Saturday, March 13, 2004
Light Posting Day
I've got a class to go to, as well as a girlfriend to pamper and a dog to play with. It's my (somewhat) free day, and I'm going to enjoy it. I'll see you all tomorrow, unless I find something so outrageous that I just have to scream about it.
Idiocy is World Wide.
We in America have our "Blame America First" people, and Spain has the equivalent.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Go check it out at Insignificant Thoughts.
Hat tip to RNS.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Go check it out at Insignificant Thoughts.
Hat tip to RNS.
Friday, March 12, 2004
More Linky Love
Reader Dana L. sent me a couple of links that made me chuckle.
The Loony Awards
35 Principals of Being a Good Democrat
The Loony Awards
35 Principals of Being a Good Democrat
Another Reason for Home Schooling.
Girl is harassed by bullies. Girl complains to school admin. Bullies are questioned. Girl is expelled.
Does anyone truly remember how bad bullying can be? I do. As much as it pains me to say it, I can understand when kids react violently to bullies. As wrong as it might be, I can understand what drove the Columbine killers.
Is that wrong? Probably. But every person reaches a point where they break. As you grow older, that point is farther and farther away. But young kids haven't reached that level yet. They're still close to the breaking point.
In my highschool, I saw kids abused just about every way possible. I certainly wasn't the biggest kid there, so I got my share of crap. I learned that if I went psycho at the first hint of provocation, I could avoid any other physical punishment. People tend to remember you when you leap up, grab a handful of shirt and start screaming directly into a person's face that you'll bite their fucking noses off. They pushed, and I pushed back harder. They came at me, and I cut them off at the knees. I played dirty, and it mostly kept me out of anything worse than verbal abuse. I didn't get into one single fight in highschool, because the bullies knew that fighting me meant that even if they won, they were going to be wearing several reminders from me on their face. They didn't want that, they wanted easy targets.
But that didn't protect me from their verbal abuse. And it didn't protect anyone else in the school. What do you do when a group of bullies gang up on a friend of yours and shatter his eye socket?
What do you do when five guys pound the shit out of someone and all you can do is stand there helplessly?
I've seen kids seriously injured by high school bullies. I've seen kids slammed against lockers, kicked until they couldn't stand up. I've heard some of the worst filth come out of their mouths, until listening to drill sergeants was a day in the park. Listening to a grown man call you a worthless maggot doesn't compare to some asshole behind you in math class telling you how he was going to rape your mother with a broom handle.
And when I complained? Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. I found out real quick that the only course of action was your own. The school wasn't going to help you. Oh, maybe if you were physically injured, they'd get suspended for a time, but they always came back. The guy who shattered my friend's eyesocket was gone for two weeks.
TWO. WEEKS.
So this girl complains about bullying, and gets expelled when the bullies lie about her? I'm not surprised. You take a thousand (or in my school, two thousand) kids, place them in close proximity, and give them minor supervision for eight hours, and the results are not pretty. This girl is better off out of that school.
But it doesn't make the school right. And it certainly doesn't address the problem.
Just another reason to flush the current public school system down the drain. There are too many flaws in it to fix. Destroy, and then rebuild it.
Hat tip to the Rott
Does anyone truly remember how bad bullying can be? I do. As much as it pains me to say it, I can understand when kids react violently to bullies. As wrong as it might be, I can understand what drove the Columbine killers.
Is that wrong? Probably. But every person reaches a point where they break. As you grow older, that point is farther and farther away. But young kids haven't reached that level yet. They're still close to the breaking point.
In my highschool, I saw kids abused just about every way possible. I certainly wasn't the biggest kid there, so I got my share of crap. I learned that if I went psycho at the first hint of provocation, I could avoid any other physical punishment. People tend to remember you when you leap up, grab a handful of shirt and start screaming directly into a person's face that you'll bite their fucking noses off. They pushed, and I pushed back harder. They came at me, and I cut them off at the knees. I played dirty, and it mostly kept me out of anything worse than verbal abuse. I didn't get into one single fight in highschool, because the bullies knew that fighting me meant that even if they won, they were going to be wearing several reminders from me on their face. They didn't want that, they wanted easy targets.
But that didn't protect me from their verbal abuse. And it didn't protect anyone else in the school. What do you do when a group of bullies gang up on a friend of yours and shatter his eye socket?
What do you do when five guys pound the shit out of someone and all you can do is stand there helplessly?
I've seen kids seriously injured by high school bullies. I've seen kids slammed against lockers, kicked until they couldn't stand up. I've heard some of the worst filth come out of their mouths, until listening to drill sergeants was a day in the park. Listening to a grown man call you a worthless maggot doesn't compare to some asshole behind you in math class telling you how he was going to rape your mother with a broom handle.
And when I complained? Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. I found out real quick that the only course of action was your own. The school wasn't going to help you. Oh, maybe if you were physically injured, they'd get suspended for a time, but they always came back. The guy who shattered my friend's eyesocket was gone for two weeks.
TWO. WEEKS.
So this girl complains about bullying, and gets expelled when the bullies lie about her? I'm not surprised. You take a thousand (or in my school, two thousand) kids, place them in close proximity, and give them minor supervision for eight hours, and the results are not pretty. This girl is better off out of that school.
But it doesn't make the school right. And it certainly doesn't address the problem.
Just another reason to flush the current public school system down the drain. There are too many flaws in it to fix. Destroy, and then rebuild it.
Hat tip to the Rott
Will the “Cheeseburger Bill” Pass?
I’m kind of surprised that the so-called "Cheeseburger Bill" managed to pass the House. I hope that it makes it through the Senate.
I may sound overdramatic when I say that I believe that this is one of our most important bills in recent memory. The country is in the midst of a personal responsibility crisis that threatens our economic system at its core. If we cannot hold consumers responsible for not being obese, then just what can we hold them responsible for? What about drinking responsibly? Driving safely? Using painkillers responsibly? Not watching too much TV? Not playing too many video games? Not staying up late and oversleeping the next morning?
This bill is an important start, but it doesn’t go far enough. Congress needs a law that exonerates all companies from the self-destructive behavior of their consumers. It's sad that it actually came to this. The fact that we need this kind of bill speaks loudly about how much damage Trial Lawyers have already done.
If Senate Democrats defeat this, then Republicans need to make it the #2 campaign issue, behind foreign policy.
I’m kind of surprised that the so-called "Cheeseburger Bill" managed to pass the House. I hope that it makes it through the Senate.
