SHOT Show Stops to Watch President’s Speech on Gun Control

The SIG SAUER guys had a large TV screen over their booth to show the usual convention stuff like product promos and demo videos. But when the President started his speech about gun control they cut over to a live feed from CNN. I saw a good portion of the convention floor come to a screeching halt as people gathered around the screen, wondering if their rights and their livelihoods were about to be smashed to pieces through a series of scattershot, overreaching executive orders. Throughout the speech,  criticisms about the president using children to shield himself were mumbled along with concerns about a Republican party that might be too divided to do anything about it . . .

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

105 Responses to SHOT Show Stops to Watch President’s Speech on Gun Control

  1. avatarGeoff says:

    And they stood there respectfully listened as he spoke. no one interrupted him or held up derogatory signs. The difference between Us and Them.

  2. avatarBig Jack says:

    CNN? Seriously???

  3. avatarIvy Mike says:

    If only the NRA and the Authoritarian Right hadn’t cravenly supported the Troops Standing Army–which the 2A was written to prevent–then Obama wouldn’t frighten a soul, American or anybody else around the globe.

    • avatarAharon says:

      In the long-term, grand scheme of things, the actions of the elitist politicians from both parties will bring America along somewhat different paths to essentially the same dark place. The three most dangerous and destructive criminal gangs in America are the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the Federal Reserve of whom Bank of America is a major investor and controlling influence. Unless a Black Swan event interferes, the American destination is a nanny-police quasi-fascist globalist state with most of the people living in servitude and struggling to get by.

      • avatarMatt says:

        I agree Aharon. Well said.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Intensification of City-Statism (Civilization) does seem to be Manifest Destiny.

        Except now the “savage” Injuns are the “savage” gun-culture. (btw, savage means only “dweller of the silva, i.e., woods.)

        Agricultural Civilization (City-Statism) has been an 8000 year long Trail of Tears. I think the Injuns sitting under their Council Trees felt much like we gun owners do.

        White Man’s Ghost Dance.

      • avatarpat says:

        But only Barry and the libtard dims are gun grabbing. Mitt and the GOP would not.
        BIG difference.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          George H.W. Bush resigning his life membership in the N.R.A., and his son signing the Brady Campaign’s bill. What is this BIG difference of which you speak?

        • avatarpat says:

          If you dont see the diff, your a dork, and not as smart as you claim.

      • avatarGs650g says:

        Aharon,
        In other words,just like the UK.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      It’s time to defang the Wall Street/Pentagon axis of evil. Starve the Standing Army, as the Constitution calls for. It’s been way longer than the Constitutional time limit of 2 years funding anyway. Let them eat caca.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Are “Standing Army” the only two words you know? Geez, you’re boring.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        FOAD if you don’t like the COMPLETE 2A, dimwit.

        “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Wow nice response asshole.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          What is your major malfunction with the COMPLETE 2A, numbnuts?

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Couldn’t give a single f*** about your point or argument your acting like a childish ass that is all

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Don’t give a f*** about the complete 2A, eh? Neither does Chuck Schumer. Nice company you keep there.

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Yep that’s how terrible you make your argument

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          At least I argue, Aaronvanman. You’ve merely registered your angry protest, without a reason.

          I’m rational. I quote the Constitution. I quote the Founding Fathers. I can string two thoughts together.

          You’re merely emoting. Kinda like those other bootlickers who can’t appreciate the complete 2A.

          You’re so emotional you could be a modern art masterpiece.

          If you can’t run with the big dogs, you shoulda stayed home.

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “FOAD if you don’t like the COMPLETE 2A, dimwit.”
          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789″

          Ivy Mike, do you realize that the Constitutional Army was formed 14 June 1774, the official US Army was officially created on 3 June 1784, and the US Marine Corps was founded 10 November 1775?

          I ask you this because the dates in which a “standing army” was created predates the entire US Constitution (adopted 17 September 1787 and went into effect 4 March 1789) and the Bill of Rights (formally proposed 25 September 1789 and became Constitutional Amendments on 15 December 1791). Sorry, but we had a standing army long before the Second Amendment was ever written.

          BTW, here is Gerry’s next sentence:

          …”Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.”

          Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and State rights vs federal government is nothing new. However, the Founding Fathers created a balance of military power between the States and federal government with the Bill of Rights (2A), as per Alexander Hamilton (1788):

          “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

          Sorry, Ivy Mike, but the militias and standing army of the United States are both acceptable and create a balance of power. The Founding Fathers knew this and implemented this very system. That is the “COMPLETE 2A”.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You say “implemented” when rather officials ignored the Constitution’s mandate to starve any raised army of funds after a 2 year time limit.

          Care to address that?

          You call a standing army a “balance of power.” In contrast, the founders called it names such as “engine of oppression,” “the greatest mischief,” and “tyranny.”

          Quite the contrast between your turd-polishing and “engine of oppression,” don’t ya think?

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “You say “implemented” when rather officials ignored the Constitution’s mandate to starve any raised army of funds after a 2 year time limit.
          Care to address that?”

          Ivy Mike, I will gladly address that. Officials have never ignored “the Constitution’s mandate to starve any raised army of funds after a 2 year time limit” and here’s why:

          Article I, Section 8, clause 12 states that “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”
          This means that “an annual appropriation requires that the funds appropriated be obligated (spent) by the end of the fiscal year of the appropriation. Once the fiscal year ends, no more money can be spent via the prior year’s appropriation. A new appropriation for the new fiscal year must be passed in order for continued spending to occur, or passage of a special appropriations bill known as a continuing resolution, which generally permits continued spending for a short period of time—usually at prior year levels.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill

          That was fairly cut and dry, don’t ya think? Every Congress since the very first has continued to re-new spending on our “standing army”, as per the US Constitution.

          “You call a standing army a “balance of power.” In contrast, the founders called it names such as “engine of oppression,” “the greatest mischief,” and “tyranny.””

          That’s right, it is a balance of power. The Constitution acknowledges and protects the rights of citizens to form a militia and keep/bear arms (2A). The Constitution also grants the federal government (Congress) enumerated powers that include raising and supporting armies through an appropriation bill (Article I, Section 8, clause 12).

          The Founding Fathers were split over almost everything, even the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) initially didn’t want to include a Bill of Rights:
          ‘Madison objected to a specific bill of rights for several reasons: he thought it was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted; that it was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights; and that at the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers.”
          Matthews, Richard K. If Men Were Angels : James Madison and the Heartless Empire of Reason (U. Press of Kansas, 1995). pg. 30

          “Quite the contrast between your turd-polishing and “engine of oppression,” don’t ya think?”

          Nope, not quite the contrast and I have done no turd polishing, I have only refuted your arguments with facts. I get it, you are a true Anti-Federalist at heart when it comes to the 2A, but you are trying to divide 2A supporters by claiming that they don’t know/support the “complete” 2A. Believe what you want, but the Founding Fathers compromised and included views from both sides (Federalist/Anti-Federalist) into the Constitution. I can see that you’re very passionate about your opinion (as you should be), but your efforts would be better suited in trying to unite us in our cause rather than to divide us, especially in this time of need.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist…Hamilton…

          BTW, Hamilton, a Federalist, was against a Standing Army. He considered the Militia a “substitute” for it. As do I.

          “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army…”

          ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist…Hamilton…
          BTW, Hamilton, a Federalist, was against a Standing Army. He considered the Militia a “substitute” for it. As do I.
          “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army…”
          ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29″

          And James Madison was a Federalist who initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, but was sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.
          The Federalist Papers No. 46 (James Madison) (concerning the influence of state and federal governments).

          See there ^^^…… compromise and we now have militias and a standing army, both of which are protected by the US Constitution. We could go back and forth all day with quotes because the Founding Fathers said many great things, but the greatest of all was what they put into the Constitution. Please feel free to refute any of my facts that completely refute all of your arguments about your opinion on the “COMPLETE 2A”.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The 2 year limit isn’t mere financial minutia for bean-counters as you make it out to be, anymore than the 2A is about mere hunting as your Statist compatriots on the other side of the aisle make it out to be.

          But if you want to argue that precedent—and the Constitutionally authoritative wiki—rules over the Constitution, then you are correct. The Constitution has been totally ignored by elected officials (including some of the “founders”) so often, in so many ways, some call it a dead letter.

          But we still know what the Founding Fathers, both anti-Federalists AND Federalists said about the Standing Army.

