Image of the day

Captured by
Brian Meyerberg

Thor’s Helmet

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

November 14, 2012 02:11 AM Forum: Politics

Re: Dear Right Wing Forum Posters:

Posted By Greg Shaffer

Ohhhh look.....its a bird, no its a plane......Nope its another damned troll!! lol

Robert Apruzese said:

I thought I'd drop by for a minute to wish you all a healthy Thanksgiving dinner of Roasted Crow, stuffed with your favorite flavor of right wing BS. And be sure to try the feathers, I hear they are the tastiest part.


American Moderate, fed up with your gross distortions.

November 30, 2012 06:23 PM Forum: Politics

Something new on gun control

Posted By Greg Shaffer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth?

Obama and the truth have never met.
He is the most consummate liar there is.

What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is

We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).

December 7, 2012 07:58 PM Forum: Politics

Something to chew on......

Posted By Greg Shaffer

According to data released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office since the 2013 fiscal year began Oct 1st we have borrowed 46 cents of every dollar our government has spent since Oct 1st.

December 8, 2012 10:35 PM Forum: Politics

This guy has the right idea!!

Posted By Greg Shaffer


Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

I LIKE IT!!! How about you?

December 17, 2012 10:07 PM Forum: Politics

A few facts you wont see on the news

Posted By Greg Shaffer

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

And for reinforcement......






Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

December 17, 2012 10:25 PM Forum: Politics

Our illustrious leaders at work.....

Posted By Greg Shaffer

... You will love this one, I haven't stop laughing yet.

For those of you who have never traveled to the west, or southwest, cattle guards are horizontal steel rails placed at fence openings, in dug-out places in the roads adjacent to highways (sometimes across highways), to prevent cattle from crossing over that area. For some reason the cattle will not step on the "guards," probably because they fear getting their feet caught between the rails.

A few months ago, President Obama received and was reading a report that there were over 100,000 cattle guards in Colorado . The Colorado ranchers had protested his proposed changes in grazing policies, so he ordered the Secretary of the Interior to fire half of the "cattle" guards immediately!

Before the Secretary of the Interior could respond and presumably try to straighten President Obama out on the matter, Vice-President Joe Biden, intervened with a request that...before any "cattle" guards were fired, they be given six months of retraining.

'Times are hard,' said Joe Biden, 'it's only fair to the cattle guards and their families be given six months of retraining! '

And these two guys are running our country,

Passed on to you without further comment...


OH LORD HELP US!!!! If like our leaders you dont know what a cattle guard is see the pic below.

December 19, 2012 03:31 PM Forum: Politics

Gun Free Schools Act of 1994

Posted By Greg Shaffer

Not mine but sure do agree, keep reading.

In the wake of the tragic, horrific slaughter of innocent school children in Connecticut, there has been a renewed cry for more gun control laws. This stems from the natural need to "do something" when a tragedy of this proportion occurs. I agree we need to do something, but the "something" I want is a bit different.

The "Gun Free Schools Act of 1994" made it a federal crime to possess a firearm on any school property. Many states enacted similar legislation at the state level, as the federal act required them to do so or lose certain federal funding. Thus, it has been a crime to go onto school property anywhere in the US while in possession of a gun for the past 18 years. Has that helped?

Well, I did some research and I cannot find a single mass school shooting in the US prior to 1994, when this bill was passed. For the purposes of this discussion, I will define a "mass school shooting" as one in which three or more people were killed. I have found 14 such incidents in the United States between 1997 and the Newtown, CT, incident of yesterday. That is an average of one incident every two years. ALL OF THESE OCCURRED AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE GUN FREE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994! Let me emphasize that--every mass school shooting in the US occurred AFTER it became illegal to possess a gun on school grounds. Why?

The answer should be obvious. By making schools a "gun free zone", you automatically disarm all law abiding citizens at those locations. This is tantamount to placing a sign on the front of the building inviting criminals and mentally deranged persons to come shoot up the place. "Come on in. We're all unarmed, by law. We won't interfere with your mayhem." Disgusting.....