I may sound overdramatic when I say that I believe that this is one of our most important bills in recent memory. The country is in the midst of a personal responsibility crisis that threatens our economic system at its core. If we cannot hold consumers responsible for not being obese, then just what can we hold them responsible for? What about drinking responsibly? Driving safely? Using painkillers responsibly? Not watching too much TV? Not playing too many video games? Not staying up late and oversleeping the next morning?
This bill is an important start, but it doesn’t go far enough. Congress needs a law that exonerates all companies from the self-destructive behavior of their consumers. It's sad that it actually came to this. The fact that we need this kind of bill speaks loudly about how much damage Trial Lawyers have already done.
If Senate Democrats defeat this, then Republicans need to make it the #2 campaign issue, behind foreign policy.
Time for some Linky Love
Anyone who cares to check out the new Bush TV ads can look at them here. They're looking pretty good to me.
Citizens Against Government Waste has sent out an email warning of a Transportation Bill that's loaded down with pork spending. If you'd like to let your representatives know that you don't want a bloated bill getting passed, you can go here and tell them. You can also sign up for CAGW emails. It's a good way to stay abreast of all the junk spending going on in Congress.
The Rott has a summary of the terrorist attack in Spain, as well as a link to give your condolances and support to the people of Spain. He also has an idea of what to do with the terrorists that I like:
These useless sacks of skin and everybody who has ever said a kind word to them need to be killed, ruthlessly and with extreme prejudice. Save the humanitarian concerns for actual humans.
Yep.
Citizens Against Government Waste has sent out an email warning of a Transportation Bill that's loaded down with pork spending. If you'd like to let your representatives know that you don't want a bloated bill getting passed, you can go here and tell them. You can also sign up for CAGW emails. It's a good way to stay abreast of all the junk spending going on in Congress.
The Rott has a summary of the terrorist attack in Spain, as well as a link to give your condolances and support to the people of Spain. He also has an idea of what to do with the terrorists that I like:
These useless sacks of skin and everybody who has ever said a kind word to them need to be killed, ruthlessly and with extreme prejudice. Save the humanitarian concerns for actual humans.
Yep.
Perplexing, isn't it?
Does anyone besides me see any inconsistency in the Democrats criticizing the Bush Campaign for "politicizing" an event where 3,000 Americans died when those same Democrats for the past six months have been politicizing an event where over 55,000 Americans died?
Thursday, March 11, 2004
What if the Democracy we want isn't the one we get?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096916/
There's a very real possibility that in free elections, Iraqis would elect Islamic fundamentalists. Same with Afghanis. If this happens, and they democratically and fairly elect a government hostile to the U.S., then what have we accomplished, exactly? And if that happens, can we logically deny that government?
We claim to be for democracy in the region, but what if the democracy we get isn't the one we want? What if it likes us less than Saddam or the Taliban?
I don't know the answers, but I consider those important questions. Any thoughts?
There's a very real possibility that in free elections, Iraqis would elect Islamic fundamentalists. Same with Afghanis. If this happens, and they democratically and fairly elect a government hostile to the U.S., then what have we accomplished, exactly? And if that happens, can we logically deny that government?
We claim to be for democracy in the region, but what if the democracy we get isn't the one we want? What if it likes us less than Saddam or the Taliban?
I don't know the answers, but I consider those important questions. Any thoughts?
I don't know who said it first..
But the quote is: "A woman is just a woman, but a cigar is a good smoke."
Why do I bring this up? Because a certain generous individual with a heart of gold was kind enough to send me a few cigars to try out.
One cigar that grabbed me was these - Cuban Crafters Cupido Originals. Particularly the Knuckles.
Hot damn, that's a good cigar.
If anyone out there enjoys cigar smoking, you have got to check these bad boys out. It's a short, fat cigar; about three to three and a half inches long by 47. The cigar I tried was easy to draw, had an awesome flavor, burned evenly and had a firm ash that I knocked off after it was about an inch and a half long. I stayed up late just to finish this stogie, because it burned longer than I expected. Next paycheck, I'm getting myself a box of those.
Go check 'em out. Cuban Crafters also has a 12 cigar sampler pack that I'm just drooling to try.... Judging from what I've already tested, that pack would make me a very happy camper.
Why do I bring this up? Because a certain generous individual with a heart of gold was kind enough to send me a few cigars to try out.
One cigar that grabbed me was these - Cuban Crafters Cupido Originals. Particularly the Knuckles.
Hot damn, that's a good cigar.
If anyone out there enjoys cigar smoking, you have got to check these bad boys out. It's a short, fat cigar; about three to three and a half inches long by 47. The cigar I tried was easy to draw, had an awesome flavor, burned evenly and had a firm ash that I knocked off after it was about an inch and a half long. I stayed up late just to finish this stogie, because it burned longer than I expected. Next paycheck, I'm getting myself a box of those.
Go check 'em out. Cuban Crafters also has a 12 cigar sampler pack that I'm just drooling to try.... Judging from what I've already tested, that pack would make me a very happy camper.
Trying to get back in...
I took a loooooong break from music when I joined the Army. With a few exceptions, I just didn't have the time or people to jam with. Now that I have my drumset back, I'm looking to get back in.
So, any Seattle area musicians need a drummer who's slowly getting back up to speed?
So, any Seattle area musicians need a drummer who's slowly getting back up to speed?
TV Ads
I just saw one of the Donk political ads on TV. WTF??? This election is going to be a down and dirty dogfight, no doubt about it. But let it be said that it is the Democratic side of the debate that is dragging everything down into the mudpit. Bush's ads have some nice music, and a pleasant voice-over. The Big Finish is "George W. Bush - Steady Leadership in Times of Change".
The Donks might as well have a priest waving a rosary and screaming "BUSH IS EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" A pretty nasty ad, all in all. Plenty of lies and mistruths which have come to characterize the Democratic position.
Uh. Eight more months of Donk slander.
The Donks might as well have a priest waving a rosary and screaming "BUSH IS EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" A pretty nasty ad, all in all. Plenty of lies and mistruths which have come to characterize the Democratic position.
Uh. Eight more months of Donk slander.
The Global Reach of Terrorism
Has once again hit Spain.
Ten terrorist bombs tore through trains and stations along a commuter line at the height of Madrid's morning rush hour today, killing more than 170 people and wounding at least 600 before this weekend's general elections. Officials blamed Basque separatists for the worst terror attack in Spanish history.
