Under-No-Pretext

I thought this thread would be a little more popular than it has been thus far...

It's hard to tell from just a photo, but it looks as if the steel had a flaw in it.  Assuming the firearm was never fired at all, I'm surprised it left the factory like that.

Not exactly.  The SCOTUS case Calder v. Bull (3 US 386, 1798) specifically defined ex post facto laws for the purposes of this clause of the Constitution to mean:     In other words, as far as the case law in the United States, a retroactive law is not necessarily prohibited by the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, which is why the Lautenberg amendment was possible.  It only applies to criminal laws and then charging people with violating that law for actions that were committed prior to the law's implementation.  So, they could not pass a law prohibiting SBRs, make it retroactive, and then immediately prosecute everyone with possessing them prior to the law's implementation.  They could prohibit them and require people to turn them in by a specific date and prosecute people for not doing so at that time.

This chart was obtained from a group called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  It briefly outlines the gun laws in countries that also had genocides during the 20th Century.  I would caution anyone to assume that restricting guns is a sufficient precursor to genocide, because clearly it is not.  However, I would suggest that nations where individual rights, including the right to own firearms, are not respected, that nation is much more likely to engage in violence against its people.  I think it is especially interesting to note the gun control laws in Rwanda, home of the most violent genocide since the Holocaust (and if you consider the rate of killing in such a short amount of time - 4 months - it is the most violent genocide of the 20th Century).  800,000 people were not killed with guns, not poison gas, not "weapons of war"; they were killed with the crudest of weapons: machetes.  The perpetrators roamed the cities and countryside in groups armed with nothing more than machetes.  I am confident that they would have used AK-47 rifles if they were available, but their scarcity certainly did not prevent the violence.  This is the legacy of the Second Amendment.  EDIT:  The source formatting didn't transfer over like I thought, so I have adapted the chart data here.  For sake of simplicity, I omitted the victim groups, but suffice it to say, it is always less-powerful minority groups and/or people deemed as "enemies of the state" who pose a potential threat to the group in power.      http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

I just watched it and came here to link to it.  Piers absolutely got his @$$ handed to him here.  Much better than the Alex Jones.

I would definitely have it replaced.

This conspiracy BS is simply shameful. The family photo is a couple of years old and shows two young girls with their older sister. The photo with Obama shows two older girls, but no older sister. Just because a girl wears her dead older sister's hand-me-down dress does not mean a vast government conspiracy is afoot. Do you really, seriously, think that if this actually was a conspiracy that the girl being presented as dead would be anywhere near that school or the media to ever be "accidentally" sent into the photo? Stop and think how idiotic that sounds. Also, as with any of these alleged conspiracies, for them to work it would mean that hundreds or even thousands of government officials at the federal, state, and local levels, police, in this case teachers, school administrators, employees, an entire community of people, and media people would all have to be in on this without a single person having a change of heart, touch of conscience, or selfish reasons to blow the whistle. And to even question how a father handles the grief of his child's murder is absolutely disgusting!

  Thanks.  I am actually in the planning stages of a paper for publication with a colleague of mine and UT Knoxville and another who teaches at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC.  I am also in the very early planning stages of trying to replicate the infamous ABC News "experiment" that so many of us are familiar with, except this time, I would try to make it more realistic by using nothing but average people as shooters instead of a trained police SWAT team member and firearms instructor who know which participant has the gun.  I've also started writing an op-ed, but I'm not sure where I will submit it.  I hope to expand on that op-ed and get it published in a mainstream magazine publication somewhere.

And that's because Newt talks a good game and then doesn't know when to shut up. He ends up shooting from the hip with some wacky idea that completely contradicts his stance on an issue and/or is based on emotion. Perhaps the worst part of the Alex Jones rant was when he didn't know when to shut up and went into his NWO crap. Up to that point, his rant could be attributed to a man passionate about his gun rights. Beyond that, he became a conspiratorial loon who is creating an argument based on NWO silliness, thus destroying the credibility of his entire argument. It also doesn't help matters that he managed to get himself into a confrontation with the TSA while getting on the plane to do the interview. Heck, just look at some of the responses in this thread. A good spokesperson would be rejected because they weren't inflammatory enough because "this isn't a time for playing nice."

Although I understand your point, I would partially disagree with you. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum are ingnorant about the Constitution or selectively interpret information that fits their argument. Regardless of what you or I may believe about the Constitution or its meaning, there is no clear consensus or solid definitive interpretation of most aspects of the Bill of Rights. The problem here is that most Americans are uneducated on the Constitution, the Enlightenment era philosophy that inspired it, and the historical facts that influenced it. I teach college students who proclaim to know the document and have very strong opinions about what it means, yet can't answer basic questions about the background of the document. Also, as the world changes, we are required to go back and reapply centuries old concepts to contemporary circumstances, which were not foreseeable in 1789. That was the reason the framers made it such a vague document. They outlined bedrock principles, but left the details to future generations. It's these bedrock principles that people simply don't educate themselves about. So, the Second Amendment applies to the people? Prove it, explain how you know that, give me the details, the historical principles, etc. Most people can't do it and that is why we are constantly at risk of losing our rights. Take Alex Jones again as an example. He went into the lion's den with no significant level of information or data to back up his point. He assumed that his rant was sufficient because that's the truth and damn it, that's sufficient in an argument. Even though Morgan was incorrect on his data, he at least tried to use some data.

