I came across a heart warming story dealing with a man defending a home. An armed suspect broke into a house only to be met with a bullet to his neck. The story has a happy ending as well, the defender was unharmed while the scum bag didn’t make it past the front porch.
The defender was not actually a resident of the home either, he was only staying there with his relatives. Hopefully if the home owners aren’t gun owners they will be soon.
I don’t have one rant to make about this article though. The new piece clearly gives the exact address of the home that was broken into. This practice should end in my book since it could potentially put the people living there in danger. If the scum bag is a member of a gang there could be such a thing as his posse deciding to get revenge. It would be quite easy to do now that they have the exact location of the place where their fellow in crime was killed. I’m just saying news reporters should use a little common sense and realize that they should protect the residence of such a home by holding back the address. The address brings nothing to the story and is unneeded.
As with many things I find Snowflakes in Hell has a link to an article on the book ban Congress passed. I know what you’re thinking, how could Congress pass a ban on books? The first amendment protects the freedom of speech.
Although that’s true Congress didn’t base the ban on a book’s content but on the ink. Remember last year when there was a panic over Chinese toys that contained lead? As a knee jerk reaction Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This act in essence banned any amount of lead from childrens’ items and it was retroactive. We’re not talking simply lead paint on toys but lead in any products aimed for use by children.
So how does this ban books? Well before 1985 there was no law regulating the use of lead in dyes and inks used in children’s books. This means any children’s book printed before 1985 must first be tested for lead before it can be sold. Failing to to this means you a used book you sell can be an illegal item for resale and you could face up to a $100,000 fine or even prison time.
This law was appalling to begin with but is doubly so to me since I’m an avid reader with books printed before 1985. If I should allow a child to read such a book I can be brought up on charges. And this is how the government works people. If they can outright ban something they do it through regulations. Granted I don’t believe banning childrens’ books was the intention of this law but due to its poor wording that’s what it has accomplished.
But government does use regulations to ban items directly. The assault weapon ban of 1994 a perfect example. The government knew it would be hard to flat out ban specific guns so they regulated the features hoping that would accomplish the ban. They made a list of features which were not illegal when a certain number of them were on a single gun. Everything from bayonet lugs to pistols grips fell on this list. Furthermore any magazine with a capacity beyond 10 cartridges was now illegal to produce. Unlike the law this article primarily aims at the assault weapon ban was not retroactive.
The scary thing is anything can be regulated so long as it can be found to be bad in some way. Lead ammunition is being restricted more and more in the Peoples’ Republic of California because it’s “harmful to the environment.” The federal government could pull the same thing. Being you can still get ink poisoning it is possible to regulate anything that uses ink period. Granted that’s an extreme case but it is meant to be to show the extent unregulated government to reach.
This is why we need to fight pointless and knee jerk laws. They never accomplish solving anything and always accomplish harming people whom were not criminals before the passing of the law.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (PDF)
Well it looks like we have another tragic shooting this time in Bridgeville Pennsylvania. The murderer, George Sodini, walked into L.A. Fitness around 20:00 UTC with two handguns (I’m sure somebody will report an AK-47 just wait) in his gym bag. He entered a room where a womens’ dance class was taking place, killed the lights, and started blasting. He ended his rampage by finally shooting the only person deserving of it, himself. It appears as if five women were killed.
The further add to this it appears as though Mr. Sodini talked about doing this attack on his web page for about nine months. According to the site his reasoning for the attack was because he’s been rejected by women for many years. I’m not social expert but my guess is he was being rejected because he’s fucking bat shit crazy.
As much as it makes me sound like a calloused asshole I’m going to go ahead and say this is an example of why you need a plan for self defense no matter where you are. Granted concealing a weapon under attire most commonly used by women to exercise is a no go but being there were over 100 people in the gym somebody could have been packing including a gym employee. Further more something like mace could have at least blinded him and hopefully distracted him long enough to tackle his ass and give it a good kicking. According the the last linked article (which the news likes to exaggerate but still) the murderer shot as many as 52 rounds. If he was carrying two handguns that would mean he almost certainly had to reload each gun at least once. There would have been time for somebody with a concealed weapon in the gym to move in and shoot the fucker before it completed his rampage or at least maced him. Have a means of self defense, even if it’s not a gun any weapons increases your odds.
Now we just have to wait for the anti-gunners to exploit this tragedy and claim stricter gun control could have prevented this.
Sadly the murdering fuck is dead and hence no punishment can be dealt. That’s the biggest sign of cowardice right there, killing yourself after walking into a place full of unarmed people and killing them. Let us remember those who died in this even as the victims of a total coward. Here is the current list of those who died because of Mr. Chickenshit:
A short by excellent post over on the Smallest Minority sums up something that’s been bothering me since the election.