There's nothing to say about this. No witty comment, and no sarcastic remark. Nothing except to give Spain any support we can.
Ten terrorist bombs tore through trains and stations along a commuter line at the height of Madrid's morning rush hour today, killing more than 170 people and wounding at least 600 before this weekend's general elections. Officials blamed Basque separatists for the worst terror attack in Spanish history.
There's nothing to say about this. No witty comment, and no sarcastic remark. Nothing except to give Spain any support we can.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The Two Faces
Of John Fonda Kerry.
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry slammed President Bush over the weekend for not supplying U.S. troops in Iraq with enough body armor to protect them from attacks.
(.....)
Addressing a Texas audience on Saturday, the Massachusetts Democrat said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that ? with danger around every corner ? there wasn't enough body armor."
Naughty President! Making those poor soldiers suffer! Actually, I'm rather upset that many military family members are forced to buy body armor for their loved ones in the military. But is it the President's fault?
But Bush campaign press secretary Scott Stanzel told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday that Kerry "voted against supplying body armor to our troops when it mattered most" ? when President Bush included the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2003.
RNC Chairman Marc Racicot confirmed the Kerry vote against body armor, telling ABC's "This Week" that the funding bill "did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq."
So John Fonda Kerry flip-flopped on an issue yet AGAIN? WHO WOULDA THUNK IT?!?! Actually, given Kerry's record of voting against the military time and time again, I can't say I'm surprised. And since he's a member of the Donks, I can't say I'm surprised at his hypocricy and idiocy, either.
Of John Fonda Kerry.
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry slammed President Bush over the weekend for not supplying U.S. troops in Iraq with enough body armor to protect them from attacks.
(.....)
Addressing a Texas audience on Saturday, the Massachusetts Democrat said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that ? with danger around every corner ? there wasn't enough body armor."
Naughty President! Making those poor soldiers suffer! Actually, I'm rather upset that many military family members are forced to buy body armor for their loved ones in the military. But is it the President's fault?
But Bush campaign press secretary Scott Stanzel told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday that Kerry "voted against supplying body armor to our troops when it mattered most" ? when President Bush included the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2003.
RNC Chairman Marc Racicot confirmed the Kerry vote against body armor, telling ABC's "This Week" that the funding bill "did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq."
So John Fonda Kerry flip-flopped on an issue yet AGAIN? WHO WOULDA THUNK IT?!?! Actually, given Kerry's record of voting against the military time and time again, I can't say I'm surprised. And since he's a member of the Donks, I can't say I'm surprised at his hypocricy and idiocy, either.
There's a war going on in Iraq. But who's winning? Hardly anyone noticed, but U.S. troops aren't losing. American casualties have been steadily declining since they peaked last November (414, including 82 dead). The casualties went down to 306 in December, 234 in January and 167 last month. In February there were twenty American soldiers killed in action, or .79 per day. This was the first month, since the war began, that the troops killed fell to less than one a day.StrategyPage : Military news about Iraq
The reason for the decline in casualties are numerous. Probably the most important one has been the improvements in tactics and training. American troops have developed the habit of carefully studying actual operations, and quickly brainstorming possible solutions for problems encountered. Pretty much anything goes, and officers and troops are encouraged to use their imagination and initiative to come up with new ways of doing things. Each division also has a "discretionary fund" of money that can be spent on equipment and weapons that the army does not normally buy. These attitudes, which are rare in military organizations, have produced dozens of new tactics and techniques for dealing with roadside bombs and ambushes. Even though the Iraqi resistance was quickly changing their tactics, the troops have been faster, and more effective.
Press Conference, Madeleine Albright, 16 December 1998 (emphases are mine):
Q: Madame Secretary, you've said that you talked to more than a dozen
of your counterparts today. France, since these strikes have started,
has issued a statement saying that it disassociated itself from the
military action. My question is, what are they telling you about the
reasons that, in effect, the US and Britain are acting alone?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that basically they have felt that
Saddam Hussein needs to comply, and they have approached it from a
different way. But the truth is they have no answers as to how to make
them comply. I think that we have support from a number of countries.
I feel very satisfied with the overall support -- not only for
diplomatic purposes, but I think that Secretary Cohen has also
indicated that we have the kind of support we need in order to carry
out our mission.
The bottom line is that it would be very nice if those who do not
support our approach had an approach that worked. We have not been
able -- either they, through their diplomatic efforts, or we through
ours -- to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply. I think we've been at
this, as I've said -- in the last year there have been over four
crises with Saddam Hussein. I think the important point that I have
made as I've made my calls is that we have to break this cycle. Unless
people have an answer that works, I think they can go their way. But
the bottom line here is I feel quite comfortable with the support we
have. And if I might say, as I said in my opening statement,
diplomatically the Security Council, which had been divided a year
ago, had come together recently with a 15 to nothing vote in support
of having Saddam Hussein comply. So I think that basically we've got
the support we need.
News from the USIA Washington File
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
This has yet to be reported.
I don't wonder why.
Martha Stewart: campaign contributions during the 1992 and 1996 election cycles
Martha Stewart: campaign contributions during the 2000, 2002, and 2004 election cycles
Glenn has himself a post chock full of information about the alleged "furor" over 9-11 images in Bush ads. In essence, it was all manufactured by the Left, and parroted by what Liberal media.
Then debunked by "bloggers with Google".
Oy!
Update to the Buy A Gun Day post
Alphecca has a weekly roundup of anti-gun bias in the news. It's a weekly read for me.
Alphecca has a weekly roundup of anti-gun bias in the news. It's a weekly read for me.
Gay Marriage debate
On a different site. Several good pro and con arguments at Insomnimaniac. It's been going on for a while, and recently restarted.
On a different site. Several good pro and con arguments at Insomnimaniac. It's been going on for a while, and recently restarted.
More bad news for John Fonda Kerry
Viet Nam vets are pissed off at him, and it's starting to come out. As usual, all emphasis is mine.
WASHINGTON — John Kerry lived two Vietnam experiences -- one as a decorated Navy lieutenant, the other as a staunch protester of the war.
Returning from his tour of duty, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search) in 1971, in which he claimed it was U.S. policy in Vietnam to carry out atrocities and war crimes.
A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.
Gee, a Massachusetts liberal pushing a political agenda? Who woulda thunk it?
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.
Gosh, anti-war protesters LYING to push their agenda? WHO WOULDA THUNK IT?
Kerry told Fox News this weekend that he has no regrets about his service or his protest.
