1024px-Riischildren

“Gun-owning foster parents to fight DFS removal of kids,” KSNV News3LV, Las Vegas, reported. Awakened by the screaming of angry neighbors on their property, Kristi Beber called the police as her husband Rod retrieved his gun – just in case the police did not arrive in time and they needed to protect themselves and the children they care for . . .

Fortunately, a defensive gun use was not required that night. Police were able to defuse the situation and merely take a report.  Unfortunately for the Bebers, repercussions from the incident were hardly over for them – they were just beginning.

Despite having responsibly and safely cared for “’over a hundred’ children over the years,” the Department of Family Services pulled the Bebers’ license to provide foster care. They said Rod’s reaction “’did not describe an adult exercising sound judgment,’ [a]nd … cited a law that forbids any foster parent from having a loaded firearm in their home, regardless of the situation.”

The law has since been changed, and that happened In June, after the incident, which occurred in April, but before the license revocation, which happened in July. As such, the Bebers plan to challenge the revocation.

Left unsaid is who made the determination that Beber’s actions did not exhibit sound adult judgment. It’s certainly in the public’s interest, and in the interest of children placed in the foster care system, to know the qualifications of the bureaucrat making such an irresponsibly ignorant and prejudiced judgement. Among other things, the absence of any relevant education and credentials in gun use and safety would demonstrate they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and are just doing what incompetent kneejerk hoplophobe are wont to do – abusing their authority and inflicting themselves on others because they can get away with it.

This appears to be yet another in a never-ending list of examples demonstrating that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day. The whole object of child protective services is to protect children, and of family services to serve families.  In this case, the tax-feeding bureaucrats would clearly rather see children killed than protected by foster parents with a gun, and they’d rather see children institutionalized in state facilities than have the opportunity to live in a nurturing home environment.

That’s especially ironic seeing as how the state’s leading Democrat, Harry Reid, was called “a true champion of the Second Amendment” by none other than NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, and how Reid capitalized on that at the opening ceremony for the Clark County Shooting Park. Based on the DFS opinion issued in the Beber case, neither Reid nor anyone who uses that facility is qualified to be a foster parent. Neither would Reid’s grandmother have been, as, when he was a boy, she knowingly allowed him unsupervised use of a rifle to bag rabbits for stew.

Nowadays, it seems more often than not that a young Harry would be lucky to survive the SWAT experience.

61 Responses to Antis Would Rather Foster Children Be Neglected or Killed than Live in Home with Guns

  1. Progressives are one thing and statists are another, but all bureaucrats — each and every one — should be strung up by their heels while vultures pick their bones clean.

    Hey, why not. They’ve been doing it to us since bureaucracy began.

    • Just make sure you fill out the proper form, in triplicate, and file it with the appropriate agencies, before you string them up.

      • Make sure that wire is environmentally safe , after the bodies rot the wire could fall to the ground where an endangered species could get tangled and meet an untimely death , the vultures themselves are probably endangered and may entangle themselves before decomposition . I would suggest hemp rope since it is so politically correct today and could theoretically be recycled into comrade clothing .

  2. This gets into a really sticky area. The unfortunate reality is that many children in the foster care system have suffered significant emotional trauma and their behavior often reflects that trauma. My concern is that some foster children could be at greater risk of misusing a firearm — or any other object for that matter.

    If I were a foster parent and wanted to have a firearm, I would want to have a significant gun safe and keep all of them locked away along with the ammunition. I would be equally concerned about other potential objects like knives.

    If I am totally off base, I apologize in advance.

    • I was a foster parent. We had a little angel, who we wanted to adopt, but she ended up going back to her bio-mom. However, we knew of kids with RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) who would literally burn your house down given half a chance. The foster parents had to put kitchen knives away, lock up tools and take all kinds of steps to make sure they stayed safe. We knew a family who got a RAD kid, but the agency and social worker downplayed it as “not a bad case.” They flat out lied, and the kid was terrorizing their other kids and had to be moved to another foster home without kids.