  Good information, but a single report by a local news station does not a fact-based debate make.  We have decades of crime data and academic research available, but nobody is talking about it.  Even the NRA largely ignores it.

Yup same for me, but it looks like they have a new and better server in the works and that should be up and running any day now. 

Being firm about the issue does not automatically preclude the possibility of being polite.  What we need is sane and rational spokespeople that are clear, concise, and back up their rhetoric with data.  Raving tinfoil hat loons like Alex Jones do us more harm than good.  All that we can hope is that most of the fence-sitters out there recognize that Jones is a nut and don't make him the representative for the entire 2nd Amendment movement.  I have strongly been considering writing an op-ed, but don't know where to try and publish it.  Incidentally, I sent an email in my official capacity to the journalist who participates on TGO periodically asking for information on gun issues and offered to help him with any research, but I have yet to receive a reply.  I contacted a syndicated talk radio host I knew in Florida offering to be a guest and/or help him collect data on gun crime, but have yet to receive a reply.  I contacted my state senator offering to help collect data or provide insight on policy ideas, but have yet to receive a reply.  I would think that at least one person in the pro-2nd Amendment movement would be interested in at least discussing the issue with a criminologist and former law enforcement officer who offers to discuss gun crime and gun control policy.  I am beginning to think that people don't really want to know what the research says, but would rather rely on anecdotal evidence and emotion on this issue, regardless of their stance on the issue.  I find that very troubling.

Betty Duncan Massey has yet to respond to my communication sent a couple of days after the shooting.

The left has Rosie O'Donnel, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan.  The right gets Jesse Ventura, Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones.   Regardless, this wacky conspiracy nutjob crap just takes the pro-2nd Amendment movement right down the road the anti-gun crowd wants it to go and it seems that many are more than happy to oblige.  Much like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum in the grocery store, ranting like a lunatic never helps your cause, especially when you are already being portrayed as crazy by your opponents.

I have a space blanket and a couple of the SOL Survival Bivvy bags in my get home bag I keep in the car.  I figure it's far better than nothing and nice insurance to have.  They are small and lightweight.

So, from what I gather from the responses thus far, carry permit holders should immediately dump rounds at someone:   A.  if they have a non-lethal weapon and piss you off B.  if they use a non-lethal weapon on you, shoot them out of principle C.  if they use a non-lethal weapon on you because they might use a real weapon on someone next week   And if you choose not to utilize deadly force:   A.  you are a spineless coward B.  you are a female sex organ C.  you shouldn't be carrying a weapon yourself D.  your sanity is questionable Well, it's always nice to see that rule of law, respect for the sanctity of human life, and the right to determine for yourself whether deadly force is necessary is so well-respected.  It's no wonder so many people think that gun owners are trigger happy cowboys just itching for a gunfight. As far as my opinion, it's totally up to the individual whether or not they believe deadly force is justified or necessary and that works on a case-by-case basis.  Would I shoot someone who is pelting me with a pellet gun?  It depends on how serious I feel the treat is.  If I realize the pellets are penetrating my skin and I have no other avenue to escape, I very well may use my firearm.  However, that's my decision to make, or yours alone to make.  Whatever you do is fine with me as long as it's a lawful use of deadly force. I'm just curious how many would be criticizing him had he shot someone over a pellet gun.

You realize the founders didn't have presidential term limits in the Constitution, right? The 22nd Amendment wasn't implemented until 1951. Also, Rep. Serrano has introduced this bill many times including during G.W. Bush's presidency, so I think it's safe to say this isn't some Democrat conspiracy to make Obama president for life. http://www.examiner.com/article/presidential-term-limits-bill-reintroduced-to-repeal-22nd-amendment

And/or give them reserve officer status.

  Yes, this is absolutely true.  As a former police firearms instructor, I can assure the world that many LEOs can't shoot a firearm accurately.  It was not uncommon for officers to fail their annual qualification, which many civilians I know could pass with flying colors.  Our department provided a modest supply of practice ammo and access to a firing range at the police department, and I could count on both hands the number of officers who consistently took advantage of the opportunity to practice their skills.  As a college professor, who has a carry permit, a law enforcement background, and who is a shooting enthusiast, I find it total insanity that I am not allowed to carry or possess my firearm on campus property.  It also does not surprise me that Gov. Haslam is not in favor of this because he made it clear that he did not favor allowing permit holders to carry in city parks.  He and I had an extensive email exchange on that topic when he was Knoxville mayor and no amount of logic, theory, or evidence would sway his opinion that kids shouldn't have to play in parks where people carry guns.  Incidentally, I contacted my State Senator Becky Duncan Massey about this within days of the Sandy Hook shooting, provided her my credentials and current occupation, and was not even given the courtesy of a reply.  That just reaffirmed why I didn't vote for her.