          Them:
          • standing army, the bane of liberty
          • standing army is one of the greatest mischief
          dispense with standing army
          • no such engine of oppression as a standing army

          You:
          a balance of power

          LOL!

          Christ, you’re such a turd-polisher you could go to work for Eric Holder’s office in a New York minute. Or the Federal Reserve. Your choice.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          we now have militias and a standing army

          Wrong.

          We have a Standing Army. The Militia has been completely and utterly ignored; and now, logically, being terminated.

          In the Constitution (which you ignore) it calls for the Militia — the substitute to the Standing Army as Federalist Hamilton said — for Congress “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”

          Ah yeah, the complete 2A: “A well regulated Militia…”

          Show me where Congress has provided to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia.

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “The 2 year limit isn’t mere financial minutia for bean-counters as you make it out to be, anymore than the 2A is about mere hunting as your Statist compatriots on the other side of the aisle make it out to be.”

          Yet again, go look up what an appropriation bill is. Congress continues to re-new spending on our military.

          “But if you want to argue that precedent—and the Constitutionally authoritative wiki—rules over the Constitution, then you are correct. The Constitution has been totally ignored by elected officials (including some of the “founders”) so often, in so many ways, some call it a dead letter.”

          Thank you, I enjoy being correct when it happens. I do agree with you that the “Constitution has been totally ignored by elected officials”. Actually almost every single person who reads TTAG thinks this, that is why we are here, that is why we continue to fight for our 2A rights.

          “But we still know what the Founding Fathers, both anti-Federalists AND Federalists said about the Standing Army.
          Them:
          • standing army, the bane of liberty
          • standing army is one of the greatest mischief
          • dispense with standing army
          • no such engine of oppression as a standing army
          You:
          • a balance of power”

          Yes, they did say those things, and you want to know what they did after all that talking? Drum roll please…… they created a Constitution that allows for both militias and a standing army (so long as their funding is renewed every 2 years)! Again, like before, a balance. Quote as much as you like, what matters is what they put in the Constitution in the end.

          “LOL!
          Christ, you’re such a turd-polisher you could go to work for Eric Holder’s office in a New York minute. Or the Federal Reserve. Your choice.”

          LOL, I’ve never been called a “turd-polisher” before, but I’m going to decline putting my new title anywhere in my resume. Even though I have a degree in Political Science, the only government work I do involves the Marine Corps (MOS 0331), so I will respectfully decline the job offers.

          “Wrong.
          We have a Standing Army. The Militia has been completely and utterly ignored; and now, logically, being terminated.”

          Calling me wrong doesn’t make me wrong, and here is why. The Militia Act of 1903 gave the United States an organized militia called the National Guard (not to be confused with the military one of a similar name). The US has both an organized militia and army, and they both serve this country. Remember, any citizen can create an unorganized militia, so if “The Militia has been completely and utterly ignored”, as you say it is, go ahead and create one in your area and keep the civilian militia alive.

          “In the Constitution (which you ignore) it calls for the Militia — the substitute to the Standing Army as Federalist Hamilton said — for Congress “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”
          Ah yeah, the complete 2A: “A well regulated Militia…””

          Well I’ve been quoting the Constitution in every one of my arguments (2A and Article I, Section 8, clause 12 specifically), so I’m not sure how I’m ignoring it. Like I said before, the Founding Fathers said many great things, but the greatest of all has been the Constitution (which gives us both militias and an army).

          “Show me where Congress has provided to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia.”

          Sure thing, have you ever heard about the Militia Act of 1903? Actually that’s rhetorical, because if you had you wouldn’t need me to explain it to you. The Militia Act of 1903 was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root and created the National Guard (National Guard of a State, it differs differs from the National Guard of the United States). There you have it, Congress has organized, armed, and disciplined a militia.

          Also of note, Congress created the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act, Congress also authorizes the sale of surplus weapons to civilians through the CMP. One of the requirements for a firearm purchase through the CMP is belonging to a shooting organization where you either train or compete with firearms. This is yet another way for the government to provide its citizens with firearms.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Oh, you have a political science degree. One of the well-trained and well-paid mandarin class who can jam anything into the term “Constitutional,” no matter what it really says or meant.

