- Published: Wednesday, 19 November 2003 11:23
That was a lot for me. Read and enjoy.
That was a lot for me. Read and enjoy.
This was a preventable tragedy. Concealed Carry Permits Fire up Debate Over Workplace Shootings
Javelle distinguished himself that day by trying to delay and disarm the gunman, 42-year-old Michael McDermott, before being killed. But Javelle might have saved his own life and at least four others if the concealed handgun permit he held in New Hampshire had allowed him to carry a weapon on his job in neighboring Massachusetts, according to one of Javelle’s friends and numerous firearms policy experts.
If this citizen had been legally armed, the incident would have stopped, before as many people died as there was.
Let me say this again: this was preventable. If the shooter was confronted by a legally armed citizen ready to stop this rampaging madman, less people would have died. Either the madman would have laid down his weapons and surrendered, or he would have been shot by the legally armed citizen.
This is a classic case that 911 is a government sponsored Dial-A-Prayer. Don’t let this happen to you. If you are of the mind that you will do anything necessary to protect yourself and your family, I suggest you explore this option. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
There ain’t no such thing folks. Candidates Confused on Gun Ban show that the Democratic candidates are trying to blow smoke up your butt.
The bans have now been in effect for almost a decade, without any evidence of any benefits. Increased crime is not the biggest danger arising from not extending the law. Politicians who have claimed such dire consequence from these mislabeled “assault weapons” have put their reputations on the line. If the extension fails, a year after that voters will wonder what all the hysteria was about.
I have already brought this up here. But it’s time to go over it again.
The Assault Weapons law banned a specific list of “evil looking” weapons by manufacturer and model number, and any weapon that has certain cosmetic features, such as a separate handgrip or a bayonet lug. All manufacturers had to do is change one cosmetic feature and their weapons were legal again. When a law can be as easily circumvented as this one is, it is a classic example of bad lawmaking. This law was passed to make everybody look good for having passed such a law, but it really does nothing.
Stuff like this makes me sick.
I am no conspiracy nut, but I found this interesting: Some Relevant Facts About the JFK Assassination.
I read a book some years ago, called Mortal Error in which only the ballistic forensic evidence is examined. The book is out of print, so let me summarize the findings:
In the book, the shot by the Agent was deemed accidental, since no Agent could even be considered to have done this on purpose. Again, the book only looks at the ballistic evidence, it doesn’t get into why the shots were fired, only where and when.
With this information out, it re-opens some questions as to the motivations of the shooters, or LBJ was the luckiest SOB on the planet.
I’ll leave it up to you.
The Craig-Durbin act, dubbed Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE), focuses on four issues: wiretaps, access to library records, surveillance of citizens and multi-jurisdictional warrants.
One of the things that I like to collect is the little witticisms that put essential truths of life into few words. Here are a couple on this subject:
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal. Well meaning but without understanding. – Justice Louis Brandeis
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. — Patrick Henry
These comments seems to be spot on concerning the Patriot Act. I’ll let their words stand by themselves, because I doubt I can say anything as profound as these men.
I thought it was time for me to weigh in on this again. Same-Sex Ruling Causes Democratic ‘Heartburn,’ Says Political Analyst is going to definitely cause some tap-dancing to be done for the Democrats. I have already spoken on this subject here.
“Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. Democrats, many of whom are opposed to gay marriage, [still] favor [same-sex] civil unions, and most Americans don’t see the difference between the two,” Sabato added.
According to Sabato, the eventual Democratic presidential nominee will have to try and parse the difference between support of homosexual civil unions and the more comprehensive issue of same-sex marriage. The Democratic candidate will also have to balance the support of homosexual lobbying groups with the views of the general electorate, Sabato predicted.
This decision has opened a rather large can of worms for every state across the nation. The other 49 states will now have to make the decision to support or deny recognition of Massachusetts gay marriage licenses. This is a polarizing issue for the American people. It’s not a subject for the single issue voter, but it is enough to push an undecided voter one way or the other. And while you can’t necessarily say the Republicans win, but the Democrats will lose for sure.
I seem to have developed a weird side-effect of my Abilify. I keep waking up throughout the night. Before I started this drug, I would wake up once about 2:30 am, roll over and go back to sleep. Now I seem to wake up every 30-45 minutes and not fully fall back to sleep.
I’m still getting up at 8:40 and feeling okay (other than my normal side-effects) but this sleep thing is really starting to get me upset. I like to sleep. It gives me a break from all of the obsessive thinking I do about all of the problems in my life.
Let me clarify what obsessive thinking is. When you are presented with a problem, you define the problem, think about some general possibilities for a solution, then work within the general solutions to make the specific solution that addresses the problem you defined. Then you go out and fix the problem. You do a lot of this process unconsciously.*
Well, I get stuck in the “define the problem” stage. I am up to my eyeballs in this problem and all I can do is spin around in circles like a dog chasing its tail. This is where I’m in the closet crying and banging my head on the wall. I spend a lot of the time in my closet.