      Bottom line, it takes a special kind of person to be a foster parent. (Note that I said I *was* – it was a hard emotional roller coaster even with a little sweetheart.) These people have to give up a lot to love these kids, and for some, that means not getting to carry. Colorado law does not allow guns and ammo to be unlocked and together when the kid is present. To be honest, that’s part of the reason I’m not a foster parent anymore. I have to protect my own family first, and can’t let myself be put in a situation where I can’t do that, even if it means giving up on the dream of adopting.

    • If I were a liberal socialist progressive politician I would use this opportunity to argue for more money be allocated to planned parenthood . NIP IT IN THE BUD ANDY .

  3. Here in MI, fosters are required to use gun safes.
    The guns must either be in the safe or in a responsible adult’s direct control.
    Was talking with a foster parent about hunting, and a 13 year old foster daughter perked right up when she heard there were guns in the house (she’d lived there for several months without knowing there were guns). The foster dad just told her she didn’t need to know where they were.

  4. Our experience with the foster and adoption system in Oklahoma was simple..they came and inspected the home, checked to see we had the firearms in a safe, approved and on we went.

  5. Since when the hell is protecting one’s family by exercising a God given right an act of unsound judgement?!?! Who is so mentally and morally challenged that they decided this man was in the wrong? He did right as far as every sane American is concerned, as for those advocating otherwise I would have to question their sanity.

    • Here is another hypocritical statement that never fails to irk me: A “God given right”? Who told you that? Certainly not God, if you call yourself a Christian. I do believe the 6th commandment states quite clearly, “Thou shalt not kill.”

      But wait, is there an asterisk there, indicating some exceptions to that rule, hidden in the fine print at the end of the list?

      Devil’s always in the details isn’t he? One sec…

      Nope. No asterisk. No fine print. Doesn’t look like God was as ambiguous in his commandments as those bureaucrats that penned the Constitution were.

      So again I ask you, who told you it was a God given right to keep an instrument made for a single purpose-to take life?

      OK, yeah I know you can also shoot at inanimate objects with guns. Some people even enjoy that pointless hobby. But let’s be honest here… you and I both know what guns are really made to do, don’t we?

      • More correctly translated that’s “You shall not murder” which is much more in context with later Old Testament and New Testament concepts. “Thou shall not kill” is a King James translation, which in context with the rest of KJV would have also been taken as “murder” but is less clear in modern English.

        If taken literally, we should also not be eating animals or plants because of the command not to kill.

        Not that I’m going to go around killing people, but go say self defense is not allowable in Biblical premises is not sound.

        Also, there’s also that whole concept of saving grace.

        • You know, I thought very briefly before I posted that I might want to choose a different translation, other than the KJV. But then I said to myself, “Nah. It is well understood what the sixth commandment is actually referring to. Surely, I don’t need to explain that, because every Christian already knows this.”

          But your point is taken.

          And self-defense is one thing, but there are ways other than lethal ones to deal with violence directed at you and yours. Using a deadly weapon as your go-to solution is one that oftentimes ends up being a final one. It all happens so fast, in a moment of fear. You don’t have time to come up with anything else. You either shoot, or you don’t. Because that’s all you have.

          As an Aikidoka, I was taught (and believe) that one should use only as much force as necessary to neutralize your attacker without causing undue harm to you or your opponent. Most of the time, you can avoid conflict altogether. But carrying a weapon around that can take a life in the blink of an eye is far too heavy of a responsibility for me. Just having one invites a certain amount of ego driven desire to test that baby out. And I personally no longer want that chip on my shoulder. The world has enough fear and hatred and power mongering as is, without me adding more fuel to the inferno.

          Besides, didn’t Christ advise one to “turn the other cheek”?

          As for saving grace, I wouldn’t rely on that too heavily. Seems dangerously close to the idea of the confession of sins that Catholics practice. This sort of thing can easily become a way to excuse bad behavior.

        • Hawk,

          First of all, your comment, “Just having one [handgun] invites a certain amount of ego driven desire to test that baby out.” does NOT apply to most people. I have carried a firearm on my side every day for years and have never once had any desire to test it. Neither has any of the other people that I know who carry daily.

