Today, I drove to Florida from North Carolina. During the trip, the news revealed that the professional ball player killed recently in an automobile wreck was driving "under the influence of alcohol."
That is polite talk for the police term "drunk on his ass."
Not only was he drunk, he was traveling at about 70 mph and talking on his cell phone when he hit the vehicle in front of him and killed himself. Marijuana was also found in the vehicle by the investigating police officers.
Now here is the "Let Us Suppose" part of this blog.
Let us suppose this same drunk had hit a bus full of children causing multiple deaths up to and including everyone on the bus. For a round number lets say a total of 22, including 21 students plus the driver.
How long would the resulting hullabaloo last and what would determine the length of the ruckus?
Unless someone really famous was on the bus, I believe the hullabaloo would more than likely over for the world in general within seven days after the last funeral.
Perhaps even sooner if Brittany Spears does something stupid.
There would be no politicians beating their war drums increasing the restrictions on vehicle usage, alcohol purchases, cell phone usage, and/or marijuana usage. The only people upset would be members of Mothers Against Drunken Drivers (MADD).
There are a lot more drinking drivers than there are MADD members.
In my example, the 22 subjects who died on the bus are just as dead as if they had all been killed with a firearm.
Sudden unplanned deaths are pretty similar in my opinion. Either way, you are dead without a chance to say goodbye. Your worldly journey is over regardless of you plans or goals. Whether you enjoyed your life or not.
As I see it, the difference between alcohol related deaths and firearm related deaths is that a lot more people in this country enjoy their vehicles, alcohol and cell phones and/or marijuana than enjoy firearms.
Because of this, politicians are not going to lobby for laws that affect the masses, including lawmakers themselves. This is regardless of the fact that misuse of vehicles, alcohol, cell phones and/or drug abuse kill many more people in this country than firearms.
However, their is another major difference that politicians as well as many citizens overlook for various reasons.
The use of a motor vehicle, the use of alcohol and the use of cell phones are a privilege.
The use of firearms in this country is a right as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
For Those Who May Have Forgotten (Or Perhaps Never Knew)
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America
Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the several states, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In keeping with my truth statement at the top of my blog, you may want to actually research into what our government representatives actually meant to accomplish when they insisted on these specific Amendments so soon after they survived their traitorous war against their old government!
Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the several states, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In keeping with my truth statement at the top of my blog, you may want to actually research into what our government representatives actually meant to accomplish when they insisted on these specific Amendments so soon after they survived their traitorous war against their old government!
Dial 911 and Die
A little background on me: At the end of last year, 2006, I retired possibly for the last time. My first 30 years after highschool graduation, were spent serving in the United States Navy from were I retired as a Master Chief Petty Officer. Then for the next 15+ years, I was a fulltime law enforcement either as a Florida State Probation Officer or lastly, as an Airport Police Officer. During my active duty navy tenure I had also served as a reserve police officer for about another 8 years with the Highway Patrol and as a Deputy Sheriff.
I have been involved with firearms as a shooter, collector and instructor for about 50 years. I do not consider myself as an expert but perhaps as more of a learned person. I have also realized that the more I learn, the less I realize I know.
Today I was searching the internet and I happened upon a book call "Call 911 and Die". That is a very interesting idea because we all know that when you call 911 help has to come.
But does help "have" to come or does help "maybe" come. And if help does in fact come from how far away does it come and in what manner.
As a first responder police officer, I was taught rudimentary emergency first aid. HOWEVER, my department put very little medical equipment into the patrol cars because they always told us we could call the fire department. That takes time if you think about it, maybe more than the victim has.
What about the nights when the department is working with less than the minimum officers needed or when their are more emergencies than officers..........who is going to come when?
Then there were the LA Riots when the police were pulled out of the riot zone and not allowed to respond.
My purpose here is to let each person who reads this become aware that you are responsible for your own personal safety. In fact, courts have ruled that in many cases all over the United States that police have "No Duty To Protect Individual Citizens":
This person was not allowed to arm herself for protection IAW New York City Law but after acid was thrown in her face, the City of New York was not liable for failing to protect her.[Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].
This was a teacher assaulted and killed on school property by a student enrolled in the school. Again, police neither the city nor the police had a " special duty" to protect. [Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460 (1968)].
California ruling, No liability to provide sufficient police protection. [Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].
This one is an actual 911 incident. Subject and friends suffered multiple assults after being told via 911 the police would respond. [Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].
In your continuing search for knowledge, you might want to check out this book. You may even want to send a copy to some of your friends.