"Now, if some veterans still can't accept that or they don't like the fact that I stood up and spoke my mind, I respect them, that is their choice," Kerry said.
They don't like the fact that YOU LIED ABOUT THEM, you stinking maggot! They don't like the fact that you SLANDERED them, you putrid growth on the anus of humanity! They don't like the fact that it was people like you who made their lives a LIVING HELL, whether they were in country or just returning!
I hope they turn the heat up on your lying, traitorous hide, Kerry. I hope they treat you just like you treated them. You don't deserve to lead these men, or the Americans currently in the military.
Viet Nam vets are pissed off at him, and it's starting to come out. As usual, all emphasis is mine.
WASHINGTON — John Kerry lived two Vietnam experiences -- one as a decorated Navy lieutenant, the other as a staunch protester of the war.
Returning from his tour of duty, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search) in 1971, in which he claimed it was U.S. policy in Vietnam to carry out atrocities and war crimes.
A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.
Gee, a Massachusetts liberal pushing a political agenda? Who woulda thunk it?
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.
Gosh, anti-war protesters LYING to push their agenda? WHO WOULDA THUNK IT?
Kerry told Fox News this weekend that he has no regrets about his service or his protest.
"Now, if some veterans still can't accept that or they don't like the fact that I stood up and spoke my mind, I respect them, that is their choice," Kerry said.
They don't like the fact that YOU LIED ABOUT THEM, you stinking maggot! They don't like the fact that you SLANDERED them, you putrid growth on the anus of humanity! They don't like the fact that it was people like you who made their lives a LIVING HELL, whether they were in country or just returning!
I hope they turn the heat up on your lying, traitorous hide, Kerry. I hope they treat you just like you treated them. You don't deserve to lead these men, or the Americans currently in the military.
Let's Fire Up Old Sparky!
Because this bastard is gonna fry.
MANASSAS, Va. — Convicted sniper mastermind John Allen Muhammad will be executed for his role in the October 2002 killing spree that left 10 people dead in the Washington, D.C., area, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Yet another reason that Virginia is superior to Maryland. The Death Penalty.
Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. (search) turned down a plea from Muhammad's lawyers to spare their client's life and ordered Muhammad executed on Oct. 14, but that date likely will be postponed to allow appeals.
You want to prevent crime? Make the deterrant actually work. If people know that murder will be punished by getting the chair, they might just re-think their actions.
Burn in Hell, John Muhammad. Say hello to Uday and Qusay for me.
Because this bastard is gonna fry.
MANASSAS, Va. — Convicted sniper mastermind John Allen Muhammad will be executed for his role in the October 2002 killing spree that left 10 people dead in the Washington, D.C., area, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Yet another reason that Virginia is superior to Maryland. The Death Penalty.
Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. (search) turned down a plea from Muhammad's lawyers to spare their client's life and ordered Muhammad executed on Oct. 14, but that date likely will be postponed to allow appeals.
You want to prevent crime? Make the deterrant actually work. If people know that murder will be punished by getting the chair, they might just re-think their actions.
Burn in Hell, John Muhammad. Say hello to Uday and Qusay for me.
Monday, March 08, 2004
A man in his back yard is trying to fly a kite. He keeps throwing it into the air, where the wind catches it for a few seconds before it comes crashing back down.
Watching him from the kitchen window, his wife mutters how men have to be told how to do everything.
She opens the window and yells, "You need more tail."
He shouts back, "Make up your mind. Last night you told me to go fly a kite!"
A Response to the Response
I think you make some good points, Ari. However, I think that you're discounting the importance that many people place on marriage as an institution. There are also several points that I think separate this issue from civil rights.
First is this: What makes a person gay? Can anyone answer that? I haven't seen definitive evidence that it's genetic, nor have I seen definitive evidence that it's environmental. Some people consider it to be a lifestyle. I've heard and read of several people who were married, had kids, ect. ect. who one day discovered that they were gay. What changed? Some groups are of the mind that sexuality can be changed one way or another, and supposedly have the evidence to back their theories. Has there been a study that was able to point out with unerring accuracy what makes a person gay? I haven't seen it.
Compare that to a black person. Black people don't change the color of their skin halfway through their life. It's simply pigment in their skin; genetics. More to the point, the reason for their skin color isn't in question, and it's obviously out of their control. A white person will always be white, and Michael Jackson aside, a black person will always be black.
So discriminating against a person for something they cannot control, and that they have no say in what so ever, is obviously bad. Hell, I was born in California, but people don't hold that against me. I couldn't control it.
But what do you say about something like homosexuality? We can't even figure out the whys or wheres of homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior, and yet we're supposed to compare it to skin color and civil rights? I can't buy that.
And before you say "Well, it's still discrimination, and so it's bad" let me remind you that people discriminate against behavior all the time. I discriminate against pedophilia. If I had a chance, I would VIOLENTLY discriminate against pedophilia. I discriminate against junkies at work all day long. I discriminate against polygamy, because I find that behavior abnormal. I discriminate against people who break the law, because I don't want to be around criminals. It doesn't matter if they're not breaking the law right now, it's still a behavior. And until I see proof one way or the other that homosexuality is firmly based on genetics, I have to conclude that at least a large chunk of homosexuality is behavior based.
As for marriage being a privilege: Marriage was started long before the modern interpretation of "rights" and "privileges" came into existence. If marriage was relatively new, this argument could be made, I suppose. But you are dealing with an institution that has been defined over centuries that is intrinsically woven into our society. You cannot just up and change the definition of what marriage is without changing the society that marriage is a part of. Marriage as a part of society pre-dates just about every historical resource we have. It is far more than a simple privilege. And even in all the historical deviations of marriage, one factor remains constant - the opposite sexes. Granted, in some cases there's more than one of either sex, but marriage has always had a male and a female. We are now being asked to change that based on the opinions and desires of a minority of the society. Again, until I see some proof that homosexual behavior is outside of a person's control, (i.e. genetic) I have to believe that it IS within a person's sphere of control, at least in some small part.
So what America is being told to do is change a major part of society to fit into a small segment of the populations opinion of what is right and wrong.
I haven't even gone into what marriage is supposed to be for. But lets look at many of the reasons people say they want to get married: Legal rights, such as inheritance, advocacy, what have you. Benefits, be they medical coverage or insurance. In short, the rights and benefits conferred on a married couple by the government.