        • Hawk,

          You asked, “Besides, didn’t Christ advise one to ‘turn the other cheek’?”

          That applies to insults, not an attacker who is threatening you with great bodily harm or death.

          Furthermore, the Bible expects us to care for ourselves and our families. We cannot care for our ourselves or our families if we are paralyzed or dead. And it would be an abomination to let a violent criminal rape our wives our daughters because we “turned the other cheek”.

          Is deadly force a last resort? Yes. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes. Does God like it? No. Does God understand that it nevertheless necessary sometimes and allow it? Yes.

        • Hawk, merely turning away a violent attacker and then patting yourself on the back for your wonderful forgiveness or whatever, may cause terminal grief to the next person that attacker meets (since he still needs those drugs), and to that poor person’s survivors. Armed or strongarm robbery should be well understood to be often a fatal job description by all parties. Introduce some actual risk into that lifestyle. Plus, my days of grappling are behind me, and I never had any days of being a willing victim. My first, and last, line of defense is ballistic. And, of course, any translation of the bible says absolutely anything you want it to say, somewhere, according to some interpreter (as just demonstrated by the discussion above and below), quoting it to supposedly prove something is nonsense.

      • Jefe already covered the common translation error – but I wanted to add that Christ ordered. the disciples to sell their coat to buy a short sword. That was the technological equivalent of an AR 15 in those days.

      • Hawk,

        You need to look deeper into your Bible. If all killing is wrong, then why does Exodus 22:2 tell us, “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed …”?

        If killing is wrong, explain Nehemia 4:17-18, “… The burden-bearers carried their loads in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and with the other held a weapon. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. …” Are not swords designed to kill animals and people?

        Explain the Last Supper with Jesus and his twelve apostles. Two of them had swords at the supper. And during the supper, Jesus told his 12 that if they did not have a sword, they should sell their coat to buy one.

        And after the Last Supper, when the crowd came to arrest Jesus and Peter struck the servant with his sword, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. If it was wrong for Peter to have a sword, why did Peter have one? Why didn’t Jesus tell Peter months prior to get rid of his sword?

  6. Of course they’d rather the children be institutionalized, what better way to instill in them the notion that the state is their be all end all? It’s just so much easier to rule people when they’ve been indoctrinated to view the state as the ultimate existence in their lives.

  7. OK, so I think it is time for me to enlighten you all re: the second amendment. (You’re welcome). And let me preface this by saying, I am not affiliated with either worthless corrupt party. Personally, I think you are all fools if you believe your vote matters in the least. But please, do continue participating in the Hegelian dialectic. They appreciate your cooperation in their social brainwashing experiment. Baaaah!

    But I digress. Apologies in advance for the lack of brevity, but a few points need to be brought up that I never see anyone mention on either side of this ridiculous debate. First, let’s start with the 2nd Amendment itself:

    “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.”

    My comment here is, it sounds very much to me like the founding fathers intended to grant this right to a “well regulated Militia.” And last I checked, a single person does not a well regulated militia make.

    Which brings me to the next item: who exactly regulates these militias, according to the US Constitution? Well, in Section 8-Powers of Congress, the authors expand on what was admittedly an ambiguous explanation of who exactly gets to keep and bear those almighty guns…

    “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions;

    “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    Hmm. Something tells me you’ve all been duped again. It doesn’t sound at all to me like the Govt TRULY wants to allow just anyone to keep and bear arms… In fact, it seems it has been that way since the start. That is, unless you happen to be a part of the “Goon Squad,” ie, the “well regulated militia.”

    And you people think you live in a free country? Ha! Wake up.

    • Oh, and I want to add something, before it is pointed out to me: yes, you are a “person,” but a single person is an individual, not “the people.” Nowhere does it state it is the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. In this context, when they refer to “the people,” the authors are referring to Americans in their entirety. And in this case, if any of the aforementioned people wish to keep and bear arms, they may do so by joining the well regulated militia, under the command of the Federal and State governments. Otherwise, the wording would have indicated the right of the individual, and not the people.