Outside of my posts here and on my FB page, I generally don't advertise my stance. I don't open carry, I don't wear pro-gun clothing, and I don't make any obvious comments to people. I learned this while a LEO. Life became much more pleasant when I stopped advertising my occupation while off-duty. I even got to the point where I hated having a patrol car parked in front of my house. Keeping a low profile is always your friend.

Wait, New York?!?  That's where 9/11 happened and we all know how the government blew up the World Trade Center!  I wonder what other connections there are???  So what we have here is a conspiratorial conspiracy!  :panic:

To the original question, I think the traditional symbols and gestures will be sufficient.  I am not one who believes that the majority of society's members will immediately turn aggressive and predatory.  Most will be like most of us: nice, honest, and fair.  We'll be scared and not looking for trouble, but cautious.  If someone verbalizes that they mean no harm and/or use common hand gestures like hands in the air, I will deal with them appropriately.  Ultimately it will be their actions that drive my response.

Even more proof of an NRA conspiracy with th NWO. What was the NRA response to Sandy Hook? A call for armed police to permeate society. More discussion here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread911371/pg1 It's on the Internet and results in more questions than it answers so it must be evidence of a massive conspiracy, right? EDIT: Wait! Even more proof! Alex Jones has even begun to notice this! http://www.prisonplanet.com/nras-wrongheaded-response-to-sandy-hook-violence.html

It's truly a sad state of human affairs when people claim that the absence of evidence of something is "proof" that something is true. Of course, most people only find conspiracies in things they don't agree with and never consider that the same could be true of their own side of the political spectrum (presuming any of these conspiracies are true to begin with, which they are not). Also, let's presume that Brady or the VPC has hired people to be fake mourners. That doesn't mean the federal government has anything to do with it. This is the same federal government that is allegedly so against all private gun ownership that they fund the CMP and allow guns and ammo to be sold to the public while helping sponsor the Camp Perry National Matches every year in cooperation with the NRA. Also, accepting the logic that powerful groups like Brady, the VPC, or the .gov would engage in activities like that, it that automatically means that the NRA is equally likely to be engaging in this sort of activity, especially when pro-gun politicians are in control. Obviously they are creating false stories of defensive use of firearms and concocting fake stories about anti-gun efforts. How do I know? They are powerful, politically connected, have lots of money, and I say so, which means it must be true. EDIT: Let's start with this, shall we? This claims that James Holmes, the Colorado movie theater shooter, is an NRA member. Of course, the NRA is saying he was not. Who is telling the truth? Holmes marked that he was an NRA member on the application to the shooting range he submitted, so clearly he was telling the truth and couldn't have lied. Rather, the NRA is now engaged in massive cover-up to disconnect them from a mass-murderer. Why would they do that? I suspect that it's likely because the NRA actually recruited Holmes to kill innocent people in an effort to bring all of the anti-gun politicians out of the woodwork so they can work to have them voted out of office. It is also clear that the Freemasons are involved in this somehow because many members of the NRA are also in the Freemasons, and we know their connections to the NWO. I suspect that it is likely because the Illuminati are using the NRA as a front organization to carry out their own activities. Indeed, what better way to prepare to take over the United States than to get millions of unsuspecting Americans to engage in voluntary gun registration by joining a "pro-gun" organization? This is why the NRA/Freemason/Illuminati/NWO cabal need to eliminate all anti-gun politicians; they know that these politicians typically also fight for other freedoms that have no place in the new Amerika. Need more proof? Just look at the NRA's leadership structure. The group does not support democratic selection of leadership because the President is voted on by a board of directors and not the membership. The board of directors controls the operations of the NRA and meets in secret. They elected Wayne LaPierre as the President, but even a very simple look at his background shows there are things amiss. First, LaPierre actually served as an aide for DEMOCRATIC congressman Vic Thomas in Virginia. LaPierre also attended high school with another prominent Virginia DEMOCRATIC politician, John S. Edwards, who supported anti-gun legislation in Virginia. Now this may all seem like coincidence, but what is the likelihood that this small town high school would have so many DEMOCRATIC connections? Next, look at LaPierre's connection with Boston College. Boston College is home of DEMOCRATIC politicians like John Kerry and Tip O'Neal, both well-known for their anti-gun stance. Boston College is also a Jesuit college, which means it's associated with the Catholic church. We all know how secretive the Catholic church is and there is evidence to connect the Catholic Church with the Illuminati. Why would an allegedly conservative pro-gun guy like LaPierre have so many connections with Democratic politicians and choose to attend an Illuminati connected college in a liberal haven like Boston? Add on that his family was not particularly involved in shooting sports, why would he grow up to be such a supporter of gun rights? There are just too many unanswered questions here and it's clear that something is amiss. Wake up America! The NRA is secretly working behind the scenes to take away our freedoms and your membership dues are helping to fund their efforts! Prove me wrong on this. All these details can be found through even the easiest Google searches. You can't find anything to disprove these facts, so the conspiracy must be true. Right?