These are all legal connotations that could easily be given by the government without causing half of the country to crap purple twinkies. In fact, before this whole brouhaha hit the country, half of the people in America were FOR civil unions, giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities that married couples have. Hell, my girlfriend is covered under my life insurance, and we're not married. We own land in Idaho jointly. All it took was a simple legal document. One hour from a lawyer, and inheritance of that land is taken care of. Should I die, my girlfriend inherits the land, and vice versa. So I have a hard time believing that gay couples simply want the rights that hetro couples have, when those legal rights can be conferred without government intervention. If gay couples wanted the rights and responsibilities that hetro couples have, they could have simply changed the laws regarding civil unions, and been done with it. There would have been some rumblings from the Religious Right, but it would have amounted to squat. Nobody of any real importance takes idiots like Fred Phelps seriously.
As an aside, I've called bullshit on the "gay marriage as civil rights issue" a little while ago. The same areas that are throwing weddings for gay couples won't let me carry a gun in that area. So to them gay marriage is a right, but my constitutionally protected right to bear arms doesn't exist? Nope, sorry, I call bullshit.
OK, back on track. Proceeding with the fact that gay couples could have changed the laws regarding civil unions to include their desire for legal status, what am I to make of the fact that they have bypassed the legislative process entirely? Gay couples can have the legal status that they desire, without ever resorting to government or judicial intervention. It's simply done a different way. My girlfriend and I have done it, and we don't even have a civil union. Hell, we don't have a common law marriage, and yet we have the legal status normally conferred by marriage in reference to property ownership, inheritance, and benefits. I could put her on my health insurance if I so desired. I could put YOU on my health insurance, Ari. That's not the government policy, it's the health plan. All done without some judge sitting on a bench making a decree of "This will be so". It takes an hour of a lawyer's time, which is much less effort and money than a wedding could ever be.
So it's plain to me that gay couples could get the legal status that marriage confers, but that's not what they want. They want the ACCEPTANCE of marriage. If this were about legal status, it could have been taken care of. If this was about inheritance policy, it could have been dealt with. If this were about who goes on who's insurance, it could have been fixed. But more and more, I firmly believe that this is about acceptance, not legal status.
In short, gay couples want to force everyone in America to accept their lifestyle, be it against a person's morals or not.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that.
I think you make some good points, Ari. However, I think that you're discounting the importance that many people place on marriage as an institution. There are also several points that I think separate this issue from civil rights.
First is this: What makes a person gay? Can anyone answer that? I haven't seen definitive evidence that it's genetic, nor have I seen definitive evidence that it's environmental. Some people consider it to be a lifestyle. I've heard and read of several people who were married, had kids, ect. ect. who one day discovered that they were gay. What changed? Some groups are of the mind that sexuality can be changed one way or another, and supposedly have the evidence to back their theories. Has there been a study that was able to point out with unerring accuracy what makes a person gay? I haven't seen it.
Compare that to a black person. Black people don't change the color of their skin halfway through their life. It's simply pigment in their skin; genetics. More to the point, the reason for their skin color isn't in question, and it's obviously out of their control. A white person will always be white, and Michael Jackson aside, a black person will always be black.
So discriminating against a person for something they cannot control, and that they have no say in what so ever, is obviously bad. Hell, I was born in California, but people don't hold that against me. I couldn't control it.
But what do you say about something like homosexuality? We can't even figure out the whys or wheres of homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior, and yet we're supposed to compare it to skin color and civil rights? I can't buy that.
And before you say "Well, it's still discrimination, and so it's bad" let me remind you that people discriminate against behavior all the time. I discriminate against pedophilia. If I had a chance, I would VIOLENTLY discriminate against pedophilia. I discriminate against junkies at work all day long. I discriminate against polygamy, because I find that behavior abnormal. I discriminate against people who break the law, because I don't want to be around criminals. It doesn't matter if they're not breaking the law right now, it's still a behavior. And until I see proof one way or the other that homosexuality is firmly based on genetics, I have to conclude that at least a large chunk of homosexuality is behavior based.
As for marriage being a privilege: Marriage was started long before the modern interpretation of "rights" and "privileges" came into existence. If marriage was relatively new, this argument could be made, I suppose. But you are dealing with an institution that has been defined over centuries that is intrinsically woven into our society. You cannot just up and change the definition of what marriage is without changing the society that marriage is a part of. Marriage as a part of society pre-dates just about every historical resource we have. It is far more than a simple privilege. And even in all the historical deviations of marriage, one factor remains constant - the opposite sexes. Granted, in some cases there's more than one of either sex, but marriage has always had a male and a female. We are now being asked to change that based on the opinions and desires of a minority of the society. Again, until I see some proof that homosexual behavior is outside of a person's control, (i.e. genetic) I have to believe that it IS within a person's sphere of control, at least in some small part.
So what America is being told to do is change a major part of society to fit into a small segment of the populations opinion of what is right and wrong.
I haven't even gone into what marriage is supposed to be for. But lets look at many of the reasons people say they want to get married: Legal rights, such as inheritance, advocacy, what have you. Benefits, be they medical coverage or insurance. In short, the rights and benefits conferred on a married couple by the government.
These are all legal connotations that could easily be given by the government without causing half of the country to crap purple twinkies. In fact, before this whole brouhaha hit the country, half of the people in America were FOR civil unions, giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities that married couples have. Hell, my girlfriend is covered under my life insurance, and we're not married. We own land in Idaho jointly. All it took was a simple legal document. One hour from a lawyer, and inheritance of that land is taken care of. Should I die, my girlfriend inherits the land, and vice versa. So I have a hard time believing that gay couples simply want the rights that hetro couples have, when those legal rights can be conferred without government intervention. If gay couples wanted the rights and responsibilities that hetro couples have, they could have simply changed the laws regarding civil unions, and been done with it. There would have been some rumblings from the Religious Right, but it would have amounted to squat. Nobody of any real importance takes idiots like Fred Phelps seriously.
As an aside, I've called bullshit on the "gay marriage as civil rights issue" a little while ago. The same areas that are throwing weddings for gay couples won't let me carry a gun in that area. So to them gay marriage is a right, but my constitutionally protected right to bear arms doesn't exist? Nope, sorry, I call bullshit.
OK, back on track. Proceeding with the fact that gay couples could have changed the laws regarding civil unions to include their desire for legal status, what am I to make of the fact that they have bypassed the legislative process entirely? Gay couples can have the legal status that they desire, without ever resorting to government or judicial intervention. It's simply done a different way. My girlfriend and I have done it, and we don't even have a civil union. Hell, we don't have a common law marriage, and yet we have the legal status normally conferred by marriage in reference to property ownership, inheritance, and benefits. I could put her on my health insurance if I so desired. I could put YOU on my health insurance, Ari. That's not the government policy, it's the health plan. All done without some judge sitting on a bench making a decree of "This will be so". It takes an hour of a lawyer's time, which is much less effort and money than a wedding could ever be.
So it's plain to me that gay couples could get the legal status that marriage confers, but that's not what they want. They want the ACCEPTANCE of marriage. If this were about legal status, it could have been taken care of. If this was about inheritance policy, it could have been dealt with. If this were about who goes on who's insurance, it could have been fixed. But more and more, I firmly believe that this is about acceptance, not legal status.
In short, gay couples want to force everyone in America to accept their lifestyle, be it against a person's morals or not.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that.
Thank you Mr. Cross, a Response
I was going to respond to Dave's post in comments, but my response is long enough that I think it deserves a post of its own. So here we go. Before I start, though, if you haven't read his post, it's here.With all due respect, I think that the argument of being against judicial activism only goes so far. At some point, it's not a valid argument. Yes, judges have gone too far this time. However, that doesn't justify screwing over a whole subset of the population.
When you get right down to it, this is, in fact, a civil rights issue as well as a judicial activism issue. People are trying to justify denying a right1/privilege/whatever to a group of people because of what essentially comes down to an arbitrary decision -- homosexuality is bad, therefore gay marriage is bad as well. There are two ways to see this: either it's a civil rights issue, or it's a religious issue.
Neither is acceptable.
Let's take it one piece at a time. First of all, is marriage a right? I answer twice: 1.) No, marriage is not a right, 2.) This question is irrelevant. What do I mean? First of all, marriage is not a right. It's a privilege, the same as driving. There is no inalienable right to marriage any more than there is an inalienable right to cheese, flowers, a 12-bedroom house, or anything else that is not strictly necessary to live. But this doesn't matter. Let me ask you this: is it ok to deny someone a driver's license because they're gay? I'll bet the response I get would be overwhelmingly "no, it's not". The same thing applies here -- if you are going to deny someone a privilege, you have to have a damned good reason. "We've done it this way for generations", quite frankly, isn't one. Let's face it, 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong.
So if we stipulate that marriage is a privilege, and that whether it's a privilege or a right is a totally worthless question, where does that leave us? It leaves us in the position of having to justify why we're denying marriage to a group of people. And that, almost by definition, is a civil rights issue.
The next piece is religion. If I hear "this isn't about religion; it's about the sanctity of marriage" one more time, I'll scream. Out of curiosity, I looked up "sanctity" on Dictionary.com and got this:
sanc-ti-ty n.
pl. sanc-ti-ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
If you can explain how that doesn't tie into religion, you win the prize.
We are constitutionally promised freedom of religion. I agree that this doesn't mean freedom from religion, but this also means that we can't enshrine a particular set of religions beliefs into our laws. We are free to believe what we want, and we are free to celebrate our religion as we see fit... in the privacy of our own homes and/or communities. This doesn't give us the right to justify any large-scale2 laws on Judeo-Christian grounds any more than it gives us the right to justify the same laws on Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist grounds. In other words, what we believe is supposed to be personal, and the Constitution allows us to have our personal beliefs without imposing them on other people. This means that unless you can explain how gay marriage hurts you personally, you have no right imposing a ban on it to someone else. Laws should be fundamentally negative -- you are assumed to be able to do X unless the law says that you specifically cannot do that -- and therefore the burden of proof lies on the person who is claiming the hurt or damage.
Finally, we get to judicial activism. The major problem I see with this argument is the fact that what's done is done. The can of worms has been opened, and to close it is to cause more problems than it's worth. The way to combat judicial activism isn't to undo what has been done; the way to combat judicial activism is to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Judicial activism is a good thing to fight against, but it does not justify the rest of it on this issue.
1 I'm getting there; hang on.
2 For the purposes of argument, let's define large-scale as state level or higher.
Thank you Mr. Cross
For writing this:
However, the primary motivation is emotional. Homosexuals are not in favor of 'civil unions' because they know that there is a difference between a civil union and a marriage. A marriage carries with it a connotation of morality (be it practiced by everyone or not) and social acceptance. There is an inherent understanding that marriage is more than just a slip of paper....and because of the understood moral implications of same-sex marriage, homosexual marriage has been prohibited in the large majority of Christian churches. Christian society (ours) believes that the Bible is relatively clear on the subject...and this is what homosexuals want to change.
They want not only to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, they want the same respect in the ethical and moral venues as well. Civil unions don't give same-sex couples that....the emotional comfort of being universally accepted as moral and ethical equals under the eyes of God and man. There is guilt involved, but the guilt is balanced by the desire to continue the behavior people think to be morally wrong. The solution? Change the morality, and make it socially and morally unacceptable NOT to fully accept homosexuality as the norm. Civil unions don't address that, but same-sex marriage does."
And now the City of Seattle is recognizing same-sex marriages from other cities like Portland and San Fran. But right now, I have to sadly say that my opposition to this is pretty damn strong. Not only is judicial activism being shoved down my throat, but I have to wonder just what people really want: Do they want all the legal rights of traditional marriage? To me, the answer is "No". Othewise, they could have simply addressed their grievance through legislative means. But they didn't do that. They found a friendly judge and started screwing around with the law, opening a big can of worms. And the more I sit back and read, the more I'm leaning against gay marriage. As John Cross writes:
As I have said before, the civil union idea is uniformly rejected because there is no conferring of moral and ethical equity on homosexual marriage. THAT is the goal.....the tearing down of the moral and ethical proscriptions that society (Judeo-Christian society) has where homosexuality is concerned. Marriage carries the connotation of sanctity and legitimacy where society is concerned, and civil unions do not. Even if every legal door were opened for homosexual couples, and the term remained 'civil unions', there would still be horror and angst in the same-sex marriage proponents. It wouldn't be as legitimate in moral and ethical territory as a marriage would.
You and I both know that if the Religious Right were attempted to force (through the courts) their version of morality onto the rest of this country, the Left would be up in arms, marching, protesting, rioting, and screaming. And yet when the Left attempts to force THEIR version of morality onto the Religious Right, not a peep is heard. Don't like it? "Oh, you're a BIGOT! You're a HOMOPHOBE!"
The more I sit back and look at the entire situation, the more I'm coming to side firmly with the "anti" groups. And it's not a comfortable feeling. I'm not into organized religion. I haven't been into a church in YEARS. And yet, I'm looking at the people who are attempting to stop this judicial activism brought on by the Left, and it's the same people who I've tried to shun. And that pisses me off.
I don't object to this whole fiasco out of religious reasons. I object to it because I'm against judicial activism! I object to it because I'm against judges legislating from the bench! I object to it because I'm against one group of people attempting to force THEIR OPINION of what's right and wrong on another group of people! Face it, Mr. Cross is right. If the politicians jumped up tomorrow and said "All gay civil unions confer the same legal rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage" the fight would STILL be going on! This isn't about "civil rights" per se, it's about one group forcing their lifestyle onto another group.
So I know where I sit, and for right now I'm watching carefully. I really don't think this is going to end pleasantly.
For writing this:
However, the primary motivation is emotional. Homosexuals are not in favor of 'civil unions' because they know that there is a difference between a civil union and a marriage. A marriage carries with it a connotation of morality (be it practiced by everyone or not) and social acceptance. There is an inherent understanding that marriage is more than just a slip of paper....and because of the understood moral implications of same-sex marriage, homosexual marriage has been prohibited in the large majority of Christian churches. Christian society (ours) believes that the Bible is relatively clear on the subject...and this is what homosexuals want to change.
They want not only to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, they want the same respect in the ethical and moral venues as well. Civil unions don't give same-sex couples that....the emotional comfort of being universally accepted as moral and ethical equals under the eyes of God and man. There is guilt involved, but the guilt is balanced by the desire to continue the behavior people think to be morally wrong. The solution? Change the morality, and make it socially and morally unacceptable NOT to fully accept homosexuality as the norm. Civil unions don't address that, but same-sex marriage does."
And now the City of Seattle is recognizing same-sex marriages from other cities like Portland and San Fran. But right now, I have to sadly say that my opposition to this is pretty damn strong. Not only is judicial activism being shoved down my throat, but I have to wonder just what people really want: Do they want all the legal rights of traditional marriage? To me, the answer is "No". Othewise, they could have simply addressed their grievance through legislative means. But they didn't do that. They found a friendly judge and started screwing around with the law, opening a big can of worms. And the more I sit back and read, the more I'm leaning against gay marriage. As John Cross writes:
As I have said before, the civil union idea is uniformly rejected because there is no conferring of moral and ethical equity on homosexual marriage. THAT is the goal.....the tearing down of the moral and ethical proscriptions that society (Judeo-Christian society) has where homosexuality is concerned. Marriage carries the connotation of sanctity and legitimacy where society is concerned, and civil unions do not. Even if every legal door were opened for homosexual couples, and the term remained 'civil unions', there would still be horror and angst in the same-sex marriage proponents. It wouldn't be as legitimate in moral and ethical territory as a marriage would.
You and I both know that if the Religious Right were attempted to force (through the courts) their version of morality onto the rest of this country, the Left would be up in arms, marching, protesting, rioting, and screaming. And yet when the Left attempts to force THEIR version of morality onto the Religious Right, not a peep is heard. Don't like it? "Oh, you're a BIGOT! You're a HOMOPHOBE!"
The more I sit back and look at the entire situation, the more I'm coming to side firmly with the "anti" groups. And it's not a comfortable feeling. I'm not into organized religion. I haven't been into a church in YEARS. And yet, I'm looking at the people who are attempting to stop this judicial activism brought on by the Left, and it's the same people who I've tried to shun. And that pisses me off.
I don't object to this whole fiasco out of religious reasons. I object to it because I'm against judicial activism! I object to it because I'm against judges legislating from the bench! I object to it because I'm against one group of people attempting to force THEIR OPINION of what's right and wrong on another group of people! Face it, Mr. Cross is right. If the politicians jumped up tomorrow and said "All gay civil unions confer the same legal rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage" the fight would STILL be going on! This isn't about "civil rights" per se, it's about one group forcing their lifestyle onto another group.
So I know where I sit, and for right now I'm watching carefully. I really don't think this is going to end pleasantly.
The Dissident Frogman Strikes Again!
The Dissident Frogman - Making fun of the Left at it's finest!
Found via Kallini.com. It's time to print those bad boys out and have fun in Seattle!
The Dissident Frogman - Making fun of the Left at it's finest!
Found via Kallini.com. It's time to print those bad boys out and have fun in Seattle!
Buy A Gun Day
By now, I hope everybody knows about Kim du Toit's Ammo Day, where you are encouraged to by at least 100 rounds of ammo. While that will be gearing up for the latter part of the year, there is another way to piss off the Anti-Gun establishment. I'd heard about it last year but wasn't blogging then. This year, I'm proud to announce that once again, April 15th is Buy A Gun Day.
There are several reasons to buy a gun on April 15th. One is so that you can go blast away at an effigy of the tax man. Two, I honestly believe that firearm ownership is one of the basic responsibilities of an American citizen. In an age where guns are considered by some people to be worse than anything else, getting as many firearms into the hands of law abiding citizens ensures that the American public still has their "Reset Button".
And let's not forget the fact that they can be fun! There's a reason that I get together with people and head out to the range on a monthly basis. Improving your skill, competing with your friends, and general camaraderie is enjoyable, especially when it's combined into one event.
If you've never owned a firearm before, let me strongly recommend some safety courses from the National Rifle Association. The NRA has safety courses all over the country. You can locate a course in your area on their web page.
Sometimes choosing a firearm can be a hassle. Kim du Toit has an entire list of guns that he's looked at and reviewed, from shotguns to revolvers, to semi-autos to rifles. Check with the gun ranges near you and find one that will let you rent a handguns. You can try out different guns until you find one that fits you. I can offer advice, and so can Analog Kid. One way or another, we can help you find a gun that fits YOU.
And if you're low on funds and can't afford to purchase a firearm, consider joining on of the gun advocacy groups. The NRA is only one group. There is also the Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Sisters, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and even the Pink Pistols for the GLBT community. There's the Keep And Bear Arms group, which defends individual's gun rights everywhere. There are organizations from all walks of life, connected by the simple fact that they are American, and they own firearms. I can understand not having the $300-$400 for a new gun. But $25 for an NRA membership should be within everybody's reach.
