ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

The sweetness of their tears

Savor the angry tears shed by the forcible disarmament fetishists at the New York Times.  Not even their constant waving of the false and bloody flag of Newton was enough to sway the American people into volunteering another step towards giving government a monopoly on gun violence.
For 45 senators, the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a forgotten tragedy. The toll of 270 Americans who are shot every day is not a problem requiring action. The easy access to guns on the Internet, and the inevitability of the next massacre, is not worth preventing.

 Those senators, 41 Republicans and four Democrats, killed a bill on Wednesday to expand background checks for gun buyers. It was the last, best hope for meaningful legislation to reduce gun violence after a deranged man used semiautomatic weapons to kill 20 children and six adults at the school in Newtown, Conn., 18 weeks ago. A ban on assault weapons was voted down by 60 senators; 54 voted against a limit on bullet magazines.

Patricia Maisch, who survived a mass shooting in Tucson in 2011, spoke for many in the country when she shouted from the Senate gallery: “Shame on you.”

Newtown, in the end, changed nothing; the overwhelming national consensus to tighten a ridiculously lax set of gun laws was stopped cold. That’s because the only thing that mattered to these lawmakers was a blind and unthinking fealty to the whims of the gun lobby.

The National Rifle Association once supported the expansion of background checks, but it decided this time that President Obama and gun-control advocates could not be allowed even a scintilla of a victory, no matter how sensible. That group, and others even more militant, wanted to make sure not one bill emerged from the Newtown shooting, and they got their way.
Their impotent rage oozes from every sentence in the article. It was one thing for Americans to ignore Hispanic drug dealers and black youths killing each other in their ethnic enclaves, and to spare no sympathy for white, middle-aged men shooting themselves in despair over their unemployment and divorces, but this involved cute little children, kindergarteners no less, and white ones at that!  About the only way to tug more effectively at America's heartstrings would have been to advertise slaughtered puppies, kittens, and bunnies.

And America shed a few tears, collectively wiped at their eyes, then stood up and said: "Fuck you, we're still not letting you take our guns, you totalitarian bastards."

No wonder they're upset.  Americans aren't falling for the emotional pornography anymore. Now they'll have no choice but to go for the brute force option and they know they aren't assured of winning that way.  After all, there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

Molon labe.

Labels: ,

218 Comments:

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous VryeDenker April 18, 2013 4:30 AM  

I heard on the radio this morning that the Boston blasts may have been bombs created with pressure cookers and the first thought that sprang to mind was Fallout 3.

Anonymous Roundtine April 18, 2013 4:32 AM  

Someone on ZeroHedge noticed that Biden looks like Laurel when he cries. Somewhere around 5 or 6 minutes in Biden is making the face.
Obama on his total failure
Stan Laurel: Boo Hoo

Next up: kill the amnesty.

Anonymous Roundtine April 18, 2013 4:33 AM  

I heard on the radio this morning that the Boston blasts may have been bombs created with pressure cookers and the first thought that sprang to mind was Fallout 3.

Not chili?

Anonymous JACIII April 18, 2013 5:13 AM  

Thanks for the reminder, Vox. The petulance displayed is over the top. Will have to tune in to NPR on the way to work this morning. They mewl worse than little girls.

Anonymous nick digger April 18, 2013 5:16 AM  

The easy access to guns on the Internet

Is there a second internet that no one told me about? Maybe that one has ammo, too.

Anonymous JACIII April 18, 2013 5:18 AM  

Is it just me or does the term 'ghoul" come to mind in anyone else's head when the Sandy Hook parents appear?

Anonymous Idle Spectator April 18, 2013 5:27 AM  

No wonder they're upset. Americans aren't falling for the emotional pornography anymore.

I blame the internet.

In the old days of 1999 you only had TV news. All you had to do was flash pictures of a menacing gun, evil white man, clean black man, and a scary looking chart with lines. A properly diverse reporter would look into the camera with brow furrowed, point to the chart, and say "What can we do now?"


After that stunt with publishing the addresses of gun-clingers, how could you possibly trust them again?

Anonymous ericcs April 18, 2013 5:43 AM  

They will squawk and preen and strut and adamantly refuse to admit it... but the FACT that leftists worship the sacrifice of infants via abortion means that their gush of saccharine Sandy Hook feelings is simply a thinly-disguised veneer for the primary agenda of banning all guns for all white Christian males for all time.

They will play their usual banal semantic games, but in the final analysis it's all about leftist power, NOT children, for which in their vile heart-of-hearts they do not give a flying fuck.

Behold thine enemy... He is the Left.

Anonymous zen0 April 18, 2013 5:43 AM  

JACIII April 18, 2013 5:18 AM

Is it just me or does the term 'ghoul" come to mind in anyone else's head when the Sandy Hook parents appear?






Maybe they are actors. Seen this?
Shape-shifting lizards shed crocodile tears:

Newtown Psy-0ps

Anonymous Idle Spectator Cares April 18, 2013 5:48 AM  

Shame on your Vox! This blog is supposed to be a hate-free zone!

Blogger Doom April 18, 2013 5:52 AM  

The battle hasn't been won, only delayed. Demographics don't lie and with Republicans jumping ship on even the big issues, it's only a matter of time. Immigration "reform" will end this debate in time, assuming it hasn't already, as it is looking to be spelled out. Assuming economic collapse doesn't hit first and make most of the debates pretty toothless with a government that doesn't have the economic impact of a wet towel, enforcement will be null. Given that Nork soldiers are killing and cannibalizing their own, you have to stop and think just a bit.

On the good side, in a well armed society, it will be the anti-gun freaks being eaten. It's just the way it goes!

A bit off-topic, but... Has anyone else noticed that as they attempted to downgrade gold, for their various purposes, they forgot to tell everyone the plan. India is buying huge amounts of gold, undoing the rolling back of the bubble they had created in the first place, sort of. I mean, it's all a game, but the big players are up against other big players, and it's anybodies game. Sort of funny though. The economic Keystone cops in a plastic lined padded room, being sprayed with olive oil (in various colors) in a cluster fuck orgy trying to give but not get. It's going to get messy.

Anonymous meh April 18, 2013 5:59 AM  

"The easy access to guns on the Internet"

"Is there a second internet that no one told me about? Maybe that one has ammo, too."

Silk Road for guns & ammo?

Anonymous VryeDenker April 18, 2013 6:09 AM  

Yah, I downloaded a pair of sweet custom competition shotguns for myself and the wife through Xbox Live. You need the Gold membership though...

Anonymous TGR White April 18, 2013 6:33 AM  

@ VryeDenker: Laugh now but if 3D printing keeps advancing it may be possible.

Anonymous TGR White April 18, 2013 6:38 AM  

According to Tex at Vault co the reason the Boston bomb was black powder was to create a reason for the government to outlaw self loading.

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/boston.html

So the DHS buys all the ammo on the market and then some government agency stages a false flag to justify banning the materials for self loading. A perfectly orchestrated two pronged attack that will leave Americans clinging to nothing but metal clubs.

Anonymous Weak April 18, 2013 6:51 AM  

Doom is spot on with "demographics don't lie". The predators will amass greater numbers to vote for the prey to disarm.

Anonymous TGR White, Take Meds April 18, 2013 6:57 AM  

We're not falling for your emotional pornography. Cite specific, relevant sources that the Boston incident was indeed a false flag event.

Blogger IM2L844 April 18, 2013 7:23 AM  

Always with the dot connecting. The next thing you know you'll be trying to say there are some kind of connections between money and work, freedom and happiness, intercourse and procreation. Crazy Christians. What is wrong with you people? /s

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 7:28 AM  

They will play their usual banal semantic games, but in the final analysis it's all about leftist power, NOT children, for which in their vile heart-of-hearts they do not give a flying fuck.

They need to understand that Newtown was just more late-term abortions although considerably less gruesome than most such procedures.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 7:42 AM  

Now they'll have no choice but to go for the brute force option and they know they aren't assured of winning that way. After all, there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

Inevitable. Executive orders, regulatory attacks from the alphabet agencies, bribing local police with grants, guns, tanks, etc., administrative revocations of FFL's, propaganda campaigns, outright attacks, etc.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 7:52 AM  

"We're not falling for your emotional pornography. Cite specific, relevant sources that the Boston incident was indeed a false flag event."

It doesn't have to have been a false flag. It presents an opportunity deliberate or not.

The government hasn't actually produced a story yet. Until that happens.. when we won't know what kind of lie its going to tell.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 7:59 AM  

We're not falling for your emotional pornography. Cite specific, relevant sources that the Boston incident was indeed a false flag event.

What emotional pornography. I didn't say the Boston bombing was a false flag event. I didn't say that the explosion in Texas is a false flag event either.

I said that Sandy Hook was a false flag event.

Learn how to read.

Anonymous Salt April 18, 2013 8:01 AM  

Until that happens.. when we won't know what kind of lie its going to tell.

Doesn't have to be a lie at all. The truth will do the same thing. The Left simply does not care.

Complain as much as we do about the state of America, there are yet a few things sacrosanct about it. And guns is one of them.

Anonymous JartStar April 18, 2013 8:17 AM  

Obama wanted gun control but it was never part of his platform. Spending so much time on an issue so few Americans care about was a massive political mistake and there's now blood in the water from his failure. He has 18 months left before he's a lame duck and this failure cost him time and a lot of political capital.

Anonymous RedJack April 18, 2013 8:21 AM  

The released pictures of the suspects. Two Arab males in their 20's.

MSNBC is on suicide watch.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 8:23 AM  

"Doesn't have to be a lie at all. The truth will do the same thing."

Well that's kind of the thing about a pathological liar. They lie even when they don't have to.