      • Although you’re probably just trolling, ‘regulated’ in the 18th century context doesn’t mean ‘restricted by laws and bureaucratic regulations’ (the latter didn’t even exist back then).

        It’s meaning is more along the lines of ‘suitable for its intended purpose’ of repelling attack by enemies foreign or domestic.

        For example, a ‘well regulated’ double barrel rifle or shotgun places shots from both barrels at the same point of impact at the range where it’s most commonly shot. It does not mean there are government inspectors crawling all over the factory in which it is made.

      • Hey Hawk , God bless you brother , the can of worms you opened here today could keep me fishing my old farm pond indefinitely and I’d pass that old can down to my grand kids and they could pass it down to theirs . That is one big ass can of worms .
        I would hope your heart is really in doing what Jesus would want and you’re trying to advise others for Godly reasons and if so I can appreciate this position even though I don’t completely agree with your resultant findings .
        When quoting scriptures it is important to have a complete and thorough grasp of the entirety of the covenant you’re quoting from , which most of us can’t master even after literally hundreds of readings . I myself , having studied many scriptural writings for over 50 years and having read as much of the discourse on the new covenant as I could up until this point in time , am also not 100% convinced on my position on lethal self defense but I have faith that God will cover me if I continue to seek his ways . I will defend both myself , my family and those who cannot defend themselves , with lethal force , if God presents this situation before me .
        On the question of the second Amendment and the wording , once again , background info is paramount and the words of those people that penned the documents in question about the subject on 2nd A issues are in the public domain for your consumption and I believe if you read these letters ( documents ) you will find the answers you seek .
        God bless Hawk

    • The amount of time you spent on that post could have been used to research multiple direct quotes from the Founders and from the dictionary definition at the time to determine what “well regulated” meant – it meant “functioning” back then – or what the Father of the Constitution had to say about the intent of the 2nd Amendment in Federalist 46.

      If you are going to have such strong opinions, spend a few minutes on google instead of just embarrassing yourself with Huffington Post or Bloomberg talking points that are factually incorrect at the most basic level.

      • OK. Apparently I stirred the pot. Good. And I will respond to each one, but not right at the moment.

        However, I did want to respond quickly to a couple. One, I am no troll. In fact, I rarely post on forums at all. Mostly, I just read and lurk.

        Two, I am not certain what you are referring to when you accuse me of quoting the Huffington Post, etc. The quotations are taken directly from the U.S. Constitution. Verbatim, in fact. Everything else came from my own head, based on my opinions and experience.

        As for my real name, I must admit I had never heard of Dick Metcalf. So I looked it up just now. Was that intended as an insult, or were you being serious? If it is the former, you will have to try harder than that. My name is Chris, and I am a starving writer, not a former gun advocate gone far to the left.

        And for the record, I follow no one’s path but my own.

        I am dying to stir the pot further, but you all will just have to be patient. I’m sure everyone will be waiting with bated breath to see what sort of “embarrassing” drivel I come up with next. Don’t worry. I aim to please. No pun intended.

        • So you look forward to stirring the pot with glee? That in fact makes you a “troll” sir. And as far as your opinion on the wording of the US Constitution, like an asshole, everyone has one too. It does not make you any more correct than another person’s opinion. That being said, your attempt at Sophistry is sophomoric at best. I will take the Founders’ own words over your revisionist musings.

    • Although you’re probably just trolling, I’d like to point out that ‘regulated’ in the 18th century context doesn’t mean ‘restricted by laws and bureaucratic regulations’ (the latter didn’t even exist back then).

      It’s meaning is more along the lines of ‘suitable for its intended purpose’ of repelling attack by enemies foreign or domestic.

      For example, a ‘well regulated’ double barrel rifle or shotgun places shots from both barrels at the same point of impact at the range where it’s most commonly shot. It does not mean there are government inspectors crawling all over the factory in which it is made.

      • I couldn’t get this out of my head, so I will reply to one more. Then, I really do have to split for a while. No, don’t cry. I will be back.

