Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 16    Average: 2.9/5]
44 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5667
Rating: 2.9
Category:
Date: 01/03/13 08:45 AM

44 Responses to Journal News Hires Armed Security At Their HQ

  1. Profile photo of vonKaiser
    vonKaiser Male 18-29
    108 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 8:37 am
    Link: Journal News Hires Armed Security At Their HQ - Remember that paper that posted the gun owner list? Well now they`ve hired Armed Security. Ironic?
  2. Profile photo of thefatviking
    thefatviking Male 18-29
    202 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 8:52 am
    Not Surprising in the least.
    I mean the matriarch of anti-rights advocates Diane Feinstein has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
    And Rosie O`donnell has armed body guards, but doesn`t think people should be allowed to own guns.

    These people seem to have a sort of "rights apply to everyone except me" mentality.
  3. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 8:55 am

  4. Profile photo of lt633c
    lt633c Male 50-59
    143 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 9:11 am
    Hypocrites......Read the book "Do as I say, not as I do" by Peter Schweizer.....Liberals want to control everyone and everything.....yet can`t find a way to abide by what they spew.
  5. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 9:41 am
    TheFatViking

    "the matriarch of anti-rights advocates Diane Feinstein has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

    People keep saying this. Do you ever bother to look up anything about it yourself?

    She obtained a permit in the 70s to carry a handgun because she was the target of a terrorist group that had recently shot out the windows of her home. She doesn`t carry a gun anymore.

    Let`s have a legitimate debate about gun control. This kind of asinine bulls.hit is a waste of everyone`s time. Say something intelligent or shut up and let the adults talk.
  6. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:09 am
    @HolyGod

    "She obtained a permit in the 70s to carry a handgun because she was the target of a terrorist group that had recently shot out the windows of her home. She doesn`t carry a gun anymore" ---- because she has armed guards.

    There fixed that for ya!
  7. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36208 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:11 am

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
    That`s great.
    Moron writer. I won`t say "journalist" `cause publishing those names and addresses had nothing to do with journalism, just pushing a personal agenda. But I love the irony of an anti-gun advocate hiring gunmen to protect them!

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
  8. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:14 am
  9. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36208 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:14 am

    @ HolyGod - the fact she doesn`t carry the gun any longer is irrelevant. There was time when she felt the need to exercise her right to have a gun. Now she would deny the rest of us the privilege she has enjoyed.

    That is hypocrisy.
    Do as I say, not as I do.
    I hate that in politicians.
  10. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1850 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:16 am
    HG, we`ve been waiting for you to say something intelligent for some time.

    This paper is just the latest example of liberal do as I say not as I do.

    AS for DiFi...it might be ancient history but what`s your point? She once took some comfort in packing heat. Well how about letting somebody else have a turn?

    AS fro Rosie...OK really who gives a damn about her?

    You want a legitimate debate about gun control? OK here you go. Good guys should hit the target. Bad guys go bye-bye for long long time if not forever.

    Go buy a f---ing tank for all I care just don`t use it for evil.

  11. Profile photo of GhettoNinja
    GhettoNinja Male 30-39
    886 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:18 am
    Christ. Gun advocates are among the most dense and idiotic people I come across. You dumb holes are as stupid as most of the fanatically religious.

    This is not the definition of hypocrisy at all. Most of the people named have issues with assault weapons, not handguns. They have issues with the high capacity magazines being sold.

    What makes you think they would have issues with trained security having weapons?

    No one can make any logical argument for the continued sales of assault rifles. Sport hunting? Pfft. Right, it doesn`t exist anymore and hunting with semi auto rifles isn`t exactly the definition of sporting.
  12. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:27 am
    @GhettoNinja

    The second amendment was never about sporting.
  13. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:30 am
    I`ll keep my high capacity mags and "assault rifles" (notice the definition of those has been changed to fit agendas) ok? Thanks! If you don`t like that feel free to come and get them with happy thoughts.
  14. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:36 am
    Gerry1of1

    " the fact she doesn`t carry the gun any longer is irrelevant. There was time when she felt the need to exercise her right to have a gun. Now she would deny the rest of us the privilege she has enjoyed. That is hypocrisy."