Blogger Some dude April 18, 2013 8:26 AM  

We should all be grateful that bullet got dodged,

No pun intended. :)

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 18, 2013 8:45 AM  

Emotional pornography. That's a nice phrase for the particular type of demogoguery that the Democrats have made a particular habit of indulging in.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 8:51 AM  

I said that Sandy Hook was a false flag event.

Soon VD will be telling everyone that one of the dead victims had their picture taken with Obama.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2013 8:58 AM  

> Obama wanted gun control but it was never part of his platform.

Of course not. He wanted to get elected.

But he's a democrat. It's in their DNA. They can't help themselves. They always have to try to take the guns.

Anonymous Clay April 18, 2013 9:00 AM  

GOA must be considered one of the more "militant" organizations they refer to. The NRA are pussies.

I'll wager GOA had more influence on those sorry pols than the NRA did.

Hell, even Harry Reid voted against that Toomey-Machin, (whatever), ammendment.

That slime knows who butters his bread.

Anonymous David of One April 18, 2013 9:03 AM  

The emotional theif.
The emotional liar.
The emotional ...

I agree ... emotional ponographers will likely stick.

Anonymous Skillet April 18, 2013 9:15 AM  

Clearly we have to have background checks for anyone buying a pressure cooker. And we need to ban the large ones too- who needs to can more than 10 Mason jars of food? If it saves just one life...

Anonymous David of One April 18, 2013 9:17 AM  

The Emotional Marxist, a ponographer. This would be an appropriate legacy for history to record for the future.

Anonymous JW April 18, 2013 9:25 AM  

Very good Skillet!

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 9:29 AM  

"And America shed a few tears, collectively wiped at their eyes, then stood up and said: "Fuck you, we're still not letting you take our guns, you totalitarian bastards."

I'm not so sure about that. Had Harry Reid the moral fortitude to dismantle the no-talk filibuster in the Senate, the legislation would have passed in that house. But of course, like so many politicians, Reid is willing to let go the anti-democratic status quo....just in case the democrats need to use it when they are not in the majority.

Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 9:30 AM  

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

Anonymous Josh April 18, 2013 9:32 AM  

Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?
It does not. Shall not be infringed.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 9:37 AM  

Emotional pornography is used to relieve problems caused by mental menstruation

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 9:41 AM  

"Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?"

Like all liberals... you have no idea how to read the Constitution. First you must ask, "what part of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate weapons?" Then once you find that part... you then have to employ that power such that it "does not infringe on the people's right to bear arms."

The first part isn't there. And if it was there, no matter what you did, you would be infringing.

Thus, no, there can be no restrictions on military arms what-so-ever.

You would be free to regulate non-military arms... if you could first get past the first hurdle.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 9:41 AM  

"Shame on you" vs. "Come and take them"

Everything you need to know about the difference between pagan society and Christian.

Even sociologists invented the concept of "Shame society" vs. "Guilt society."

The Shame society weeps when ritual Carousel fails to consume the members of a Guilt society who know they have done nothing wrong.

When Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" he was saying "Gun up and stand. Force your would be overlord to be your equal. Then see if those apples are to his liking."

It is somewhat ironic that the shame society appears to have a very low tolerance for malus domestica. They also are the ones who tend to pervert Christ's words...then expect their opponents to follow them!

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 10:00 AM  

Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?

Federal restrictions? Nope. Not one. Not a single one. Nada.

Anonymous A. Man's Brain April 18, 2013 10:02 AM  

You people are crazy.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner April 18, 2013 10:04 AM  

Had my PVC tube with end caps, and a shovel ready to go.
After all us Physics guys like to see things fly through the air and go boom, it's science :)

EFF the GUNverment.

EFF El Presidente and his minons of leaches.

Molon labe

@RedJack
"The released pictures of the suspects. Two Arab males in their 20's"

-sure and the coincidental presence of dog sniffing dogs and a DHS "Drill" had nothing to do with it. I suspect the Repukes are happy its a brown skinned 'suspect', and that they and the Democraps were fully informed prior to the murderous attack on innocent human lives was carried out, despicable.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 10:04 AM  

Crazy enough to take on the occupying British Army and Navy and kick their tyrannical asses back across the Atlantic.

Yep.

Anonymous ODG April 18, 2013 10:07 AM  

When Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" he was saying "Gun up and stand. Force your would be overlord to be your equal. Then see if those apples are to his liking."

I'd like to read more about this. Got a link?

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 10:25 AM  

What emotional pornography. I didn't say the Boston bombing was a false flag event. I didn't say that the explosion in Texas is a false flag event either.

I said that Sandy Hook was a false flag event.

Learn how to read.


You openly question whether Boston was a false flag. Like a gossiping little female.

And whats your justification for claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag?

Distrust of government is healthy and American as apple pie. But there is a point where it just makes you look stupid.

As I pointed out before, Obama got exactly what he wanted. The status quo is preserved and he has successfully satisfied his base in time for the start of the 2014 election season.

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 10:27 AM  

"Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?

It does not. Shall not be infringed."

May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 10:28 AM  

ODG, no link, just a plain reading of the verse:

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

A person who is in the position to slap you on the right cheek is a) your social "better" and is doing it with b) the back of their left hand. If you turn your left cheek to him, he's either going to have to slap you with the palm of his left hand (thereby making himself, at best, your equal, and at worst, effeminate) or with the back of his right ("righteous") hand, elevating you to his status.

When you give him the left cheek you force him into three bad options: he lowers himself to your level (to his shame), he raises you to his level (to your glory) or he turns away in defeat.

Matthew 5 is a chapter of true, meaningful rebellion, a sharp contrast to what the common man believes rebellion to be, and far more dangerous to the authorities when they realize that not only does burdening you with a soldier's gear for a mile not bother you, but you'll take a mile more than the state's agent demand, they'll know exactly what sort of man they are dealing with: a subject of no Prince of the Air. It is Christian terrorism against the nation of Legion.

"Molon labe" is, so to speak, a gun owner's left cheek.

Anonymous Starbuck April 18, 2013 10:28 AM  

You people are crazy.- A.Man

So A. Man, did you find the part in the constitution where it DOES give the government the power to restrict arms?

If so, please show us in the constitution where democrats or republicans have the power to restrict the people from having arms. You will notice it says nothing about mentally ill nor does it say anything about ex-felons having arms restricted for them.

If democrats feel the urge to get rid of the 2nd amendment please do so the legal way. Which the constitution gives methods to achieve such things. You know and I know the democrats at this point in time do not have enough votes to eliminate the 2nd amendment. So the amendment stays. Until you get the 2nd amendment revoked, quite trying to pass ILLEGAL laws (yes the supreme court has upheld the 2nd amendment) to soothe your fear of white male christians. i.e. piss off.

Anonymous Starbuck April 18, 2013 10:31 AM  

May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

No, dumb ass.

And all those states that did, well they are unconstitutional.

Lets see. How about we get a law passed that says you cannot speak your political beliefs if they are not in line with the Bible. Would you like that?

Anonymous Josh April 18, 2013 10:32 AM  

May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

No.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 10:35 AM  

Oops. Palm of right, back of left when you turn the left cheek. Back of right, palm of left for the right. Same meanings though.

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 10:36 AM  

May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

May the States require you to purchase a license to speak? Vote? Do restrictions against forced quartering of troops apply to the States?

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 10:44 AM  

Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?

No.

You openly question whether Boston was a false flag. Like a gossiping little female.

That's a ludicrously stupid simile, as gossiping little females don't question the government, they believe everything they are told by the media. If you want me to answer your questions, then don't be a little prick.

You do not make demands here, do you understand?

And whats your justification for claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag?

There are many reasons, beginning with the discrepancies between the live reports that I watched and the subsequent Official Story. But if you have evidence that "Robbie Parker" or "Nick Phelps" actually live in the Sandy Hook school district, by all means, provide it. None of the so-called debunkings offer even a shred of evidence.

Distrust of government is healthy and American as apple pie. But there is a point where it just makes you look stupid.

If you genuinely assume the default position that the Official Story as reported in the news is true, you are a historical ignoramus.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 10:45 AM  

ODG, if you've got a little brother, you can practice Matthew 39 on him and try it out. He has to be Jesus though, esp. if you bruise easily. Slap him on the right cheek. If you do it with your left palm, you are going to feel like a complete sissy. If you do it with your backhand right, you'll see the difference. Then when he gives you his left, you will suddenly realize (even if you are a lefty) that the game has changed completely. The little brat just won the social and physical game by standing there.

It sucks, especially if you put yourself in the shoes of Old Scratch.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 10:46 AM  

Like all liberals... you have no idea how to read the Constitution. First you must ask, "what part of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate weapons?" Then once you find that part... you then have to employ that power such that it "does not infringe on the people's right to bear arms."

This is true, to the extent that we could agree on how to read the Constitution. Luckily for the conservative case, the sort of review that you are proposing is very likely to happen soon. The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court has thrown down the gauntlet and stated, in Heller v. DC, that they are willing to take on the NFA and existing Federal regulations (there are basically just a handful laws on the books regarding firearms, except the expired assault weapons ban, there has been very little happening on gun regulation at the Federal level).

For leftists like myself this is the best thing. Repeal of the existing gun regulations (the NFA, being the biggest one) will allow regular everyday people to buy whatever they want for weapons. The nice ladies like Adam Lanza's mom, who already own some pretty nifty weapons, will have access to real weapons - high-caliber, true auto, machine guns, explosives, etc. Open carry of a BMG, and a movie theater completely shredded by one will be enough of a push for repeal and replacement of the 2nd amendment, or at least, an open civil war which will disintegrate the union.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 10:48 AM  

Matthew 5:39. I really need to get this keyboard fixed.

Anonymous Peter Garstig April 18, 2013 10:51 AM  

Daniel,

I can't follow, even with the correction. It might be a language/cultural issue.