Back when Bush was in office everybody was making fun of him. Let’s be honest nobody liked him and he did nothing good for the country. Many people were using the old phrase, “Dissidence is the highest form of patriotism.” Fast forward to the new president. All of the sudden it’s not OK to question of criticize the president. Once again he’s, so far, done nothing good for the country. In fact as much as his supporters hate to hear this he’s promoting the same idea as Bush, which is to say we need to print tons of money to insert into the economy in order to avoid another situation like the Great Depression.
Furthermore Obama has been breaking promises left and right. I remember him clearly stating that he would sign no bill into law until there was a five day review and comment on it. I remember during his campaign he was talking about how he would abolish warrantless wire tapping? He then turned around and supported FISA. But my absolute favorite was how he said the new administrator wouldn’t have lobbyists and then turns around and hire lobbyists.
Of course whenever this is pointed out to a worshipper of the Obamessiah you get a deluge of insults ranging from being a Republican (Apparently that’s somehow an insult while being called a Democrat is considered a compliment. I don’t get that.) to, the insult that appears to be the favorite among his devoted followers, a racist. Back when he was running for the Democrat nominee I was already being called racist because I wasn’t supporting him (In fact I was supporting Ron Paul.). Likewise Hillary’s supporters would call me sexist so they had their own emotionally derived label for me that had nothing to do with why I wasn’t supporting their nominee.
The bottom line is Obama isn’t God even though you can’t tell when talking to his most devoted followers. He’s human and he fucks up just like the rest of us. And when you fuck up it’s best to be corrected so you don’t fuck up again. I always say if I were to purchase a company I’d get a list of all the whiners, bitchers, and moaners. Once this list was in hand I’d bring them into a meeting and make them my advisory board with the idea that they will complain about things that need to be looked at. Of course to avoid pointless bitching I’d tell them if they guide me right they get a bonus but if they guide me wrong there would be consequences. The reason I say and believe this is because I like criticism. Criticism is the only way I know how to correct my fuck ups.
Being our elected officials are our employees I feel it is not only our right but also our duty to let them know when they do something right and when they fuck up. Obama is in this same boat. You have a right to free speech period so make it useful. Criticize Obama and the rest of the administrator when you don’t agree with their actions. It’s a patriotic to want the best for your country and you can only get the best for your country if you work for it. And remember anybody who tries to call your ideas dangerous or you a racist is somebody who lacks any real arguments or facts to go against you with. These are the ones who argue emotionally instead of through facts. Don’t take it, let them know they are fucking up.
And now I leave you with the picture that started this new firestorm:
OK this man gives new definition to the word multitasking. Nicholas Sparks, while driving his tow truck, was not only talking on his cell phone but was also texting on a second cell phone. That’s two for the price of one baby! Of course because driving wasn’t on his list of tasks he crashed into one car and drove his truck into a swimming pool. Darwin has spoken and he doesn’t like people on their cell phones while they are driving.
Of course now the issue will be brought up about the proposed federal law banning texting while driving. I can sum up the reason that such a law is unnecessary:
Sparks was charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. It couldn’t be determined Thursday whether he has a lawyer.
Notice he’s being charged with three violation. But there really is only one that needs to be used and that’s reckless driving. We can throw out the law on talking on a cell phone while driving since that leads to reckless driving and if it doesn’t who cares. Following too closely is stupid but rear ending somebody is a crime and hence there is already a law on the books that covers it.
This concept is going to sound foreign to many but bear with me. Why do we need all these new laws? Why not use the laws on the books already? Better yet why not get rid of all the laws that end up being redundant by other laws? Let’s face it using a cell phone while driving is stupid but it’s stupid because it makes drivers far worse at driving. Hence somebody on their cell phone is going to violate a law called reckless driving. And people not worried about violating that law certainly aren’t going to give a flying fuck about violating a law that bans texting while driving.
The biggest issue I have with a texting while driving ban is the fact cell phones do so much now that they are a legitimate tool while driving. I’ve stated before I use my phone with Google Maps to navigate where I’m going. If I look at the map on the phone it would appear no different than if I were texting to a passer by hence I’d be pulled over and ticketed for trying to find where the fuck I’m going. I could correct this by getting a GPS but why would I want to buy a device that serves the same purpose a device I already own servers?
Either way Darwin did his duty and busted this guy up a bit.
Rob Allen has a post on when you shouldn’t use a gun. Those of use who carry do so knowing we may need it to defend our lives at some point. Many gun owners keep a gun handing knowing they may have to defend themselves at home some night. But apparently Jack Connerton of Cincinnati decided his gun should be used to confiscate a child’s skateboard because they were cutting across his parking log.