    You`ve never change your mind before? People aren`t allowed to change their viewpoints?

    If someone used to eat meat but then they learned about how cruel animals are treated so now they advocate for animal rights that makes them a hypocrite?

    Plenty of people come back from war and then work to advocate peace. That makes them hypocrites?



  15. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
    This story just totally made my day!!!
  16. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:40 am

  17. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:40 am
    McGovern1981

    "The second amendment was never about sporting."

    The second amendment was about having a well trained militia being armed in order to defend itself in a country with little to no defense and no police force. It did not imply soccer moms with no training should have stockpiles of weapons for anyone to take.

    I have never heard anyone say we should outlaw guns. I certainly don`t think that. However, the fact that you rail against any measures that might help prevent incidents like aurora or sandy hook shows how incapable you are of rational discourse.
  18. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:42 am
    @HolyGod

    Except that having armed gaurds dosen`t change the viewpoint just who`s holding the gun. Thereby a hypocrite.
  19. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:45 am
    However, the fact that you rail against any measures that might help prevent incidents like aurora or sandy hook shows how incapable you are of rational discourse.

    You mean like the laws the shooter broke that day? Yep that`s just what we need more laws!!


    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

    See the part that say THE PEOPLE there`s your answer. Amazing what you pick to see when you want to take away THE PEOPLES rights.
  20. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:45 am
    McGovern1981

    I don`t believe he has ever said he didn`t support having guns in schools. Where is the money coming from? Do you support raising taxes to pay for armed and trained security teams at every school in the country?

    Schools can`t pay for their teachers and their pencils right now because of all the slashes to school funding done mostly by republicans.
  21. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:50 am
    McGovern1981

    "You mean like the laws the shooter broke that day?"

    I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect?

    "See the part that say THE PEOPLE there`s your answer. Amazing what you pick to see when you want to take away THE PEOPLES rights."

    Yes the people should have a right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia. Is that not how you read that? What do you think the militia part is in there for if they meant everyone should have them?

    I read that as: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because having a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

    No?
  22. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:50 am
    The second amendment was about having a well trained militia being armed in order to defend itself in a country with little to no defense and no police force. It did not imply soccer moms with no training should have stockpiles of weapons for anyone to take.
    Several Supreme Court cases have stated that the proper interpretation is that the militia part is merely a preparatory phrase. All cases have upheld the interpretation that the right is given to all people.
  23. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:56 am
    @HolyGod

    The milita and the people are two different things clearly worded in the second amendment. It takes someone wanting to push an agenda to see that differently. Milita for a free state armed people for a free people.

    I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect?

    When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey."
  24. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:57 am
    "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention `the people,` the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase `the militia` in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the `militia` in colonial America consisted of a subset of `the people`— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to `keep and bear Arms` in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as `the people`."

    - Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller
  25. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:11 am
    McGovern1981

    "When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey."

    I think this is the culmination of aurora, the mall shooting, and sandy hook happening so closely together. Obviously this is the biggest one because of the fact that it is kids.

    Lets drop the hypotheticals and hyperbole for a moment. I`ll ask you a straight up question.

    Do you support making it so that anyone who wants to buy a gun has to pass a background check for criminal record and mental health issues and wait a mandatory waiting period? Thereby eliminating certain gun show sales and internet sales?
  26. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:12 am
    HumanAction

    "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right."

    Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women.
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:14 am
    Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women.
    Hey now, I`m just quoting the statements of a Supreme Court Justice following a decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion.

    Is that fair?
  28. Profile photo of Ilikelogic
    Ilikelogic Male 40-49
    550 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:15 am
    I worked a long time for an industrial plant producing auto parts here in Luxemburg. After 9/11, the US based company decided to have the guards at the entrance equipped with pistols.
    There was an outcry by all the plant personnel and local direction had to withdraw the procedure within two days.
  29. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:26 am
    HumanAction

    "In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion"

    I understand that. I`m also pretty sure that my statement proves to both of us that he was wrong and that rights most definitely did not spread to all people and that there were caveats that the founding fathers intended whether implied or not. Agreed?
  30. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:33 am
    @HolyGod

    Not quite... He provides further clarity in the next sentence:

    the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset
    At the time you reference, neither blacks nor women were part of the political community. They currently are; therefore, via the official interpretation, the right extends to them as well.