        The word regulate, according to you, did not exist in the 18th century in the form I was using. I beg to differ. Seriously. Oxford even backs me up on this:

        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/regulate

        Origin:

        “Late Middle English (in the sense ‘control by rules’): from late Latin regulat- ‘directed, regulated’, from the verb regulare, from Latin regula ‘rule’.”

        And in case you are doubting the word has in fact existed in that context, long before the authors of the Constitution were born, here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Middle English period:

        “Middle English (ME) refers to the dialects of the English language spoken in parts of the British Isles after the Norman conquest (1066) until the late 15th century. This stage of the development of the English language roughly followed the High to the Late Middle Ages.”

        And the link to that little tidbit:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English

    • Hawk,

      The Second Amendment consists of the prefatory clause and the operative clause.

      Prefatory clause:
      A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,

      Operative clause:
      the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      The prefatory clause states one noble purpose of many possible noble purposes. It does not restrict the right.

      The operative clause states the right.

      If the authors of the Second Amendment only intended the right to apply to a government organized militia, then they would have stated, “… the right of the organized militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But they didn’t say that. Furthermore, such an interpretation is silly. A government organized “militia” that is somehow unarmed is by definition not a militia.

      As for your “people” commentary, does that mean an individual has no right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances under the First Amendment? After all, the First Amendment states, “… the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      And does your “people” interpretation mean an individual gets no protection under the Fourth Amendment which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”

    • Hawk,

      Regarding your claims about the meaning of the Second Amendment, please read the following except from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Section 14, Article 3

      Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

      First and foremost, I hope you can see the EXACT same sentence structure between this article and the Second Amendment with a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Now that we got that out of the way, does this Article mean that “schools and the means of education” can ONLY teach religion, morality, and knowledge? … and ONLY for the purpose of facilitating good government and happiness of mankind?

      Would this Article not apply to schools that teach acting or comedy — two topics that fall outside of religion, morality, and knowledge? Would this Article not apply to schools that teach for the purpose of advancing a business’ profitabilty — a topic that is outside of good government or the happiness of mankind?

      And before you tell me that making a business profitable advances the happiness of mankind, I will tell you about Apple’s Foxconn factory in China that installed nets to prevent their employees from jumping off the roof to commit suicide — their work quite literally drove them to want to kill themselves. And I will also point to businesses who have determined that they would be more profitable paying out wrongful death lawsuits than correcting product defects.

    • “My comment here is, it sounds very much to me like the founding fathers intended to grant this right to a “well regulated Militia.”

      Then you are astonishingly ignorant of the sentence construction of the English language. Did you skip that week in the 9th grade when “dependent” and “independent” clauses were discussed?

    • While you’re busy “enlightening us all,” maybe you could take the time to research the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which dispensed with your antique “it belongs to the Militia” argument once and for all.

  8. There are no kids around my house and all of my firearms are either locked in the safe or on me.

    If no one is home, the burglars have to get past the security system and crack the safe to get at my guns.

  9. The article fails in its primary premise that Child protective services serves to protect children and of family services to serve families. This primary failure elininated the credibility of the article itself.

  10. To all you experts of law and such, and other people who grovel and scrape to the govt., we here in the “gun culture” have a little saying about your abject and idiotic terms of using legalisms to disarm us. Rights, laws, etc. If you try to take our guns, we’ll kill you. End of message. It’s not a threat, it’s not a promise, just a fact. You can blow about what you think you know until the end of time, and you can get on your statist horse and ride all over the world, but you are not going to cow us, nor browbeat us, nor convince us, that disarming is the way to go. You’re going to have to kill us. Come and take them, Leftists.

    • Except they won’t do that, it is beneath their status. They will send gunowners to disarm gunowners, and they think that makes them just so wise. It might work for a day or two, until the first few hundred deaths, then law enforcement will discover speeding tickets again, or a different job. And then those grabbers and bureaucrats will be surprised when we come for them. A few thousand more deaths, and it will be difficult to find a grabber for 100 years. But for now, they are so wise they have it all figured out, no need to engage any thinking process, or listen to anyone who knows the subject.