*It was part of my Navy training as an Electronics Technician to be a problem solver. I carried that system throughout my life and it has always served me well. Before I was sick, I used to be the “go-to” guy when tough problems came up. I usually solved the problem with a subtle, inventive solution. At work.
At home I used the brute force approach and upset my wife to no end. She knows how inventive I can be, especially at work, but when it comes to personal problems I act like a bull. Head down and charge forward. “If brute force doesn’t work, you’re not using enough” and all that.
I don’t know what to do. I’ve gone through this at a low level of Abilify (10mg/day). Now I just started 15mg/day and I am wondering if this sleep problem will get better or worse. Maybe it will stabilize in a week or two, I don’t know. I’m stuck with it for at least another 3 weeks.
Here is a wonderful example that the Democrat party truly is the party of diversity. Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words.
For those who don’t remember, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was being voted on in the Congress, Democrats were against the bill. The party of diversity, the party the Blacks suck up to, wanted to keep them in their place. Never forget that.
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
“…They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible. [emphasis mine]”
There is a major difference between the Conservative and Liberal appointees that are or have been filibustered. Liberal judges look to furthering Liberal agendas that can’t pass the legislature. Conservative judges look to interpreting the law and nothing more. Personally, I like judges that interpret the law as it stands instead of drawing on their own views to impose on the rest of us.
This article, Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting Records Show Hostility shows the contempt Liberals have for citizens.
Here are a couple of facts for your consumption:
Now, the leaders of the anti-gun movement aren’t out to get rid of guns, they are just against you having guns. They have armed guards wherever they go. They are important enough to need firearms for protection, but you aren’t. Don’t you find that hypocritical?
It shows that liberals don’t trust you. The liberal reporters try to feed you your opinion by shaving news pieces. Liberal politicians don’t trust you to vote for them. Liberal anti-gunners don’t trust you with the power to protect yourself. And so on, ad nauseam. They try to sway you by appealing to your emotions and ignoring facts.
Conservatives, on the other hand, appeal to you by presenting you facts and then trust you to make the decision that fits you by yourself.
Who would you rather trust?
I must be more careful about who I watch on the Sunday morning news shows. General Wes Clark was on MTP this morning, and I spent a good part of the show yelling at the TV. There was so much garbage coming out of his mouth I’m surprised it didn’t pile up to his chin.
He made a big deal of WMD, again. Let’s revisit that subject and see why the democrats are dead wrong on this issue.
There are four facts in evidence:
Given the above facts, taking the position that Saddam did not have WMD would have gone beyond stupid, it would have been suicidal. When you are talking about the lives of up to 50,000 American citizens, how can you not take the position that he continues to have WMD and is willing to use them, or give it to people who are willing to use them against us?
There was several reasons we took on Iraq. WMD made it a #1 priority. It was easy to take out. It is the central Arab state. By setting up a free democracy in Iraq, we start knocking over a long line of dominoes that will cause a large scale positive change in all of the Arab states. We are seeing that change even today. This change will not happen overnight, it may have a few speed bumps, but it will become a large force in almost no time.
Clark also accused the President of not having a plan. You need to keep your plans close to your chest. Talking about what you want to do and how you’re going to do it will give the enemy the information they need to defeat you. So apparently not having a plan is good. That means we are keeping the enemy off balance and guessing at us and our plans. The strategic plan is working. We have our tactical objectives, but there’s a few bumps along the way.
If we do not defeat the Baathists, I give the new democracy a maximum of six months. Just because the US is no longer in Iraq does not mean the violence will end. In fact, it will increase until the new government becomes unstable, whereupon Saddam will surface, the Baathists will rise behind him and he will retake control of the country. The people who are in the uprising are all united, not against the US, but for Saddam to return to power.
Bookmark this entry and look at it in a year to see if my prediction is right or not.
I’m doing some heavy duty maintenance on my computer, so I probably won’t post again until Monday afternoon or so. I have to wipe my primary drive and reinstall everything. [sarcasm] I am so looking forward to this. [/sarcasm]
I had two references to Babylon 5 tonight. There was a reference to “doing the right thing for the right/wrong reasons” on Joan of Arcadia, then Jerry Doyle (who played Garibaldi) had a small part on JAG.
I’ve been thinking about talking on this very issue for a while, and this kind of cemented it for me.
Conservatives control both Congress and the White House because they started doing the right things for the right reasons. So far, this has paid off handsomely. But there are several crises that face the government and it is becoming easy to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. They have done very well in this post 9/11 world, but I (and all of us) have a personal stake in making sure they continue on the correct path.