Anonymous Peter Garstig April 18, 2013 10:53 AM  

That helped...a little.

Trying to remember my last slap...

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 10:54 AM  

I not only question whether Boston was a false flag, I would kindly ask for any evidence that it was not. All the footage looks like the illuminated ones brought in Joss Whedon to do a little side project. The aftermath is running scripts. Even the natural true believers (I love you gals, but seriously) are not quite holding things together in their cozy cubicle-minds.

I'd like a shred of evidence in support of Boston not being a false flag.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 10:55 AM  

Distrust of government is healthy and American as apple pie. But there is a point where it just makes you look stupid.

Since you're relatively new here, I should probably point out that two very close friends of the family were members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You would be correct to assume this is not unconnected to my deep skepticism concerning all Official Stories put forth by the government.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 10:55 AM  

For leftists like myself this is the best thing...a movie theater completely shredded by one will be enough of a push for repeal and replacement of the 2nd amendment, or at least, an open civil war which will disintegrate the union.

Every once in a while, the mask slips.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 10:58 AM  

There are many reasons, beginning with the discrepancies between the live reports that I watched and the subsequent Official Story.

And? You obviously know the many shortcomings of the media. Early live reports are almost never accurate. For an hour yesterday CNN believed the Boston bomber had been arrested and was being taken to a local courthouse. They're a bunch of incompetent sensationalists.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 10:59 AM  

I'd like a shred of evidence in support of Boston not being a false flag.

SB and I talked about this. False flags are usually tied to something concrete. Maine = War with Spain. Gulf of Tonkin = War with North Vietnam. 9/11 = Invade Iraq. Sandy Hook = gun control push.

I don't see a few small bombs going off in Boston being useful in stirring up the unthinking populace at all. And if it was the powder/ammo angle, we'd see the powder angle being talked up a lot more than it was.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:02 AM  

That's a ludicrously stupid simile, as gossiping little females don't question the government, they believe everything they are told by the media. If you want me to answer your questions, then don't be a little prick.

Agreed and fair enough. But consider who is trusting the media. You posted unsourced, unconfirmed, gossip from the NY Post claiming 12 dead. Saying "according to the NY Post" doesn't excuse it. It's still gossip. I am not the one trusting media, or the government.

If you genuinely assume the default position that the Official Story as reported in the news is true, you are a historical ignoramus.

I don't take the default position. I agree, the government's long history of being completely full of lies is serious and damning. From the leftists point of view, it's just as likely that the government abuses will be against us, than for us. A long history of CIA operations, FBI infiltrations, and police brutality disabused us of that notion a long time ago.

As far as Sandy Hook, or really anything, goes, your own logic is weak. You accuse me of being a little prick, and of fawning of the government and media, while relying on first hand accounts drawn from.. the media. You say most people are idiots, unless their idiocy supports something which you are predisposed to believe.

Favoring the official government line is stupid and illogical, however, favoring the niche automatic conspiracy theorists reflexively is nearly as illogical. Whatever concerns you have about individual issues, they weren't brought up until after you threw your weight behind Sandy Hook probably being a false flag.

. But if you have evidence that "Robbie Parker" or "Nick Phelps" actually live in the Sandy Hook school district, by all means, provide it.

What evidence are you willing to accept? Your standard shifts. On the one hand, you accept testimonial evidence when it suits, but at other times, like now, you don't.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 11:02 AM  

Peter,

Just try it out yourself with a friend. He can't offer his left cheek to you without you being forced to humiliate yourself (with your right palm) or elevate your target (with your backhand left). This was even more true in a heavy slave/caste society like Judea. It would have been even more obvious to Jesus' listeners. A little is lost in translation from the orginal story, not in language, but in culture. I live in a country that pretends social class doesn't exist, and so I've been indoctrinated that "all men are equal", so the meaning of being backhanded or slapped is somewhat different than if I had grown up with overtly admitted masters and social betters, instead of the secret ones we keep.

The fact is that socially, you simply can't slap another fellow on his left cheek, especially if he offers it, without ruining the order of things, and never to your benefit (although possibly to his). You also can't not slap him without losing the contest of wills. It is a zero-sum game and the second the "victim" turns his left cheek willingly, even with a gentle smile on his face, he rebels against you and wins.

Honestly, just try it out with a pal. Turning the cheek is physically very similar to saying "Come and take it."

Blogger Vox April 18, 2013 11:02 AM  

And? You obviously know the many shortcomings of the media. Early live reports are almost never accurate.

I'm not talking about what the reporters are saying, I'm talking about the actual events being filmed. The people being caught, arrested, and then disappearing from the news and so forth.

I can't stress this enough: the only thing of which we can be absolutely certain is that the Official Story is not precisely how it happened. Important details are ALWAYS redacted "in the public interest" even when it wasn't a complete false flag.

Blogger ajw308 April 18, 2013 11:04 AM  

After all, there are a lot more of us than there are of them.
And we're better armed.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 11:05 AM  


SB and I talked about this. False flags are usually tied to something concrete. Maine = War with Spain. Gulf of Tonkin = War with North Vietnam. 9/11 = Invade Iraq. Sandy Hook = gun control push.

I don't see a few small bombs going off in Boston being useful in stirring up the unthinking populace at all. And if it was the powder/ammo angle, we'd see the powder angle being talked up a lot more than it was.


True, but you should wait to see if the background of the bombers points toward an administration target like Syria or Iran.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:06 AM  

Since you're relatively new here, I should probably point out that two very close friends of the family were members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You would be correct to assume this is not unconnected to my deep skepticism concerning all Official Stories put forth by the government.

You are hinting at having direct knowledge of serious government wrongdoing. So just say what it is. Or don't bring it up. This is very weak.

Blogger ajw308 April 18, 2013 11:06 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 18, 2013 11:06 AM  

"Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?"

No.

And every time the Federal government enforces such laws it does so as a rogue, extra-constitutional mob without any moral or legal authority to do so, exercising raw power by might-makes-right outside the rule of law.

Is that clear and straight forward enough for you?

Blogger The Aardvark April 18, 2013 11:08 AM  

But...NINETY PERCENT of Americans wanted it!

Harry Reid said so....

Anonymous Lysander Spooner April 18, 2013 11:09 AM  

@Porky

"Crazy enough to take on the occupying British Army and Navy and kick their tyrannical asses back across the Atlantic."

That my friend was an Irishman's wet dream, missed it, but this Irishman would gladly accept the chance to kick their philosophical fellow travelers asses of today, and the result would be the same. In the end good ideas will win, and removing a man's ability to self defense and those he cares for is not only a bad idea, it is pure unadulterated evil.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:13 AM  

I'm talking about the actual events being filmed. The people being caught, arrested, and then disappearing from the news and so forth.

You saw video footage of people being arrested?

See, it's just like you are off your game. You didn't see anyone being arrested. You saw video of people being detained. There is a substantial difference.

The premise is also faulty - that Sandy Hook facilitated gun control push. This would make sense if there was a big gun control push. But there wasn't. This was incremental, and minimal, and designed from the get go for optics only.

Anonymous Mina April 18, 2013 11:13 AM  

With the disarmament being trounced yesterday the next best strategy for the government is to starve out the 2A supporters for supplies.

They have already dried up the availability of ammunition. Boston gives them a great opportunity to dry up the availability of reloading materials.

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Anonymous John Moseby April 18, 2013 11:15 AM  


So-called "Leftists" are so desperately needy - and afraid.
Definite feminine religion; and in typical fashion, they ignorantly wish to screw themselves and everyone else, while claiming moral superiority and clarity. Totalitarian enablers, every one.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 11:15 AM  

SB and I talked about this. False flags are usually tied to something concrete. Maine = War with Spain. Gulf of Tonkin = War with North Vietnam. 9/11 = Invade Iraq. Sandy Hook = gun control push.

I don't see a few small bombs going off in Boston being useful in stirring up the unthinking populace at all. And if it was the powder/ammo angle, we'd see the powder angle being talked up a lot more than it was.


I think you may be missing the greater War on Liberty, esp. in conjunction with the nationwide elementary school lockdown drills. Terrorizing the population, as an end, is an important ritual to continue, particularly in April. If it were just bombs in busy Boston, I'd tend to agree with you. Event bombing the Boston Marathon, an event that attracts people from every state, that receives local media coverage of anyone who runs it, in April, seems far too obviously symbolic not to be engineered.

My suspicions will take a big hit if the politicians don't make emotional appeals regarding Boston for their War on Americans agenda longer than a month or two. But if the World Series has a moment of silence for the Marathon bombing victims, then I think false flag must be in play.

Perhaps where the confusion is that the false flags were traditionally excuses for foreign excursions. The landscape has changed now that the enemy has become the remnant American.

Anonymous Not Billy Beck April 18, 2013 11:15 AM  

"All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war." -- Billy Beck, August 2009.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 11:17 AM  

This would make sense if there was a big gun control push.

Because you have not yet begun to destroy liberty? You didn't really want those grapes anyway, did you?

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:19 AM  

VD, it's like you've lost your mind. You've added 9/11 to a list of false flag events?

Anonymous Pope Cleophus I April 18, 2013 11:20 AM  

I'm not sure it was a false flag operation; more of a "put-up"job.

Over the last couple of years there have been several incidents where a person of Middle Eastern origin was recruiter by the FBI (posing as a terrorist organization), trained, etc and then magically arrested prior to carrying out their "evil act" all according to the FBI script. The Portland, OR and NYC bombers come to mind.

What if this was another FBI recruitment operation that was allowed to conclude?

Anonymous Mina April 18, 2013 11:21 AM  

"May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?"

Please tell me we are not going to waste another good thread explaining simple words/phrases like "shall not be infringed" to stupid people who do not want to understand simple words/phrases like "shall not be infringed"?

Strangely, if the troll was not fed, it would probably look elsewhere for feeding.

