Gun control for thee but not for me? Ain't that something - a proponent and supporter of the SAFE act carries his pistol into an elementary school. Of course, he didn't mean it ;<).
Meanwhile, a man was cited in violation of the SAFE act for having 10 rounds in the magazine in his 9mm pistol. Of course, he meant it ;<).
Seems to me the folks in NY are going to have some issues to sort out.
Monday, February 10, 2014
It's a FUBAR world...
You know it's a world gone off the rails when people mourn and honor one man while no one pays attention to the anniversary of the passing of another. No death is to be lauded (well, maybe that's not always true), but the amount of attention a death receives is a telling tale of how our society is functioning, how healthy it is, what its values are.
One was an actor; one whose talent, such as it was, was to entertain people, distract them from the real world of troubles, to provide the modern opiate of the masses; I hear little that suggests some form of selfless duty. In a world that celebrates excess and talentless celebrity, he is mourned by those who did not know him for what they have lost, not for who he might have been - we conveniently ignore who those celebrities really are.
The other was an unknown to most people, much as are all of his comrades; he did not entertain us, he merely served his nation when he was asked in relative anonymity. Even now, I am sure most who mourn Hoffman have no idea who Chris Kyle was.
Both are useful to today's self-centered, media-driven world. Hoffman is seen as a sad character, one who had such talent (again, if that is your thing) but wasted it. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, he was seen as a person who might have had everything the sycophants could ever want and yet it was not enough. A cautionary tale for sure of how no amount of fame can immunize one against their own bad choices. Kyle, for all of his commitment to his country and his fellow warriors, is seen by today's liberal culture as a cautionary tale of gun-nuttery. A decorated sniper, one who had chosen to use the weapons that liberals find so objectionable to defend their freedom to object and sadly, died unnecessarily from such a weapon in the hands of a fellow warrior he was trying to help. Perhaps one can make a case that both deaths were, in some way, self-inflicted, but one was a self-centered decent into despair, while one was a selfless, if ill-conceived, act of caring.
But what is more ridiculous is how quickly and rabidly the law has jumped on Hoffman's death to try to find someone other than Hoffman responsible. It is only a brave journalist who would note that no one forced drugs on Hoffman or forces them on any one else (a commentary that the Huffington Post called "ugly"). Oh, the inhumanity of suggesting that people are responsible for their own behavior and the ends they reap. Surely there must be a bad childhood, oppression, repression, discrdiscriminationrivation, or a disease at work?
No, no death is laudable, all untimely death is tragic, whether chosen or encountered. But the death of a man who had dedicated his life to his country and to trying, in his own way, to help those who had served, deserves at least the same attention as the death of an entertainer, an actor, who made bad choices. Both made some questionable choices, played a part in their own demise.
The response to Hoffman's death exposes a critical fallacy, a critical bias, in today's liberal thinking; it is at once hedonistic and self-absorbed with its own desires, own insistence on doing what it wants today while consistently absolving itself of all responsibility for the ends of those choices.
One was an actor; one whose talent, such as it was, was to entertain people, distract them from the real world of troubles, to provide the modern opiate of the masses; I hear little that suggests some form of selfless duty. In a world that celebrates excess and talentless celebrity, he is mourned by those who did not know him for what they have lost, not for who he might have been - we conveniently ignore who those celebrities really are.
The other was an unknown to most people, much as are all of his comrades; he did not entertain us, he merely served his nation when he was asked in relative anonymity. Even now, I am sure most who mourn Hoffman have no idea who Chris Kyle was.
Both are useful to today's self-centered, media-driven world. Hoffman is seen as a sad character, one who had such talent (again, if that is your thing) but wasted it. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, he was seen as a person who might have had everything the sycophants could ever want and yet it was not enough. A cautionary tale for sure of how no amount of fame can immunize one against their own bad choices. Kyle, for all of his commitment to his country and his fellow warriors, is seen by today's liberal culture as a cautionary tale of gun-nuttery. A decorated sniper, one who had chosen to use the weapons that liberals find so objectionable to defend their freedom to object and sadly, died unnecessarily from such a weapon in the hands of a fellow warrior he was trying to help. Perhaps one can make a case that both deaths were, in some way, self-inflicted, but one was a self-centered decent into despair, while one was a selfless, if ill-conceived, act of caring.