Dial 911 and Die (Paperback)
by Richard W Stevens
http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445
As a challenge for those who think I am nuts and just made this up.. Google "Call 911 and Die" and see what the latest news is on that topic.
I have been involved with firearms as a shooter, collector and instructor for about 50 years. I do not consider myself as an expert but perhaps as more of a learned person. I have also realized that the more I learn, the less I realize I know.
Today I was searching the internet and I happened upon a book call "Call 911 and Die". That is a very interesting idea because we all know that when you call 911 help has to come.
But does help "have" to come or does help "maybe" come. And if help does in fact come from how far away does it come and in what manner.
As a first responder police officer, I was taught rudimentary emergency first aid. HOWEVER, my department put very little medical equipment into the patrol cars because they always told us we could call the fire department. That takes time if you think about it, maybe more than the victim has.
What about the nights when the department is working with less than the minimum officers needed or when their are more emergencies than officers..........who is going to come when?
Then there were the LA Riots when the police were pulled out of the riot zone and not allowed to respond.
My purpose here is to let each person who reads this become aware that you are responsible for your own personal safety. In fact, courts have ruled that in many cases all over the United States that police have "No Duty To Protect Individual Citizens":
This person was not allowed to arm herself for protection IAW New York City Law but after acid was thrown in her face, the City of New York was not liable for failing to protect her.[Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].
This was a teacher assaulted and killed on school property by a student enrolled in the school. Again, police neither the city nor the police had a " special duty" to protect. [Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460 (1968)].
California ruling, No liability to provide sufficient police protection. [Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].
This one is an actual 911 incident. Subject and friends suffered multiple assults after being told via 911 the police would respond. [Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].
In your continuing search for knowledge, you might want to check out this book. You may even want to send a copy to some of your friends.
Dial 911 and Die (Paperback)
by Richard W Stevens
http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445
As a challenge for those who think I am nuts and just made this up.. Google "Call 911 and Die" and see what the latest news is on that topic.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Courage, Honor, Integrity
Some impressive thoughts by a Korean War Veteran regarding the United States Marine Corps:
http://www.kmike.com/Haditha.htm
http://www.kmike.com/Haditha.htm
Friday, April 27, 2007
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
HR 297 TALKING POINTS
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, you need to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).
NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. Last January we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled!
The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
HR 297 TALKING POINTS
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, you need to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).
NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. Last January we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled!
The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
Another "Good Deal" For My Fellow Citizens or Think Twice If The Government Is Doing It FOR You
These were the lead four paragraphs of a New York Times article.
I wish to point out that the "federal watch lists" to be used are the same federal watch lists that have caused all kinds of problems for innocent and unsuspecting air travelers whose names are listed as a "suspect".
Since this federal watch list was put together after the 9-11 catastrophe many innocent people have spent many hours trying to prove they are not the person named in the list. Some of those travelers affected have been very young, some have been very old and even had proven service to their country, but all were upset and wrongfully accused while attempting to catch an airline flight. If I remember correctly, some were even politicians.
There is no innocent until proven guilty if you are on the "federal watch list". You will have to prove your innocence first and since it is a government list, the appeal takes a lot of time energy and money.
I am at a loss to see how the last two paragraphs I provided from the article relate to the fight against terrorism.
It more seems to relate to firearms control against citizens of this country. Terrorists are more likely to be found in a garden center purchasing large quantities of fertilizer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by By MICHAEL LUO, for The New York Times and published: April 27, 2007
U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror
Legislation would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”
Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.
I wish to point out that the "federal watch lists" to be used are the same federal watch lists that have caused all kinds of problems for innocent and unsuspecting air travelers whose names are listed as a "suspect".
Since this federal watch list was put together after the 9-11 catastrophe many innocent people have spent many hours trying to prove they are not the person named in the list. Some of those travelers affected have been very young, some have been very old and even had proven service to their country, but all were upset and wrongfully accused while attempting to catch an airline flight. If I remember correctly, some were even politicians.
There is no innocent until proven guilty if you are on the "federal watch list". You will have to prove your innocence first and since it is a government list, the appeal takes a lot of time energy and money.
I am at a loss to see how the last two paragraphs I provided from the article relate to the fight against terrorism.
It more seems to relate to firearms control against citizens of this country. Terrorists are more likely to be found in a garden center purchasing large quantities of fertilizer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by By MICHAEL LUO, for The New York Times and published: April 27, 2007
U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror
Legislation would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”
Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Gun Free Zones
Here is an interesting site: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings.html
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Well Prepared News Story
In police terminology, the story presented below is about an emotionally disturbed person (EDP). Every day police officers interact with EDPs, in each and every state. Each year, police officers are injured or killed by EDPs. I remember one in the news who was 86 years old when he shot and killed two police officers who were giving him a ride home after his vehicle died at the side of the road.
