Gideon35T

People don't understand that you can't prepare for every possible event. Even if you can, knew events will just be invented. It boils down to the means and determination of the threats host. The goal should never be to stop everything because that is a failure waiting to happen. The goal should be to stop reasonable threats. Look at a military risk assessment chart and you will understand. If the likelyhood is low and the potential impact is intermediate then the preperations are outweighed by more likely events. This is how you successfully prepare for incidents in the big picture. Even insurance companies use similar breakdowns to determine rates.

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/house-agrees-on-bill-to-keep-government-running/36852/

I meant a formal meeting not just bosses to workers or watercooler talk. Anyways, looks like it's going to happen just like they said. Still curious about impact on contractors. No official word as of yet.

At Ft Huachuca there was already a mass meeting about it giving out the info I provided. I imagine it was preemptive however.

As a contractor for the DoD I can tell you that the government civilians are getting a 1 day per week mandatory furlough (also means a 20% pay cut) starting April 1st. Us contractors are extremely unsure at the moment. Contracts may be cut or cancelled. The government reserves the right to alter the contracts in the middle as needed. Let's do a quick estimation. 800,000 DoD employees losing 20% of their pay. This 20% is mostly the disposible portion of their income. If the average pay is $50k that's a net salary of $400,000,000,000. 20% of which is $80,000,000,000. So that's $80 billion no longer in existance in nationwide disposible income. Mind you, this isn't in sync with the fiscal year so it's not actually so severe. Whatever the numbers work out to be it's certainly not going to be a good thing. Maybe I'll be able to put the compound into lockdown ;-)

Many people like to state that one can't defend oneself from the government with ANY firearm successfully. Stopping waves one, two, and three would be exceptional. However, an organized military force will eventually overwhelm your position with something you are unable to defend against. This is, of course, besides the point. Success has nothing to do with it at all really. The point is ability, constitutionality, and intent. All of which are clear. When I joined the Army I swore to die to defend this country. Would my death have meant success? No, it would likely have little or no impact on anything. This doesn't change the fact that I swore that oath. It certainly doesn't change the fact that when a group of people move forward with that same mentality ... Not as easy to stop as one guy with one semi-auto "assault rifle" knockoff. I think V for Vendetta should be a mandatory movie in schools, haha. In fact, wht not everything by Alan Moore?

I'm simply amazed that things like this are even brought up in the first place. Then again, NY banned large sodas ... Dumb breeds dumb I guess ...

Illinois State Senate Internet Posting Removal Act "Provides that a web site administrator shall, upon request (by the Illinois government)*, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. Effective 90 days after becoming law." *() - Added “Anonymous Poster” means “any individual who posts a message on a web site including social networks, blogs, forums, message boards, or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.” http://www.secretsofthefed.com/meet-the-internet-posting-removal-acta-bill-thatll-make-your-head-spin/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Governments looking to remove internet anonymity coming up again. I think this is a gross overstepping and violation of the 4th Amendment. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." surely applies to information posted online. The intent is to have warrantless information of a person Prima Facie of an actual crime. This is akin to having to wear a big sign in public stating your personal info. It also opens the door for countless abuses by administrators (don't shoot me Chuck) and governments. Thoughts???

"BTW, most people looking to do harm or rob someone will choose that person based on how "easy" they think the target will be." "It's not about pulling your gun out, it's about having a choice. With out a gun, you have NO choice." A couple of the smartest comments within this thread. In ops we label people/buildings/etc as "Soft Targets" or "Hard Targets". This a risk/reward equation that everything falls under. Even an idiot performs the same analysis before performing an action (typically). In a non-life threatening scenario, in a scenario where I'm unlikely to gain the upper hand, or in a scenario where my loss is negligable ... I wont pull out a firearm. The ability to choose which action to perform as a response comes from years of experience, training, and situational awareness. However, this does not mean that we should preclude those people without "years of experience, training, and situational awareness" from carrying. While having fools with guns will do doubt result in bad things happening having unarmed victems only results in a much worse situation. Risk/reward ;-)

"If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]" - Alexander Hamilton - The Federalist, No. 33

I hate when fools are on the same side as me ... It makes the entire argument looks shaky at best ... ANYWAYS ... lol

Social Security was innacted under political bs and approved by an altered Supreme Court wrongfully. After being repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. So, yes, I understand. I'm not saying it's spontaniously messed up I'm saying that our use of it is INHERENTLY messed up.