          Pissing on the founding fathers intent to prevent a standing army makes your living. Quite a racket you got going there.

          Wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds you with any admission of the truth, would you?

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “Oh, you have a political science degree. One of the well-trained and well-paid mandarin class who can jam anything into the term “Constitutional,” no matter what it really says or meant.”

          I’m well trained as an 0331 (some training as an 0317, not school trained though), but well paid I am not. I also don’t jam anything into the term “Constitutional” because I don’t need to, its already there in the Constitution. The Constitution acknowledges and protects the rights of citizens to form a militia and keep/bear arms (2A). The Constitution also grants the federal government (Congress) enumerated powers that include raising and supporting armies through an appropriation bill (Article I, Section 8, clause 12).

          “Pissing on the founding fathers intent to prevent a standing army makes your living. Quite a racket you got going there.”

          I’m not pissing on the Founding Fathers at all, their actions gave us both militias (organized and unorganized) and a military (which Congress chooses to renew every 2 years through the appropriation of funds). That being said, their intent was to create both, it’s right there in the Constitution; I’m really not sure how to make this any more clear, the Constitution is their action. Feel free to start your own militia and then petition Congress to not renew funding for the military.

          “Wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds you with any admission of the truth, would you?”

          Well, I have been stating truth the entire argument and have refuted everything you have said. You can keep ignoring the facts I have given which are straight from the Constitution itself and created by our Founding Fathers. Like I said, if you want a militia, join one or create one, you have every right to do so, no one is stopping you.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You haven’t refuted a damn thing.

          You merely take any current precedent and twist it into being somehow Constitutional.

          But you have good company. You’re just like everybody else of the Mandarin Class who need to justify their sucking on the Government Tit.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          “Renew” isn’t in the Constitution anymore than “hunting.”

          You’re just fraud like anti-gun folks in their twisting of the Constitution.

          Read it sometime instead of regurgitating the party line you learned in “political science” class.

        • Calm down IM, just because you have a few fellow citizens who disagree with your ideal assessment of the Constitution and 2A doesn’t automatically make them beholden to Eric Holder, Chuck Schumer or the Chinese. I sense you are a follower of infowars and Alex Jones, and though it’s not my cup of tea, more power to you. Just don’t be screaming tyranny at every corner because after awhile people start to tune you out like Peter and the Wolf.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        +1000

        Also: quack quack quack, little ducky, I love to hear you quack…

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Can’t tolerate an advocate for the COMPLETE 2A, bootlicker?

        • avatarjoe says:

          don’t antagonize IVY or he’l start spouting off the same quotes over and over and over and over….. too late!

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Tired of the 2A, are ya, Old Joe?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Antagonize who, Joe? I just like ducks.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          AG,

          Please don’t feed the standing army troll.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Heh. Usually I’m the one saying that… but there are some trolls who will go away if you starve them, and some who only go away after much drama and (hopefully) the ban-hammer comes down on them.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          It’s weird how an advocate of the complete 2A is somehow a “troll.” You name-call like Obama himself, fool.

          Ban advocating the complete 2A, eh?

          Usually those who, like you, despise the 2A have little respect for the principles of free speech in the 1A.

          You’re as intellectually bankrupt as DiFi herself, Alpha.

      • avatarAaronvanman says:

        How is telling Ralph to die rational? You lost the moment you did that. Funny thing is I kinda agree with your beliefs but not with you

  4. avatarTRP says:

    Maybe the “Anointed One” realizes that he is up against the fabric of our country (2A)? Nah…..

  5. avatarIvy Mike says:

    Just to irritate the Right Wing Authoritarian numbskulls who despise the COMPLETE 2A, I’ll quote some founding fathers, which should aggravate them as much as it would Obama himself.

    “Before standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” ~Noah Webster

    “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” ~Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801

    “…no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

    “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1803

    “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” ~James Madison

    “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army…” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Ralph says: January 16, 2013 at 13:40
      Are “Standing Army” the only two words you know? Geez, you’re boring.

      Last person who thought the founding fathers’ views on the 2A were “boring” was from Brady Campaign.

      Ralph Brady be thy name.