Blogger JartStar April 18, 2013 11:25 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:27 AM  

Because you have not yet begun to destroy liberty? You didn't really want those grapes anyway, did you?

Sour grapes? No, I saw this from the start as optics only - politics. And it's pretty clear that this is what happened. Obama didn't actually bargain for it, he wasn't willing to give anything up to win votes. And it never had a chance of passing the House. 100% fodder for 2014. Right up through his angry speech yesterday.

I'll give you a free preview of 2014. Economic stagnation gets hung on the heads of Republicans who let the sequester happen. House will have blocked minimum wage hike and pegging the rate to inflation. Republicans blocked expanding background checks, something that is broadly assumed to already be in place. It's all about narrowing the GOP majority in the House in 2014, or maybe creating a firewall around mid-term losses.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 11:29 AM  

What if this was another FBI recruitment operation that was allowed to conclude?

Okay, if that's definitionally different than a false flag, I readily accept that it may not be a false flag, but some other federal shenanigans. I may use the term too broadly to mean "internal state-sanctioned terror/possible false flag" rather than, say, the obviously distinct homegrown (Atlanta Olympic bombing) or foreign (Japanese fire balloons) types of mass political attack.

What's a better term for State-run shenanigans, including false flags? Because the federal pr machine and extra security presence (and "It's just a drill!") are all the evidence I need to know it is in the broader category.

Anonymous G.Veil April 18, 2013 11:29 AM  

@Dh "Open carry of a BMG, and a movie theater completely shredded by one will be enough of a push for repeal and replacement of the 2nd amendment, or at least, an open civil war which will disintegrate the union."

This is a wonderful example of the emotional pornography Vox was referencing. You seem under the impression that one man filling one movie theater full of bodies would be enough to change my position. It wouldn't. Not one theater, not five, not ten, because at the end of the day your average law abiding citizen isn't going to shoot up a theater or lay waste to a school. Why do labor under the delusion that deranged criminals will follow these new and improved laws. When you pass laws you only harm or help those that abide by the laws. You wish to stand and rail against me as you stand upon the graves of thousands of innocents now and in the future who have been killed or may be killed because I failed to enact new laws, fine. That's your prerogative and your more than welcome too. For my part I won't have you spit upon the graves of the millions of Americans who have been killed or injured in defense of rights that both you and our government seem hell bent on destroying. It is a disgrace and disservice to the dead that you would make there sacrifice meaningless by stripping us of the very rights they died to defend. And if you want a war for to disarm the American people let's have it, we'll win

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia April 18, 2013 11:30 AM  

Maybe I should have posted this here.
So please, forgive the double posting.

Drudge has a link to Infowars for conspiracy good times:

http://www.infowars.com/obama-covering-up-saudi-link-to-boston-bombing/

Which has this:

Obama Covering Up Saudi Link to Boston Bombing?

“Person of interest” to be deported after Obama had unscheduled meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 18, 2013

The Saudi “person of interest” suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on “national security grounds,” according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is “very unusual,” especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

(More at the link above)

Anonymous Clay April 18, 2013 11:31 AM  

Kinda like "don't feed the Gremlins after Midnight"

Good show, Mina.

Anonymous Sigyn April 18, 2013 11:32 AM  

Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?

Well, there is that little thing about not using them on people who weren't trying to kill you or hurt you or take your belongings or do that to someone else.

...I mean, at least, as long as we AGREE that that would be murder, right?

Anonymous cheddarman April 18, 2013 11:33 AM  

"I heard on the radio this morning that the Boston blasts may have been bombs created with pressure cookers and the first thought that sprang to mind was Fallout 3." - VryeDenker

"Not chili?" - Roundtine

Must have been one of Nate's super bad ass chilli farts.

Sincerely

Cheddarman

Anonymous Loki of Asgard April 18, 2013 11:37 AM  

Should A. Man irritate you again, my thread-conquering services are always available. By all means, lob something at me. The weather is lovely, my consort is baking brownies, and I am prepared for a bit of fun.

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 18, 2013 11:37 AM  

*First you must ask, "what part of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate weapons?" Then once you find that part... you then have to employ that power such that it "does not infringe on the people's right to bear arms."*

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to organize and arm the militia. So the government could probably ban certain weapson on the grounds that they weren't deadly enough. Congress probably has the power, for instance, to institute a background check for purchases of 22 rifles where you have to show that you already own a larger caliber semi-auto with high-capacity magazines before you are allowed to proceed with the purchase.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:50 AM  

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to organize and arm the militia. So the government could probably ban certain weapson on the grounds that they weren't deadly enough. Congress probably has the power, for instance, to institute a background check for purchases of 22 rifles where you have to show that you already own a larger caliber semi-auto with high-capacity magazines before you are allowed to proceed with the purchase.

That's a really interesting Constitutional proposition. Fantasy, of course, but it would be neat to see that argued in Court.

Anonymous cheddarman April 18, 2013 11:52 AM  

Daniel, Do you have a reference to your interpretation? It sounds good to me, though it is totally at odds with everything i learned as a churchian of 25+ years. I am looking to reclaim a biblical and masculine Christianity for myself, would like to start reading/studying scripture again with the right tools.

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 11:53 AM  

The Saudi “person of interest” suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on “national security grounds,” according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is “very unusual,” especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

The Saudi ruling family has an interest in it's US relationship. If this guy goes back to Saudi Arabia, it will be all over for him. He'll wish it was Guantanamo or a CIA black site by the time his countrymen are done with him.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 12:01 PM  

I find it hard to buy the "false flag so gun control could be enacted" concept. If you go to the wiki page for the school shootings list there's tons of them there and no successful national level gun control was enacted after any of them to my knowledge. They already had public support for certain elements of gun control. And real life provides plenty of authentic situations to play on people's emotions. This wasn't even the first time kids were shot at an elementary school. Heck, two months after Sandy Hook there was that case with the baby that got shot in the head. If this was a false flag the people who planned and executed it are not very good at their jobs.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 12:02 PM  

You are hinting at having direct knowledge of serious government wrongdoing. So just say what it is. Or don't bring it up. This is very weak.

(laughs) What part of "you do not make demands here" did you not understand. I could not care less if you don't believe me or think it is "very weak". The facts are what they are.

VD, it's like you've lost your mind. You've added 9/11 to a list of false flag events?

Added? My position hasn't changed.

Anonymous jm April 18, 2013 12:09 PM  

VD: " 9/11 = Invade Iraq."

I'd always seen the concrete result of 9/11 being the enactment of the Patriot Act.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:09 PM  

"That's a really interesting Constitutional proposition. Fantasy, of course, but it would be neat to see that argued in Court."

So we can conclude then that you actually haven't read US vs Miller?

That is actually what the decision says. The government can only regulate firearms with no military value. It was never argued that a sawed off shotgun has military value, so the conviction and the law were allowed to stand.

Blogger Logos April 18, 2013 12:12 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Mr. Pea April 18, 2013 12:13 PM  

The States have the right to organize and arm a militia. The fed gov may borrow them under certain conditions.

Anyhow... One of the biggest mistakes Americans are making is legitimizing the governments role in gun laws. We demand pro-gun legislation. I am happy to say that issue was settled a tad over 200 years ago… and we are falling into what Hamilton called the “colorable pretext” trap. We are legitimizing the very thing that the government has no business doing.

Shall not be infringe. End of discussion.

“Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty [to keep and bear arms] of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” – Brackets mine, the rest Hamilton.

And... Why is it, from the OKC bombing, Dial Emergency 911 attack, to the Boston bombing… we hear of additional bombs being found… then they are miraculously not found? They just magically disappear.

And drills. What is it about those bomb drills that attract bombers?

What is it about active shooter drills that attract mass-shooters?

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:13 PM  

cheddarman,

I really don't. Sorry. No authority my own dumb eyes and ears. I just read the passage word-for-word and picture it in my head. Then I really did try it with someone else some time ago. All I can say is that, when I was the striker, the power in the simulation flowed from me to the other guy. When it was reversed and I was the admonished one, the power flowed to me. Socially, even in today's U.S. egalitarian fetish, I couldn't slap another man on his left cheek even if I could slap around an underling on his right cheek (with the back of my right) all day long for fun. Now, I'm sure it makes a difference that my left hand is my off-hand, so that my left-hand back is simply weaker than my right hand back. But that doesn't explain why my right-hand open is considerably more weakening to me than my left-hand open. I swear it has something to do with the old tradition of the left hand being the "sinister" one. Or maybe I'm just nuts.

In any case, I know for certain that this "sense" is true in slave and caste societies, and would be openly acknowledged: you strike a slave with the back of your right hand, to show him who is boss. Anything else is effeminate or equalizing or both. Only a defiant slave would offer his left cheek to his master.

I saw the Dead Sea Scrolls on exhibit several years ago. One of the fragments had fines for certain crimes, and one was for using your left hand to insult someone. I believe that to be indicative of my general reading and understanding, that using the left hand was debasing to the person who used it! It was very much a right-hand world back then.

The same goes for shirt and coat giving. If a person is truly in need, you simply help them by giving more than the minimum, but if they are an evil one in authority, the excess overwhelms them with the knowledge that the holy spirit is actively transforming his opponent.

All I can say is, in action, those words of Jesus are simple, straightforward, not what you'd expect, and spiritual warfare. Sorry, I've trailed off topic, but in my mind, this is tied directly to the gun-grabbing whines. Their whining is the sound of their one hand not slapping the offered cheek. It is the sound of total victory over them.

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 12:14 PM  

"May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

No, dumb ass.

And all those states that did, well they are unconstitutional."

So you agree with the "incorporation doctrine" that the Bill of Rights applies to the states too?