That viewpoint on the matter was used by the Supreme Court as the work-around for why the federal government has the ability to enact ANY legislation towards prohibition. In other words, it was done the way it was done so that nobody could argue that the standing laws in regards to machine guns and such were invalid. That is actually specifically outlines in the ruling. From the ruling (f) "...but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies...". So, you do not feel that an institution designed to - "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." (Alexander Hamilton) isn't stepping outside of its bounds by imparting partisan politics ??? Judicial review is designed to be seperate from partisanship. Any crossover makes the ruling instantly invallid (though not by law as we know).

It's the Supreme Court ruling itself. I typically reference such ruling from the Cornell Law department if you're interested. "Dubious origins" indeed ... pft You don't even know enough to know what the ruling stated yet you're somehow able to attack it ... sure ... This is obviously assuming that we give weight to the Supreme Court. We could argue all day but in the end I think we both feel that they are politically driven and no longer adhere to their mandate.

"The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights added to the original Constitution in 1791, states: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words: since a militia, provided that it is well regulated, is a very good thing for a free state to have, the federal government must not be allowed to castrate it by forbidding the people of the United States to possess weapons. For then the militia would have no weapons, and an unarmed militia is an oxymoron." - That states "by forbiding the people" NOT "by forbiding those previously mentioned militias" ... The first note of the Supreme Court ruling states - " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." - Because such actions were traditionally lawful. Also, there's context - "(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32." History - " (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47."

Compare the grammatical structure to the other items contained within the Bill of Rights and you'll see a clear difference. ""why not specify such?" - Because it does already very clearly being non-exclusionary. Such rights weren't arguable in preceeding times so a ruling wasn't needed before.

You're failing English 101 here Burn-E. Formulate a grammatical breakdown of those sentences and you'll see what I mean. "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people..." - this is not an exclusionary preface. After that, look at ALL the documentation used in the formulation of the Bill of Rights.

Burn-E --- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The first half is prefatory and the second half is the operative main clause. If you want to break it down to legal interpretation then you must review the grammar. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is mandated to consider context. The context of the document is very clear as all documentaion by our founding fathers used in the development of the Bill of Rights lists a specific individual right. Those documents also clearly explain the purpose of the bill. The points are not even arguable in those regards. Also, assuming that the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter is wrong because it came late is absurd. It's a legal clarification which assumes no difference in timeline.

Wow ... I see that there's no shortage of complete misunderstanding in regards to what the Bill of Rights is and/or what it means ...

My only issue with such an article is that the status of the NRA really has nothing to do with the point. I couldn't give 2 shatz less what they say about anything and I'm not a member. I appreciate the political pressure regardless of its selfservingness because it accomplishes the goal. On the whole, I avoid lobbying firms and other bs outlets as much as possible. The truth is the truth regardless of who is pushing for it (or against it). "Of the top 15 gun manufacturers, 11 now manufacture assault weapons, many of them variants of the AR-15 – derived from a military rifle designed to kill enemy soldiers at close-to-medium range with little marksmanship" This is a great addition to "Dumb things liberals say". They are not "assault weapons". What they are derived from is irrelevent. They are no more or less effective at hitting anything "with little marksmanship" when compared to any other firearm. It's simply more scare tactic bs that is easily on par with anything one could blame the NRA for. "News" is anything but these days ...

Hahahahaha. Just like it specifically states "for hunting purposes", right? ;-)

Good thing those gangbangers and all others like them nationwide will follow new gun laws ...

I was curious so I dug up some numbers just to see ... 4,486 US soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. 4,773 people were murdered in Chicago in the same timeframe.

Thaat's part of the point. Hear that buzzing noise? That's my statement going over most of your heads apparently ... But nevermind, I'll leave the thread alone ...