I, for instance, have a state issued handgun carry permit. I am certified by the NRA as a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor and I have been certified by the FBI as a police firearms instructor. I am certified by two states to train and certify new firearms instructors for those states. I have held a law enforcement officer commission. I travel all over the US teaching defensive firearms use. Yet, by law, I would commit a felony by stepping onto school grounds while wearing my sidearm. Despite this, someone who, for whatever reason, wants to shoot up a school can walk right in. If he is willing to murder six year olds in cold blood, he certainly won't be deterred by a law against bringing a gun onto the campus. Duh..... To think otherwise is so naive as to be a form of mental illness.

I think it is truly ironic that in the first mass school shooting I could find, occurring in 1997, the mayhem was stopped when the Assistant Principal got a handgun from his car and confronted the gunman, who surrendered to him. Thank God the Assistant Principal had an ILLEGAL gun that day.

A couple of weeks ago, there was an attempted mass shooting at a mall in Oregon. The demented shooter had a high capacity semiautomatic rifle, but he only managed to kill two people and wound one other before killing himself. Why was the body count so low, given that this was obviously a copy-cat version of the Aurora, CO, shootings? The answer is simple. Because Nick Meli, age 22, was at the mall there with his wife and child. Nick has a concealed carry permit and was wearing a handgun concealed on his person. When the suspect began shooting, Nick drew his gun and verbally challenged the gunman. Meli held his fire because of innocent people in the background (excellent judgment under stress), but his actions caused the gunman to break off the attack, run into a nearby service corridor and kill himself, ending the spree. Of course, the lamestream media will not tell you about Nick. They would prefer a higher body count rather than tell you a legally armed citizen saved the day. Here are a few other instances that two minutes of internet research brought to light. In each case, a legally armed private citizen saved lives by being there and by being armed.

1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was on his way to another school building , he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. Having that gun was illegal, but it saved lives.

2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home.

3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license).

4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn't worked as a police officer since).

So, I do want some legislative action. I want "gun free zones" abolished, at least for legally armed citizens with government issued licenses to carry. This is real "common sense" gun legislation.

Not mine but a good read and good points.

December 20, 2012 04:06 PM Forum: Politics

Bank of America vs McMillon Group

Posted By Greg Shaffer

McMillon Group is known for their gun stocks and aftermarket gun accessories. BOA recently ended a 12 year banking relationship with them stating it was because they supported the 2nd Amendment. Its all over the net which a quick google will reveal. Fortunantly I dont bank with BOA so I wont have to go thru the hassle of changing banks which I would do today if I did. Hopefully a LOT of people will take the same stance and show BOA there are real consequences.

December 20, 2012 08:21 PM Forum: Politics

One for the liberals.....

Posted By Greg Shaffer

The only tried and true method of preventing mass shootingsþ. Of course most liberals will stop reading at "by Ann Coulter" to wipe their rabidly instant case of foaming at the mouth without finishing....but she is 100% correct.


by Ann Coulter

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of
defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary
school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done
to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the
University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study
of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977
and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and
death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed
right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and
background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties
for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage
from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at
reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is
working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate
from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement,
poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime
rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings
was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state
only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal
planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone
in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free
zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public
schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where
James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where
a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but
they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to
you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping
mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation
was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only
two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the
mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the
shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted
mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because
there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother
Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public
shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case
was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases
where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at
public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones
where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass
shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where
the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a
couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but
refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples
excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel
Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the
nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns
blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the
attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded
restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead:
Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean
and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more
ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a
third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as
well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened
to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the
shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people
at his high school, student heads for the junior high school;
assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car
and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total
dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance
being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and
stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far
higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead);
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School,
Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five
little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five
killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people
getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by
reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they
cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry
laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent
grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being
murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

December 24, 2012 10:25 PM Forum: Politics

The 2nd, should be required reading

Posted By Greg Shaffer