Blogger Logos April 18, 2013 12:14 PM  

Some have asked whether the Constitution allows federal versus state restrictions on the right to bear arms. As written and intended, the Constitution forbids the federal government from imposing any such restrictions, not only because of the Second Amendment, but more fundamentally because there is no enumerated power of that sort (the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, is a redundant safety device for enumerated powers).

The story is different with regard to the states. The Bill of Rights was not designed to restrict them; indeed, states once had established churches, widespread restrictions on free speech and freedom of the press, and yes, restrictions on gun ownership. The famous decision of Barron v. Baltimore acknowledges this. What changed everything was the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's treacherous use of it to convert the Bill of Rights into a weapon by which the federal government now has a perpetual and universal veto over what states do, which inverts the federal system and strips states of their police powers (which are plenary, not enumerated). The 14th Amendment was not designed for this, but rather merely to guarantee that the rights of white citizens were fully available to blacks, as acknowledged in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

Unfortunately, conservatives and libertarians have played right into the federal government's hands by running to federal court whenever confronted with state gun legislation they dislike. This is a pyrrhic victory that merely reinforces the tactics of abortionists, atheists, pornographers, and other leftists to expand federal power and destroy state sovereignty. The federal union was designed to allow states to experiment internally and compete externally; the safety mechanism was the freedom of mobility to leave a state that overstepped its bounds, thus diminishing the tax base. Now we have a national, monopolistic government from which escape is very difficult, and people of all political stripes are to blame for it by pursuing their pet causes in federal court.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:15 PM  

Also DH
When you say "there are really just a few laws on the books about firearms" I suspect you know you're being disengenuous. Regulations are not laws... so technically you are correct that there are only a few laws.

However, there are lots and lots of regulations... which all have the force of law. Also... its not the number of laws. Its the reach of those laws.

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 12:15 PM  

"May the States enact any restrictions concerning arms?

No."

So, Josh, you agree with the "incorporation doctrine" also?

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 12:17 PM  

"May the States require you to purchase a license to speak? Vote? Do restrictions against forced quartering of troops apply to the States?"

There are a number of restrictions on rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Slander and Libel to begin with. Furthermore, licensing of guns does not restrict your right to possess arms.

Anonymous wcu April 18, 2013 12:17 PM  

I believe this has been answered on other posts many times sir.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:19 PM  

"So, Josh, you agree with the "incorporation doctrine" also?"

When a state passes a law that violates the Constitution that State has by definition, seceded.

Anonymous Mr. Pea April 18, 2013 12:19 PM  

So you agree with the "incorporation doctrine" that the Bill of Rights applies to the states too?

Why would the creator deny its creation?

Anonymous Orion April 18, 2013 12:20 PM  

"May the States require you to purchase a license to speak? Vote? Do restrictions against forced quartering of troops apply to the States?"

Wait for it. They already infringe your right to speech (see "hate speech"). Have to boil those frogs by degrees you know. NA. Man won't notices until he is ready to be served.

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 12:23 PM  

""So, Josh, you agree with the "incorporation doctrine" also?"

When a state passes a law that violates the Constitution that State has by definition, seceded."

Is that a yes? If not, it makes little sense.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2013 12:23 PM  

> Daniel, Do you have a reference to your interpretation?

See http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink

Anonymous Orion April 18, 2013 12:24 PM  

NA. Man is of course only following in the footsteps of his forebears. The Dread Ilk are all aware whence the idea of gun licensing originated, I imagine.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:25 PM  

"Is that a yes? If not, it makes little sense."

The fact that you don't understand, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It just means you're kind of slow.

Which we already know.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 18, 2013 12:26 PM  

"There are a number of restrictions on rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Slander and Libel to begin with."

There are no laws of prior restraint. No licensing or registration of newspapers, printers, ink, blogs, pens, pencils, no waiting periods, not age limits on, and on, and on...yawn....

"Furthermore, licensing of guns does not restrict your right to possess arms."

If I possess arms and Federal BBTs come to my door and take them from me by force because they are not licensed or registered according to their unconstitutional mob rules it sure as hell does restrict my right to posses those arms.

Anonymous A. Man April 18, 2013 12:28 PM  

Nate:

Your understanding of what secession is, what the implications of lawmaking vis a vis the constitution is and he relationship between the states and the federal government is so woeful that even you can't begin to explain your comment.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:30 PM  

'Your understanding of what secession is, what the implications of lawmaking vis a vis the constitution is and he relationship between the states and the federal government is so woeful that even you can't begin to explain your comment."

of course I can. Its just that explaining it isn't necessary. Everyone else knows exactly what it means.

You're just kinda slow.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:30 PM  

Latest evidence in support of a false flag design.

I don't think the religious ritual nature of a number of false flags since 9/11 can be overstated.

Obama is expected to try to comfort a community in shock and mourning, as he has done ­after mass murders at Fort Hood in 2009, Tucson in 2011, and Aurora, Colo.. and Newtown, Conn., in 2012.

Interesting selection out of all the monthly mass killings since 2009 that Obama has been available to provide church services for, yes?

I wonder if he had it on his calendar in March.

Anonymous Sigyn April 18, 2013 12:33 PM  

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to organize and arm the militia. So the government could probably ban certain weapson on the grounds that they weren't deadly enough. Congress probably has the power, for instance, to institute a background check for purchases of 22 rifles where you have to show that you already own a larger caliber semi-auto with high-capacity magazines before you are allowed to proceed with the purchase.

In point of fact...they used to require gun ownership.

Anonymous David April 18, 2013 12:35 PM  

@A-man

"Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe the Constitution allows for any restrictions, limits or controls on the ownership or use of arms?"

Ownership? No. Use of arms? Yes the Constitution does restrict the use of arms by government, although unfortunately these days the government ignores many of those restrictions.

In hindsight heavy restrictions on government ownership of arms would have been a good idea.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 12:35 PM  

Latest evidence in support of a false flag design.

That's not support for a false flag. That's a narcissistic celebrity president making his way to the events with the most exposure.

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 12:36 PM  

"May the States require you to purchase a license to speak? Vote? Do restrictions against forced quartering of troops apply to the States?"

There are a number of restrictions on rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Slander and Libel to begin with. Furthermore, licensing of guns does not restrict your right to possess arms.

You are evading my questions. Licensing speaking doesn't restrict it any more than it does firearms. How about licences to have gay sex (wouldn't apply in prison of course)?

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:38 PM  

Thanks, James Dixon! That puts it much better than I could or have ever seen (although I personally don't see Matthew as a Christian restriction to "non-violence only" but merely as an important doctrine in resistance in non-violent oppressive situations.) I totally agree that it all seems to be about seizing the spiritual and physical initiative at the same time.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 12:38 PM  

When Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" he was saying "Gun up and stand. Force your would be overlord to be your equal. Then see if those apples are to his liking."

No. He wasn't. Please stop this horribly misguided exegesis before it spreads.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 12:41 PM  

"No. He wasn't. Please stop this horribly misguided exegesis before it spreads."

Yes. That is exactly what He was doing. The fact that you don't understand the culture of the day doesn't change the Truth.

Churchianity is in fact wrong.

Anonymous Sigyn April 18, 2013 12:42 PM  

A. Man, I'm thinking you don't get this whole "rights" thing. Rights are not created by any level of government. Rights ARE; laws have to be made so as not to violate them.

The Amendments only point them out for people who need them pointed out, and give recourse to having them protected--you know, to prevent that whole "appointing new guardians" thing.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:43 PM  

That's not support for a false flag. That's a narcissistic celebrity president making his way to the events with the most exposure.

Mm-hm. And those get the most exposure, why? And he officiates at a Church in an "interfaith" worship service why?

Celebrity presidents can grandstand on any stage for any reason. There have been 60+ mass killings since 2009, and he just happens to preside as high priest over the most secularized, politicized, agenda advancing ones because, what, he's a highly selective narcissist?

The headline grabbing mass killings that aren't a part of the script don't get folded into the interfaith "healing" narrative for a reason. Yes, he can take his popery to unplanned places. I suppose this could be one, that just accidentally is following the exact same agenda of the scripted worship after-parties of Ft. Hood, Tuscon, Aurora, Newton.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard April 18, 2013 12:47 PM  

Pet, you forget to whom you speak. This is a fellow who believes that one's right to breathe in and out only exists so long as everyone else agrees to it. As soon explain the colour blue to a blind man; you will meet with greater success.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 12:47 PM  

That's right Daniel, a certain sample of the most useful mass killings get taken and abused by the media and the campaigner-in-chief Obama to push their agenda. Do you really not know how liberals operate? If you did this would not be suspicious in the slightest.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 18, 2013 12:48 PM  

All the emo porn in the world ain't gonna work - people must be able to defend themselves and households.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:50 PM  

Please stop this horribly misguided exegesis before it spreads.

I never claimed it was exegesis. I'm old. My falutin' doesn't get anywhere near that high any more.

It is just what seems like the story in the book seems to be saying. It seems to match up with my experience when I try to re-enact it. If its wrong, its wrong. I don't intend it to be teaching, just what seems the plainest meaning to me.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:50 PM  

Please stop this horribly misguided exegesis before it spreads.

I never claimed it was exegesis. I'm old. My falutin' doesn't get anywhere near that high any more.

It is just what seems like the story in the book seems to be saying. It seems to match up with my experience when I try to re-enact it. If its wrong, its wrong. I don't intend it to be teaching, just what seems the plainest meaning to me.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 12:51 PM  

licensing of guns does not restrict your right to possess arms

Someone doesn't understand "licensing" or "right" or both. Short bus must have run out of gas this morning.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 12:51 PM  

Yes. That is exactly what He was doing.

No. Scripture must be taken in context - with the culture of the times, and with other scripture.