This is all about doing the right thing for the right reasons. Babylon 5 is a great show for two reasons. The direction of the show was determined before the show was shot and it addresses such philosophical subjects. Every episode is great, and every episode ties into the bigger story. Usually in a series, the first 2-3 seasons suck as the writers, cast and crew try to find their identity and positions in how things work. Not so here. The producer wrote the show as one big epic story and used the individual episodes to fill in everything. At the end of the series, everything was sewn up nice and tidy. There was one exception, a hook to get you interested in the spin-off that didn’t go very far. It lacked the vision of the original series.
Here’s the bare bones setup: There are three sides, the Shadows (old race bad guys, want chaos and war in the sector), the Vorlons (old race neutrals, but lending help to the good guys) and the “young” races, Earth included. There needs to be one leader for the young races war effort, and Delenn volunteers. Before the Vorlons approve her, she must face their Inquisitor. It turns out his job is to find out why she wants the job. So the Inquisitor tries his best to break her, to determine her motivations. It is imperative to the Vorlons that she do the right thing for the right reasons. To do the right thing, but for corrupt reasons would corrupt and destroy any hope of the good guys defeating the bad guys, because the bad guys could use the corrupt reasons against them.
It turns out Delenn is doing the right thing for the right reasons. She believes she is in a position to do the most good, she is qualified and (most importantly) she is not in it for personal glory. If she falls, someone will take her place and continue on the fight.
Before you volunteer or start a project, examine yourself and determine your motivations. Make sure you are doing this for the right reasons. Once you know that, you can either continue with the project or beg off. I promise you will feel a lot better making decisions after introspection rather than before.
I can’t tell you how important it is to do the right thing for the right reasons. Let’s say you volunteer for Habitats for Humanity. A good and noble cause. But are you doing it to help, or are you in it to assuage your own guilt over something? Are you doing it for face time for the cameras, or so you can add this to your resume? Both of my examples are right thing/wrong reasons. In both of these instances, something will come back and bite you over it. It might take years, you might forget all about it, but you will get a chunk taken out of your behind over it, I promise you.
Every time you get bit by something for no apparent reason, that’s what you get for doing something for the wrong reasons.
Take this advice to heart and you will go far.
This article, Local News, Shameful Tactics, shows everything that’s wrong with “sweeps week.”
If I was a watcher of this station, I would have immediately written them a letter telling them I would never watch their station ever again. I would determine what local merchants were advertising on their station and write them as well, advising them to pull all advertising. In this case, the station was WABC, which is directly owned by the network, so sending a letter to the network would have been a duplicate effort.
This effort to boost ratings would backfire big time with me, and with permanent consequences. I can’t tell you how enraged I am over this. I am glad the only ABC I watch is Monday Night Football, and I am considering stopping that because of this incident.
A major trust was broken. I hope they lose big time over it.
There were four children (actually, 3 and an adult, Bruce is 19) who are at deaths door due to malnutrition. You can’t tell me that all of them have the same or a similar eating disorder. What puts the final nail in the coffin is the fact that now all of them are in different care, all of them are gaining weight.
Somebody is trying to cover their ass and it won’t hold water. Sure you got medical records on Bruce, but the treatment stopped seven years ago. Either Bruce was cured or the new parents didn’t want to pay for it. And again, the other three had no records of any such disorder. Why are they underweight?
The most damming evidence of all is the fact that all of them are gaining weight now. There was neglect that the NJ DHS, and there was abuse at the hands of the parents. I think the “parents” should go up for attempted murder. Slowly starving children to death is heinous in the extreme.
Well, well, well. For once I’m on the same side of an issue with Al Gore. Both of us are against the Patriot Act. Well, maybe. If you read the accompanying article, Patriot Act Attacked by Gore Mirrors His Own Plan, you see that he’s being a two faced liberal. My prior comments are here and here.
Good old Al called for a consolidation of federal law-enforcement back in 1993. Of course, now that this has been made public, Al has two choices: Either ignore questions on this subject entirely, or say something on the order of “Sure the plans are similar, but I wouldn’t have done it THAT [Bush’s] way.”
Scripps-Howard News Service reported on Aug. 11, 1993, that Gore had “drafted a proposal to transfer all federal law enforcement activities to the Justice Department. The new ‘Directorate of Central Law Enforcement,’ headed by the attorney general, would oversee the FBI, the DEA, Secret Service, Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, Postal Service and BATF.'”
So the “oppose Bush” idea is still in effect, even when you agree with him.
If the Democrats hope to win by confusing the hell out of us, it’s working. Oh, wait a minute. That’s right, logic never was a strong component to Liberal arguments. In fact, they regularly contradict themselves. All we have to do to win is point out where they contradicted themselves and they get apoplectic, ruining any chance of winning the undecided vote. Who wants to vote for somebody who not only contradicts themselves, but who foams at the mouth and screams when caught at it?