East_TN_Patriot

  I think the argument for most is that teachers who already have a carry permit and choose to be armed can do so, but likely with additional training.  I would think that most teachers are much better candidates for carry than many of the people I have seen show up at gun shows.

Assuming this is accurate, gun owners are again proving to be our own worst enemy.  Yes, I know it's from "ThinkProgress" a liberal internet rag, however it appears to be reporting actual events.      

It looks kind of like one of those little Beretta pistols.  If it was, the likely problem wasn't a jam, but he forgot to chamber a round.

Bad guy before: Bad guy after: :up: :clap: :bowrofl:

  I would venture a guess that the words "stupid effing morons" would have been in there somewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/girl-suspended-threatening-shoot-classmate-bubble-gun-18255686

I have some Kevlar thread I got from the place I get my nylon thread for the holsters I make.  One hank is a 20 yard piece and has a tinsel strength of 150 lbs and is about the same thickness as a single inner strand of paracord.  I also have a spool that is 312 yards long with a strength of 30 pounds.  It's only slightly thicker than regular clothing thread and is about the size of 3 or 4 quarters stacked up.  It would make some excellent thread for repairing gear and clothing.  I keep that spool and a couple of heavy-duty leather sewing needles taped to the inside of the lid of my pocket survival kit. 

This just went on my Facebook wall.

Yes, I would like some OD green Pmags to go with the OD furniture on my AR that I recently installed.  I don't see that happening anytime soon unless I paint the black ones I already have.

I've bought a few things from him in the past.  His prices and selection are good enough that I'm willing to make the drive down on occasion, especially since he posts his inventory online so I can see what he has.

  Unless I'm looking at the site wrong, they are already sold out on the PMags.  When I look at the item pages, there is no option to order. 

Yeah, I'm with most here. He was willing to try to push gun confiscation through be executive order, but due to "shocking" backlash from the NRA, he gave all of it up for the BS he presented today? Nah. I simply don't buy it. I spoke with a top secret Republican insider today too, and he said Obama was planning on ordering state control over all businesses in America, but backed off after a uprising backlash from the Chamber of Commerce. Seriously, that story makes no sense. However, nobody who has been paying attention should be surprised that he supports the legislative proposals listed in the press briefing document. I called that one days ago in conversations with friends. He's not stupid enough to think he could override the entire Second Amendment by XO and get away with it.

Nothing says Knoxville folks can't do the same thing. ;-)

One other point. The post then compiles a variety of historical "facts" to "prove" that the National Guard can't be used in a foreign war. These comments are nothing more than randomly selected comments lacking context and the full background history. Just because people have onpinons about policy, that doesn't mean that's what the law said then or how it has changed since. It seems that the point of this post is to say that the Dick Act guarantees the right to keep and bear arms by clearing defining all men age 18-45 as part of the unorganized militia, and even though we are the militia, the government can't force us to fight outside of the US (perhaps a political commentary on our current use of the National Guard in the Middle East), but none of this is correct.

I think that people need to be careful what they wish for when it comes to impeachment. I think it would be a grave mistake for the US to start impeaching presidents over disagreements in policy decisions. The Constitution is clear on the circumstances under which an impeachment is justified and that should be strictly followed. The last thing we want is for our presidents to be impeached any time the opposition party is upset over policy that can be accused of being unconstitutional. Much like frivolous litigation is detrimental to our society, so to would the constant impeachment circus be if this became a common practice.

  OK, now that's a legitimate answer.  Most people will respond with the typical blanket statements of "they are liberals" or "they are in the tank for Obama".  As you appear to recognize, there isn't a single source that doesn't possess some level of bias.  I would suggest that it's useful to look at sites that you know are biased in the opposite direction.  If you can debunk their arguments, then you know your own beliefs are on much more solid ground.  Again, what I am harping on are the people who claim this whole event was staged (or carried out by the government) and that the government has brought in "crisis actors" to help cover it all up. 

  Then that's not what I would consider tinfoil hat kind of thinking.  What I am referring to are the people who believe that the Obama administration completely staged this event and/or ordered the killing of innocent children simply to legitimize new gun control laws.  I am also referring to the people who systematically disregard any and all evidence of what took place if it doesn't fit the conspiratorial narrative.  For example, if we saw photos of the dead children, they would claim they are staged and fake photos released by the government.  Grieving parents are called "crisis actors" hired by FEMA (a consistent villain for the tinfoil hat crowd).  Heck, I guess if FEMA is going to help the UN invade the United States, they can hire "crisis actors" to use on the off-hand chance there is a mass shooting at an elementary school somewhere. Now, do I think this event is being exploited by gun-control advocates?  Absolutely.  There is no doubt in my mind about that and the evidence is clear that is the case.  Is the Obama administration taking every opportunity to use this to score political points.  Certainly, just like any politician does.  Is the media broadcasting biased coverage?  Of course, just like they always do and always have done regardless of the story. Is Benghazi tinfoil hat?  No, again, the evidence is clear what happened there.  What IS tinfoil hat are the claims that the Obama administration specifically staged the event for political purposes.  Is "Fast and Furious" tinfoil hat?  No, evidence shows that it actually happened and was an epic failure of the Department of Justice.  What does become tinfoil hat in my opinion is the belief that the Obama administration intentionally put the entire operation into effect specifically to justify gun control.  If you believe that, then you must believe the 9/11 conspiracy that Bush knew about and/or ordered the 9/11 attacks to happen specifically to justify war in Iraq.  The "evidence" of that conspiracy is just as good as these other conspiracy claims.    You think it's strange that I call this sort of logic tinfoil hat, and I would counter that statement with the fact that I'm regularly called one of the sheep for not believing in this sort of BS.

