When Seconds Count – You Need A Good Person With A Gun

ScreenHunter_850 Sep. 23 11.49

Terror in Kenya: Survivors reveal how gunman executed non-Muslims | Mail Online

The principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School desperately called for someone with a gun to save the children. The police took almost 15 minutes to arrive, and it was too late. If she had a rifle in her office, those children would have opened their Christmas presents.

ScreenHunter_851 Sep. 23 11.59

Democrats want to take away American’s Constitutional Right to defend themselves. The world has a lot of very evil people in it, and there is nothing they like more than a gun free-zone – such as a school or shopping mall. Gun-free zones are an invitation for evil.

” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.“

– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to When Seconds Count – You Need A Good Person With A Gun

  1. R. de Haan says:

    From Seablogger:
    The Central Planning solution to evil: http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-central-planning-solution-to-evil.html

    But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson.
    It’s the party of King George III.

  2. Bob Greene says:

    Kenya has relatively restricted gun laws, prohibiting assault weapons, real and look likes. You must be licensed to own a fire arm and purchase ammunition and may only possess the firearms on you license. They also require background checks. None of that helped the victims of this tragedy. None of that prevented terrorists from Somalia from having a free fire zone with defenseless victims. Another case of so-called brave men shooting helpless people.

    I don’t recall hearing outrage over this despicable act from Muslim countries. Was it not reported?

  3. R. de Haan says:

    The First Global Revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Revolution

    http://green-agenda.nl and the UN AGENDA 21

    The First Global Revolution is happening right now and they don’t want you to fight back or take part of it. They want disaster and casualties. They want misery. All to prep us for their solution.
    Screw them.

    • jimash1 says:

      “Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.”[2] “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”[3]”

      Uh-oh…

  4. Antonio says:

    When Muslim terrorists kill a bunch of people, we are cautioned by the government and the media not to judge all Muslims by the insane acts of the few. But when a nut with a gun does something crazy, the government and the media have no problem lumping all gun owners together with the crazy one.

  5. jack b :-) says:

    An absolute guarantee: our guns will NEVER be taken away from us. Never. To any liberal reading this be forewarned, you will see, uh, ‘civil disobedience’ and the right to bear arms at a scale you NEVER imagined in your kool-aid fueled, tofu sucking brains if you EVER put forth a serious effort to ‘try’ to disarm us 2nd amendment-types. Not only are conservatives and libertarians armed to the teeth and competent in firearms usage, law enforcement AND the military are on our side – totally. Think Egypt. Times 10 to near infinity. But whatever you do with your current 20% minority rule, you really need to think through your future takeover plans. You really, really don’t want to piss us off very much more. We’ve had ENOUGH!

    You have been warned (and threatened).

    Have a nice day. 🙂

  6. mogur2013 says:

    ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.“
    – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
    “The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless – by disarming them. Under various pretenses, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them…” — 3 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d ed. 1836), at 379

    George Mason was not referring to taking away individual weapons by the government; he was speaking to the fear that state militias could be emasculated by the federal government simply by not supporting them with either arms or training. State militias were considered a guarantee that a mischievous federal government wouldn’t be allowed to subjugate its people. Mason went on to say that-

    “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…”

    Again, Mason wasn’t talking about confiscating an individual’s hunting musket, or defensive pistol, he was referring to an English strategy to slowly weaken colonial militias.

    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
    “The only refuge left to those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors would, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States would silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be going too far to say the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

    Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”

    Nowhere does Madison imply here that “[the Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed“ In fact, this paper was written in 1788, a year before Madison even submitted the ‘Bill of Rights’ amendments. The full context makes it clear that Madison disdained fears about “the downfall of State governments”. He agreed with Mason that “the advantage of being armed” referred to the militias of subordinate [State] governments which “forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.

    “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
    “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements.”

    At first glance your quote, Steven, appears to be quite similar to what Jefferson actually said. But you add ‘ever’ and leave out ‘in his own lands or tenements’ and then end the quote with a period at that point. That is disingenuous at best. This actual quote, a proposal by Jefferson for the 1776 Virginia Constitution (13 years before the 2nd amendment) was rejected. What was passed was “That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

    Virtually all discussion in the founding days about ‘bearing arms’ by ‘the people’ refers to State militias keeping federal standing armies in check. The people meant the enfranchised body politic of freemen, since they were all obligated to serve in militias from the age of 18 to 45, excepting only those that had religious objections to military service, members of the federal legislative and executive branches of government, postmen, ferrymen, mariners, or those who could pay an equivalent to bear arms in their stead. The idea was that persons of all social stations would keep the ranks of the militias free from lower class only servitude.

    Snippets out of context, alterations, and total fabrications of quotes by the founders does not bode well for either side of this argument. It is very rewarding to actually read the context of these inflammatory slices of wisdom. The truth isn’t that hard to ascertain, and the journey is rewarding.