But what is more ridiculous is how quickly and rabidly the law has jumped on Hoffman's death to try to find someone other than Hoffman responsible. It is only a brave journalist who would note that no one forced drugs on Hoffman or forces them on any one else (a commentary that the Huffington Post called "ugly"). Oh, the inhumanity of suggesting that people are responsible for their own behavior and the ends they reap. Surely there must be a bad childhood, oppression, repression, discrdiscriminationrivation, or a disease at work?
No, no death is laudable, all untimely death is tragic, whether chosen or encountered. But the death of a man who had dedicated his life to his country and to trying, in his own way, to help those who had served, deserves at least the same attention as the death of an entertainer, an actor, who made bad choices. Both made some questionable choices, played a part in their own demise.
The response to Hoffman's death exposes a critical fallacy, a critical bias, in today's liberal thinking; it is at once hedonistic and self-absorbed with its own desires, own insistence on doing what it wants today while consistently absolving itself of all responsibility for the ends of those choices.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Well, he's not wrong
Don't know this GOP Representative and don't care to, but oh, how terrible for Rachel Maddow to be called a cheerleader for the Obama Administration. If she isn't, then what is she? Oh, the outrage! How terrible to be called out for supporting something you believe in (whether any of us believe in it or not).
TSU Shooting - how can this be?
Huffington Post reports that there was a shooting on the campus of Tennessee State University. Reports are that an argument over gambling debts led to a larger altercation and one man shooting another. Kudos, at least at this point, to the Huff Post that they did not overdo the reportage - although, let's be honest - the only reason a wounding (one man shot in the leg) on a Tennessee campus deserves anything other than local coverage is to make a liberal point (I bet lots of other crime happened around the country yesterday that they are not reporting on - probably at least one person got knocked out). And I have to ask why this local story gets such play when all those local stories of firearms being used to stop crime do not get this kind of notice (why didn't HP publicize this video of Piers Morgan and Sheriff Nocco?).
And given the shoddy logic we always here, I have to ask - how can this shooting even have occurred at TSU - it is not possible. After all, TSU has a no-firearms on campus policy. From their Police Campus Handbook - "Police officers are the only authorized individuals to carry firearms on the campus of Tennessee State University." So this gun could not be there; how could this gun have been on campus at all? Its against policy! I wonder if they have a no gambling policy, too.
You guys make me laugh - even when it's not really funny.
And given the shoddy logic we always here, I have to ask - how can this shooting even have occurred at TSU - it is not possible. After all, TSU has a no-firearms on campus policy. From their Police Campus Handbook - "Police officers are the only authorized individuals to carry firearms on the campus of Tennessee State University." So this gun could not be there; how could this gun have been on campus at all? Its against policy! I wonder if they have a no gambling policy, too.
You guys make me laugh - even when it's not really funny.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Oh Huffington Post...put down the bong and wake up.
So, a shooting on the campus of Purdue University. Of course, the calls go out from all quarters to ban guns on campus - oh, wait, most campuses (including Purdue) already ban firearms. Well, it is a good thing that policy was in place - for the perpetrator.
But then, as usual, Huffington Post goes off the rails on it even further. There are no details, there is a suspect in custody. Don't let that stop you! They go on to have a little ditty at the bottom of the report about "People who want more guns in schools". Of course, in the spotlight first is Louie Gohmert. well, let's hold up a real straw man! Now I am no Louie Gohmert fan - too many stupid things come from his pie hole. But although I have posted this many times, I feel a need to do so again. Perhaps it has been long enough.
So, to Huffington Post and those who feel as they do:
Do you really think that banning guns on campus would stop someone who wants to shoot someone else from bringing one? As ABC just reported, Purdue University policy forbids gun use and possession on campus. Purdue prohibits “the possession, use, or distribution of any explosives, guns, or other deadly or dangerous materials or weapons reasonably calculated to cause bodily injury is prohibited in University Facilities.”
Well, how did that work out? No one wants more guns in the hands of people who will not follow laws and policies anyway. All this rule did was disarm the victim (given that I do not know whether he would like to have been armed or not). While I would like to think that any one who works in such an environment would like to have one in case they need it, I am not that foolish. I know some out there, including most of my colleagues, prefer the fiction of safety and security, to the real world of taking care of yourself. They would rather die nobly than defend themselves. Their choice.