    He is very careful to ensure that he does not state "all citizens" or "all people" in his word. This was done purposefully.
  31. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:40 am
    HumanAction

    If the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns why even put the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," part? What purpose does it serve?

    If they wanted everyone to own guns wouldn`t it be better to just say: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    What purpose does it serve?
    It`s prefatory, as in, introductory or part of a preface. It is a common construct from that time period and similar examples can be found throughout the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and personal correspondence of the Founding Fathers.
  33. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    @HolyGod

    So, for an example of a prefatory clause:

    Shelter from rain, being necessary for the overall health of a citizen, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed.

    From this statement, would you then conclude that a citizen only has the right to bear an umbrella on a rainy day? This is essentially the logic you`re using.

    Instead, we know that prefatory clauses serve to establish rationale. As such, they are not exclusionary as to the circumstances in which the right is provided.
  34. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    HG: Militia.. What purpose does it serve?.

    During the revolutionary war a lot of the forces used to oppose the British were not military conscripts, they were free volunteers known as `Militia`. Militia also served in the war of 1812, which is how Tennessee got it`s nickname `The Volunteer State`. To this day most states still have a volunteer militia made of ordinary citizens. So please do not get the terms `militia` and `military` confused, they are different.
  35. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6203 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    CrakrJak

    "Militia.. What purpose does it serve?"

    You misunderstand my comment. I meant what purpose does it serve in the statement? If you say everyone has the right to a gun why specify any group?

    Kind of like saying "I like watching football, I like watching all sports". If I say I like watching all sports the football part is superfluous.
  36. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    It`s funny but not ironic.

    What`s ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards.
  37. Profile photo of DavidXJ
    DavidXJ Male 30-39
    1106 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    What`s ironic, is that the people whose names she published are probably the least likely group of people in her area that would try to harm her.
  38. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    What`s ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards.

    Which they then hired armed guards(permit holders) to protect them. SO they only support it if it`s in their interest then yep that`s ironic.
  39. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm
    Here is an excellent explanation of the 2nd amendment as it relates to A well regulated militia
  40. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 11:59 pm
    If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn`t it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"

    People != Militia.

    BTW, it`s not "ironic"; it`s hypocritical. "Armed protection for me, but none for thee."

    What I don`t understand is, how did the security company find a self-respecting gun owner willing to take a job protecting these putrid little liberal f***tards?
  41. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 4, 2013 at 6:15 am
    If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn`t it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"
    It isn`t and there is no room for debate on the subject. Multiple Supreme Court Cases have confirmed that the law specifies and individual right to bear arms.

    Supreme Court Cases trump Ken Kiger from @MrPeabody`s link. Sorry all, but there is only one group with the authority to interpret the Constitution and they say that the 2nd Amendment applies to "the people" and not "a well-regulated milita". That`s the end of it.
  42. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36208 posts
    January 4, 2013 at 10:40 am

    Just so we are all clear on what it say...

    AMENDMENT II
    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.
    Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.
  43. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 4, 2013 at 9:56 pm
    Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.
    Gerry, we`re talking about liberals here. Their fundamental philosophy of government is antithetical to the constitution. Most of them don`t understand it, and if they do, they don`t agree with it or respect it. That`s why we`re in the shape we`re in today.
  44. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    January 4, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    I always understood the 2nd amendment as:

    The right of people to bear arms is the way to ensure the militia is well-regulated. So there is no fascist police federal government exercising unauthorized power over individual states. This right of people shall not be infringed means it CANNOT be taken away.

    Remember that the central theme of the constitution is that the people make up the government and can change it when necessary, the government is not a big daddy figure.

    That`s why I`m uneasy about the gun restrictions ALREADY in place. Lets look at it this way, there are auto accidents all the time where people, including children die, it`s very unfortunate. But we`d never consider banning cars. Consider that the chances of you dying in a car accident are far greater than with a gun.

Leave a Reply