Mr. Connerton is being accused of stealing an 11 year old girl’s skateboard at gun point. This is a perfect example of times when a gun is not to be pulled out. Furthermore if the acquisition is true this guy is not only a world class prick for robbing an 11 year old girl at gun point but also a world class prick for trying to ruin the right to bear arms for the rest of us. These are the jack asses the anti-gunners point to and claim are the average gun owner. It’s people like this that give the anti-gunners an emotional argument to use the next time they want to pass a law banning guns. And it’s dick heads like Mr. Connerton who hands them these arguments on a silver plater.
For some time now the Mexican gun canard has been raging across the gun rights scene. Mexico claimed the cartels were getting guns from American gun shows since we have such an abundance of fully automatic AK-47s in this country. Well it appears as if the BATFE is now worried that weapons from Mexico are coming into the United States. This story specifically covers grenades which apparently can cross the border as well as illegal immigrants. An interesting quote from the story:
The weapons are preferred by drug hitmen because they are cheap and easy to find. Many are left over from Central America’s civil wars and sold on the black market to drug cartels.
Something tell me that grenades aren’t the only weapons left over from those civil wars. And the same thing that is telling me that is also telling me that it’s possible those other weapons are also being sold to the Mexican drug cartels.
You know this entitlement thing has to end. People seem to think they are entitled to everything from social security to health care. Well Trina Thompson thinks she’s entitled to a job. Of course she hasn’t found one in the whole three months she’s been searching so she’s doing what most people seem to think is logical and suing.
That’s right this lady is suing her college, Monroe College in New York, for $72,000. Her tuition was $70,000 and she’s adding another $2,000 to the bill to compensate for the stress she’s been experiencing in the three months she’s failed to find a job. What does this fine lady have to present an employer? Well a bachelor or business administration degree and a grade point average of 2.7. Oh yeah I also forgot to mention her solid attendance record.
So she’s competing in a market with high unemployment with thousands of people with work experience and much higher GPAs who have been laid off. After three months of searching she’s found nothing and it’s the school’s fault. That’s what she says:
They’re supposed to say, “I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right — can you interview this person?” They’re not doing that.
I don’t think Ms. Thompson’s current unemployment has much to do with the school. It probably has a lot to do with her attitude, subpar GPA, and her rather generic degree. I’m sorry but your college isn’t responsible for getting you a job, they are responsible for educating you well enough that you can got out and get a job. And (as of 11:42 CST on August 4th, 2009) currently the unemployment rate is at 9.7%.
I’m sure math isn’t Ms. Thompson’s strong suite but that means for every 100 people 10 are unemployed. The (as of the same date mentioned above) current population of the United States is 304,059,724. That means there are roughly 30,405,972 unemployed persons in this country. Many of those people have degrees which they obtained with a higher GPA and years of work experience, which in of itself is far more valuable than the degree or GPA.
Another issues I don’t think Ms. Thompson is considering is she’s probably going to have a much harder time getting a job in the future now that this story has gone public. See employees don’t like liabilities and hiring somebody who is willing to sue a college for not finding her a job is probably going to sue any company that employes her for any number of reasons. Really she’s probably not going to win this court case (then again this is in New York) not only because this suit is stupid but because she’s representing herself (a good setup for failure when going against an entity with lawyers). On top of that she’s also making herself undesirable due to her behavior and willingness to admit she feels entitled to things she’s not.
The court filing. (PDF)
In Louisiana congressman Rodney Alexander is planning on taking away one of the anti-gunners hopeful weapons. As it sits right now one of the most effective forms of gun control has been through taxation. Proof of this is in the National Firearms Act which at the time states certain weapons, most notably machine guns and short barreled long guns, required a $200.00 tax stamp. At the time $200.00 was a considerable amount of money and the thought was through making such guns exorbitantly expensive criminals wouldn’t be able to afford them.
That obviously didn’t work but the anti-gunners never let logic stand in the way of restricting a right. They are often talking about making massive taxes on guns and ammunition in order to curb gun
ownership violence and make money for that government to boot. It looks like Louisiana may have a change of dodging this issue all together, unless of course a federal law enters the books.
I came across an interesting article on Says Uncle today. It occurs in New York city where guns are strictly controller and getting a license to carry one is even more difficult than buying a gun. The police are the only ones considered responsible enough to carry a gun on their person in the Big
One of these responsible and upstanding police officers, Trevor Harpaul, was trying to enter Mingles Lounge where a bouncer was determined to bar entry. The police officer being an extremely responsible man decided to wave his gun at the bouncer hoping to gain entry. To top this off the gun was defaced (the serial number was removed) which compounds his failure to obey the law he has sworn to protect.
This proves a frightening and shocking point, police officers aren’t all law abiding citizens who will do no wrong with a firearm. Who would have guessed?