      Roll says: January 16, 2013 at 13:29
      Very true, our opposition is never respectful of us our opinions

      Who at the NRA would be respectful of the COMPLETE 2A? Oh wait, they’re too busy bootlicking the troops standing army–and no, they don’t protect anybody’s freedom–that the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

      • avatarOddux says:

        I agree with you to an degree, but you have a counter-productive and ridiculously obnoxious way of trying to make a point. Make value arguments, state the end result or goal and how well-trained state militias rather than a standing army would provide that result. Repeating yourself endlessly, hurling accusations, and spamming quotes doesn’t make anyone want to give your opinion or stance a moment’s thought.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        You agree with the complete 2A to a degree? But not really, right?

        You’re just like the Leftists. Zero argument. All “hurt feelings.” Poor dears.

        • avatarJake says:

          Dude you are missing the point. We are right there with you but you need to work on your delivery. Antagonism is never productive, quite seriously ever, at all. I read through and marveled at the entirety of the federalist papers when I was in eighth grade, because I was sick and tired of everyone constantly talking about how the Constitution is out of date and should just be ignored because “nobody can know what they really meant” At 13 my first question was “Well duh hasn’t anyone ever read anything else they wrote on the subject?” They were pretty livid about what was happening, and they were certainly well spoken, why wouldn’t they? And of course they did, and of course it is crystal clear that they valued self determination and individuality above almost all. But people are stupid.

          The point is not that our feelings are directly hurt by you. The point is they will be hurt indirectly by people like you when such venom as you spew leads to further curtailment of rights by people who act based on fear and loathing of the “other” in everything they do in their waking lives, and thus must unfortunately be handled in a (somewhat) delicate manner if we are to make any headway towards our goals. All they need to do for theirs is to make enough of us mad that we make a scene that gives them an excuse. Not a valid one, but when are excuses ever valid? Still after the fact.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          work on your delivery

          I’m right.

          About anything else? I don’t care.

          And since when is being right going to ruin anybody’s rights, pusscake? You whine exactly like a Leftist.

        • avatarduke nukem says:

          shut up already

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.

        • avatarWC says:

          Do you talk like this to everyone in real life, too?

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Do you, loser?

        • avatarpat says:

          Ivy is clearly an imposter. Nobody having his (self professed) achievements would display such behavior….a strange (quasi nutter/truther psuedo intellectual, half truth mishmash) belief system pushed with uncontrolled, juvenile energy.
          Genius, hero, millionaire, truthseer…..basement dweller.

  6. avatarLance says:

    SHows its time to unit and make your voice heard Call all your Reps and Senators and say no to a ban.

  7. avatarSilver says:

    There’s something strange about all these 2A supporters gathered at a huge event filled with the tools of liberty, indeed surrounded by them, and being worried about what some evil jackass on a screen will “force” them to do.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Not all force comes from the barrel of a gun. It’s called representative democracy, and sometimes it works better than others. I personally find it encouraging that the executive branch recognized the limits of its power and called for the legislative branch to Do Something, which gives us an opportunity to oppose this without bloodshed.

      Unless you live in NY State, in which case it’s time to support court action by the SAF, Cato, et al.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Too bad you can’t support the complete 2A. How is the truncated form working out for ya?

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Trollolololo

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The intellectually bankrupt Leftists who have no rational counter argument often bleat like the Standing Army bootlicker Aaronvanman.

          Here’s to ya.

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Lol see this is why no one takes you seriously rather than try and make a good argument for your beliefs you’d rather call people with a different opinion bootlicker or advise them to FOAD therefore troll

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Understanding the 2A is NOT some sort of high-school popularity contest, jockitch. But actually, a few here, even a USN vet, have spoken up and do take seriously the complete 2A.

          But even if they didn’t, I’d stand alone if I was right. And I am right. And, sadly, you have ZERO counter-argument.

          Perhaps you need to attend Monty Python’s Argument Clinic, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert.

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          You could be right but your still a troll

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Troll used to mean somebody who posted totally off-topic controversial subjects. Such as if I mentioned abortion or John Deere sucks.

          Now it usually means “somebody who doesn’t toe the Party Line” these days.

          Yeah, I’m right, and you don’t like it.

          Keep shooting your little blanks; it’s all you got.

          You don’t know a damn thing about the 2A. Sad.