    • Such statements do nothing to help 2nd Amendment supporters and in fact hurts them. You come across as the very violent ideologue leftists claim you to be and you simply give them the ammunition to use against advocates of civil liberties. This is why “gun culture” has the derogatory stereotypes it does. Please exercise tact on what you say, as it harms the very supporters you claim to advocate.

  11. Why was he telling the police that he had has gun handy?

    If you don’t need to use it, you don’t need to talk about it.

    • While that’s true, you have to remember the cops might arrive in a timely manner, and finding person with a gun could be awkward. So, it might be considered good form to advise them on the phone that there is an armed defender on the property, when the 911 call is made.

  12. The Constitution exists to limit the power of government, not to limit the rights of citizens. Any interpretation of the Constitution must always be viewed through this lens.

  13. This is rich, the faceless, mendacious, bureaucracy cares more for children’s welfare than two stable parents who have served as foster parents of 100 children.

    There are some ideas so absurd, only an intellectual could believe them. ~ George Orwell

  14. Here’s the entire point of my stirring the pot: I’m attempting to get all of you gun freaks to accept a few things. Hopefully, some of this will sink in.

    1) If your belief is that your gun ownership is going to somehow save you from a tyrannical state, you are dead wrong. They are more organized than you. They have tanks. They have drones. They have aircraft. They have bombs and chemical weapons and nukes. They possess other technology as well, that you do not. In addition, if the shit does hit the fan, you won’t just be in conflict against the State. There will be UN troops too, on our soil. And once again, you would be playing right into their hands. Because that is one of their main goals, and the sheep on both sides of the fence are doing their best to help them achieve it. Funny thing is, you do not see what is staring you directly in the face. And by the time you do, IF you do, it will most likely be far too late to do a damn thing about it.

    Violent revolution rarely works, regardless. And don’t even try to tell me that the war we had against the crown was a successful revolution. It wasn’t. We did not overthrow the British empire. We declared our independence, and removed an occupying force from our homeland. And I doubt that would’ve been successful either, had it not been for Lafayette and France.

    2) All of you are doing exactly what they want you to do. But you’re too blind to see it. And that’s because you’ve been indoctrinated and brainwashed by a system of control that has been around almost since the dawn of history. Don’t you get it? You are a herd of stupid cattle to them, nothing more. Livestock. Expendable worker bees.

    They present to you two sides of any issue, to keep you all separated and confused and fearful, constantly fighting against each other. More than that, they stage events just to get the paranoia really stirred up. They use shills and disinformation agents and propaganda. They use the mainstream media, religion, the education system. They distract you with fluff and mindless entertainment, all to keep you dumbed down. It is a complete lie, and it is hiding in plain sight. But you can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. You are sucked right into their mind games, time and time again.

    And it doesn’t make a bit of difference which side you choose; the result is the same-they end up in control. Because as long as you remain in a state of fear and conflict against your fellow livestock, their “leadership” is needed.

    Eg, if you choose to keep firearms, those against the idea make noise and demand more and more strict gun control laws. Of course, the State obliges, and increases the pressure of the jackboot on your collective necks. If, on the other hand, you agree freely to having the guns taken from you, that’s even better! They don’t even have to fight you then, because you willingly accept the collar and chain.

    If you all truly want peace and real change, you’re going to have to do something different for once. You cannot possibly expect violence to solve the issue of violence. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in my life.

    Even if by some miracle you all ended up overthrowing a tyrannical govt through deadly force, you have not gotten rid of it, because that is the method you believe in, just like your current masters. They have taught you well. You used their tools to remove them. And because of that, you are basically the same, or soon will be. Doesn’t matter what your good intentions were; we all know where that road leads. Every overthrown civilization has shared a similar fate, for the same reason. The liberators become the tyrants, because they dont change the methods employed. That’s why history repeats. I believe that’s the definition of insanity, isn’t it?

    You all want to know the way out? Nah. You are clearly not ready to hear it. I think I’m done here, despite my earlier promise. I apologize for that, but once I saw the vitriol and narrow thinking in full swing, I realized anything further would be an exercise in futility. You are all hanging yourselves, yet you’re too mule-headed to realize it.