And that link that says that Jesus was advocating "clowning"? Major, major facepalm.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:54 PM  

That's right Daniel, a certain sample of the most useful mass killings get taken and abused by the media and the campaigner-in-chief Obama to push their agenda. Do you really not know how liberals operate? If you did this would not be suspicious in the slightest.

Hmm. The most useful mass killings, that all just happen to have the same gaping holes in the story, that all happen to have taken place during security "drills" or "training" of some sort or happened to have an inordinate number of para-military involvement, followed up by a very specific marketing and well-timed world religion service.

Yeah, I don't think I'm the one who hasn't read the liberal playbook.

Nothing you have said provides evidence that Boston wasn't engineered by state agents. Please, feel free to debunk. I'd be happy to be shown the light.

Anonymous RedJack April 18, 2013 12:55 PM  

That's a really interesting Constitutional proposition. Fantasy, of course, but it would be neat to see that argued in Court.

DH: That was what the US government argued back in the 30's. They couldn't regulate milita/military style arms, but only non military ones. Case in point, there were many (wealthy) people who owned Maxium guns privatly. Since it was a military weapon, they were allowed. Privatly held cannons were also not that uncommon.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 12:59 PM  

No. Scripture must be taken in context - with the culture of the times, and with other scripture.

And that link that says that Jesus was advocating "clowning"? Major, major facepalm.


Don't associate my sexy genesis with the link or whatever. That wasn't my answer. My answer was that I read the bible, and in context and the context of that society, turn the left cheek is a very unusual shift in the dynamic, just as hauling a soldier's gear for two miles, or giving up more than what someone demands of you is.

I'm fairly familiar with the culture of the time. I know that turning the other cheek wasn't a meek move. It was more in line with his command to strap on a sword.

Anonymous Boris April 18, 2013 12:59 PM  

You seem to confuse a few senators with "Americans" in general. The universal background check legislation was extremely popular.

(Yes I know many think "polls are fixed" and whatnot. I really can't counter theories that are not based on facts, however.)

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 1:00 PM  

"No. Scripture must be taken in context - with the culture of the times, and with other scripture. "

So you advocate taking the scripture in context... with the cultural context of the times... then you draw exactly the wrong conclusion that such a thing produces!

Brilliant!

***full disclosure: I have no idea what the link in question says about clowning. I haven't followed it. However "turning the other cheek" was indeed an act of open rebellion.***

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 1:03 PM  

Someone doesn't understand "licensing" or "right" or both. Short bus must have run out of gas this morning.

Oh he understands it alright when you apply it to speaking or having gay sex, which is why he won't answer my questions.

Anonymous Random Democrat April 18, 2013 1:06 PM  

I'm so mad about the gun control defeat I am going to shoot someone.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 1:07 PM  

Nothing you have provided is even slightly compelling evidence that any of those were engineered by state agents.

What are the gaping holes in the Tucson, Ft Hood and Aurora stories?

The marketing aspect is a natural element of a politicized and liberal media. It's the same reason why they don't list the race if a black person commits a crime. Or give as much attention to stories about people rightfully defending themselves with firearms. That's why they have openly stated they will be mad if the Boston Bomber isn't a white male, because it won't have the marketing elements they desparately seek.

I'm skeptical of the drill angle especially in the Boston case. It's quite possible that they received a tip or threat and were telling people a drill was going on. Would you rather them walk into a crowded event and say "excuse me, I need to walk through because there's a bomb around here somewhere"?

I was unable to find any relevant drills going on during the Tucson or Ft Hood shootings. There was a drill during Aurora .............. at a medical school. So those events don't even fit the playbook description that you describe.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 1:09 PM  

Oh he understands it alright when you apply it to speaking or having gay sex, which is why he won't answer my questions.

You mean he isn't in favor of registration and licensing of as well reasonable restrictions on queers?

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 1:10 PM  

I never claimed it was exegesis. I'm old. My falutin' doesn't get anywhere near that high any more.

It is just what seems like the story in the book seems to be saying. It seems to match up with my experience when I try to re-enact it. If its wrong, its wrong. I don't intend it to be teaching, just what seems the plainest meaning to me.


Well, ok. That's reasonable. But consider that this was the man who said "he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

Consider that possibly the message was not "gun up" or "clown your enemies into shame". Consider rather that the message was that the things of this world, (our garments, our cash, our own bodies) are not the things we fight for. Somebody smacks your right cheek, the message Jesus wants you to convey is not "I am gunning up". It's "I really don't care about any of your earthly bs because my eyes are fixed on eternity and things spiritual. Let me know when you are finished with your weak attempt to grab power so I can get back to my Father's work.

Sorry if I sounded strident but I feel this is going to be a most important thing to understand in the times to come. There's going to be a lot of cheek slapping going on and if God's people are fixed on the temporal and "gunning up" they will suffer all the more.

Anonymous ENthePeasant April 18, 2013 1:10 PM  

In light of the bombings at the Boston Marathon it's hoped that the good Senators will take up the cause of Pressure Cooker control and limits on "Tactical Black bags." No honest women needs a pressure cooker larger than two quarts or a "tactical black bag" larger than 1000 cu in. Owning anyone of these items should require a background check, registration and a Federal buy back program should be enacted for all pressure cookers and bags that violate the size. Something also needs to be done about the illicit trade of pressure cookers at flea markets and home and garden shows. If we can save just one life it will be worth it.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 1:11 PM  

However "turning the other cheek" was indeed an act of open rebellion

Rebellion against what? (We may actually be in agreement here)

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 1:14 PM  

"What are the gaping holes in the Tucson, Ft Hood and Aurora stories?"

Lets look at Aurora for the sake of brevity.

How did the police capture the bad guy? How did they know who he was? What happened to the second badguy? You know... the one that was reported initially, questioned, and then let go? The one that they now deny ever even existed in the first place?

Blogger JCclimber April 18, 2013 1:17 PM  

@Daniel,
per my sources, only the NKJV and NIV use the word "Slap".
Other versions use "smite" KJV, and strike (most others).

I would say that striking and especially, smiting, are not a pussified slap.

When God smites someone, is it equivalent to slapping them?
I certainly hope your church isn't using the NIV as a eschatological foundation, since it is very well known to be a paraphrase Bible, not a strict Bible translation.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 1:19 PM  

The one that they now deny ever even existed in the first place?

Who was it that the audience members saw open the emergency exit for the shooter?

Anonymous Matthew April 18, 2013 1:23 PM  

"turning the other cheek" was indeed an act of open rebellion

In all three examples (cheeks, clothes, miles), His counsel is to agree and amplify.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 1:27 PM  

JCclimber,

Translation doesn't matter here.

You are missing the context. Strike a man on his right cheek. If you do it with a closed fist, you are giving a left jab. A left-handed punch would be a preposterous thing to throw first in that day, as a right-handed punch would be naturally stronger. A right cross would not be a likely shot either. The physics are all wrong.

No. This is about the far more typical caste-based backhands. No doubt about it. Strike or smite, it doesn't matter. Otherwise, he would not have mentioned the specific side of the face. That's the obvious key without any other context. Strike your right, offer the left. Punches don't make sense in the context.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 1:33 PM  

Sorry if I sounded strident but I feel this is going to be a most important thing to understand in the times to come. There's going to be a lot of cheek slapping going on and if God's people are fixed on the temporal and "gunning up" they will suffer all the more.

Why then does Jesus order his followers to arm themselves with actual worldly swords? I think you are reading far too much overlay into the plain meaning of his instructtions. Yes, totally agree that it is about how things of this world don't matter in the way we think they do, but a follower of Christ who offers the left cheek is indeed seizing power in the situation, just in a way that no one expects.

Who cares if things get worse for Christians? We've been promised this! In this world, we'll have trouble. The Scripture indeed, teaches us to resist with supernatural force, and not in invisible pie in the sky ways.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 1:33 PM  

In all three examples (cheeks, clothes, miles), His counsel is to agree and amplify.

Yes. But why?

Anonymous Rip April 18, 2013 1:33 PM  

As to the question: "do states have the power to regulate firearms", Logos is the only one I've seen answer it exactly right. Under the original intent, the restrictions repeated in the BOR did not apply to the states. The only thing I'd add is that, even taking aside the horrendous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, I'm not aware of any provision of the Constitution that allows the federal government to forcibly deprive state governments of Congressional representation on the condition that said state governments pass an amendment to the US Constitution. In other words, the 14th Amendment *should* have no force in law in the first place, as its very existence is unconstitutional on its face.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2013 1:45 PM  

> I'm so mad about the gun control defeat I am going to shoot someone.

Harry Reid voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment. He's obviously a turncoat to your cause. :)

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 1:50 PM  

Who was it that the audience members saw open the emergency exit for the shooter?

I've done searches regarding this claim and haven't really found much. How many audience members saw this? Why didn't the rest notice it?

The witness quotes I'm reading seem to suggest it appeared he got a phone call (seems suspicious at first but it isn't, his goal was to not startle people while he was getting his stuff so he would likely pretend to outside to take a call), walked out, and came back in later .. and a piece of plastic was found that likely was propping the door.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 1:56 PM  

Why then does Jesus order his followers to arm themselves with actual worldly swords?

Why did Jesus consider two swords to be enough for the entire band of disciples? Just as He said - that scripture may be fulfilled.

but a follower of Christ who offers the left cheek is indeed seizing power in the situation, just in a way that no one expects.

I would submit that offering the left cheek is not seizing anything, just as giving your clothes is not seizing anything and walking an extra mile is not seizing anything. The point is that by giving something which is of no value you haven't lost anything.

It's not rebellion or defiance. It's a complete disregard for the things that this world considers to be "power".

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 18, 2013 2:03 PM  

**"That's a really interesting Constitutional proposition. Fantasy, of course, but it would be neat to see that argued in Court."

So we can conclude then that you actually haven't read US vs Miller?

That is actually what the decision says. The government can only regulate firearms with no military value. It was never argued that a sawed off shotgun has military value, so the conviction and the law were allowed to stand.**

You're right, if by "regulate" you mean "ban or otherwise try to restrict access." But my argument is that under the militia clauses, Congress certainly would have authority to regulate military weapons *if* their regulation was meant to promote their effectiveness as military weapons. Congress almost certainly has the power, for instance, to mandate that all "assault weapons" be sold with high-capacity magazines and plentiful supplies of ammunition. Congress would never do this, which is why the commenter above was right to call it a fantasy, but they have the power to do so under the militia clause.
-----

*The States have the right to organize and arm a militia. The fed gov may borrow them under certain conditions.*

Kinda, but not exactly. Here's what the Constitution says -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

So Congress gets to organize and arm the militia, and decide the rules of discipline for it, and 0can call them up for service in certain kinds of emergencies, but the states get to appoint the officers and actually execute the Congressional rules.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 2:06 PM  

I've done searches regarding this claim and haven't really found much. How many audience members saw this? Why didn't the rest notice it?

Two (a couple seated in the front row near the exit) that I'm aware of. They said it wasn't the shooter.

Don't know. Proximity, lighting, etc. could have played a role.

Anonymous Peter Garstig April 18, 2013 2:15 PM  

Daniel, thank you for elaborating. It's a view I never had and being a left handed man, can not realky relate. But I understand where you are coming from.

I also don't understand this verse as the peace-verse that most make him out to be. Offering the other cheek is rebellion and a sign that the slapping had no impact at all; kind of like the boy telling the father to hit harder.

Chesterton Has written often about the sword of christianity.

Blogger RobertT April 18, 2013 2:15 PM  

159 comments already. Yesterday when I commented I had to click to the second page. Last night on my Kindle Fire I read every 340 of them. I never do that. What's happening here? Is this a seismic shift in viewers? Seems to be. Scalzi'll be torqued. (according to the urban dictionary - getting your a** handed to you by a superior)

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 18, 2013 2:15 PM  

On the false-flag nuttiness:

the main problem with the argument that minor local incidents like Newton or Boston are false flag operations is that it ignores the role of the media. Since the media determine the meaning and significance of events, and can even create pseudo-events like the Alar scare, in which there was no actual underlying event, there is no need to fake incidents. The masters of propaganda have long known that the best propaganda is the one that invents the least, where the propaganda message lies solely in the interpretation of real events and the selection of which real events and real details to report. False flag operations are at best a waste of time and at worst dangerous.

I have to think you conspiracy guys really haven't thought this one through.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 2:16 PM  

I'm not saying definitively there was no accomplice but there really isn't much here to suggest that, and there's even less to suggest it's a false flag. And saying "why don't we know X" or "why haven't they disclosed Y" isn't really compelling either because a judge has enacted a gag order.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 2:19 PM  

"I'm not saying definitively there was no accomplice but there really isn't much here to suggest that, and there's even less to suggest it's a false flag."

You're ignoring several issues.

how did the cops know who the bad guy was so soon? How was the arrest made?

Do you know these things?

No.

Because the story has never been told.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 2:39 PM  

how did the cops know who the bad guy was so soon? How was the arrest made?

Initial responders say he was still at the scene and still in most of his gear.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 2:42 PM  

I have to think you conspiracy guys really haven't thought this one through.

You're incorrect. Governments throughout history, dating back to the Roman Empire, have been known to create false flag events. This includes the US government. What is your grounds for claiming that the US government has suddenly, for no apparent reason, stopped utilizing them?

Anonymous Difranco April 18, 2013 2:48 PM  

Tallen,

Slander and Libel are actual harm/injury to another person and are prosecuted after the fact and only the person who is guilty is punished. No prior restraint was forced via a licensing scheme for a computer or a governor installed on a computer limiting the number of keystrokes per second.

Shooting someone without lawful cause is actual harm that is illegal and those people should be punished. Registrations, licensing, background checks do not stop or prevent unlawful behavior before the act. 10 years of the Brady Bill proved this as the DOJs own studies proved.

Anonymous DonReynolds April 18, 2013 2:51 PM  

Obamba says that it was a stupid and shameful MINORITY that defeated his gun control bill in the US Senate. Lemmie see, 60 to 40 is not a MINORITY of the Senate. In fact, his own party controls the Senate on every other issue, but suddenly they lack the ability to stage-manage the gun control bill. Someone needs to tell Obamba, if he cannot get his own Senate to pass the bill...how much of a chance would it have of passing the House? Maybe a few Senators decided it was a waste of time to pass something the House would absolutely NOT pass.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 2:53 PM  

I have to think you conspiracy guys really haven't thought this one through.

This is simply not true. What you are failing to recognize is the role of public relations. Events, press releases, statements, etc. have an elaborate orchestrations process. Yes the media can create enough sustainable fodder on its own, and yes, the Powers that Be can capitalize on unplanned events. You are overlooking a subset of events that have anomalies in the execution that tend to support engineering in many instances.

For example, Ruby Ridge could have possibly been a misguided and bungled arrest that happened to serve, after the fact, as a warning shot against the militia movement. Waco, on the other hand, was clearly a set exercise by the ATF to stage a military attack on civilians. The government had its PR in place ahead of time, and wrangled the press to about as much precision necessary in herding sheep.

In the case of false flags that serve as pretenses for further government intrusion, I think it is fairly clear what Aurora and Newton were for, but I think that anytime these "unexpected" bombing/shooting things happen (as opposed to planned military ops like Waco), you need to look at the surrounding circumstances: in addition to fishy elements (such as "this is just a drill" or drug-sniffing dogs at the finish line), is there a political healing service, is there stern policy rhetoric, are there emotional, ready-made stories, and does it endure beyond the natural news cycle?

Now, I don't know what, precisely, this incident is in place for, and for all I know, it may be just a narratively harmless, run of the mill political bombing like Atlanta '96. I never said it couldn't be just that. What I'm not seeing, however, is the evidence that this isn't a false flag. There was plenty of evidence that '96 wasn't a false flag within hours, and certainly days, of the bombing.

Even though they accused the wrong guy, it was fairly clear back then that it was an effective but amateur bomb, and consistent with the type of bombing that one person (or at best a very small group) could pull off. The box it was in was discovered by security and the area cleared. Aside from them nailing that poor guy Jewell (RIP), it was pretty much a straight story with the usual holes in the Official Story (aka wrong suspect, bad estimate on initial numbers, etc.) and none of the ones common to a false flag (wrong names, doctored photos, unusual military or other presence, etc.)

So yes, media is a useful idiot that goes off and starts random parades lionizing the powers that be.

That does not mean that there isn't plenty of evidence of plausibly engineered events.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 2:55 PM  

VD, can't a risk/reward case be made for that? Isn't it a lot easier to get caught in 2013 with camera phones, the internet, and alternative media than in 1964 or 1898? The risks begin to outweigh the rewards. If we assume Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, etc were false flags .. what have they gotten out of it?

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 18, 2013 2:58 PM  

James Dixon:
But he's a democrat. It's in their DNA. They can't help themselves. They always have to try to take the guns.

True for the most part - Manchin (WV) being the perfect example. However, many Repukes are the same way. In places like Illinois, it's actually been the downstate Dems who have done the most to keep the gun grabbers at bay. Repukes from Shitcongoland are as likely to be gun-grabbers as the Dems who dominate the region. The 4 Dem incitatuses had enough gun folks in their states to be afraid, as did a fair number of their R-team counterparts. However, as Doom mentioned, once the Repukes legalize 20-30 million new Dem-Socialist voters, they'll be able to pass all the gun control they like. Rand Paul has proved himself a true-blue Repuke - a party for whom the highest virtue is betrayal.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 3:06 PM  

"Initial responders say he was still at the scene and still in most of his gear."

And put up not one lick of a fight.

Makes all kinds of sense doesn't it?

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 3:09 PM  

Makes all kinds of sense doesn't it?

Apparently he made a post online saying "will you visit me in jail?" He knew and accepted what the consequences were going to be.

Oh yeah, and he's batshit.

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 3:12 PM  

Difranco - I think you're mistaking the 2nd paragraph (should have been italicized) for me when it actually came from "A. Man"


Why then does Jesus order his followers to arm themselves with actual worldly swords?

I've said this before: there are a few ways to interpret the passage. Consider the context and the response to the disciples presenting Jesus their two swords: "It is enough." Jesus was confronted by the priests/elders and their minions but actually held by the Romans. The swords enabled the priests/elders to provide the Romans with a lawful excuse for holding Jesus (possession of a weapon, banditry or some such) who could then permit him to be executed in fulfillment of Scripture.

Alternatively Jesus may be demanding all of his followers (every Christian) be armed even at the expense of clothing and shelter.

It may very well be that both apply; I don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively say one way or another.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 18, 2013 3:13 PM  

The Imperator of Ice Cream makes an excellent point:

the main problem with the argument that minor local incidents like Newton or Boston are false flag operations is that it ignores the role of the media. Since the media determine the meaning and significance of events, and can even create pseudo-events like the Alar scare, in which there was no actual underlying event, there is no need to fake incidents. The masters of propaganda have long known that the best propaganda is the one that invents the least, where the propaganda message lies solely in the interpretation of real events and the selection of which real events and real details to report. False flag operations are at best a waste of time and at worst dangerous.