EDPs do not act or react like more normal people, but they can be extremely dangerous.
Many homeless are EDPs, but not all. Even those in the military or going to college can be or become EDPs.
Without citizen complaints, Florida police officers can only "Baker Act" or involuntarily commit a person who says they are going to harm themselves or others. I do not know the requirements in other states.
Whether Seung-Hui Cho is mentally ill or only emotionally disturbed is somewhat past my training as a police officer. He certainly had the ability to plan his crime down to the details of chaining doors shut. I also believed he understood what he had done as he committed suicide to avoid punishment.
As long as that type of person is alive in society, there is no way to prevent him or her from killing innocent and unarmed victims.
However, if there are armed victims under attack, they have the ability to respond and at the least possibly derail the plans of the attacker.
As a police officer, I know that people are the ones who kill people.
Va. Tech anguishes over missed signals
By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer (Yahoo News @ Yahoo.com)
BLACKSBURG, Va. - The student slouched into his chair, his face wrapped in sunglasses, the brim of his baseball cap pulled down so low his eyes were almost lost. The Virginia Tech professor who took a seat across from him did so because there didn't really seem to be any other option.
But in three, hour-long talks that began that October day, Lucinda Roy tentatively edged away from the lesson plan for her class of one, moving beyond poetry and drawing the darkly troubled student, Seung-Hui Cho, into a tortured and all-too-brief conversation about the human need for friendship and the pain of being trapped inside oneself.
Looking back, it may have been the closest anyone ever came to reaching the brooding loner before he metamorphosed into the gunman responsible for the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
But soon after their meetings in 2005, Roy — who alerted university officials with her fears about the student and tried to get him into counseling — lost touch with Cho. The semester ended. She went on leave. They exchanged e-mails once or twice. Then nothing.
It is only now that she asks herself: What if ...?
Roy has wrestled with that question endlessly in the past few days. And it is a variation of the one that now haunts this quarrystone campus and mountain town, an aching doubt that grows with each new revelation of missed signals and miscalculations, twists of fate and legal loopholes, and what appear increasingly like a series of lost opportunities to avert tragedy.
"That's a question I'll probably be asking myself the rest of my life," Roy says. "What else could I have done? Could I have done more? I think probably all of us could have done more."
In fact, it is not at all certain what might have stopped Cho from carrying out the rampage that left 32 people dead before he killed himself.
What has become clear is that at numerous points over the past year and a half, critical incidents took place that at least gave people around Cho — as well as administrators, police and mental health providers — the briefest windows into his state of mind, and perhaps chances to alter his path to destruction.
We wouldn't be human if we didn't second-guess ourselves. And there's probably no time when that is more true than after a tragedy unleashed by a fellow human being.
"I don't think at the time you could have said he's definitely going to shoot someone. But we had talked about he was likely to do that if there was someone that was going to do it," says Andy Koch a junior from Richmond, Va., who was Cho's suitemate last year.
"The first thing I thought of Monday was Seung ... and if that's the first thing you think about, there were definitely some things that we should have done," he says. But "I don't know what we could have done."
Many Virginia Tech students say that they do not want to second-guess, that they are content that university officials and those who came in contact with Cho did the best they could to prevent the tragedy.
But the story of the Virginia Tech massacre is a labyrinth of what-ifs. Many of them come with explanations any reasonable person would understand. There's just one problem with such explanations: They do nothing to explain the horror of the most unspeakable acts.
"We're all asking `what if,' and we all want to know why," says Fawn Price, a sophomore from Lebanon, Va. "But I don't think we're going to get the answers we need as soon as we need them."
There were signs, so many signs.
Or so it appears in hindsight. But the people in the position to do something and the systems we create to protect ourselves seemed ill-equipped to deal with Cho.
There was an opportunity when two female students called university police, soon after Roy began meeting with Cho. They were being hounded, they complained — there were repeated phone calls, instant messages, notes. They did not know Cho and did not want to know him.
Then, in December 2005, Koch called police to say that his suitemate seemed suicidal.
Officers went to speak with Cho. He was referred to the local mental health center, and then sent to a psychiatric care hospital.
Here was Cho, safely away from campus, in the arms of the mental health system. What if it had been possible to keep him there?
It didn't happen. A day or two later, he was released and returned to campus.
Virginia Tech officials say his care was out of their hands, and they could not know that he needed more help.
And what could they have done? When George Washington University and New York's Hunter College expelled students who appeared suicidal, the students sued.
Schools have to "balance the rights of students with the rights of the communities and with what parents want, and its not an easy thing to do," says Dr. Joanna Locke of the Jed Foundation, which works to prevent suicide and promote mental health among college students.
What about the mental health providers beyond campus who dealt directly with Cho? Couldn't they have done something?
Not unless Cho shared his morbid fantasies, and people like Cho almost never do, says Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychologist who has profiled mass murderers.
Cho "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks," Welner says.
If mental health providers couldn't follow him there, what if university police had pursued a case against him?
But that would have required the two female students to press stalking charges against Cho. And after speaking with Virginia Tech officers, the two women decided against it, police say.
Other female students said last week that they would almost certainly have made the same decision. Unusual behavior is not unusual on campus. No one wants to make trouble for others.
"Stalking happens on almost every campus across the country. It is a problem and people rarely know how to deal with it," says Michele Galietta, a clinical psychologist who is researching the treatment of stalkers.
"I think that's why sometimes officials are hesitant to take a heavy hand with it," she says. "Keep in mind that this guy (Cho) didn't threaten anyone. He did bizarre things."
But that hasn't stopped Galietta from mulling a whole series of what-ifs.
If the women had pursued a case, and if Cho had been convicted of stalking — rather than a misdemeanor charge of harassment — he would have entered the domain of the criminal justice system. If so, he might have served time and on release would have been assigned to a probation officer who could've have monitored his behavior. When he went to buy a gun, a criminal record would have prevented it, she says.
And that raises the emotionally charged question of Cho's access to guns.
What if firearms laws had been tougher?
The problem with that question is that, as easy as it is to buy a gun in a state like Virginia, a case can be made that Cho still shouldn't have made it through the net.
After Cho was evaluated at a psychiatric hospital in late 2005, a judge found that the student "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun under federal law, experts say.
But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment — and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital — they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.
The thread that runs through nearly all the what-ifs at Virginia Tech is the most obvious and perhaps the most difficult to parse. What if the university police and administration had taken more decisive action, at any number of junctures?
That opens up a debate about whether Virginia Tech did enough to protect itself against threats from within.
There are many who are willing to accept school officials' word that they took all possible security measures to prevent what happened here. College police departments are just as well-trained and sophisticated as any city department and they take just as aggressive a stance in preventing violence, says Ray Thrower, head of security at Minnesota's Gustavus Adolphus College and president-elect of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
If anything, Virginia Tech — one of the first campus police departments in the country to win professional accreditation — exemplifies that argument.
But could that argument be missing the point?
The problem with Virginia Tech's policing — and with most other college's approach to security — runs deeper than training or resources or dedication, says S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit watchdog group. The problem is mindset, he says.
On a campus, everyone is a big family — the administrators, the students, the faculty and the university's security officers.
As a result, "the tendency is to overlook or downplay potential problems," Carter says. "They don't want to think that their campus community members — their students — could be that dangerous."
Carter believes that mind-set was almost certainly a factor in how Virginia Tech officers handled — or mishandled — previous complaints about Cho. And it was clearly a factor in many of the things that went wrong early on a flurry-filled morning last Monday when a campus just stirring from its weekend slumber was shaken by gunfire, he says.
The dorm Cho chose for as his first target requires a magnetic card for entry. But students say they let each other into one another's dorms all the time. What if the security system had been more comprehensive?
When officers responded to a 911 call at West Ambler Johnston Hall and found the bodies of resident assistant Ryan Clark and freshman Emily Hilscher on the fourth floor, they began investigating the killings as a crime of domestic violence. The problem, Carter says, is that they even as they pursued that lead, investigators assumed as fact a theory that hadn't yet been proven.
What if they'd considered the possibility of shooter with a different profile, one who had no intention of stopping with two victims?
Administrators and police did not decide to lock down the campus and notify students of the violence taking place around them until the shootings that left 31 more people dead in Norris Hall. What if they'd acted sooner?
It is the last in a heart-rending series of what-ifs. Together, they weigh on the mind but not because it is essential to lay blame, or to find a culprit.
They matter because we need to understand. Because to know what, if anything could have been done differently, is the only means we have for squeezing a drop of reason, comfort or understanding from utter senselessness.
What if we had it all to do all over again? Would Reema Samaha have lived to dance once more? Would Michael Pohle still be here to don cap and gown this spring and clutch his diploma?