Sadly they keep wanting to make it for me as well.
But then, as usual, Huffington Post goes off the rails on it even further. There are no details, there is a suspect in custody. Don't let that stop you! They go on to have a little ditty at the bottom of the report about "People who want more guns in schools". Of course, in the spotlight first is Louie Gohmert. well, let's hold up a real straw man! Now I am no Louie Gohmert fan - too many stupid things come from his pie hole. But although I have posted this many times, I feel a need to do so again. Perhaps it has been long enough.
So, to Huffington Post and those who feel as they do:
Do you really think that banning guns on campus would stop someone who wants to shoot someone else from bringing one? As ABC just reported, Purdue University policy forbids gun use and possession on campus. Purdue prohibits “the possession, use, or distribution of any explosives, guns, or other deadly or dangerous materials or weapons reasonably calculated to cause bodily injury is prohibited in University Facilities.”
Well, how did that work out? No one wants more guns in the hands of people who will not follow laws and policies anyway. All this rule did was disarm the victim (given that I do not know whether he would like to have been armed or not). While I would like to think that any one who works in such an environment would like to have one in case they need it, I am not that foolish. I know some out there, including most of my colleagues, prefer the fiction of safety and security, to the real world of taking care of yourself. They would rather die nobly than defend themselves. Their choice.
Sadly they keep wanting to make it for me as well.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Well...
If you don't want it called a "convenient little massacre" then don't treat it or use it as one.
From Huffington Post:
"Fredric Dicker, widely regarded as one of the most influential media voices in New York state politics, made the comment on his radio show Monday. He was speaking about gun control legislation passed by the state's governor, Andrew Cuomo.
"That was his anti-gun legislation, which he had promised not to do, but then he had a little convenient massacre that went on in Newtown, Conn., and all of a sudden there was an opportunity for him," Dicker said."
He's right - it was a convenient little massacre, used by Cuomo, Obama and many others to push an agenda, an agenda that they continue to try to push. It seems pretty clear that underneath their public horror, they salivate at the opportunity to use such events to further their agendas. It matters not that none of the actions they want to take will prevent such events, that the laws they put in place to control firearms affect only those who hold them lawfully.
So - sad to say - he is right. If you don't like it being called that, then don't use it that way.
From Huffington Post:
"Fredric Dicker, widely regarded as one of the most influential media voices in New York state politics, made the comment on his radio show Monday. He was speaking about gun control legislation passed by the state's governor, Andrew Cuomo.
"That was his anti-gun legislation, which he had promised not to do, but then he had a little convenient massacre that went on in Newtown, Conn., and all of a sudden there was an opportunity for him," Dicker said."
He's right - it was a convenient little massacre, used by Cuomo, Obama and many others to push an agenda, an agenda that they continue to try to push. It seems pretty clear that underneath their public horror, they salivate at the opportunity to use such events to further their agendas. It matters not that none of the actions they want to take will prevent such events, that the laws they put in place to control firearms affect only those who hold them lawfully.
So - sad to say - he is right. If you don't like it being called that, then don't use it that way.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
How terrible! If only you cared about rights you DON'T like!
You know I might care that "Utah delivers a HUGE blow to same-sex couples" if same-sex couples and their liberal friends had not thrown me, as a gun owner, under the bus so many times. Where the headline that "New York [or Connecticut] deals a HUGE blow to gun owners"? So far my state has avoided such resttriction - no thanks to the gay community.
Said it before - rights are rights - and the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is enshrined clearly in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. All those other rights - well they make sense - but they are not enshrined there. Still, rights are rights and if you wnat yours and want me to help you defend them - then I suggest you not tread on mine. I don't want to marry another man - but do not wish to restrict you from doing so. You don't want to own a gun - fine, but don't tell me I can't.
Until then - not a tear shed, my gay friends, not a tear shed.
Said it before - rights are rights - and the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is enshrined clearly in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. All those other rights - well they make sense - but they are not enshrined there. Still, rights are rights and if you wnat yours and want me to help you defend them - then I suggest you not tread on mine. I don't want to marry another man - but do not wish to restrict you from doing so. You don't want to own a gun - fine, but don't tell me I can't.
Until then - not a tear shed, my gay friends, not a tear shed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)