        • avatarAaronvanman says:

          Again I’m not here to argue for or against a complete 2a…. But by following AG to someone else’s comment to harass him about it is very much being a troll…. This is how you are seen.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Hurt feelings? Can’t compete? Go sob on the soft breast of mother dearest.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Guys, Ivy Mike doesn’t support the compleat 2a. I doubt he even owns a gun. Nobody but a gun grabber would be this low and vicious in his attacks. He’s just hear trying to stiffle the discussion and hopefully run off real guns rights advocates.

          Wouldn’t surprise me to find out he’s one of mikeyb’s troop. Ignore the gun grabbing under bridge dweller and he’ll get tired and go away.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          I doubt he even owns a gun.

          You’d be wrong, LIAR.

          Nobody but a gun grabber

          Wrong again, LIAR.

          I’m just against a Standing Army, and for the Militia. You know… “a well regulated militia.” That part you don’t have the slightest clue what it means.

          vicious in his attacks

          Do you mean all those vicious personal attacks and lies against me are by “gun-grabbers?” That makes you a gun grabber. Your logic. LOL

          P.S. You need to call your mommy up and ask her about dishing it out when you can’t take it. It seems she was delinquent in teaching you about “turnabout is fair play.”

  8. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    IVY MIKE I know you feel strongly but before you continue to name call do all of us a favor and pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow. Thanks in advance. Jeff

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Name calling? Take it up with the idiots who started, hypocrite. Oh, name-calling isn’t really the issue, is it?

      The issue is:

      1. I’m Right.
      2. You’ve got ZERO counter-argument.

      Fvcking Loser.

      • avatarUSMC says:

        “The issue is:
        1. I’m Right.
        2. You’ve got ZERO counter-argument.”

        Actually, 1. You’re wrong (see my posts above) and 2. I do have a counter-argument (also see my posts above). You have failed to divide us, but thanks for playing.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Actually, I’m right, and you’re a turd-polisher.

          Founders on the Standing Army:
          • standing army, the bane of liberty
          • standing army is one of the greatest mischief
          dispense with standing army
          • no such engine of oppression as a standing army

          You on the Standing Army:
          • a balance of power

          LOL! You’re so far out in Leftist field, you make Obama look like Reagan.

          But yeah, thanks for playing. Too bad for you, I’ve swatted the ball out of the park, and all you can do is stare balefully.

        • avatarUSMC says:

          Yet again, you are still wrong, please see my comments above.

          “you’re a turd-polisher”
          “LOL! You’re so far out in Leftist field, you make Obama look like Reagan.”

          Resorting to personal attacks, are we? Also not sure why you think I’m a “Leftist”, all I have done is prove you to be wrong. You have been criticizing others because they don’t believe in your History Channel Ancient Aliens version of the “COMPLETE 2A” and how “the 2A was written to prevent” a standing army (which it wasn’t, re: Article I, Section 8, clause 12 of the Constitution and The Militia Act of 1903). My guess is that you are actually MikeB#’s in disguise trying to divide us 2A supporters. Sorry, your tactic didn’t work, we shall remain vigilant in our fight as a whole.

          “But yeah, thanks for playing. Too bad for you, I’ve swatted the ball out of the park, and all you can do is stare balefully.”

          If you want to think that, go ahead then. I have refuted every “argument” you have tried to make about how “the 2A was written to prevent” a standing army and how no one else knows the “COMPLETE 2A” and I accomplished this in a respectful and intellectual manner.

          Just remember, no matter how much you quote the Founding Fathers, they still put pen to paper and wrote the Constitution with compromises in regards to militias and armies. Now we have both to fight for our country, not just one.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Yet again, you are still wrong, please see my comments above.

          My guess is that you are actually MikeB#’s in disguise

          Resorting to paranoid delusions, are we?

          which it wasn’t

          Which it was.

          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….”~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

          compromises in regards to militias and armies

          Which you ignore. A temporarily raised army was allowed in the Constitution for a 2 year limit. You weasel around that like an Eric Holder so you can have your “engine of oppression” and “the bane of liberty,” a standing army.

          fight for our country

          Bullshit. You are a “high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers…a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism” as Major General Smedley Butler, USMC puts it; rather typical of kleptocratic standing armies the world over.

        • avatarUSMC says:

          “Which it was.
          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….”~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789″

          Sure thing, here’s the Gerry’s next sentence:

          …..”Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789″

          “compromises in regards to militias and armies
          Which you ignore. A temporarily raised army was allowed in the Constitution for a 2 year limit. You weasel around that like an Eric Holder so you can have your “engine of oppression” and “the bane of liberty,” a standing army.”

          Yep, yet again (third time actually), go look up what an appropriation bill is. Congress continues to renew spending on our military every 2 years as per Article I, Section 8, clause 12 of the Constitution.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You’ve taken his warning and twisted it into permission.

          You’ve taken a clear 2 year time limit in the Constitution meant to keep a temporarily raised army from turning into a standing army and turned it into mere bean-counting details.

          You’re polishing a turd. But then you’re a professionally trained “political science” turd polisher in service to the Big Government on whose tit you suck right now. Quite the racket.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          I guess your formal training as a political science turd-polisher wasn’t quite thorough enough.

          You keep dancing around:

          “…high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers…a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism…” ~Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

          Which is the result of having an unconstitutional Standing Army.

          Better call your professor so you can regurgitate the Party Line on that too.

        • avatarpat says:

          Ivy, the ranting imposter child. Opening books and reading/writing/spouting off into the internet blogosphere, without more than half understanding or placing real world context to what he is uttering.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          “real world context”

          Did you get that talking point from the Brady Campaign? The Collectivist Leftists don’t like the complete 2A anymore than the Authoritarian Right.

          You both love standing army long time.

        • avatarpat says:

          The collectivist left is FAR AND AWAY the greater danger than the authoritarian right because of their revolutionary (bring it all down) Saul Alinsky tactics and lack of reverence for all the good that this country has to offer (not just the bad, like you may dwell on to a greater degree than me, though I admit we aint perfect).

  9. avatarduke nukem says:

    ivy mike shut up, your paranoid ramblings is exactly what we dont need. you are in the same category as james yeager or alex jones

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Paranoid ramblings, eh?

      Founders on the Standing Army:
      • standing army, the bane of liberty
      • standing army is one of the greatest mischief
      dispense with standing army
      • no such engine of oppression as a standing army

      So you think the Founding Fathers are paranoid? Do you work for FEMA? Your ilk are teaching that the Founding Fathers were “Terrorists” too.

      • avatarpat says:

        im not crazy….paranoid…ME…CRAZY…..INSANE……AAAAAAAHHH. IM NOT, IM NOT, IM NOT!!!!!!
        sheesh
        standing army? What freak thinks we shouldnt have a military?
        get a life

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Jefferson and Madison are “freaks,” eh? Go piss up a rope, pattycake.

        • avatarpat says:

          Welcome to the 21st century, you insane dork.
          Yeah sure, spend a million or so on a fighter pilot or navy seal, then send them home. A non professional army means…..NON PROFESSIONAL, poison Ivy. In any case, what you desire will and can never come to pass, so, knowing this, you must be insane to continue harping on about it, which can be a definition of insanity.

  10. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    I wish the founding fathers were around, I feel they would walk up to every single polititian and show them the back side of a strong “pimp” hand. I also feel if they had a crystal ball they would have wrote more specific language into the constitution. Although the 2nd amendment is clear about one thing “shall not be infringed”, how hard is that???

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      A truncated understanding of the 2A is still quote powerful, yet it has led to a cold-war like standoff between an armed irregular militia and the Standing Army.

      We wouldn’t be in this situation of fear, possible civil war, and a deep divide in the nation if elected officials had followed the Constitution by:

      1. Starving a temporarily raised Army of funding after a 2 year time limit, so it doesn’t turn into an “engine of oppression.” (Article 1, Section 8)
      2. “Organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia with a small cadre of officers. (Article 1, Section 8)

      With that, they would have provided for “A well regulated militia….” the 2A addresses. And then we’d be free of the “bane of liberty,” and power would be shared in an egalitarian manner, which is every human’s natural right.

  11. avatarIvy Mike says:

    USMC says: “go look up what an appropriation bill is”

    I did.

    Now you look up what “NO” means.

    It doesn’t mean “renew” as you falsely purport, regurgitating the bullshit you learned in your mandarin class political indoctrination course.

    “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

    What part of NO don’t you understand?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.