I've seen this floating around on Facebook and thought it best to nip it in the bud from the get-go:     This is total and absolute B.S.  Your first clue is the claim that repeal of this law would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.  Presuming you understand what these legal concepts mean (and if you don't you should, so go look it up because they are important), it's clear that this claim simply makes no sense.  Your second clue is that the claim that it specifically invalidates all gun-control laws.  Again, this simply makes no sense because there were no gun-control laws in 1902.  Third clue is that this blog entry is the exact same text as found on numerous other blogs, and none provide any quotes or sources to back their claims up.  Using one of the databases I have access to, I was able to locate the original text of the Militia Act of 1903.  It wasn't easy to find.  However, I can confidently say that virtually none of the claims in the blog post are true.  Here is a link to the PDF document I have saved in my public folder in Dropbox.  If it works correctly, you can read this law yourself.  If I have missed something, please feel free to point it out. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44465921/32Stat775.pdf    

  I see. 

Video here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html http://youtu.be/EUKdLQ0_IEw http://youtu.be/JUPuH184CuU Of course, people are saying that all of this is fake because there wasn't video or photographs of the incident while it unfolded (because every tiny town across the United States has a news helicopter in the air 24/7 and we all know how the police always let the media run past a crime scene perimeter to get footage), but that's totally up to you to decide.

  Yes they do, and it doesn't help when our side spends time and energy on distractions they create on their own.

  So basically, you believe that this is a vast government conspiracy that involved the murder of innocent children and the organization of hundreds of people, but they were too stupid to pay attention to minor details like that and put up web pages before it happened?  If that's what you want to believe, then have at it, but I wonder if any amount of evidence proving that scenario wrong would ever dissuade you from what you want to believe is true.   All that we have here is a crazy guy who killed his mother and other innocent people using a firearm that millions of Americans own and just happens to be one that the left uses as the ultimate symbol of their anti-gun views.  After the event, the media, which is notorious for misinformation and an excessive desire for dramatic and atypical crimes to report on (hence the old saying "if it bleeds, it leads"), and they did exactly what the media does in today's infotainment-telesector: They reported any and all information they could without fact-checking or confirming it, they presented rumor as fact, and filled any gaps with speculation and sensationalized commentary.  Because the crime was committed with a gun, gun control advocates saw it as a tragic event that would be useful for furthering their agenda.  They played on people's emotions, presented even more speculation and commentary as fact, and people ignorant of the issue joined people sympathetic with the issue to demand more gun control.  Politicians who already had sympathies for gun control were more than happy to oblige.  That's all that happened.  No grand conspiracy, no "crisis actors", no NWO.  What we can learn from this is exactly what I've laid out.  Politicians and political activists are more than happy to take advantage of a tragedy to push their agenda, and our media is too unprofessional and irresponsible to provide accurate and unbiased news.  This is not a new trend, but was identified decades ago.  There is a whole theoretical perspective that talks about it called "moral panic".  

Explain how exactly.   Are they the know-all, end-all, be-all in truth seeking?  Of course not, but no single source is.  However, they do provide sources for reference so you can do your own fact-checking to compare with their fact-checking, which is what every single one of us should be doing anyhow.  Any site that doesn't completely confirm the "facts" as conservatives see them is automatically labeled as having a liberal bias and full of lies.  While the political right is saying Snopes, Fact-check, and Politifact have a liberal bias, people on the left are complaining they have a conservative bias (don't take my word for it, do your own web searches and see for yourself).  Just because the main authors live in Los Angeles does not mean they are automatically liberals, nor does being a liberal automatically mean everything they say is a lie.

  I presume you are referring to the date posted by the website on Google.  That is not a creation date.  It's the last date that Google "crawled" the site to gather info and cache the page. 

      See, like I said above, evidence doesn't matter.  It's all fabricated by people who are in on the alleged conspiracy.  Jesus could come back to Earth and say the conspiracy is a bunch of hooey, and the tinfoil hat folks would say he had been corrupted and was part of the New World Order.