Note that this does not actually render false-flags impossible. With a Ministry of Truth at the ready to parrot the doubleplusgood narrative, the squids' ability to spin actual events to reinforce proper rabbit thinking reduces their necessity. As you say, the most effective lies of all are those which are 80-90 percent true. These fool even most "conservatives". There is also the issue of the Ministry of Truth having lost a small amount of control over the narrative. Yes, the rabbit warren never questions what they've been told (despite - comically - thinking of themselves as 'independent thinkers who've thrown off the shackles of tradition, patriarchy, rayciss hate facts', etc.), but there are more zeks and proles who are suddenly awakening to reality than before.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 3:13 PM  

VD, can't a risk/reward case be made for that? Isn't it a lot easier to get caught in 2013 with camera phones, the internet, and alternative media than in 1964 or 1898? The risks begin to outweigh the rewards. If we assume Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, etc were false flags .. what have they gotten out of it?

Nothing. That's why they're so upset. They thought they were going to revive a gun control movement that has been dormant since the Clinton years. The media got on board and dutifully trumpeted that the American people were finally ready for it... and virtually no one who didn't already favor gun control bought it.

Hence the sweet tears of rage we are presently enjoying.

Blogger Nate April 18, 2013 3:14 PM  

"Apparently he made a post online saying "will you visit me in jail?" He knew and accepted what the consequences were going to be.

Oh yeah, and he's batshit."

Its ok man. You are perfectly welcome to sit here in the cave. Its your choice.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 3:19 PM  

Alternatively Jesus may be demanding all of his followers (every Christian) be armed even at the expense of clothing and shelter.

Then He wouldn't have said two are enough.

Anonymous RINO April 18, 2013 3:23 PM  

Its ok man. You are perfectly welcome to sit here in the cave. Its your choice.

Nothing to cave on, you want to say perfectly understandable things are not understandable.

Blogger James Dixon April 18, 2013 3:30 PM  

Well, I agree with Obama that the government actions today were shameful. Just not which branch.

It's absolutely shameful the way he acts when he doesn't get his way.

Anonymous Tallen April 18, 2013 3:44 PM  

Then He wouldn't have said two are enough.

Fair enough. At least 1 in 6 must be armed.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 3:51 PM  

At least 1 in 6 must be armed.

Brilliant military strategist, that Jesus.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 3:55 PM  

When you say "there are really just a few laws on the books about firearms" I suspect you know you're being disengenuous. Regulations are not laws... so technically you are correct that there are only a few laws.

However, there are lots and lots of regulations... which all have the force of law. Also... its not the number of laws. Its the reach of those laws.


Yes, I didn't mean to say there were not a lot of regulations, there surely are. I meant, from the perspective of what it will take to undo the legal framework of gun regulation, there are few few laws that need to be undone to effect a huge change.

Point of comparison, with say, Social Security. There are literally hundreds of laws that establish, tweak, adjust and tweak that program. Undoing one of those laws, or even dozens - not a big effect. Even going back to original New Deal legislation - unclear.

Guns on the other hand - one or two reversals by the Court and the entire Federal framework regulatory framework just goes away. All of the regulation stems from either the NFA, Gun Control Act of 68 or the Brady Bill.

Anonymous dh April 18, 2013 3:56 PM  

The media got on board and dutifully trumpeted that the American people were finally ready for it... and virtually no one who didn't already favor gun control bought it.

Exactly. Base motivation. No one changed their mind, this is get out the vote for 2014.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 4:01 PM  

Biden is already spouting off more executive orders on gun control and just adding political enemies' names to a list of "prohibited" buyers.

Evil never sleeps.

Anonymous Stilicho April 18, 2013 4:02 PM  

spouting off about more executive orders...

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 18, 2013 4:09 PM  

**You're incorrect. Governments throughout history, dating back to the Roman Empire, have been known to create false flag events. This includes the US government. What is your grounds for claiming that the US government has suddenly, for no apparent reason, stopped utilizing them?**

Boy howdy, that Roman mass media was sure effective, wasn't it? Love how they controlled the narrative.

My argument is apparently too simple for an internet super-genius. Governments don't create false-flag incidents for "no apparent reason." They do them as a means of controlling the narrative. The modern mass media echo chamber is a more effective means of controlling the narrative. Minor incidents with only a few deaths--or even things that aren't incidents at all, where there is nothing actually happening to report, like Alar or global warming or 'white privilege'--can be spun up, massaged, editorialized, and used as convenient. I don't believe 9-11 was a false flag incident, but at least it passes the smell test that it caused changes in public opinion that the propaganda organs of the elite class couldn't have ginned up on their own. But Newtown or Boston? Chump change.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 4:30 PM  

Porky, its not military strategy, it is simply practical use of material, something you suggest he preaches against in Matthew 5.

On the one hand, yes, clothes don't matter, carrying someone's stuff doesn't matter, getting swatted by someone doesn't matter, but his meaning is much deeper than that. He was contrasting it to the passive acceptance of the order by the authorities, and the common zealot-rebel. His was a holy resistance, one with material implications.

If it is acceptable for a disciple to arm himself, it is acceptable for a Christian to arm himself. Turning the cheek and carrying a soldiers gear double the distance are simple, silent...and defiant.

Surely you don't think Satan would find them to be acts of obedience to him, would you? Surely such acts wouldn't be considered collaboration with principalities, would they?

I agree with you that what Jesus is talking about is on a spiritual plane, but He is not a Christian Scientist. The spiritual acts in flesh, and a man's actions with guns (as with any objects) have a spiritual component that we ignore to our peril.

After all, there is a huge subset of gun owners who use their weapons primarily to make holes in pieces of paper. Surely, gun-grabbers don't oppose them on their physical outcomes, otherwise they would likewise oppose paper punch and other craft supply ownership.

No, they oppose objects (guns) on spiritual grounds. They have a superstition that paper punching guns are evil places, and must be consumed by fire. They are backed by a government who bucks against the spiritual and political restraint that its armed populace provides.

Molon labe is as passive as turning a cheek. Both are also equally defiant.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 4:55 PM  

Turning the cheek and carrying a soldiers gear double the distance are simple, silent...and defiant.

The very definition of "defy" is to oppose or resist. Not to say "please sir, may I have another".

Molon labe is as passive as turning a cheek.

Molon labe is rebellious defiance. Turning the cheek would be Leonidas saying "here's our weapons - and here's some more that we had in the closet - do you want those too? "



Anonymous Molon Labe April 18, 2013 5:54 PM  

Porky = pussy?

Anonymous Anonagain April 18, 2013 6:29 PM  

Next time we start a country, we mustn't forget to add the following article to the Constitution, at the very top:

Article I: No Leftist or LIAR (Leftist In All Respects) may hold any elected office, be appointed to any position, or have any power whatsoever within any level of government, at any time, for any reason. Any Leftist caught attempting to lie his way into power will be immediately executed.

It's the only way to keep the vermin from infesting and destroying a decent country.

Anonymous Daniel April 18, 2013 6:32 PM  

Molon labe is rebellious defiance. Turning the cheek would be Leonidas saying "here's our weapons - and here's some more that we had in the closet - do you want those too? "


This is a preposterous misreading of the teaching. Molon labe is minding ones own business, standing one's ground, and if someone wants to go for the property of another man, well that will be met accordingly. Turning the cheek is minding one's own business, standing one's ground (not cowering, falling, or falling into line) and upsetting the social order by giving them another shot to insult, this time with the off hand.

You are definitely overthinking this. Like I said, try it at home. Your body will understand the scripture much sooner than your mind will.

Anonymous VD April 18, 2013 6:35 PM  

My argument is apparently too simple for an internet super-genius. Governments don't create false-flag incidents for "no apparent reason." They do them as a means of controlling the narrative. The modern mass media echo chamber is a more effective means of controlling the narrative. Minor incidents with only a few deaths--or even things that aren't incidents at all, where there is nothing actually happening to report, like Alar or global warming or 'white privilege'--can be spun up, massaged, editorialized, and used as convenient.

Hence Sandy Hook. You're still not getting how they're using the media. As I said, why don't you go see where Mr. Phelps of Newton, CT is living now....

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 6:35 PM  

@Molon

Let's role play, Molon. I'll be the Roman soldier who slaps your face, steals your coat and makes you lug my gear for a mile.

You be the big bad "defiant" "rebellious" Christian who not only sits there and takes it but asks me to do it to you again while you sit there steaming and imagining to yourself that you have somehow defied me and asserted your "Christian strength" over me.

Then I, the Roman soldier will laugh at you, and you can go console yourself by reading some Robert Bly and having a good manly cry.

Pussy.

Anonymous Porky April 18, 2013 6:41 PM  

Turning the cheek is minding one's own business

No. It's turning ones cheek to offer it to the assailant. Jesus didn't say "mind your own business" he said make the effort to offer your cheek, make the effort to give him your clothes, make the effort to walk the mile.

It's not cryptic. It's very plainly acquiescing and amplifying using effort on your part.

It is not submission, though.

Anonymous Razoraid April 18, 2013 6:43 PM  

Americans haven't forgotten Sandy Hook. But neither have we forgotten Ruby Ridge, Waco, Benghazi or Auschwitz, to name but a few examples of why we should never trust solely in government agencies for our safety. Never in human history has making oneself weaker made one safer.

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 18, 2013 7:03 PM  

**Hence Sandy Hook. You're still not getting how they're using the media. As I said, why don't you go see where Mr. Phelps of Newton, CT is living now....
**

I get it, unless you assume that its actually a government operative who has been typing my emails for you. What you don't get is that its not necessary to fake a minor incident. Minor incidents happen all the time. Its only necessary to publicize one and announce over and over what it "means" without regard to the actual facts, which the proles can't be bothered with anyway. If Sandy Hook were a false flag operation, I would expect the incident to have been tailored just a little to the liberal proposals that came out of it. They weren't, not even close.

That's your first major misunderstanding of the media, that they need manufactured incidents to work with. Your second one is thinking that the main purpose of the media is the message they push. Easy mistake to make--the purloined letter gag is one of the oldest ones in the book. Their main purpose is distraction and division. Their main purpose is to grab your attention. Whether gun control passes or not is secondary. The medium is the message.

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts