be seen as more of a moderate kind of guy. Even he has said on his show that he doesn’t consider himself to be particularly radical or an expert on most subjects: he’s curious, has a knack for getting his messages across in a unique and comfortable and conversational style, he’s polite to ALL of his guests, and he has a good sense of humor.

          If you look at the videos of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand with Phil Donahue in the 70s and 80s, for both people Donahue had two interviews, Donahue carried himself in the same way: polite devil’s advocate that would almost let the guest run the show; he’d let Rand/Friedman talk about their platform, pose a difficulty to it, and listen to the response in full. Contrast that with his interview with Limbaugh in the 90s, also on YouTube, Donahue’s style has clearly changed where he appeals to the crowd, becomes disruptive to the guest, becomes very rude and loud. It’s HIS show and Limbaugh is lucky to be on it. Just an interesting comparison I’ve noticed.

          The Judge, on the other hand from Stossel, comes from a very different background. Stossel started out as a liberal consumer reporter, acquired some libertarian leanings on ABC, and was brought into the Fox family after ABC kicked him off for talking about “odd libertarian things.” Fox is a tad more tolerant. The Judge is very clearly libertarian and has been that way since his childhood. He has beef with FDR, Wilson, TR, and Lincoln. He’s steeped in historical knowledge, legal/constitutional knowledge (for obvious reasons), economic knowledge (because of his ties to the Austrian school) and is much more consistently libertarian. He can be a lot more radical than Stossel is. The Judge’s show is a bit more focused on criticizing the American government than Stossel. Stossel would take a concept like healthcare regulation and devote an hour to a discussion about the merits of capitalism. The Judge would talk about 9/11, torture, the NDAA or the PATRIOT Act and have Lew Rockwell (anarchist) on the show to talk about it. You’re not supposed to talk about those things on the air. Fox Biz can’t be associated with that. So enough was enough. TPTB pulled Napolitano from the channel. Napolitano was also very open about his respect for Ron Paul, more so than Stossel (not to suggest that Stossel doesn’t respect Ron Paul).

          You’re friends, and you as well if you haven’t!, ought to read some of Napolitano’s books which are treasures in their own right. Each one focuses on something particular and never ceases to bring something new to my attention.

          I know exactly how you feel about labels. I hated them too, especially when I was a libertarian-leaning constitutional conservative. I didn’t want some people to be associated with me if I disagreed with what they said. If I called myself what they called themselves, well, then we must have identical perspective, now mustn’t it? So I hid my beliefs from others in my life and took to the internet to talk with other like-minded people.

          And yeah, Ron Paul has that effect on people. The Fed really is a staple of his platform, which is good because no other platform really even looks at it– yet it’s this monopoly institution of counterfeiting that literally manipulates the economy and FAR AND ABOVE exerts more control of the economic situation than any CRA or law passed by Congress (those aspects are just details). If you’re curious about banking and finances, the Mises Institute (with which Ron Paul and the Judge, to a lesser degree, are associated) has an unmatched plethora of (free!) resources at mises.org which are right up your alley. These resources stem from articles, to books, to treatises. They are available for free, legal, download. If you haven’t already, I would strongly recommend reading What has the Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard. Given that you already have a degree in Finance/Economics, there may be a lot you already know about the system from your education and from listening to Paul. Still, Rothbard was a helluva writer, a brilliant scholar, and is capable of surmising a systematic evil in about 100 pages and making it understandable and interesting to the curious layman. Ron Paul has that kind of appeal–there are books that share stories of this however-many-year-old obstetrician talk monetary policy at college campuses where people would travel to see him in “we’re going to see Ron Paul, hop in!” style trips. His appeal to the youth is especially uncanny.

          That book by Rothbard details the changes in the monetary system and the particular operations of the Fed. I think it was that book that said, “If Americans understood the monetary system, there would be a revolution over night.” The government doesn’t want people to know about the Fed, that’s why it has paid “intellectuals” to take care of the problems, using complex self-destructive and unnecessary jargon, magical mathematical formulae, and just downright distortions to keep people disinterested from pursuing the matter. Enter Ron Paul and the Mises Institute, and people actually have a chance at tearing at the root of evil, of collapsing the Leviathan. So the people are kept ignorant by government schooling, by false history and Keynesian economics (Keynes providing the “intellectual” justification for government intervention that ultimately causes the problems it means to solve [or does it mean to solve them?])

          Question: How many banks in the United States are bankrupt?

          Answer: All of them (that’s why “panics” occur)

          Shady as the Fed is, even its inception was crooked (based on lies, conceived by bankers and politicians on a hunting trip to ‘Jekyll Island'; that part makes my skin crawl). Rothschild once said, ‘Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.’ He’s right: It’s no coincidence that the century of big banking was the century of big wars, of rapid losses in freedoms, of inflation (regardless of the many changes of its definition to conceal the fact of its existence and growth), of redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich-and-connected-to-government, and, in short, of big government. The Fed is a menace, and it sure as hell ain’t showing signs of stopping. With the news about college campuses becoming nervous about future outlooks of profitability and tuition, and housing prices rising as there are shortages of houses in some places and houses built on cliff edges and others, I’d say that adding $850B to the money supply every month (between QEIII and QEIV, not to mention Operation Twist) isn’t the way to go. But, hey, “deregulation” caused the recession–look! the partial repeal of a law [Glass-Steagall] caused it! (ignore the part where this law was directly responsible for the S&L crisis in the 80s). Sheesh, don’t get me started on “lack of knowledge.”

          So, the show tonight. They didn’t spend much time on guns. Napolitano made a few good points. Mara made some comments on how the majority of the nation favors some gun control measures anyway. Krauthammer was there, too. I imagine the full segment will be on YouTube soon.

          Here’s the article the Judge references in the beginning: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom/
          Here’s the clip of the Judge earlier tonight:

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            You have made my day. What a brilliant response to my simple post. You have left me virtually speechless for now.

            Surely, you know how few people dare to talk intelligently about any of this. You may be the first “poster” I have ever read that could say all that you have in one post at a site like this. Fancy meeting someone like you at a place that originally got my attention due to the George Zimmerman case. This is a great place to hang out. Sundance knows his stuff and he has made this a one stop shop for most of the reliable information that interests me.

            I am familiar with a lot of the things you mention and thank you for the time you spent writing this. However, I admit that I have recently lost a lot of my enthusiasm and now seem content to just try to stay current and “be prepared.”

            I hate the feeling of being powerless about what is coming down the road, knowing there is little I can do about it except to be knowledgeable. That does not mean I have given up by any means but I owe it to myself mentally and emotionally to take a break.

            May God save the Republic.

            Like

            • ThatOldGuy says:

              “You have made my day. What a brilliant response to my simple post. You have left me virtually speechless for now.

              Surely, you know how few people dare to talk intelligently about any of this.”

              These are pretty much the thoughts that went through my head when I saw your post.

              I started following pretty recently, about a week ago, and enjoy it. My biggest issue right now, and I have a lot of those…, is the talk about gun regulation, so I’m glad that sundance posts plenty about that. What I’m doing for now is reading. I think the best thing I can do now is just read to clear my thoughts, read those of others, and have some of my own. If there’s someone with a like-curiosity, then I’ll chat about it when it comes up, but I don’t engage others in these matters often. So I’m glad to find someone else familiar with what I’m mainly interested in.

              May He hear you.

              Like

  11. WeeWeed says:

    I retweeted a guy’s twitter message today;

    “..Paraphrased Alinsky: ‘Make middle class think they’ll lose everything, then they’ll accept whatever u let them keep.”
    WORD

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s