    • What a long winded buffoon you are.

    • Blade says:

      Yes Steve, quite possibly the dumbest buffoon yet to attack the Second Amendment, or comment here in general.

      Nowhere does Madison imply here that “[the Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed“ In fact, this paper was written in 1788, a year before Madison even submitted the ‘Bill of Rights’ amendments. The full context makes it clear that Madison disdained fears about “the downfall of State governments”. He agreed with Mason that “the advantage of being armed” referred to the militias of subordinate [State] governments which “forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.

      What a blockhead you are. Almost everyone on this site knows that is from The Federalist, determined to be Madison in paper No. 46. Of course it was before the Constitution you retard, it was during the escrow period to sell the thing to the just-liberated 13 colonies who were war-weary, and extremely wary of getting new masters to replace the old.

      That’s the actual context ( I suspect this blockhead is T.O.O. and/or Ill Wind Blowing ). James Madison, who would become Jefferson’s field marshall and the driver of the Democratic-Republicans ( aka Jeffersonian Republicans aka Jeffersonians aka Republicans ) was in the peculiar position of being a Federalist, and working with Alexander Hamilton just to get the thing passed.

      Most importantly though, for your idiotic propaganda about some lack of private firearm ownership to be true it would mean that the victorious colonials packed up their shit, dropped of the “state militia” guns at the depot and went home, unarmed and awaiting to be called up again. There were no state militia so to speak, they were ad hoc, and loosely defined as all men under a certain age. There were no state firearms issued to called up minutemen ( except maybe later after several years of losing battles ), they carried their own firearms to the fight and brought them back home.

      No place in America was ever unarmed, even at Jamestown and Plymouth almost 150 years earlier … that is until you dumbass leftists came along doing the bidding of some future tyrant to be named later. The curious thing is how these liars remember to breath each morning.

      Steve should do a slashdot type comment modding based on IQ adding a little blurb beneath posts by these braindead liberals. Rather than Score: 5 Funny he could do a Estimated IQ: 65 Dumbass Extraordinaire.

      • ROFL – that was awesome.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Excellent. Thanks Blade. 🙂

      • mogur2013 says:

        Attack the Second Amendment? ROTFLMAO. No, I was simply putting Steven’s misquotes in context.

        Before the Constitution? Exactly, so how could Madison be referring to the Constitution which doesn’t even mention arms, much less the Bill of Rights that at that time he thought was unnecessary? I will repeat Madison’s quote to disprove Steven’s misquote: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” Show me where Madison claims that the Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed. Otherwise, Steven’s quote is not accurate. If you read the full context, it is quite clear that Madison was not referring to personal firearm possession, but rather the arms of a subordinate (state) militia.

        Where did I say that the colonials dropped off their firearms, to go home unarmed? The title of Madison’s paper was “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared”. His main point was that State militias have greater numbers and loyalty than any federal standing army which could be envisioned at that time, so that the fear of the federal government subjecting the people was unfounded.

        There were no State militias at the time? Yet they were ad hoc with no state issued arms? I think you need to read a little bit about our history back then. I will repeat the Virginia state Constitution quote- “That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.” [1776] This was about state armies versus a standing federal army.

        Personal firearm possession wasn’t even an issue back then. Even Jefferson’s proposal for the Virginia state Constitution, “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements” was rejected. That certainly doesn’t mean that everyone was unarmed back then, but simply that it wasn’t an issue they were primarily concerned about then. What did concern them was the federal government subjugating the states.

        Try again, my friend.

  7. I’m still waiting for a sensible reason why there was a member of the neighboring towns SWAT team, hanging outside the school. Who didn’t show up to help when all the shots were going off. Perhaps if we disarmed the government, these children would still be alive.

  8. Larry Fields says:

    Melody Harpole says:
    September 24, 2013 at 2:20 am
    “I’m still waiting for a sensible reason why there was a member of the neighboring towns SWAT team, hanging outside the school. Who didn’t show up to help when all the shots were going off.”

    Excellent question. One possible explanation is that the off-duty SWAT guy was only armed with something like a .38 snubbie, which is considerably less accurate at medium distance than the rifle the shooter supposedly used on the children. (However the element of surprise was in the off-duty SWAT guy’s favor.)

    Even though he was probably outgunned, the off-duty SWAT guy was still a chickenshit. He should have done the right thing: try to take out Lanza, and save the lives of at least some of the children.

    • I used to work up the street from Sandy Hook Elementary School, and there was absolutely no reason for that guy to be there. It is not a hiking, hunting or exploring place. The school is close to the Interstate and there are beautiful hiking trails a mile or so away. How could he possibly have known what type of gun was being fired?

  9. Chuck says:

    Does anyone find it odd that we have surveillance footage of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and Aaron Alexis, but not Adam Lanza??

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s