And lastly, if you're wondering just why the heck you should by a gun, let me recommend some people who can explain it to you much better than I can. Once again, Kim du Toit has SIXTEEN different essays on the topic. The Smallest Minority, Geek with a .45 and Publicola all explain why American firearms ownership is so important. And Flashbunny has some of the best pro-gun satire I've ever seen.
April 15th - Buy A Gun day. I consider it more than that. I consider it "Support the 2nd Amendment" day. Get out and do what you can to ensure that our freedoms remain intact.
By now, I hope everybody knows about Kim du Toit's Ammo Day, where you are encouraged to by at least 100 rounds of ammo. While that will be gearing up for the latter part of the year, there is another way to piss off the Anti-Gun establishment. I'd heard about it last year but wasn't blogging then. This year, I'm proud to announce that once again, April 15th is Buy A Gun Day.
There are several reasons to buy a gun on April 15th. One is so that you can go blast away at an effigy of the tax man. Two, I honestly believe that firearm ownership is one of the basic responsibilities of an American citizen. In an age where guns are considered by some people to be worse than anything else, getting as many firearms into the hands of law abiding citizens ensures that the American public still has their "Reset Button".
And let's not forget the fact that they can be fun! There's a reason that I get together with people and head out to the range on a monthly basis. Improving your skill, competing with your friends, and general camaraderie is enjoyable, especially when it's combined into one event.
If you've never owned a firearm before, let me strongly recommend some safety courses from the National Rifle Association. The NRA has safety courses all over the country. You can locate a course in your area on their web page.
Sometimes choosing a firearm can be a hassle. Kim du Toit has an entire list of guns that he's looked at and reviewed, from shotguns to revolvers, to semi-autos to rifles. Check with the gun ranges near you and find one that will let you rent a handguns. You can try out different guns until you find one that fits you. I can offer advice, and so can Analog Kid. One way or another, we can help you find a gun that fits YOU.
And if you're low on funds and can't afford to purchase a firearm, consider joining on of the gun advocacy groups. The NRA is only one group. There is also the Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Sisters, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and even the Pink Pistols for the GLBT community. There's the Keep And Bear Arms group, which defends individual's gun rights everywhere. There are organizations from all walks of life, connected by the simple fact that they are American, and they own firearms. I can understand not having the $300-$400 for a new gun. But $25 for an NRA membership should be within everybody's reach.
And lastly, if you're wondering just why the heck you should by a gun, let me recommend some people who can explain it to you much better than I can. Once again, Kim du Toit has SIXTEEN different essays on the topic. The Smallest Minority, Geek with a .45 and Publicola all explain why American firearms ownership is so important. And Flashbunny has some of the best pro-gun satire I've ever seen.
April 15th - Buy A Gun day. I consider it more than that. I consider it "Support the 2nd Amendment" day. Get out and do what you can to ensure that our freedoms remain intact.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
John Fonda Kerry, Gun Grabber
I found this little bit over at the Geek's place. It's John Fonda Kerry's Senate speech during the "Assault Weapons" Ban debate. This last bit is what hits hard.
For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them.
The absurdity of that statement makes my head hurt. Fuck you, Mr. Fonda-Kerry. The only reason to disarm a populace is to subjugate them, something that I'm sure you're just salivating over. You don't even take into consideration the many people who cannot join the military for one reason or another, but who have a Constitutionally protected right to own firearms!
Of course, history has seen speeches like John Fonda Kerry's before.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler, WWII
Every mass genocide, every country held under a dictator's thumb, every brutal thug's rise to power occured only after the people were disarmed. It seems that John Fonda Kerry would like to prepare America to be subjects instead of citizens.
I found this little bit over at the Geek's place. It's John Fonda Kerry's Senate speech during the "Assault Weapons" Ban debate. This last bit is what hits hard.
For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them.
The absurdity of that statement makes my head hurt. Fuck you, Mr. Fonda-Kerry. The only reason to disarm a populace is to subjugate them, something that I'm sure you're just salivating over. You don't even take into consideration the many people who cannot join the military for one reason or another, but who have a Constitutionally protected right to own firearms!
Of course, history has seen speeches like John Fonda Kerry's before.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler, WWII
Every mass genocide, every country held under a dictator's thumb, every brutal thug's rise to power occured only after the people were disarmed. It seems that John Fonda Kerry would like to prepare America to be subjects instead of citizens.
Range Report
I think the range report can be summed up in four little words.
I. NEED. MORE. PRACTICE!
My first few salvos were Gawd-awful. I could hit the target, but my shot groupings were embarassing. Once I settled down and remembered how the hell to shoot, it got better. But I definately need more practice.
On a good note however, the new recoil assembly works great on the .45, and the girlfriend got to shoot it for the first time. We also rented the S&W 500 Magnum yet again, in honor of Mollbot's birthday and Dogtulosba's shipping out. Much fun was had. One reader stopped by and had breakfast with us, but was unable to make it to the range. Perhaps next time!
Total ammo count?
.45 ACP = 250.
.38 Special = 100.
.22LR = 400.
Not the best day at the range, but still pretty good. I also managed to finish my gunbelt before I headed out, so I am now wearing gun gear that I've created. Gunbelt, holster, and mag pouch, all made by my hand. Pictures will be forthcoming once Itake my worthless piece of shit computer out back, shoot it and buy a new one reinstall a few programs on my computer. It's an old beast, and needs to be shot coaxed into working with me sometimes.
Next range trip is set for the 20th, or thereabouts. I'll probably miss that, as I'll be in a different state, but AK will be there. I'll keep you posted!
I think the range report can be summed up in four little words.
I. NEED. MORE. PRACTICE!
My first few salvos were Gawd-awful. I could hit the target, but my shot groupings were embarassing. Once I settled down and remembered how the hell to shoot, it got better. But I definately need more practice.
On a good note however, the new recoil assembly works great on the .45, and the girlfriend got to shoot it for the first time. We also rented the S&W 500 Magnum yet again, in honor of Mollbot's birthday and Dogtulosba's shipping out. Much fun was had. One reader stopped by and had breakfast with us, but was unable to make it to the range. Perhaps next time!
Total ammo count?
.45 ACP = 250.
.38 Special = 100.
.22LR = 400.
Not the best day at the range, but still pretty good. I also managed to finish my gunbelt before I headed out, so I am now wearing gun gear that I've created. Gunbelt, holster, and mag pouch, all made by my hand. Pictures will be forthcoming once I
Next range trip is set for the 20th, or thereabouts. I'll probably miss that, as I'll be in a different state, but AK will be there. I'll keep you posted!