    So, Sayonara. I hope those on the left and those on the right realize one day that there is no left or right. You are one family. And you MUST stop killing each other. If we can’t figure out a way to live in peace, we are all doomed. Simple as that.

    • Translation: “Oh, crap! The gun control talking points that I was so sure of were destroyed, so I am going to find an echo chamber for fellow gun prohibitionists. Off to NPR!”

    • Hawk,

      So, what is the answer? Enlighten us.

      For reference I believe you seriously underestimate how many people know what is really going on. I will argue that the problem isn’t a lack of knowledge. The problem is a lack of conviction to do anything about it. How many times have we heard from “poor” or “unemployed” people that they cannot get a good job … only to see them refuse good jobs handed to them on a silver platter? How many times have we heard people complain about their local politician … but are not willing to give up one Saturday to attend a political rally and pressure their politician? How many times have we heard that a person really wants to get in better shape … and isn’t willing to give up pizza, ice cream, donuts, and lattes?

      The problem that we face is a problem of human nature: people are lazy. Most people will be content (sort of) as long as they have “bread and circuses”. So, how do you or I or anyone else motivate lazy people to do what it takes to “make things right” in our society and government?

    • By they I assume you mean the military, and the military is made up of the people so I don’t think that any conflict that may arise will go the way you think. There are plenty of Generals who are none to pleased with the direction of the Country. What really gets me is the fact that you really seem comfortable living under the iron fist of the government. Have a nice day, Sheep.

  15. Let’s not be too hard on Hawk , I see him as a work in progress , at least he isn’t sitting around in mommy and daddy’s basement playing dungeons and dragons all day and night , I think he is really trying to make a contribution to the discussion , little green behind the ears but shows potential . He is partially correct about the two party system being one party . This was proven out briefly at the first state of the union speech by BHO when he addressed congress . ” To my republican friends here and to my progressive friends “. There are no more Dems and Repubs in Barry land .Progressives and impediments to progressives . This is the new political landscape , with the Tea Party , which are mostly constitutional conservatives and then you have Social Libertarians , which are made up of a more diverse group from anarchist to anti-religious zealots to Luciferians to real classical Libertarians . There are maybe more progressives in Washington DC today than when FDR ruled the world . Hawk will come around if we let him grow .

    • Dear Mark,

      Thanks for the compliment. I am indeed a work in progress. Hopefully you are as well. But based on the tone and content of your post, I have the feeling you no longer believe you need to do any work. Therefore, you have become closed and stagnant, because you already know everything.

      However, despite your obvious omniscience, you haven’t a clue what I know or who I am.

      • Sorry Hawk , I did not intend to leave you or anyone the impression that I believe myself to be anything but a work in progress also . I am as far from perfect as anyone . If I am anything other than stupid for leaving this impression I wouldn’t know what to call it . I am a 57 year old organism that makes attempts to make meaning out of day to day life and I’ve been doing it for at least 40 years . Maybe just a little more time invested in it than yourself , that’s all .
        God bless .

  16. If anyone is truly interested in what I firmly believe is happening, and the solution, email me. cnhen001@gmail.com. I will not discuss it here. There are reasons for that–the main one being it contains a spiritual element that I am certain if uttered here, few (if any) would believe it.

    The fact is, 2 or 3 years ago, I wouldn’t have believed it myself. I would have been right here with the choir. But my views about reality are pointed about 180 degrees away from the direction they were.

    You can call me a sheep, a troll, a lefty, a greenhorn… it won’t affect me in the least. Because what I have had direct experiences with these past few years completely and utterly removed me from my fantasy world. And that world is the same one 95% (just a guess) of the population of this planet remains in.

    So, if you really want to hear it, shoot me a msg. But I am warning you now, this is not going to be a debate, and I am not going to defend my position in the least. You will either believe it or you will not. It won’t be up to me to convince you. All I am willing to do is give you the information as I understand it. What you do with it is entirely up to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *