Holy crap! Sigs
AIM has them for $259! With 2 mags! Hell 2 used mags alone would run ~$50 minimum.
.......should I buy another?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
If it seems like I'm posting alot today....
Well that's because there's a ton of stuff running around in that crazy brain of mine that I want to post and don't get around to. I'm terrible about not doing things unless I do them right away or make immediate & definite plans. Just ask Falnfenix. I've been saying I should drive down to visit her for months now and still haven't done it. Doh.
Anyway, the following is a discussion I had with an anti in the wake of the VT shootings. This was done on the comments section of our student newspaper The Review At the time I was floored by her reaction, but over time I've come to realize it's not such an uncommon thing. Here's the discussion in it's entirety. I didn't bother responding to her comment because quite honestly, I wasn't sure what to say other than "wow! WTF woman?" and that wouldn't have been a highroad response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW
One thing that really bothered me in the wake of this tragedy is that VT University created a "guns-free killing zone" for this gunman. Virginia State law allows the carrying of guns on campus. A VT policy prohibiting firearms and other weapons, as well as the carrying of such weapons by those with CCW permits ensured that all students would be defenseless today. An armed civilian, professor, or administrator could have stopped this shooting rampage and saved the lives of at least some victims.
JH
And so now the only way to keep ourselves safe is to carry weapons? I would rather not live in such a world. The vision of a society where the only way to protect one's life is by taking the lives of others brings to mind horrible times in our world's history. To live like that is to live in a constant state of war.
MW
I would also rather live in an ideal world where no one needs a gun, knife, pepper spray etc. to protect themselves and others from those intent on committing senseless acts of violence. The taking of life is not always the only way to protect onesself. However, if the immediate alternative is death then it is the most effective means of self defense. I can think of no one who would honestly prefer to die rather than take the life of someone threatening theirs. Even Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and the Pope believe it is just and right to, if necessary, take life in self-defense. Humans have always had a natural instinct, and natural right to self-defense. As we have evolved throughout history so has our means of self-defense. The fact that the gun is the most effective tool of self-defense is simply a reaction to the reality that it is also the most effective tool criminals employ to take and threaten lives.
this may very well seem like a grim vision of society, but it is reality. There are violent people in the world who cannot be reasoned with. Force or the threat of force is the best deterrent against such people. No sane person ever wishes to take a life, but in a free country personal protection should be a personal choice. This is especially true when the Supreme Court has stated that the police have no actual "duty to protect." A faceless third party should not be able to deny such a choice and fundamental human right under the false premise that they are making us "feel safe" by disarming citizens. I'm sure VT students aren't currently finding much comfort in policies that make them "feel" safe. I'm sure the families of those killed and injured would rather have seen policies in place that actually ensured a higher level of real safety and a possibility of thwarting these killings and not ones that ensured their status as helpless victims.
Would CCW have prevented or mitigated the tragedy in VT? No one will ever know. At the least it would have pushed the odds in favor of the victims. Maybe had the shooter known law-abiding citizens could be carrying he would have forgone his rampage all-together, or maybe he would have been killed before he shot 60 people.
JH
Quite honestly, no, I would not shoot someone to save my life. So let that be a first. I understand that this is not a Utopian world and there will be violence. I understand that I could die because I refuse to answer that violence with more violence. I will claw kick and bite my way to safety, but I will never ever shoot a gun and I believe that everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves. More people die from accidental firings of guns and improper gun safety. I also think that if a gun is easily available, it will make its misuse more tempting. All of us have had the thought "oh if only i could do such and such to so and so" its human nature to want revenge and not always in a good way. If that route is more easily taken, no good can come of it. Senseless violence is not always senseless to the one who kills.
Anyway, the following is a discussion I had with an anti in the wake of the VT shootings. This was done on the comments section of our student newspaper The Review At the time I was floored by her reaction, but over time I've come to realize it's not such an uncommon thing. Here's the discussion in it's entirety. I didn't bother responding to her comment because quite honestly, I wasn't sure what to say other than "wow! WTF woman?" and that wouldn't have been a highroad response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW
One thing that really bothered me in the wake of this tragedy is that VT University created a "guns-free killing zone" for this gunman. Virginia State law allows the carrying of guns on campus. A VT policy prohibiting firearms and other weapons, as well as the carrying of such weapons by those with CCW permits ensured that all students would be defenseless today. An armed civilian, professor, or administrator could have stopped this shooting rampage and saved the lives of at least some victims.
JH
And so now the only way to keep ourselves safe is to carry weapons? I would rather not live in such a world. The vision of a society where the only way to protect one's life is by taking the lives of others brings to mind horrible times in our world's history. To live like that is to live in a constant state of war.
MW
I would also rather live in an ideal world where no one needs a gun, knife, pepper spray etc. to protect themselves and others from those intent on committing senseless acts of violence. The taking of life is not always the only way to protect onesself. However, if the immediate alternative is death then it is the most effective means of self defense. I can think of no one who would honestly prefer to die rather than take the life of someone threatening theirs. Even Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and the Pope believe it is just and right to, if necessary, take life in self-defense. Humans have always had a natural instinct, and natural right to self-defense. As we have evolved throughout history so has our means of self-defense. The fact that the gun is the most effective tool of self-defense is simply a reaction to the reality that it is also the most effective tool criminals employ to take and threaten lives.
this may very well seem like a grim vision of society, but it is reality. There are violent people in the world who cannot be reasoned with. Force or the threat of force is the best deterrent against such people. No sane person ever wishes to take a life, but in a free country personal protection should be a personal choice. This is especially true when the Supreme Court has stated that the police have no actual "duty to protect." A faceless third party should not be able to deny such a choice and fundamental human right under the false premise that they are making us "feel safe" by disarming citizens. I'm sure VT students aren't currently finding much comfort in policies that make them "feel" safe. I'm sure the families of those killed and injured would rather have seen policies in place that actually ensured a higher level of real safety and a possibility of thwarting these killings and not ones that ensured their status as helpless victims.
Would CCW have prevented or mitigated the tragedy in VT? No one will ever know. At the least it would have pushed the odds in favor of the victims. Maybe had the shooter known law-abiding citizens could be carrying he would have forgone his rampage all-together, or maybe he would have been killed before he shot 60 people.
JH
Quite honestly, no, I would not shoot someone to save my life. So let that be a first. I understand that this is not a Utopian world and there will be violence. I understand that I could die because I refuse to answer that violence with more violence. I will claw kick and bite my way to safety, but I will never ever shoot a gun and I believe that everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves. More people die from accidental firings of guns and improper gun safety. I also think that if a gun is easily available, it will make its misuse more tempting. All of us have had the thought "oh if only i could do such and such to so and so" its human nature to want revenge and not always in a good way. If that route is more easily taken, no good can come of it. Senseless violence is not always senseless to the one who kills.
Guess I didn't get the memo
According to anti-gun people, I'm supposed to look like this.
Nikki has a post up where she thoroughly fisks a Reuters article claiming gun-ownership is declining in the U.S. Of course they get their talking points from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. (no bias there) and the "statistics" they use come from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. NORC receives funding from the Joyce Foundation, a well-known Chicago based gun control group.
I'll never understand how you can call it "journalism" when you publish an article using "facts" from an advocacy group with an obviously skewed agenda on the topic being discussed. Pro-gun people don't go around citing "facts" and quotes directly from the NRA, but that's because we don't have to.
Nikki has a post up where she thoroughly fisks a Reuters article claiming gun-ownership is declining in the U.S. Of course they get their talking points from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. (no bias there) and the "statistics" they use come from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. NORC receives funding from the Joyce Foundation, a well-known Chicago based gun control group.
I'll never understand how you can call it "journalism" when you publish an article using "facts" from an advocacy group with an obviously skewed agenda on the topic being discussed. Pro-gun people don't go around citing "facts" and quotes directly from the NRA, but that's because we don't have to.
Quote of the Day
from OCDO member "Tomahawk" in this thread
"The fact that Maryland's gun laws make you an easy victim on the beltway is just something you're going to have to accept. It's not just, but that's not the point. What is important is that you do as you're told, leave your gun at home, and pay your taxes. Justice is not the goal, compliance and dependence is."
sad but true, especially the last sentence
"The fact that Maryland's gun laws make you an easy victim on the beltway is just something you're going to have to accept. It's not just, but that's not the point. What is important is that you do as you're told, leave your gun at home, and pay your taxes. Justice is not the goal, compliance and dependence is."
sad but true, especially the last sentence
An Explosion of Delaware Members
over on OpenCarry.org There's enough of us that they're now having monthly meetings at IHOP. A few have been OC'ing almost daily and haven't had people everywhere freaking out. Honestly I find that surprising given the general attitude towards guns here in Northern Delaware. I've always loved the fact that little old Delaware is stuck between a bunch of states that are pretty terrible regarding gun laws, yet we've managed to stay (reasonably) gun-friendly.
I guess I really should join in, and start posting a bit more on the forum even though I don't plan on Open Carrying anytime soon.
haha, one of the Delaware members "OC'd" in Maryland earlier this year. By "OC'd" I mean he wore an OWB holster with a cell phone in it.
I guess I really should join in, and start posting a bit more on the forum even though I don't plan on Open Carrying anytime soon.
haha, one of the Delaware members "OC'd" in Maryland earlier this year. By "OC'd" I mean he wore an OWB holster with a cell phone in it.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
A few random gun questions for my readers
I need some advice and most of you have owned guns for longer than I have.
I'm looking for mags for the Sig P6. (P225) Are Mecgar, Promag or any other aftermarket mags worth buying? New factory mags are $30 each. That's a bit pricey for a gun I paid under $400 for.
I also can't find Bersa/Firestorm .22 mags anywhere. Damn Bersa makes stuff impossible to find and crazy expensive. Sure, they have .380 mags but none for the .22lr variant. I'm probably going to have to call them directly to find some.
The Ceiner .22 conversion for the AR-15. Does it work well? Is it worth buying? I know mags are pricey, but with the cost of .223/5.56 so high spending ~$300 now seems like a worthwhile investment. If it's reliable and works well that is. Breda, didn't you shoot an AR with a drop-in .22 conversion? (BCG + Mags)
UPDATE - After further review I can scratch the .22 conversion off my list. Looks like if I want to shoot .22lr in an AR I'll have to buy a dedicated upper.
AR-15 railed handguards - The add-on rails that mount directly to the stock M4 handguards are cheap but I read that mounting accessories this way can damage the barrel. True? If so what do you all recommend as far as an inexpensive free-float rail system? Daniel Defense rails are nice, but I'm not rich and this is afterall a cheap $600 bargain-bin rifle.
I'm looking for mags for the Sig P6. (P225) Are Mecgar, Promag or any other aftermarket mags worth buying? New factory mags are $30 each. That's a bit pricey for a gun I paid under $400 for.
I also can't find Bersa/Firestorm .22 mags anywhere. Damn Bersa makes stuff impossible to find and crazy expensive. Sure, they have .380 mags but none for the .22lr variant. I'm probably going to have to call them directly to find some.
The Ceiner .22 conversion for the AR-15. Does it work well? Is it worth buying? I know mags are pricey, but with the cost of .223/5.56 so high spending ~$300 now seems like a worthwhile investment. If it's reliable and works well that is. Breda, didn't you shoot an AR with a drop-in .22 conversion? (BCG + Mags)
UPDATE - After further review I can scratch the .22 conversion off my list. Looks like if I want to shoot .22lr in an AR I'll have to buy a dedicated upper.
AR-15 railed handguards - The add-on rails that mount directly to the stock M4 handguards are cheap but I read that mounting accessories this way can damage the barrel. True? If so what do you all recommend as far as an inexpensive free-float rail system? Daniel Defense rails are nice, but I'm not rich and this is afterall a cheap $600 bargain-bin rifle.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Chris Matthews is Delusional
"I want people disarmed"
I saw this the other day and haven't gotten the chance to express my feelings about it. It'll have to wait as I'm still a bit under the weather.
Usually I just ignore stupid drivel that pours out of the mouths of talking heads like Chris Matthews. I figure they're members of the mainstream media and are thus paid to spew inane liberal ideology. If they're from Fox News then it ends up being similarly ignorant drivel from the other end of the political spectrum. Glenn Beck is probably the only political show I can watch and not be disgusted by the time it's over. Tucker Carlson is usually pretty good as well. (I used to always watch crossfire)
Much of the time I end up writing off the talking heads as irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. (like Olbermann) I like a host who won't let an interviewee off the hook, but I don't like one who badgers, insults, and drowns out the guests on his show. It is possible to get your point across in a direct and tactful manner that makes the other guy look bad without making you look like an ass.
Matthews usually takes the latter approach, and you can see it here, as he just won't let Murdock expand his positions or refute preposterous and untrue statements. Look at the transcripts. Not once does Murdock get to finish a statement. This was a classic case of "Willfull Ignorance" on Matthews part. He knows how he feels about guns and will do whatever he can to ignore any reasoned argument which is contrary to his belief.
Matthews goes out of his way to ignore Murdock, saying
"You know what I think? In big cities they ought to check people on sidewalks like getting on airplanes. And why an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. Why you can walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license is wacky."
he knows damn well that Murdock is referring to licensed concealed-carry permit holders yet characterizes Murdock's position as being one where people can "walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license." We (pro-gun advocates) are talking about legal, law-abiding CCW holders and Chris is getting himself in a tizzy about people carrying without a license.
Does Matthews even realize that in his blind hatred of guns and gun-owners he's advocating the formation of a police state where the 4th Amendment is non-existent? He's too wrapped up in his emotional, irrational rhetoric to even understand what he's saying. Listen to the video, he's actually proud of his little "plan."
If he wants to live in a police state where a citizen can be strip searched by the police or a military officer at any public place and at any time there are plenty of countries he can move to. America is the one place where individual liberties and freedoms have always been protected. Hell, we even protect Mr. Matthews right to say we should get rid of them. I'd like to keep it that way. If Matthews doesn't want to carry he doesn't have to. It's still a free country and he still has that choice. He wants to disarm all Americans. That is NOT freedom. I'll say it again. I want freedom. Honestly, I don't give a shit what he wants, since it directly involves taking a freedom away from me for no good reason whatsoever.
Oh, and in a police state those officers who would be searching him would be carrying fully-automatic "evil assault weapons" and evil "high capacity assault pistols." Those bad, scary weapons would be out in the open for him to see all the time. Think of the horror! Imagine how the sight of GUNS will emotionally scar the children. Considering the alternative, it's pretty amazing how he reacts to the idea that the responsible citizens around him might be carrying guns that he can't see.
Murdock tries to clarify what I've just explained but Matthews conveniently dismisses it and dives into his moronic rant about disarming Americans. He uses the typical tactics of most anti-gunners. If someone attempts to present facts simply ignore them and continue on your little tirade as if nothing was said. Matthews does exactly that.
"I want to see people disarmed. I want people disarmed in our major cities. How's that for a plan? I don't think we should all be armed, and I don't think more guns is the answer. I think it's wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets in big cities is to put more arms in the streets. Anyway, thank you Deroy."
For the record, I don't think we should ALL be armed either. I think anyone who has not shown themselves to be a violent criminal should be free to choose. Freedom of choice epitomizes what a nation founded on individual liberty really stands for. There is no question. One cannot be free without freedom of choice. In the utopia that Matthews and others envision you don't have that choice. The choice to be armed and to defend yourself because others aren't obliged to do so.
Sound familar? It's the central premise of contemporary liberalism (and sometimes of those on the religious / authoritarian right) You don't have that choice and we (the government) are going to make it for you. I'm sorry, but governments have a terrible track record when it comes to making choices for individuals and "society" and it usually involves many people dying, either directly or indirectly, at the hands of the government. Give them the power to take away the choice, the natural right of self-defense and you are setting a dangerous precedent for the dissolution of other fundamental rights. That is NOT what this country is all about and I will do everything I can to speak out against it. I'll do it until people like Matthews have gotten their wish and I can no longer speak out.
That reminds me of a Barry Goldwater quote.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
It's clear that Matthews simply refuses to see that if he gets his disarmed utopia he soon won't be able to speak out against the government. He will have done away with the one serious impediment towards the confiscation of individual liberties. He'll no longer be able to use his soapbox and the "rifle & cartridge box" he always considered a simplistic, brutish anachronism won't be there to save his ass.
I saw this the other day and haven't gotten the chance to express my feelings about it. It'll have to wait as I'm still a bit under the weather.
Usually I just ignore stupid drivel that pours out of the mouths of talking heads like Chris Matthews. I figure they're members of the mainstream media and are thus paid to spew inane liberal ideology. If they're from Fox News then it ends up being similarly ignorant drivel from the other end of the political spectrum. Glenn Beck is probably the only political show I can watch and not be disgusted by the time it's over. Tucker Carlson is usually pretty good as well. (I used to always watch crossfire)
Much of the time I end up writing off the talking heads as irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. (like Olbermann) I like a host who won't let an interviewee off the hook, but I don't like one who badgers, insults, and drowns out the guests on his show. It is possible to get your point across in a direct and tactful manner that makes the other guy look bad without making you look like an ass.
Matthews usually takes the latter approach, and you can see it here, as he just won't let Murdock expand his positions or refute preposterous and untrue statements. Look at the transcripts. Not once does Murdock get to finish a statement. This was a classic case of "Willfull Ignorance" on Matthews part. He knows how he feels about guns and will do whatever he can to ignore any reasoned argument which is contrary to his belief.
Matthews goes out of his way to ignore Murdock, saying
"You know what I think? In big cities they ought to check people on sidewalks like getting on airplanes. And why an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. Why you can walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license is wacky."
he knows damn well that Murdock is referring to licensed concealed-carry permit holders yet characterizes Murdock's position as being one where people can "walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license." We (pro-gun advocates) are talking about legal, law-abiding CCW holders and Chris is getting himself in a tizzy about people carrying without a license.
Does Matthews even realize that in his blind hatred of guns and gun-owners he's advocating the formation of a police state where the 4th Amendment is non-existent? He's too wrapped up in his emotional, irrational rhetoric to even understand what he's saying. Listen to the video, he's actually proud of his little "plan."
If he wants to live in a police state where a citizen can be strip searched by the police or a military officer at any public place and at any time there are plenty of countries he can move to. America is the one place where individual liberties and freedoms have always been protected. Hell, we even protect Mr. Matthews right to say we should get rid of them. I'd like to keep it that way. If Matthews doesn't want to carry he doesn't have to. It's still a free country and he still has that choice. He wants to disarm all Americans. That is NOT freedom. I'll say it again. I want freedom. Honestly, I don't give a shit what he wants, since it directly involves taking a freedom away from me for no good reason whatsoever.
Oh, and in a police state those officers who would be searching him would be carrying fully-automatic "evil assault weapons" and evil "high capacity assault pistols." Those bad, scary weapons would be out in the open for him to see all the time. Think of the horror! Imagine how the sight of GUNS will emotionally scar the children. Considering the alternative, it's pretty amazing how he reacts to the idea that the responsible citizens around him might be carrying guns that he can't see.
Murdock tries to clarify what I've just explained but Matthews conveniently dismisses it and dives into his moronic rant about disarming Americans. He uses the typical tactics of most anti-gunners. If someone attempts to present facts simply ignore them and continue on your little tirade as if nothing was said. Matthews does exactly that.
"I want to see people disarmed. I want people disarmed in our major cities. How's that for a plan? I don't think we should all be armed, and I don't think more guns is the answer. I think it's wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets in big cities is to put more arms in the streets. Anyway, thank you Deroy."
For the record, I don't think we should ALL be armed either. I think anyone who has not shown themselves to be a violent criminal should be free to choose. Freedom of choice epitomizes what a nation founded on individual liberty really stands for. There is no question. One cannot be free without freedom of choice. In the utopia that Matthews and others envision you don't have that choice. The choice to be armed and to defend yourself because others aren't obliged to do so.
Sound familar? It's the central premise of contemporary liberalism (and sometimes of those on the religious / authoritarian right) You don't have that choice and we (the government) are going to make it for you. I'm sorry, but governments have a terrible track record when it comes to making choices for individuals and "society" and it usually involves many people dying, either directly or indirectly, at the hands of the government. Give them the power to take away the choice, the natural right of self-defense and you are setting a dangerous precedent for the dissolution of other fundamental rights. That is NOT what this country is all about and I will do everything I can to speak out against it. I'll do it until people like Matthews have gotten their wish and I can no longer speak out.
That reminds me of a Barry Goldwater quote.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
It's clear that Matthews simply refuses to see that if he gets his disarmed utopia he soon won't be able to speak out against the government. He will have done away with the one serious impediment towards the confiscation of individual liberties. He'll no longer be able to use his soapbox and the "rifle & cartridge box" he always considered a simplistic, brutish anachronism won't be there to save his ass.
My Laymen's View of the Mortgage Mess
Millions of lenders took calculated risks and gave money to homebuyers who couldn't afford such high mortgages.
Corporate firms invested heavily in mortgage based securities. Again, like the lenders they took a risk, hoping to make big money.
Homebuyers (some individual investors) bought properties hoping to make a buck. The bubble burst and they got screwed like everyone else. We all could see the bubble burst coming but ignored it.
Other homebuyers (those that took sub-prime mortgages) were stupid, greedy, or more likely both. They were getting mortgages they could hardly afford at low rates and then just assuming the rates wouldn't go up.
They had a news piece on the whole thing last night. Like usual they trotted out some moron who got a sub-prime adjustable rate mortgage and now can't pay it. He could barely make the initial payments and now he "just doesn't know what to do." These are the people Hillary Clinton wants to bail out? Great, let's just reward their stupidity.
I'm only 22, but I know there are a few things you need to know before you sign that mortgage contract on a new home. You are signing a contract for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's kind of an important decision. One, how much does the house cost? Two, what is my monthly mortgage payment going to be? What type of mortgage is it? If it's fixed, what is the rate? If it's an ARM what is the initial rate? Does the ARM have a cap and where is that set? Can I still handle payments if rates are at the capped rate? If it's an ARM with no cap do I have the capital to deal with payments that could increase substantially in a small time-period. Do I really want to take that risk?
It's not the lenders fault if you sign an ARM without READING THE CONTRACT. If you don't understand it then find someone who does Before signing away thousands of dollars. Otherwise don't give me your damn sob story about how "you didn't know what you were doing" and "You were just trying to help your family."
The lenders and corporate banks are certainly at fault here, but it's a two-way street. Consumers are to blame for the mess as well. If you're stupid the government certainly shouldn't reward you for it.
Corporate firms invested heavily in mortgage based securities. Again, like the lenders they took a risk, hoping to make big money.
Homebuyers (some individual investors) bought properties hoping to make a buck. The bubble burst and they got screwed like everyone else. We all could see the bubble burst coming but ignored it.
Other homebuyers (those that took sub-prime mortgages) were stupid, greedy, or more likely both. They were getting mortgages they could hardly afford at low rates and then just assuming the rates wouldn't go up.
They had a news piece on the whole thing last night. Like usual they trotted out some moron who got a sub-prime adjustable rate mortgage and now can't pay it. He could barely make the initial payments and now he "just doesn't know what to do." These are the people Hillary Clinton wants to bail out? Great, let's just reward their stupidity.
I'm only 22, but I know there are a few things you need to know before you sign that mortgage contract on a new home. You are signing a contract for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's kind of an important decision. One, how much does the house cost? Two, what is my monthly mortgage payment going to be? What type of mortgage is it? If it's fixed, what is the rate? If it's an ARM what is the initial rate? Does the ARM have a cap and where is that set? Can I still handle payments if rates are at the capped rate? If it's an ARM with no cap do I have the capital to deal with payments that could increase substantially in a small time-period. Do I really want to take that risk?
It's not the lenders fault if you sign an ARM without READING THE CONTRACT. If you don't understand it then find someone who does Before signing away thousands of dollars. Otherwise don't give me your damn sob story about how "you didn't know what you were doing" and "You were just trying to help your family."
The lenders and corporate banks are certainly at fault here, but it's a two-way street. Consumers are to blame for the mess as well. If you're stupid the government certainly shouldn't reward you for it.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Quote of the Day
The previous post was supposed to be Saturday's QOTD but I forgot to post it till Sunday Morning.
Anyway, here's what I have for Sunday. I think Mencken got it wrong however. I think the White House has (and will be) adorned by not just one downright moron, but a whole string of them.
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken - July 26, 1920 - The Baltimore Sun
Anyway, here's what I have for Sunday. I think Mencken got it wrong however. I think the White House has (and will be) adorned by not just one downright moron, but a whole string of them.
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken - July 26, 1920 - The Baltimore Sun
Quote of the Day
"if these guns were created "solely to kill people," what of the other 170 officer deaths? They were killed with weapons designed to tickle people?"
- Kevin Baker ( in this post in 2003)
- Kevin Baker ( in this post in 2003)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Sick and not in a writing mood.....
I'm sick with a cough, chest cold & sinus infection. (And I don't think i'm quite ready to try the remedy Breda posted.) So I'm posting something old and gun-related from my LJ. I have a few Delaware gun- related things I'd like to get to writing about later.
Also, someone please use that coupon code I posted and comment if you do. I'd rather not see it go to waste. (I know, I don't have many readers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were my thoughts on this article in the Brandeis University newspaper.
I used to think college was a place where we were taught how to think for ourselves. Unfortunately however, I'm beginning to feel like their main goal is indoctrination. Enter one of the most illogical student editorials I've ever read. It's a piece written by Jeffrey Dobereiner regarding the possibility of arming the police at Brandeis University.
1st off, accepting that it is possible you could be a victim of violence and preparing yourself accordingly is by no means "obsessing" or "living in fear" The author starts off by saying that Brandeis is "pretty safe" and thus arming the police is unnecessary. (This is the same argument made by the administration at UD as to why they won't arm our campus police) Amazingly his logic goes even further off the deep end from here.
"What threat could possibly strike our campus which would require our police officers to fire upon someone? Guns are tools of fear and intimidation, and the presence of officers wielding firearms will doubtlessly have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit."
Hmm, let me think really hard here for a second..... I seem to remember a threat on a campus about 6 months ago that would have required police to use a firearm. His name was Cho. Of course, I'm sure Brandeis is so secure that no violent criminal could ever walk onto the campus, and if one did Mr. Dobereiner would simply talk him out of hurting anyone, into putting down his gun, or find a pretty girl who could use her sex appeal to disarm the bad guy. Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan! Or maybe the police can yell "STOP!!" and if the bad guy doesn't comply, they'll yell "STOP!" again, in a louder, more demonstrative tone. After all, that worked well in the movie Judge Dredd right?
And is he seriously saying that the sight of a firearm on a cops belt will "have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit?" Yes, the sight of armed cops somehow magically makes everyone shut up. The sight of a holstered gun has such a subduing effect that once arrested no accused person EVER says a word to the police until they have a lawyer present. Right?
Jeff says that better mental health facilities are what we need not guns. I hate to ruin his dream world but not every violent person is a mentally unstable nutcase. Many violent criminals simply have no concern for anyone but themselves and no respect for human life. Not to mention Jeff's article talks of mental health for students, but what if the next campus shooter isn't a student? Student mental health facilities won't do a damn bit of good then will they?
"Ah, but, here’s what guns will do for us:
The mention of a Ninja, whether serious or not, makes me laugh. An unarmed security guard standing behind a tree in a dark parking lot? On second thought, maybe a ninja with a net wouldn't be that bad of an idea. I think they should hire Austin Powers to Judo chop the criminals into submission in J lot. That's about as realistic as a ninja or unarmed security guard being able to stop anyone (especially someone with a weapon) from committing a crime. Honestly, the campus PD are nothing more than unarmed security guards with a bit more legal authority.
"Overzealous security steps like giving pistols to our police officers don’t compensate for glaring oversights like a lack of sufficient cameras in J-lot, or low numbers of patrols."
Sure, arming the campus police is "Overzealous" That must be because nothing bad ever happens on campus right? So if nothing bad ever happens anywhere else in the state, I guess you'd consider it overzealous to arm State or local cops as well? What makes Brandeis such a mecca of safety compared to the rest of the State? The campus perimeter line must signify a fairy-tale place where use of force is never employed by an aggressor, and where everyone magically turns into a perfect angel incapable of harming a fly.
Go ahead Jeff, fix the lights and hire some ninjas since you're sure that'll make you safe. The rest of the country will continue to use things like guns that are a proactive means of keeping people safe. (of course guns would be far more proactive in the hands of potential victims and not in the hands of a stranger who hopefully comes to their aide in time.)
Then again, Jeff is so enlightened that he doesn't even want the strangers he naively expects to protect him to be armed. I wonder who he thinks is going to protect him and his fellow students?
Also, someone please use that coupon code I posted and comment if you do. I'd rather not see it go to waste. (I know, I don't have many readers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were my thoughts on this article in the Brandeis University newspaper.
I used to think college was a place where we were taught how to think for ourselves. Unfortunately however, I'm beginning to feel like their main goal is indoctrination. Enter one of the most illogical student editorials I've ever read. It's a piece written by Jeffrey Dobereiner regarding the possibility of arming the police at Brandeis University.
1st off, accepting that it is possible you could be a victim of violence and preparing yourself accordingly is by no means "obsessing" or "living in fear" The author starts off by saying that Brandeis is "pretty safe" and thus arming the police is unnecessary. (This is the same argument made by the administration at UD as to why they won't arm our campus police) Amazingly his logic goes even further off the deep end from here.
"What threat could possibly strike our campus which would require our police officers to fire upon someone? Guns are tools of fear and intimidation, and the presence of officers wielding firearms will doubtlessly have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit."
Hmm, let me think really hard here for a second..... I seem to remember a threat on a campus about 6 months ago that would have required police to use a firearm. His name was Cho. Of course, I'm sure Brandeis is so secure that no violent criminal could ever walk onto the campus, and if one did Mr. Dobereiner would simply talk him out of hurting anyone, into putting down his gun, or find a pretty girl who could use her sex appeal to disarm the bad guy. Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan! Or maybe the police can yell "STOP!!" and if the bad guy doesn't comply, they'll yell "STOP!" again, in a louder, more demonstrative tone. After all, that worked well in the movie Judge Dredd right?
And is he seriously saying that the sight of a firearm on a cops belt will "have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit?" Yes, the sight of armed cops somehow magically makes everyone shut up. The sight of a holstered gun has such a subduing effect that once arrested no accused person EVER says a word to the police until they have a lawyer present. Right?
Jeff says that better mental health facilities are what we need not guns. I hate to ruin his dream world but not every violent person is a mentally unstable nutcase. Many violent criminals simply have no concern for anyone but themselves and no respect for human life. Not to mention Jeff's article talks of mental health for students, but what if the next campus shooter isn't a student? Student mental health facilities won't do a damn bit of good then will they?
"Ah, but, here’s what guns will do for us:
Thief one: “Man, let’s rob the cars on the Brandeis Campus. We can go unarmed because those cops don’t have guns. We’ll just run if we’re seen.”
Thief two: “Dude, I heard they’re going to start arming their cops with pistols.”
Thief one: “Well hell, I guess we’ll have to bring our guns, then!”
(High Five)"
So, by Jeff's logic arming the police is going to cause criminals to say "Gee, I guess I need to get a gun now" I suppose he thinks if all police and law-abiding citizens give up their guns the criminals will decide they don't want / need them either. Eureka, problem solved! Maybe he should write a letter to the Massachusetts state police explaining how their carrying guns is causing all the criminals to have to carry as well.
"I know how to stop the thief. Hire a security guard (or a ninja) to stand behind a tree near J lot. When they see someone about to shatter a window have them run out and throw a net on the criminal! Then they can call the Brandeis Police, and the problem will be resolved. In all seriousness, paying a couple of officers overtime to stake out the parking lot would be prudent."The mention of a Ninja, whether serious or not, makes me laugh. An unarmed security guard standing behind a tree in a dark parking lot? On second thought, maybe a ninja with a net wouldn't be that bad of an idea. I think they should hire Austin Powers to Judo chop the criminals into submission in J lot. That's about as realistic as a ninja or unarmed security guard being able to stop anyone (especially someone with a weapon) from committing a crime. Honestly, the campus PD are nothing more than unarmed security guards with a bit more legal authority.
"Overzealous security steps like giving pistols to our police officers don’t compensate for glaring oversights like a lack of sufficient cameras in J-lot, or low numbers of patrols."
Sure, arming the campus police is "Overzealous" That must be because nothing bad ever happens on campus right? So if nothing bad ever happens anywhere else in the state, I guess you'd consider it overzealous to arm State or local cops as well? What makes Brandeis such a mecca of safety compared to the rest of the State? The campus perimeter line must signify a fairy-tale place where use of force is never employed by an aggressor, and where everyone magically turns into a perfect angel incapable of harming a fly.
Go ahead Jeff, fix the lights and hire some ninjas since you're sure that'll make you safe. The rest of the country will continue to use things like guns that are a proactive means of keeping people safe. (of course guns would be far more proactive in the hands of potential victims and not in the hands of a stranger who hopefully comes to their aide in time.)
Then again, Jeff is so enlightened that he doesn't even want the strangers he naively expects to protect him to be armed. I wonder who he thinks is going to protect him and his fellow students?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Quote of the Day
"Wow! This should be required reading in every public high school"
- My mom (referring to Ayn Rand's essay Racism)
My response was to ask her what'd happen once Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson got wind of such an essay being required reading in inner-city schools.
- My mom (referring to Ayn Rand's essay Racism)
My response was to ask her what'd happen once Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson got wind of such an essay being required reading in inner-city schools.
Nutter to PA "I Know my Gun Laws are Illegal, but I don't care"
Criminals to Nutter - "You don't respect laws when they conflict with what you want. Guess what? Neither do we. Good luck with those gun laws."
Nutter vows to enforce illegal gun laws
Putting this one here to comment on later.
Nutter vows to enforce illegal gun laws
Putting this one here to comment on later.
Taxes, Tax Cuts & the Wealthy
saw this link via Armed Canadian
Well I don't make much (I get paid hourly just to give you an idea) so this tax rebate is great for me. More money in my pocket is always a good thing. My problem is simple though. I don't like tax rebates. I want an across the board TAX CUT. You know, meaning everyone keeps more of their hard earned money from paycheck to paycheck. Hell, I'd like to get rid of Social Security and the Federal Income Tax entirely. That would force the government to cut spending.
This plan is political pandering in an election year and nothing more.
"Those who earn up to $75,000 individually or up to $150,000 as a couple will be eligible for the payments."
Great, so those who they deem "wealthy" don't deserve to get their money back. If someone making $12,000 is worthy of getting some of his taxes back someone making $120,000 is equally worthy. I don't believe in progressive taxation. Why should the "wealthy" pay ~40% while others pay only 20%? Why does the government think it's ok to punish people for their success? This is a country of opportunity, where a person can make something of himself regardless of social status. Why then do we punish those who've seized that opportunity and "made it?" Isn't that counterproductive?
My boss is a great example of this. He went to a small law school and had to apply more than once before being admitted. He graduated and several years later decided to start his own law firm. He had vision, drive, and was/is a great businessman. His firm includes subsidiary companies and has several offices in 3 different states. He's now a self-made millionaire and does quite a lot of pro-bono work.
People like Hillary Clinton want to raise taxes on the top tax bracket and on "evil corporations." She sees the wealthy as evil and opportunistic out to hurt the rest of us. What a hypocrite considering her husband is worth millions and she's nothing but an opportunistic parasite feeding off of him and his name. The fact is the wealthy drive our economy. We have the greatest economy in the world. We also have the highest number of multi-millionaires in the world. That's not a coincidence.
Well I don't make much (I get paid hourly just to give you an idea) so this tax rebate is great for me. More money in my pocket is always a good thing. My problem is simple though. I don't like tax rebates. I want an across the board TAX CUT. You know, meaning everyone keeps more of their hard earned money from paycheck to paycheck. Hell, I'd like to get rid of Social Security and the Federal Income Tax entirely. That would force the government to cut spending.
This plan is political pandering in an election year and nothing more.
"Those who earn up to $75,000 individually or up to $150,000 as a couple will be eligible for the payments."
Great, so those who they deem "wealthy" don't deserve to get their money back. If someone making $12,000 is worthy of getting some of his taxes back someone making $120,000 is equally worthy. I don't believe in progressive taxation. Why should the "wealthy" pay ~40% while others pay only 20%? Why does the government think it's ok to punish people for their success? This is a country of opportunity, where a person can make something of himself regardless of social status. Why then do we punish those who've seized that opportunity and "made it?" Isn't that counterproductive?
My boss is a great example of this. He went to a small law school and had to apply more than once before being admitted. He graduated and several years later decided to start his own law firm. He had vision, drive, and was/is a great businessman. His firm includes subsidiary companies and has several offices in 3 different states. He's now a self-made millionaire and does quite a lot of pro-bono work.
People like Hillary Clinton want to raise taxes on the top tax bracket and on "evil corporations." She sees the wealthy as evil and opportunistic out to hurt the rest of us. What a hypocrite considering her husband is worth millions and she's nothing but an opportunistic parasite feeding off of him and his name. The fact is the wealthy drive our economy. We have the greatest economy in the world. We also have the highest number of multi-millionaires in the world. That's not a coincidence.
Coupon Giveaway
I've got a Sportsman's Guide coupon here that I'm not going to use this month. $10 off a purchase of $99 or more. It expires 01/31/08. Coupon code is SPG2134.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Hey England!
I know you idiots are busy banning knives, swords, toy guns and toy swords etc. but you might want to rethink your cunning crime-fighting tactics.
Apparently that first ban you claimed would stop violence crime, y'know, the gun ban, well it's not working!
I realize more and more each day why we staged a revolution to rid ourselves of the ignorant, pompus bastards running your country. It seems not much has changed, except that we're free and the British people have no rights and are subjected to all kinds of government idiocy. The UK really is the petri dish of the experiment of contemporary liberalism that the Democrats here in the U.S. want to impose on the people.
Apparently that first ban you claimed would stop violence crime, y'know, the gun ban, well it's not working!
I realize more and more each day why we staged a revolution to rid ourselves of the ignorant, pompus bastards running your country. It seems not much has changed, except that we're free and the British people have no rights and are subjected to all kinds of government idiocy. The UK really is the petri dish of the experiment of contemporary liberalism that the Democrats here in the U.S. want to impose on the people.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Quote of the Day
It's sad that Jefferson's words are so very far from the realities of what American Government has become.
“The policy of the American Government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining them, nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The policy of the American Government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining them, nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Figures
Fred is officially out of the race.
It looks like now all we've got left are a couple of fucktards, a so-called "conservative" who's old as dirt, a looney libertarian and the devil herself.
The only votes I could possibly stomach would be McCain with Fred as VP, or Ron Paul. And I really don't like McCain, he's just the best of a bunch of terrible options at this point.
It looks like now all we've got left are a couple of fucktards, a so-called "conservative" who's old as dirt, a looney libertarian and the devil herself.
The only votes I could possibly stomach would be McCain with Fred as VP, or Ron Paul. And I really don't like McCain, he's just the best of a bunch of terrible options at this point.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Let D.C. Keep it's Gun Laws...
Sebastian has an absolutely great post up. I really have nothing else to say except GO READ IT!
Monday, January 21, 2008
That doesn't happen here pt. 2
I have family that lives in Fairfax. It's generally considered a safe neighborhood, mostly new families with young kids. My brother caught 3 guys trying to break into a few houses and a BMW on the street where my sister lives. They also had burglary tools, a couple boxes of ammo and a loaded .38 in their car under the seat.
So as we all know, your so-called "safe neighborhood" may not be as safe as you think. Hell, we've had a few car break-ins in my neighborhood recently, which is unheard of.
On an unrelated note, I hate being 22 and looking like I could pass for 17.
So as we all know, your so-called "safe neighborhood" may not be as safe as you think. Hell, we've had a few car break-ins in my neighborhood recently, which is unheard of.
On an unrelated note, I hate being 22 and looking like I could pass for 17.
Traveling.....
Quick question for anyone who reads this. What's the best driving route to take from Delaware to Kentucky? Keep in mind I'd like to avoid long stints in very anti-gun states.
Every route on Mapquest brings me through Maryland and I'd really prefer to stay out of that state with a gun in the car.
The 600+ mile trip should be fun. Thats about twice as long as my longest trip to date, which was 300+ miles to Niagara Falls a few years ago.
Every route on Mapquest brings me through Maryland and I'd really prefer to stay out of that state with a gun in the car.
The 600+ mile trip should be fun. Thats about twice as long as my longest trip to date, which was 300+ miles to Niagara Falls a few years ago.
Quote of the Day
“The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom. “
- William O. Douglas
- William O. Douglas
Friday, January 18, 2008
Don't you just LOVE stupid criminals?
Take a look at these dumbasses
Hell, the one guy has tattoos on his face, making him pretty much instantly identifiable. If you're known gang members why would you make a video incriminating yourself on weapons charges and taunting the Miami gang unit? It's almost like they were trying to get arrested. The cops had to have laughed when they saw this.
Hell, the one guy has tattoos on his face, making him pretty much instantly identifiable. If you're known gang members why would you make a video incriminating yourself on weapons charges and taunting the Miami gang unit? It's almost like they were trying to get arrested. The cops had to have laughed when they saw this.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Socialists (err.... I mean Democrats) On Guns
Thanks to Jeff Soyer for posting a transcript of the latest Democratic debate and highlighting the candidates answers on gun control.
Here's Hillary Clinton
How does she propose we do that? Ask everyone to come forward? Only the law-abiding will come forward and go through an onerous and expensive licensing and registration process. This won't do a damn thing to stop "illegal guns" as Clinton calls them. It will however kill shooting sports and make guns inaccessible to the poor.
Clinton should talk to our northern neighbors. They already tried licensing and registration and the creation of a government registry. It didn't stop crime. Many people refused to comply and the government couldn't really do anything about it. The government spent BILLIONS trying to accomplish this before finally deciding it was futile and scrapping the plan entirely. Also, every time a government has disarmed citizens via confiscation, licensing and registration was the precursor.
Clinton says, "Illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country"
NO! Violent criminals cause death and injury. My guns don't load themselves and start shooting people, a PERSON is needed for that. I am a "young person" so does she want to get guns out of my hands? Of course she does, because she'd do everything possible to ban civilian ownership of guns, from AR-15's to muzzleloaders.
"The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent."
Really Senator Clinton? That must mean New York is one of the safest states in the country...
"I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems."
Heller must really scare you then Mrs. Clinton. Let me tell you something about your "specific problems" in NY. Violent criminals are getting weapons on the black market and then killing each other and preying upon the good citizens you've disarmed. Of course you already knew that. You just want to make sure to keep all the "common folk" in your state unarmed so that only the police, military, politicians, and their friends can be armed.
"We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of."
What you really mean is you want to close the "gun-show loophole" and ban all private sales. You want to use the BATF to shut down as many legal dealers as possible for not crossing T's, dotting I's and writing out full words.
"I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
Don't try to BS me. Your "common-sense approach" won't be complete till only the police, military, and politicians can own guns." Self-Defense? What's that? That's not a right, but healthcare for every American certainly is. Besides, I've seen what "common-sense" means to people like you. It means about the same as "compromise." And you say you've backed off on licensing and registration. Sure you have, until after the election.
"I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban."
Right, you and the other two morons who're the front runners for the Democratic Nomination. Hell, your own husband's administration concluded that the AWB had no impact on crime. You should also remember that, according to your husband, the ban was responsible for the Democrats losing Congress.
Keep in mind that Clinton, Obama, Edwards etc. have never seen gun control legislation they didn't like. They've never seen a restriction that wasn't "reasonable"
Brady II is the kind of "common-sense gun control" these socialist pigs will push for if given the chance.
Here's Hillary Clinton
Clinton is in favor of licensing and registration of gun-owners.RUSSERT: The leading cause for death among young black men is guns — death, homicide. Mayor Bloomberg of New York, you all know him, he and 250 mayors have started the campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Senator Clinton,
when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.
The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent.
CLINTON: I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.
So here’s what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of.
And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they’re back on the streets.
So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.
RUSSERT: But you’ve backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.
How does she propose we do that? Ask everyone to come forward? Only the law-abiding will come forward and go through an onerous and expensive licensing and registration process. This won't do a damn thing to stop "illegal guns" as Clinton calls them. It will however kill shooting sports and make guns inaccessible to the poor.
Clinton should talk to our northern neighbors. They already tried licensing and registration and the creation of a government registry. It didn't stop crime. Many people refused to comply and the government couldn't really do anything about it. The government spent BILLIONS trying to accomplish this before finally deciding it was futile and scrapping the plan entirely. Also, every time a government has disarmed citizens via confiscation, licensing and registration was the precursor.
Clinton says, "Illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country"
NO! Violent criminals cause death and injury. My guns don't load themselves and start shooting people, a PERSON is needed for that. I am a "young person" so does she want to get guns out of my hands? Of course she does, because she'd do everything possible to ban civilian ownership of guns, from AR-15's to muzzleloaders.
"The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent."
Really Senator Clinton? That must mean New York is one of the safest states in the country...
"I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems."
Heller must really scare you then Mrs. Clinton. Let me tell you something about your "specific problems" in NY. Violent criminals are getting weapons on the black market and then killing each other and preying upon the good citizens you've disarmed. Of course you already knew that. You just want to make sure to keep all the "common folk" in your state unarmed so that only the police, military, politicians, and their friends can be armed.
"We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of."
What you really mean is you want to close the "gun-show loophole" and ban all private sales. You want to use the BATF to shut down as many legal dealers as possible for not crossing T's, dotting I's and writing out full words.
"I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
Don't try to BS me. Your "common-sense approach" won't be complete till only the police, military, and politicians can own guns." Self-Defense? What's that? That's not a right, but healthcare for every American certainly is. Besides, I've seen what "common-sense" means to people like you. It means about the same as "compromise." And you say you've backed off on licensing and registration. Sure you have, until after the election.
"I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban."
Right, you and the other two morons who're the front runners for the Democratic Nomination. Hell, your own husband's administration concluded that the AWB had no impact on crime. You should also remember that, according to your husband, the ban was responsible for the Democrats losing Congress.
Keep in mind that Clinton, Obama, Edwards etc. have never seen gun control legislation they didn't like. They've never seen a restriction that wasn't "reasonable"
Brady II is the kind of "common-sense gun control" these socialist pigs will push for if given the chance.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Philadelphia....
I was watching the local news last night and they were discussing violence in Philly (what's new?)
Anyway, they were holding town-hall meetings with the new Police Commissioner and I heard some things I couldn't believe. One, the PD's plan is to "put more officers out on the streets." The best they can hope for with that approach is a temporary lull in crime, and probably an uptick in police shootings. You have a community, a culture that glorifies drugs & violence and refuses to cooperate with law enforcement to help put criminals in jail. The cops can only do so much.
The police commissioner also told residents to "stop pointing their guns at police" Umm DUH! One of the women at the meeting was the mother of a teen shot by police and she was outraged at the increase in shootings by police. Her son was selling drugs and had run from the cops. He then turned towards them and reached into his pocket. I'm sorry but I have a hard time feeling remorse for such people. If you pull a gun on the cops, or act like you're going to you will probably get shot. Stop pulling guns on the cops you idiots! If you keep it up, you're going to get shot. Tough luck. Deal with it.
I also heard them pleading with Philly residents to stop the violence for 42 days in recognition of Martin Luther King day. Yeah, pleading with violent criminals will surely work. All we have to do is ask them to stop and the violence will subside. Right.
The police commissioner also told residents to "stop pointing their guns at police" Umm DUH! One of the women at the meeting was the mother of a teen shot by police and she was outraged at the increase in shootings by police. Her son was selling drugs and had run from the cops. He then turned towards them and reached into his pocket. I'm sorry but I have a hard time feeling remorse for such people. If you pull a gun on the cops, or act like you're going to you will probably get shot. Stop pulling guns on the cops you idiots! If you keep it up, you're going to get shot. Tough luck. Deal with it.
I also heard them pleading with Philly residents to stop the violence for 42 days in recognition of Martin Luther King day. Yeah, pleading with violent criminals will surely work. All we have to do is ask them to stop and the violence will subside. Right.
The problems in the inner cities are cultural and socioeconomic. Until you address the root causes you cannot quell the violence. The violence is symptomatic of deeper problems and guns are merely a tool used by those who perpetrate violence. If guns simply didn't exist these same people would be using knives and swords against unarmed victims. Only the tool used would change, the results would not.
Let me lay out a few of the problems as I see them. Lack of education, single-parent homes with no father figures or positive role models, the objectivization and subjugation of women as perpetuated by the thug / rap culture. The glorification of violence and the "stop snitching" campaigns. Welfare and reliance on government fixes and handouts. I'm sure that's only a small list of issues facing inner-city residents. I just wish people would focus on the real problems rather than resorting to gun control.
Let me lay out a few of the problems as I see them. Lack of education, single-parent homes with no father figures or positive role models, the objectivization and subjugation of women as perpetuated by the thug / rap culture. The glorification of violence and the "stop snitching" campaigns. Welfare and reliance on government fixes and handouts. I'm sure that's only a small list of issues facing inner-city residents. I just wish people would focus on the real problems rather than resorting to gun control.
A bit about why some say I'm "heartless"
I'm realizing more and more now why one often hears the term "heartless libertarian." In any political discussion I'm often considered a heartless asshole because of my views. This occurs for several reasons. I believe the key reasons is that I have a firm belief that the only "rights" a man can have are those that do not impose a burden or obligation on another man. Anything else is not a right, but merely legally sanctioned plunder.
What do I mean by this? Well I have a right to free speech, but I don't have the right to make others accommodate me by forcing them to provide me with a speaking venue, or with free ad space in the newspaper. I have the right to practice whatever religion I believe in, but no right to have a church built for me. (forced labor is still theft.... or slavery) I have the right to own property, but I don't have the right to take someone else's property because they're more well-off than I am. Nor do I have the right to demand that others provide me with property.
Furthermore, I don't have the right to use the government to appropriate the property of someone “wealthy” because I am "needy" I have the right to use every faculty at my disposal to procure my own property, and I have the right to accept property given to me as a gift by a consenting party. Obviously, I also have the right to ask for such a gift. I have the right to own any property I’ve obtained by means other than theft. Only my actions should be proscribed, insofar as they infringe on the rights of others to likewise act in their own self-interest. My right to own property should not be infringed just because of how others "feel" about said property. (Guns anyone?!)
I do no have the right to health care If I can't afford it, because that means someone else is being forced to pay for what I cannot. That is a violation of their property rights. They have a right to do with their earnings as they see fit. No one has a "right" to anything which someone else has been forced to pay for. This is true regardless of whether theft via income redistribution is good for society or not. It doesn't change the fact that such policies inhibit my ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They are theft, plain and simple. The government is forcing me, at the barrel of a gun, to give up property I've earned, so that they can give it to someone else. That is no different than a common criminal stealing my wallet at gunpoint. The only difference is that the government is acting as an intermediary in the theft, and some feel that their involvement legitimizes such actions.
I do not have the right to a cushy retirement living off of social security checks. I do however have a right to save for my own retirement, and should be able to keep the income I earn in order to provide for myself. The responsibility of doing so is my own, and no one else's. If I fail to save and end up broke in old age that is MY fault. If someone then wishes to help me out of the goodness of their heart that is their choice. No one else, however, should be forced by the government to make up for my lack of responsibility.
In short, anything which must be produced by a non-consenting party cannot be claimed by another party as a “right.” The fact is, there are risks associated with freedom. The single biggest risk is the possibility of failure. The Declaration of Independence contains the words “life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” No group, government or individual is required to provide others with material happiness.
Here’s an idea you’ll never hear mentioned. What happens to society when you plunder unduly on the producers? I’ll give you a hint, they either move abroad or stop producing all-together. You're also ensuring that a society will have fewer producers in the future. If they are taxed at too high a rate, what incentive do they have to continue their business? Aren’t those producers (the wealthy) necessary for the survival of the plunderer? You can’t give money to the “needy proletariat” if there aren’t enough “evil capitalists” to fulfill their “needs” and provide them with so-called “rights.” Not to mention, if the “evil capitalists” and corporations leave or cease to exist, so too will all the accompanying jobs and wages.
Also, Who determines what those “needs” are and when they are satisfied? Needs and happiness are different for every individual, and create an inherent and perpetual inequality among men. To declare it someone else’s duty to provide that happiness, there must be a requisite duty to destroy the individual. Needs / wants / happiness cannot be provided by the government unless such terms are defined broadly, in a societal context, under the collectivist principle that everyone wants or needs the same things in order to be happy.
If we’re using the concept of “rights” the way many seem to think of them today, then where does the list of “rights” end? Healthcare, a job, transportation, a college education, housing etc. These things are “wants,” and somehow, somewhere American’s have gotten the notion that they have the “right” to live a cushy, risk-free life where everything they want is given to them by the government. What’s worse, these people think they deserve such things because the evil greedy capitalists have too much. They preach “fairness” and “equality,” but think nothing of whether it’s “fair” to take from the wealthy.
Freedom demands inequality, it demands that life not be fair. I demand freedom. To quote The Formats' "On Your Porch" "If I fail well then I fail, but I gave it a shot." A shot is all anyone can ever really ask for in this life.
What do I mean by this? Well I have a right to free speech, but I don't have the right to make others accommodate me by forcing them to provide me with a speaking venue, or with free ad space in the newspaper. I have the right to practice whatever religion I believe in, but no right to have a church built for me. (forced labor is still theft.... or slavery) I have the right to own property, but I don't have the right to take someone else's property because they're more well-off than I am. Nor do I have the right to demand that others provide me with property.
Furthermore, I don't have the right to use the government to appropriate the property of someone “wealthy” because I am "needy" I have the right to use every faculty at my disposal to procure my own property, and I have the right to accept property given to me as a gift by a consenting party. Obviously, I also have the right to ask for such a gift. I have the right to own any property I’ve obtained by means other than theft. Only my actions should be proscribed, insofar as they infringe on the rights of others to likewise act in their own self-interest. My right to own property should not be infringed just because of how others "feel" about said property. (Guns anyone?!)
I do no have the right to health care If I can't afford it, because that means someone else is being forced to pay for what I cannot. That is a violation of their property rights. They have a right to do with their earnings as they see fit. No one has a "right" to anything which someone else has been forced to pay for. This is true regardless of whether theft via income redistribution is good for society or not. It doesn't change the fact that such policies inhibit my ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They are theft, plain and simple. The government is forcing me, at the barrel of a gun, to give up property I've earned, so that they can give it to someone else. That is no different than a common criminal stealing my wallet at gunpoint. The only difference is that the government is acting as an intermediary in the theft, and some feel that their involvement legitimizes such actions.
I do not have the right to a cushy retirement living off of social security checks. I do however have a right to save for my own retirement, and should be able to keep the income I earn in order to provide for myself. The responsibility of doing so is my own, and no one else's. If I fail to save and end up broke in old age that is MY fault. If someone then wishes to help me out of the goodness of their heart that is their choice. No one else, however, should be forced by the government to make up for my lack of responsibility.
In short, anything which must be produced by a non-consenting party cannot be claimed by another party as a “right.” The fact is, there are risks associated with freedom. The single biggest risk is the possibility of failure. The Declaration of Independence contains the words “life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” No group, government or individual is required to provide others with material happiness.
Here’s an idea you’ll never hear mentioned. What happens to society when you plunder unduly on the producers? I’ll give you a hint, they either move abroad or stop producing all-together. You're also ensuring that a society will have fewer producers in the future. If they are taxed at too high a rate, what incentive do they have to continue their business? Aren’t those producers (the wealthy) necessary for the survival of the plunderer? You can’t give money to the “needy proletariat” if there aren’t enough “evil capitalists” to fulfill their “needs” and provide them with so-called “rights.” Not to mention, if the “evil capitalists” and corporations leave or cease to exist, so too will all the accompanying jobs and wages.
Also, Who determines what those “needs” are and when they are satisfied? Needs and happiness are different for every individual, and create an inherent and perpetual inequality among men. To declare it someone else’s duty to provide that happiness, there must be a requisite duty to destroy the individual. Needs / wants / happiness cannot be provided by the government unless such terms are defined broadly, in a societal context, under the collectivist principle that everyone wants or needs the same things in order to be happy.
If we’re using the concept of “rights” the way many seem to think of them today, then where does the list of “rights” end? Healthcare, a job, transportation, a college education, housing etc. These things are “wants,” and somehow, somewhere American’s have gotten the notion that they have the “right” to live a cushy, risk-free life where everything they want is given to them by the government. What’s worse, these people think they deserve such things because the evil greedy capitalists have too much. They preach “fairness” and “equality,” but think nothing of whether it’s “fair” to take from the wealthy.
Freedom demands inequality, it demands that life not be fair. I demand freedom. To quote The Formats' "On Your Porch" "If I fail well then I fail, but I gave it a shot." A shot is all anyone can ever really ask for in this life.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Quote of the Day
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-Justice Brandeis - In his dissenting opinion - U.S. v. Olmstead
The last sentence sums up how I feel about Obama. I don't think he's calculating and sinister, at least not in the way Clinton is. I think he genuinely believes what he preaches, and that scares me because as Aldous Huxley said, "Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them."
(hey look, I made it a two-fer today, how clever...)
-Justice Brandeis - In his dissenting opinion - U.S. v. Olmstead
The last sentence sums up how I feel about Obama. I don't think he's calculating and sinister, at least not in the way Clinton is. I think he genuinely believes what he preaches, and that scares me because as Aldous Huxley said, "Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them."
(hey look, I made it a two-fer today, how clever...)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
P6 "mods"
Picked up a Set of Pachmayr Signature grips for the P6 for $15. I haven't shot with them on yet though, since this was football weekend. Oh and did I mention THE PACKERS ARE GOING TO THE NFC CHAMPIONSHIP!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Quote of the Day
“Gun control laws safeguard liberty, rather then restrict it, Democracy can only flourish when the government is permitted to protect its citizens from harm.”
-Jeffrey Sinenski - American Jewish Committee General Counsel
I simply cannot understand such blind ignorance of the gruesome history of ones own people.
-Jeffrey Sinenski - American Jewish Committee General Counsel
I simply cannot understand such blind ignorance of the gruesome history of ones own people.
Sometimes I Feel like a Hypocrite
As much as I bitch about personal responsibility and rail against entitlement programs I have to admit I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I truly believe such programs cause more harm than good and would prefer to see most of them abolished. (If you want to enact such programs, do it at a state level so you'll only screw your state and not the whole country....... in other words, pull a Mitt Romney)
Anyway, I say I feel like a hypocrite because I benefited greatly from Medicaid. I had maxillofacial (jaw) surgery in January 06 to correct an underbite caused by the growth issues that accompany having cerebral palsy. My private insurer denied me claiming it was not "medically necessary."
I guess I've always felt guilty that I took such a huge free handout, especially since doing so conflicted with my principles. Glad I got that off my chest.
Although I suppose you could say this makes me even with the government, since I have a suspicion I won't ever be seeing any of the money I'm paying into Social Security.
Oh, and if you ever do have a broken jaw it will permanently ruin any previous love you might have had for milkshakes.
Anyway, I say I feel like a hypocrite because I benefited greatly from Medicaid. I had maxillofacial (jaw) surgery in January 06 to correct an underbite caused by the growth issues that accompany having cerebral palsy. My private insurer denied me claiming it was not "medically necessary."
I guess I've always felt guilty that I took such a huge free handout, especially since doing so conflicted with my principles. Glad I got that off my chest.
Although I suppose you could say this makes me even with the government, since I have a suspicion I won't ever be seeing any of the money I'm paying into Social Security.
Oh, and if you ever do have a broken jaw it will permanently ruin any previous love you might have had for milkshakes.
Friday, January 11, 2008
I guess we're all "Domestic Terrorists" now?
Apparently H.R 1955 passed in the House 404-6. How wonderful. An entire piece of legislation committed to destroying our civil liberties. Sure, they throw in language at the end saying the following.
"Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents."
All that amounts to is a blind promise saying "trust us, we won't abuse our authority, consider everyone we don't like "Terrorists" and watch all the gun-bloggers. I'm sure quite a few of us gun-bloggers are included on their list of "potential domestic terrorists." I mean god forbid we talk about the 2nd Amendment as a "reset button" against tyranny and discuss whether it's time to "shoot the bastards." We fly the Gadsen flag and believe in the Constitution, which means we might be "terrorists."
Democrats in Congress are all over how Bush has attacked civil liberties and they cried foul about the Patriot Act. Now they pass, almost unanimously, something like this that brands almost anyone a potential "domestic terrorist." What a bunch of hypocrites. I saw this bill a while back and didn't think it would pass. Boy was I wrong.
"Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents."
All that amounts to is a blind promise saying "trust us, we won't abuse our authority, consider everyone we don't like "Terrorists" and watch all the gun-bloggers. I'm sure quite a few of us gun-bloggers are included on their list of "potential domestic terrorists." I mean god forbid we talk about the 2nd Amendment as a "reset button" against tyranny and discuss whether it's time to "shoot the bastards." We fly the Gadsen flag and believe in the Constitution, which means we might be "terrorists."
Democrats in Congress are all over how Bush has attacked civil liberties and they cried foul about the Patriot Act. Now they pass, almost unanimously, something like this that brands almost anyone a potential "domestic terrorist." What a bunch of hypocrites. I saw this bill a while back and didn't think it would pass. Boy was I wrong.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Found a new blog to read. It's quite harsh and un-PC, which is just fine by me.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Socialism
I still can't understand how people can support socialism by voting for socialist candidates? Do they not realize that socialism = communism?
Yes, the two are equal. The form of government is different, but the ideals are one in the same. When you look at the two it appears that they differ on the evolutionary scale, that is, Socialism is the precursor to Communism / Totalitarianism. Socialism is used to destroy the public sense of individuality and liberty as well as their self-worth and self-sufficiency. Socialism professes that "society" is sacrosanct and thus we should all toil for it's benefit. We must all "sacrifice" for the good of society. Such a view then requires that we must all toil in misery as we bring all men down to the lowest common denominator in a vain attempt at "equality." Of course what the socialist ideal does is enslave the people to their government by increasing their reliance on government and law. Add a strong leader with a lust for power and a push towards patriotism / national pride and you've got the beginnings of a Communist State.
Yes, the two are equal. The form of government is different, but the ideals are one in the same. When you look at the two it appears that they differ on the evolutionary scale, that is, Socialism is the precursor to Communism / Totalitarianism. Socialism is used to destroy the public sense of individuality and liberty as well as their self-worth and self-sufficiency. Socialism professes that "society" is sacrosanct and thus we should all toil for it's benefit. We must all "sacrifice" for the good of society. Such a view then requires that we must all toil in misery as we bring all men down to the lowest common denominator in a vain attempt at "equality." Of course what the socialist ideal does is enslave the people to their government by increasing their reliance on government and law. Add a strong leader with a lust for power and a push towards patriotism / national pride and you've got the beginnings of a Communist State.
Quote of the Day
Since my "Quote of the Day" is always a historical one I'm sticking to that tradition.
"The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."
-H.L. Mencken
"The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."
-H.L. Mencken
Quote of the Day
Sheila-Dixon isn't the brightest
Baltimore seeks tougher gun laws
"If these bills pass, people will soon realize that Baltimore and the state of Maryland are the worst places in the world for gun crimes," Dixon said in an interview yesterday. "That's what I want because, in other cities, crime is going down while we have not changed, and we've got to."
Ok, but how does charging someone who's had their property stolen help fight crime? How about finding the guy who stole the gun rather than making the victim a criminal under the law? Let's take the word "gun" out of the equation. Someone has stolen my property and Ms. Dixon wants to victimize me again by charging me with a crime.
They want to make it easier to define someone as a "gang member" and allow prosecutors to seize that persons assets. Hmm, I don't see any potential for abuse of that law..... nope, none at all.
"People have a constitutional right to own a firearm, but just like a owning a car, rights come with responsibility," he said. "If your car is stolen, you report it. If you have a gun stolen, you should think to report it."
Right. It obviously makes sense to report any theft of your property. It's an entirely different matter however, to FORCE victims to report theft under penalty of law. If they're going to compare this with cars I'd better see identical legislation requring reporting your car stolen within 72 hours. That would never happen of course, because people would be outraged at such a law.
This law also specifically targets law-abiding gun owners. You can't compel a felon with an illegal gun to report it stolen because that would violate his 5th Amendment right. I thought laws were supposed to target criminals?
"If these bills pass, people will soon realize that Baltimore and the state of Maryland are the worst places in the world for gun crimes," Dixon said in an interview yesterday. "That's what I want because, in other cities, crime is going down while we have not changed, and we've got to."
Ok, but how does charging someone who's had their property stolen help fight crime? How about finding the guy who stole the gun rather than making the victim a criminal under the law? Let's take the word "gun" out of the equation. Someone has stolen my property and Ms. Dixon wants to victimize me again by charging me with a crime.
They want to make it easier to define someone as a "gang member" and allow prosecutors to seize that persons assets. Hmm, I don't see any potential for abuse of that law..... nope, none at all.
"People have a constitutional right to own a firearm, but just like a owning a car, rights come with responsibility," he said. "If your car is stolen, you report it. If you have a gun stolen, you should think to report it."
Right. It obviously makes sense to report any theft of your property. It's an entirely different matter however, to FORCE victims to report theft under penalty of law. If they're going to compare this with cars I'd better see identical legislation requring reporting your car stolen within 72 hours. That would never happen of course, because people would be outraged at such a law.
This law also specifically targets law-abiding gun owners. You can't compel a felon with an illegal gun to report it stolen because that would violate his 5th Amendment right. I thought laws were supposed to target criminals?
Blog bash
Well I just made my hotel reservations for the blogger meet-up in Louisville in May. It was ~$77 / night after taxes and such, but according to maquest it's about two minutes from where the convention is being held.
I just hope I can actually make it. I probably won't know for sure till early May. It really all depends on that one godawful class I have left.
I just hope I can actually make it. I probably won't know for sure till early May. It really all depends on that one godawful class I have left.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
the "Candidates of Change"
Barack Obama has started a firestorm of political rhetoric referring to "change." He has officially positioned himself as the "candidate of change." Hillary and all the other candidates are jumping allover the "change" bandwagon as well. They're all nuts.
Personally I think it's all disgusting. What the hell does being the "candidate of change" mean? In Obama's case all of his speeches and debate performances have been more vague than I thought possible. He's the "candidate of change" and is going to "move America in a new direction" and maybe he has a new "vision for the country."
The problem is, who says change, especially radical change, is a good thing? Hitler brought promises of hope, change and prosperity to people yearning for it. Lenin and the Communists brought"change" for the proletariat, and Mao had a vision of change for China. How'd all that change, hope, and new vision work out for everyone? I'll give you a hint. They didn't all end up holding hands afterwards singing kumbayah.
Besides, what political candidate doesn't have a "vision for the country?" Seriously, you can't profess much weaker, empty and blindly idealistic language than that. Obama is like an empty suit. He's a "candidate of change" but when you look at his policies and voting record (which he never discusses) the "Change" he wants is to re-try the failed worldwide experiment of socialism in the U.S. I've got news for you buddy, that's not change it's regression.
All of us gun guys know he'd like nothing better than to disarm us. His record on guns is about as bad as you can get, and he's advocating for a federal law outlawing CCW. Like socialism, gun control is always a failure, unless you consider rampant crime and the unarmed being murdered by their own government a "success."
If Obama truly wants "change" maybe he should look at the lessons of history for an idea of what works and what doesn't instead of insisting that failed policies will work now because "this time the right people will be in charge." Maybe he should consider re instituting the principles of liberty, freedom, property rights and responsibility that made this country great rather than espousing the supposed virtues of policies that have historically destroyed other nations.
Personally I think it's all disgusting. What the hell does being the "candidate of change" mean? In Obama's case all of his speeches and debate performances have been more vague than I thought possible. He's the "candidate of change" and is going to "move America in a new direction" and maybe he has a new "vision for the country."
The problem is, who says change, especially radical change, is a good thing? Hitler brought promises of hope, change and prosperity to people yearning for it. Lenin and the Communists brought"change" for the proletariat, and Mao had a vision of change for China. How'd all that change, hope, and new vision work out for everyone? I'll give you a hint. They didn't all end up holding hands afterwards singing kumbayah.
Besides, what political candidate doesn't have a "vision for the country?" Seriously, you can't profess much weaker, empty and blindly idealistic language than that. Obama is like an empty suit. He's a "candidate of change" but when you look at his policies and voting record (which he never discusses) the "Change" he wants is to re-try the failed worldwide experiment of socialism in the U.S. I've got news for you buddy, that's not change it's regression.
All of us gun guys know he'd like nothing better than to disarm us. His record on guns is about as bad as you can get, and he's advocating for a federal law outlawing CCW. Like socialism, gun control is always a failure, unless you consider rampant crime and the unarmed being murdered by their own government a "success."
If Obama truly wants "change" maybe he should look at the lessons of history for an idea of what works and what doesn't instead of insisting that failed policies will work now because "this time the right people will be in charge." Maybe he should consider re instituting the principles of liberty, freedom, property rights and responsibility that made this country great rather than espousing the supposed virtues of policies that have historically destroyed other nations.
Jack-Booted Thuggery
I read about this earlier on THR but thought it might be a fake story. Unfortunately it seems
I was wrong.
What have I been saying in a few of my posts about government use of force? Think the government won't use force to make people heed to government authority in all aspects of their lives?
Only the government should have a monopoly on force........ so they can break down your door in an illegal home invasion and take your son from you because you said no to government interference and were branded a "constitutionalist."
Even if they had evidence that this guy had punched his son in the face to cause his black eye it still doesn't make it ok for a group of armed government thugs to break into his house. Under what authority? I don't want the SWAT team performing no-knock tactical entries everytime social services thinks some kid *might* be a victim of abuse.
The father called SWAT's action "unnecessary" and said "I would have let them in." I'd personally put it in the category of criminal. If armed men break into my house unannounced they are criminals. If he had shot members of the SWAT team I wouldn't fault him for it. I'd feel terrible for the families of the men killed, but I think you have every right to shoot back if armed men break into your home, regardless of who they are.
As an adult I have the right to refuse medical treatment. If I have a child then I am his legal guardian don't I have the same right unless he's in obviously critical condition?
Are SWAT teams going to be breaking into homes everytime a parent spanks a child now? Will they come if a kid calls social services to report his parents out of spite? What they did is a grotesque abuse of power and I hope he sues everyone involved.
uncle has more including another article on the incident.
I was wrong.
What have I been saying in a few of my posts about government use of force? Think the government won't use force to make people heed to government authority in all aspects of their lives?
Only the government should have a monopoly on force........ so they can break down your door in an illegal home invasion and take your son from you because you said no to government interference and were branded a "constitutionalist."
Even if they had evidence that this guy had punched his son in the face to cause his black eye it still doesn't make it ok for a group of armed government thugs to break into his house. Under what authority? I don't want the SWAT team performing no-knock tactical entries everytime social services thinks some kid *might* be a victim of abuse.
The father called SWAT's action "unnecessary" and said "I would have let them in." I'd personally put it in the category of criminal. If armed men break into my house unannounced they are criminals. If he had shot members of the SWAT team I wouldn't fault him for it. I'd feel terrible for the families of the men killed, but I think you have every right to shoot back if armed men break into your home, regardless of who they are.
As an adult I have the right to refuse medical treatment. If I have a child then I am his legal guardian don't I have the same right unless he's in obviously critical condition?
Are SWAT teams going to be breaking into homes everytime a parent spanks a child now? Will they come if a kid calls social services to report his parents out of spite? What they did is a grotesque abuse of power and I hope he sues everyone involved.
uncle has more including another article on the incident.
Monday, January 7, 2008
I'm not surprised this comes from NJ
Lets ban even more potentially dangerous items in order to protect citizens from themselves
"The New Jersey ban came after Tina Schreffler, a South Jersey woman whose 4-year-old daughter was nearly strangled by one of the toys, lobbied legislators to pass it."
Right so one woman who obviously fails as a parent asks NJ politicians to ban something and they do it? There are a myriad of things in a house that could potentially kill or injure a 4 year old child. You can't get rid of such a risk without keeping the kid in a padded room at all times. What the hell is wrong with people?! Blaming a piece of string instead of taking responsibility as a parent. I swear the death of any semblance of personal responsibilty is sure to be the death of this nation. You can't have any freedom without accepting the attendant responsibilities of a free life.
I'm not the least bit surprised this ban has occurred in New Jersey, nor am I surprised Illinois was the 1st to enact such a ban in 2006. Such bastions of freedom New Jersey and Illinois are huh? No wonder everyone's leaving NJ in droves.
"The New Jersey ban came after Tina Schreffler, a South Jersey woman whose 4-year-old daughter was nearly strangled by one of the toys, lobbied legislators to pass it."
Right so one woman who obviously fails as a parent asks NJ politicians to ban something and they do it? There are a myriad of things in a house that could potentially kill or injure a 4 year old child. You can't get rid of such a risk without keeping the kid in a padded room at all times. What the hell is wrong with people?! Blaming a piece of string instead of taking responsibility as a parent. I swear the death of any semblance of personal responsibilty is sure to be the death of this nation. You can't have any freedom without accepting the attendant responsibilities of a free life.
I'm not the least bit surprised this ban has occurred in New Jersey, nor am I surprised Illinois was the 1st to enact such a ban in 2006. Such bastions of freedom New Jersey and Illinois are huh? No wonder everyone's leaving NJ in droves.
I've always wondered
Why does the U.S. military insist on using FMJ ammo? I know it's because of the Hague Convention which says member countries can't use hollow-point ammunition. Seriously though, war is not meant to be "humane." In a war zone the object is to kill the other guy before he kills you. We use 5.56 rifle rounds and 9mm pistols. Neither are particularly good at taking down man-sized targets using FMJ rounds. It'd be a different story if they used large-caliber rifles and .45 pistols.
It's a stupid international rule (probably thought up by some non-combat bureacrats) that only serves to put U.S. troops at a disadvantage and probably gets our young men and women killed. I understand the need to have certain rules of engagement but I can't see any compelling reason for outlawing the use of hollowpoint / softpoint ammo.
It's a stupid international rule (probably thought up by some non-combat bureacrats) that only serves to put U.S. troops at a disadvantage and probably gets our young men and women killed. I understand the need to have certain rules of engagement but I can't see any compelling reason for outlawing the use of hollowpoint / softpoint ammo.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Massachusetts
Only in Massachusetts could politicians be in an uproar about jrROTC training in the basement of a high school. It's supervised, approved by the school, and they're using air guns. It should be a non-issue but anti-gun politicians have their panties in a bunch and must stop such dangerous behavior.
forfeiture laws
Here is an example of why I'm adamantly opposed to the drug war and particularly to drug forfeiture laws. The key issue with such laws is that the government can come in and seize your assets and you have to prove that they didn't come from your (alleged) participation in illegal enterprise.
The burden of proof is on you and not on the State and it's almost impossible to prove innocence when you're presumed guilty by the law.
Also, in this case they were apparently searching his house after a self-defense shooting. I can't see where they have any legal authority to access his safe and remove his money.
This kind of BS happens all too often as well.
The burden of proof is on you and not on the State and it's almost impossible to prove innocence when you're presumed guilty by the law.
Also, in this case they were apparently searching his house after a self-defense shooting. I can't see where they have any legal authority to access his safe and remove his money.
This kind of BS happens all too often as well.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The DC Brief
I'm shocked at just how ridiculous D.C's arguments are in their brief. One could write pages refuting every unsubstantiated premise, every misrepresentation and downright fear-mongering you find written here. I had a post going but their brief is so packed full of BS I didn't finish.
One thing that stood out to me was D.C.'s claim that since Heller is 66 years old he's not part of the militia. I doubt the justices will take kindly to being told that they are too old to be part of the militia.
Read towards the end where they attempt to explain how a functional long-gun ban and all-out handgun ban are "reasonable restrictions." They also say that handguns have no militia use. That must be why the U.S. military issues Beretta 92's (M9's) with "evil high-capacity clips."
One thing that stood out to me was D.C.'s claim that since Heller is 66 years old he's not part of the militia. I doubt the justices will take kindly to being told that they are too old to be part of the militia.
Read towards the end where they attempt to explain how a functional long-gun ban and all-out handgun ban are "reasonable restrictions." They also say that handguns have no militia use. That must be why the U.S. military issues Beretta 92's (M9's) with "evil high-capacity clips."
That's all they've got?
D.C.'s brief that's been filed in Heller is full of unsubstantiated assumptions and quite a few blatantly illogical arguments. Not only that, but some of those arguments are directly contradicted by precedent set in Miller.
A few things have caught my eye thus far in their brief.
"In 1994, the Council extended the prior require-ment that those who “carry” concealable weapons in public be licensed. A license is now required regardless of where such a weapon is carried."
Thus D.C. law effectively makes it a crime to move a gun from room to room within ones own home. This essentially makes it illegal to have a gun in your home, since you can't freely transport it within your home. The law also has no self-defense exception. I hope the justices recognize the audacity of such a law.
Attorney's for the District go on to say the following about the Parker decision against them.
"The majority also invalidated the licensing law. It ruled that individuals have not only a constitutional right to possess a handgun, but also an ancillary right to move it about their homes for self-defense. PA54a. Although the District construes D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) as a licensing provision, not a flat prohibition on the use (“carrying”) of handguns, the majority held it facially unconstitutional on its contrary reading."
They say themselves that "A license is now required regardless of where such a weapon is carried" but then claim that the Court was wrong to say that the licensing provision was unconstitutional. If the law requires a license, as the District clearly states, "regardless of where such a weapon is carried." then it is certainly logical to conclude that such a law prohibits "an ancillary right to move it about their homes for self-defense."
Also, what are the terms of the "licensing requirement" they speak of? If it is virtually impossible for the average D.C. resident to be granted a license then it can be considered a prohibition on the use/carrying of firearms. If residents need a permit to possess a gun but can't get one, then their right is rendered meaningless.
Next D.C. says this
"The drafting history and recorded debate in Congress confirm that the Framers understood its military meaning and ignored proposals to confer an express right to weapon possession unrelated to militia service."
Really? I think they might want to read the Federalist Papers. They're effectively saying the founders meant for us to be able to own weapons in defense of the state, but not for self-defense purposes.
Another main premise of their arguments hinges on D.C.'s status as a federal enclave and not a state. They posit that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the District because it's not a state, and further that it was meant to protect states from the Federal government, thus it's purpose is not applicable in the district. This also ignores a prior drafting of the 2nd Amendment in which James Madison had originally used the words "Free Country" rather than "Free State." That should make it obvious what the words "free state" mean.
This is also a patently ridiculous argument. As I pointed when reading Judge Henderson's dissent in Parker. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the District because of it's non-state status, then are the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th etc. not binding against the District? The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to serve as a constraint on Federal power. The 2nd Amendment doesn't yet apply to the states via the 14th Amendment, but it certainly applies to the Federal Government. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the powers of the Federal Government. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't restrict the States, nor restrict the District because it's not a State, then who does it restrict?
On page 10 of the brief they state,
"The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the President, and this Court..."
Where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers do the founders express concern that the Federal government might need to protect itself from the States or the people?
They state that the words "free state" do not mean free nation and do not allow for the people to rise up against a tyrannical Federal government. They explain that such a reading of a "right to rebel" is inconsistent with the militia clause and the treason clause.
It is simply inconceivable that the founders would have considered the right to rebel against a tyrannical government to be treason and thus taken steps to prevent it. They themselves had just rebelled against England, so saying that there is no implicit "right to rebel" in the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous.
Concerning the "reasonableness" of the District's laws, well that's a no-brainer. There's no provision for self-defense and you need a license just to "carry" your gun from room-to-room in your own house. Long-guns must be disassembled and locked up and ammo must be locked in a separate location. If that's "reasonable" then what is the district's idea of "unreasonable?"
The key arguments seem to be as follows
1. The 2nd Amendment protects only militia-related rights and "military arms" - Handguns don't fall under "military arms" despite their use by every modern military in the world.
2. D.C. isn't a state, so the 2nd doesn't apply
3. The District's gun laws are "reasonable" - they put this one out in case the 1st two arguments fail.
The brief actually isn't terribly written considering the difficulty of the arguments they're trying to make.
A few things have caught my eye thus far in their brief.
"In 1994, the Council extended the prior require-ment that those who “carry” concealable weapons in public be licensed. A license is now required regardless of where such a weapon is carried."
Thus D.C. law effectively makes it a crime to move a gun from room to room within ones own home. This essentially makes it illegal to have a gun in your home, since you can't freely transport it within your home. The law also has no self-defense exception. I hope the justices recognize the audacity of such a law.
Attorney's for the District go on to say the following about the Parker decision against them.
"The majority also invalidated the licensing law. It ruled that individuals have not only a constitutional right to possess a handgun, but also an ancillary right to move it about their homes for self-defense. PA54a. Although the District construes D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) as a licensing provision, not a flat prohibition on the use (“carrying”) of handguns, the majority held it facially unconstitutional on its contrary reading."
They say themselves that "A license is now required regardless of where such a weapon is carried" but then claim that the Court was wrong to say that the licensing provision was unconstitutional. If the law requires a license, as the District clearly states, "regardless of where such a weapon is carried." then it is certainly logical to conclude that such a law prohibits "an ancillary right to move it about their homes for self-defense."
Also, what are the terms of the "licensing requirement" they speak of? If it is virtually impossible for the average D.C. resident to be granted a license then it can be considered a prohibition on the use/carrying of firearms. If residents need a permit to possess a gun but can't get one, then their right is rendered meaningless.
Next D.C. says this
"The drafting history and recorded debate in Congress confirm that the Framers understood its military meaning and ignored proposals to confer an express right to weapon possession unrelated to militia service."
Really? I think they might want to read the Federalist Papers. They're effectively saying the founders meant for us to be able to own weapons in defense of the state, but not for self-defense purposes.
Another main premise of their arguments hinges on D.C.'s status as a federal enclave and not a state. They posit that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the District because it's not a state, and further that it was meant to protect states from the Federal government, thus it's purpose is not applicable in the district. This also ignores a prior drafting of the 2nd Amendment in which James Madison had originally used the words "Free Country" rather than "Free State." That should make it obvious what the words "free state" mean.
This is also a patently ridiculous argument. As I pointed when reading Judge Henderson's dissent in Parker. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the District because of it's non-state status, then are the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th etc. not binding against the District? The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to serve as a constraint on Federal power. The 2nd Amendment doesn't yet apply to the states via the 14th Amendment, but it certainly applies to the Federal Government. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the powers of the Federal Government. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't restrict the States, nor restrict the District because it's not a State, then who does it restrict?
On page 10 of the brief they state,
"The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the President, and this Court..."
Where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers do the founders express concern that the Federal government might need to protect itself from the States or the people?
They state that the words "free state" do not mean free nation and do not allow for the people to rise up against a tyrannical Federal government. They explain that such a reading of a "right to rebel" is inconsistent with the militia clause and the treason clause.
It is simply inconceivable that the founders would have considered the right to rebel against a tyrannical government to be treason and thus taken steps to prevent it. They themselves had just rebelled against England, so saying that there is no implicit "right to rebel" in the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous.
Concerning the "reasonableness" of the District's laws, well that's a no-brainer. There's no provision for self-defense and you need a license just to "carry" your gun from room-to-room in your own house. Long-guns must be disassembled and locked up and ammo must be locked in a separate location. If that's "reasonable" then what is the district's idea of "unreasonable?"
The key arguments seem to be as follows
1. The 2nd Amendment protects only militia-related rights and "military arms" - Handguns don't fall under "military arms" despite their use by every modern military in the world.
2. D.C. isn't a state, so the 2nd doesn't apply
3. The District's gun laws are "reasonable" - they put this one out in case the 1st two arguments fail.
The brief actually isn't terribly written considering the difficulty of the arguments they're trying to make.
What are they smoking in Iowa?
Huckabee wins by a wide margin? The only thing he has going for him is his stance on guns, but that alone isn't enough for me to vote for him.
He's religious. That's strike #1 as I have no doubt he truly believes the faith he preaches and will have no problem interjecting those beliefs into his public policies. Keep your religion the hell away from my government.
He's a big government, tax & spend liberal - Strike #2 and this sets off my RINO alert. I may as well vote for a Democrat (or Mitt Romney)
Hey, at least the fact that Thompson had a decent showing and Paul, who's essentially a fringe candidate took a HUGE percentage of votes. That shows you just how fed up people are with the Republican party.
I will say I liked seeing New Yorker's Guliani & Clinton getting beat badly. Hillary looked really pissed off about coming in 3rd.
He's religious. That's strike #1 as I have no doubt he truly believes the faith he preaches and will have no problem interjecting those beliefs into his public policies. Keep your religion the hell away from my government.
He's a big government, tax & spend liberal - Strike #2 and this sets off my RINO alert. I may as well vote for a Democrat (or Mitt Romney)
Hey, at least the fact that Thompson had a decent showing and Paul, who's essentially a fringe candidate took a HUGE percentage of votes. That shows you just how fed up people are with the Republican party.
I will say I liked seeing New Yorker's Guliani & Clinton getting beat badly. Hillary looked really pissed off about coming in 3rd.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
I'd Love it if this happened.... Social Security
You know what one proposal I'd LOVE to see? I'd like to see the Federal government abolish Social Security. Allow me to keep the ~12% of my income they steal from me annually. If I took that money and invested it, putting some in savings, some in mutual funds, some in the stock market, and maybe what's left in bonds I'd have a good deal of diversification. I could also put some in an HSA for future health care expenditures if I so desired.
As it stands now I'll be lucky to get back even a portion of what I'm paying in, if I get anything at all. That's assuming I live long enough to collect. What the current system does is essentially the government takes my income, gives me an IOU and says "you can come and collect in 50 years." Even the most conservative investment portfolio couldn't possibly end up worse off than giving my money to the Federal Government.
How many young people paying into Social Security right now actually expect it to pay out for them when they hit old age? If it pays anything it sure as hell won't be equal to the sum you've paid in, adjusted for inflation. Why have someone hold money for you knowing it won't yield returns?
I think of what I could end up with in 30-40 years if I could take ~12% of even my current meager earnings and put them in an IRA and I can't help but be pissed off that the government is stealing my hard earned property and pissing it away. At least if I pissed it away myself I'd be solely responsible for my own misfortune.
As it stands now I'll be lucky to get back even a portion of what I'm paying in, if I get anything at all. That's assuming I live long enough to collect. What the current system does is essentially the government takes my income, gives me an IOU and says "you can come and collect in 50 years." Even the most conservative investment portfolio couldn't possibly end up worse off than giving my money to the Federal Government.
How many young people paying into Social Security right now actually expect it to pay out for them when they hit old age? If it pays anything it sure as hell won't be equal to the sum you've paid in, adjusted for inflation. Why have someone hold money for you knowing it won't yield returns?
I think of what I could end up with in 30-40 years if I could take ~12% of even my current meager earnings and put them in an IRA and I can't help but be pissed off that the government is stealing my hard earned property and pissing it away. At least if I pissed it away myself I'd be solely responsible for my own misfortune.
Wasting your vote
I've been telling my father I won't vote for Romney or Guliani, regardless of who the Democratic nominee ends up being. He considers that "voting for Hillary." Personally I'll vote on principles or not at all. I'm not going to vote for a Republican gun-grabbing, big-government socialist just because the other candidate is a Democratic gun-grabbing, big-government socialist. I'd consider that "wasting my vote."
I think John Quincy Adams put it well saying,
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
I think John Quincy Adams put it well saying,
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Isabel Paterson on Taxes
I'm currently reading "The God of the Machine" by Isabel Paterson. It's a good read, albeit somewhat dry in the beginning. Also, her use of analogies is.... interesting.
I found this particularly good passage from page 161
"Money obtained from the rich in any form except wages is never given to the poor. If it is taken by an ordinary hold-up man, it goes to the hold-up man. If it is taken by a philanthropic organization, it goes to the organization. If it is taken by the government, it goes to the politicians. Neither does increased taxation of the rich lower the rate of taxation on the poor; it is bound to cause an increase in all taxation, reaching down inchmeal until it expropriates a portion, not merely of the last dollar of a poor man, but of the first dollar he can earn. The tax will have to be paid before he can even touch his earnings. The present tax on wages, accurately described as "the Social Security swindle," could not have been imposed under the original Constitution; it is validated only by the income tax amendment. There is no means by which "the rich" can be taxed without ultimately taxing "the poor" far more heavily. And one tax tends to increase all other taxes, instead of lessening them, because tax expenditure goes into things which require upkeep and yield no return (public buildings and political jobs). Kinetic energy has been converted into static forms, which then necessitate the diversion of more kinetic energy to carry the dead-load."
I found this particularly good passage from page 161
"Money obtained from the rich in any form except wages is never given to the poor. If it is taken by an ordinary hold-up man, it goes to the hold-up man. If it is taken by a philanthropic organization, it goes to the organization. If it is taken by the government, it goes to the politicians. Neither does increased taxation of the rich lower the rate of taxation on the poor; it is bound to cause an increase in all taxation, reaching down inchmeal until it expropriates a portion, not merely of the last dollar of a poor man, but of the first dollar he can earn. The tax will have to be paid before he can even touch his earnings. The present tax on wages, accurately described as "the Social Security swindle," could not have been imposed under the original Constitution; it is validated only by the income tax amendment. There is no means by which "the rich" can be taxed without ultimately taxing "the poor" far more heavily. And one tax tends to increase all other taxes, instead of lessening them, because tax expenditure goes into things which require upkeep and yield no return (public buildings and political jobs). Kinetic energy has been converted into static forms, which then necessitate the diversion of more kinetic energy to carry the dead-load."
Quote of the Day
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
-Bill Clinton - 1993
notice he also says "govern the people" not "serve the people"
-Bill Clinton - 1993
notice he also says "govern the people" not "serve the people"
New Years Resolution...... and some blog stuff.
My resolution this year is simple. I want to get into better shape. I need to work out everyday rather than just doing it for a few weeks and then getting bored. As part of that my goal is to gain 10-20 pounds this year.
In other news, Congress passed the "Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007"
Thanks to Joe for the post
I found this part particularly interesting
"Congress simply didn't understand what it was doing," said Peter Stockton, senior investigator for one of the groups, the Project on Government Oversight, which is a watchdog on national security issues.
"Maybe they thought doing something was better than nothing."
That seems about right for our Congress, passing laws to make everyone (especially the politicians) FEEL safer, regardless of the unintended consequences or sheer stupidity of the laws they propose.
I think some of the time they know damn well what they're doing, and yet they do it anyway to keep us serfs in our place. Gun control, especially administered by politicians like this guy. is a perfect example.
In other news, Congress passed the "Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007"
Thanks to Joe for the post
I found this part particularly interesting
"Congress simply didn't understand what it was doing," said Peter Stockton, senior investigator for one of the groups, the Project on Government Oversight, which is a watchdog on national security issues.
"Maybe they thought doing something was better than nothing."
That seems about right for our Congress, passing laws to make everyone (especially the politicians) FEEL safer, regardless of the unintended consequences or sheer stupidity of the laws they propose.
I think some of the time they know damn well what they're doing, and yet they do it anyway to keep us serfs in our place. Gun control, especially administered by politicians like this guy. is a perfect example.
This sums it all up
A good summary of what the gun debate ultimately comes down to
Brought to you by a great new blog I just found.
Brought to you by a great new blog I just found.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
It seems my school loves liberal indoctrination
Here's a sampling of the controversy
I haven't yet read everything regarding this, so I'm sure I'll have more to add once I do.
I'm sorry to say that I have no personal knowledge of this, as I haven't taken classes or lived on campus since Spring '07. The University of Delaware has had a Residence Life program for several years now, but in my experience it never pushed liberal ideology on students. Liberal ideas were of course prevalent on campus, but they weren't being forced on students like they are under this new program.
This year the program has been overhauled. Students are being required to engage in sensitivity training and are being asked very specific personal, ideological and political questions during required "1-on-1's" with their RA's. The "sensitivity training" is no doubt due to a few "racially themed" off-campus parties which, while in bad taste, were seriously blown out of proportion. What that training ends up being is "don't hurt others feelings." Guess what? That's not how the real world works, and you'll never say anything of any importance on controversial topics if you don't adhere to your principles and offend people with what you have to say. The material being given to students stresses the importance of sensitivity, political correctness, the "global community" etc. Additionally, Freshman are required to live on campus, so they can't escape the University's indoctrination attempts.
My sister is a Senior living on campus, so I asked her about the program. Apparently it's being enforced more vigorously in certain dorms. (probably by 1st year RA's) She said the 1-on1's this year were more formal and very awkward. She was asked questions that she thought were strange and overly personal, and some that she just didn't know how to answer. She was not given the pamphlet of materials that students in other dorms were given.
During floor meetings students are being forced to engage in dialogue on a variety of issues. My sister said to me that there wasn't much open discussion in these sessions and that they made people feel uncomfortable. She said people were being asked questions on issues and were then pressured into giving the "right answer" before the RA moved onto the next floor member. To many RA's "mandatory" doesn't really mean anything and they wouldn't really even implement the program in their dorms, but the level of coerced involvement really depends on the individual RA and Hall Director.
I can almost guarantee this program wasn't giving equal credence to those with Republican and Libertarian viewpoints. I'd bet money on it.
Boy, I would have had some extremely blunt and un-PC things to say if they'd asked me about racism, environmentalism, sensitivity training and other "policy issues." I wonder if they discussed gun control?
I haven't yet read everything regarding this, so I'm sure I'll have more to add once I do.
I'm sorry to say that I have no personal knowledge of this, as I haven't taken classes or lived on campus since Spring '07. The University of Delaware has had a Residence Life program for several years now, but in my experience it never pushed liberal ideology on students. Liberal ideas were of course prevalent on campus, but they weren't being forced on students like they are under this new program.
This year the program has been overhauled. Students are being required to engage in sensitivity training and are being asked very specific personal, ideological and political questions during required "1-on-1's" with their RA's. The "sensitivity training" is no doubt due to a few "racially themed" off-campus parties which, while in bad taste, were seriously blown out of proportion. What that training ends up being is "don't hurt others feelings." Guess what? That's not how the real world works, and you'll never say anything of any importance on controversial topics if you don't adhere to your principles and offend people with what you have to say. The material being given to students stresses the importance of sensitivity, political correctness, the "global community" etc. Additionally, Freshman are required to live on campus, so they can't escape the University's indoctrination attempts.
My sister is a Senior living on campus, so I asked her about the program. Apparently it's being enforced more vigorously in certain dorms. (probably by 1st year RA's) She said the 1-on1's this year were more formal and very awkward. She was asked questions that she thought were strange and overly personal, and some that she just didn't know how to answer. She was not given the pamphlet of materials that students in other dorms were given.
During floor meetings students are being forced to engage in dialogue on a variety of issues. My sister said to me that there wasn't much open discussion in these sessions and that they made people feel uncomfortable. She said people were being asked questions on issues and were then pressured into giving the "right answer" before the RA moved onto the next floor member. To many RA's "mandatory" doesn't really mean anything and they wouldn't really even implement the program in their dorms, but the level of coerced involvement really depends on the individual RA and Hall Director.
I can almost guarantee this program wasn't giving equal credence to those with Republican and Libertarian viewpoints. I'd bet money on it.
Boy, I would have had some extremely blunt and un-PC things to say if they'd asked me about racism, environmentalism, sensitivity training and other "policy issues." I wonder if they discussed gun control?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)