What if? Can there be anyone who hasn't asked themselves that question in recent days and not felt the ache of knowing it can never be adequately answered?
That is a feeling that Chris Flynn, director of Virginia Tech's mental health counseling center, is beginning to understand all too well.
What if? The question plays again and again through his head.
That, he says, is a question he'll ask "for the rest of my life."
Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed in Blacksburg and Matthew Barakat in McLean, Va., contributed to this report.
EDPs do not act or react like more normal people, but they can be extremely dangerous.
Many homeless are EDPs, but not all. Even those in the military or going to college can be or become EDPs.
Without citizen complaints, Florida police officers can only "Baker Act" or involuntarily commit a person who says they are going to harm themselves or others. I do not know the requirements in other states.
Whether Seung-Hui Cho is mentally ill or only emotionally disturbed is somewhat past my training as a police officer. He certainly had the ability to plan his crime down to the details of chaining doors shut. I also believed he understood what he had done as he committed suicide to avoid punishment.
As long as that type of person is alive in society, there is no way to prevent him or her from killing innocent and unarmed victims.
However, if there are armed victims under attack, they have the ability to respond and at the least possibly derail the plans of the attacker.
As a police officer, I know that people are the ones who kill people.
Va. Tech anguishes over missed signals
By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer (Yahoo News @ Yahoo.com)
BLACKSBURG, Va. - The student slouched into his chair, his face wrapped in sunglasses, the brim of his baseball cap pulled down so low his eyes were almost lost. The Virginia Tech professor who took a seat across from him did so because there didn't really seem to be any other option.
But in three, hour-long talks that began that October day, Lucinda Roy tentatively edged away from the lesson plan for her class of one, moving beyond poetry and drawing the darkly troubled student, Seung-Hui Cho, into a tortured and all-too-brief conversation about the human need for friendship and the pain of being trapped inside oneself.
Looking back, it may have been the closest anyone ever came to reaching the brooding loner before he metamorphosed into the gunman responsible for the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
But soon after their meetings in 2005, Roy — who alerted university officials with her fears about the student and tried to get him into counseling — lost touch with Cho. The semester ended. She went on leave. They exchanged e-mails once or twice. Then nothing.
It is only now that she asks herself: What if ...?
Roy has wrestled with that question endlessly in the past few days. And it is a variation of the one that now haunts this quarrystone campus and mountain town, an aching doubt that grows with each new revelation of missed signals and miscalculations, twists of fate and legal loopholes, and what appear increasingly like a series of lost opportunities to avert tragedy.
"That's a question I'll probably be asking myself the rest of my life," Roy says. "What else could I have done? Could I have done more? I think probably all of us could have done more."
In fact, it is not at all certain what might have stopped Cho from carrying out the rampage that left 32 people dead before he killed himself.
What has become clear is that at numerous points over the past year and a half, critical incidents took place that at least gave people around Cho — as well as administrators, police and mental health providers — the briefest windows into his state of mind, and perhaps chances to alter his path to destruction.
We wouldn't be human if we didn't second-guess ourselves. And there's probably no time when that is more true than after a tragedy unleashed by a fellow human being.
"I don't think at the time you could have said he's definitely going to shoot someone. But we had talked about he was likely to do that if there was someone that was going to do it," says Andy Koch a junior from Richmond, Va., who was Cho's suitemate last year.
"The first thing I thought of Monday was Seung ... and if that's the first thing you think about, there were definitely some things that we should have done," he says. But "I don't know what we could have done."
Many Virginia Tech students say that they do not want to second-guess, that they are content that university officials and those who came in contact with Cho did the best they could to prevent the tragedy.
But the story of the Virginia Tech massacre is a labyrinth of what-ifs. Many of them come with explanations any reasonable person would understand. There's just one problem with such explanations: They do nothing to explain the horror of the most unspeakable acts.
"We're all asking `what if,' and we all want to know why," says Fawn Price, a sophomore from Lebanon, Va. "But I don't think we're going to get the answers we need as soon as we need them."
There were signs, so many signs.
Or so it appears in hindsight. But the people in the position to do something and the systems we create to protect ourselves seemed ill-equipped to deal with Cho.
There was an opportunity when two female students called university police, soon after Roy began meeting with Cho. They were being hounded, they complained — there were repeated phone calls, instant messages, notes. They did not know Cho and did not want to know him.
Then, in December 2005, Koch called police to say that his suitemate seemed suicidal.
Officers went to speak with Cho. He was referred to the local mental health center, and then sent to a psychiatric care hospital.
Here was Cho, safely away from campus, in the arms of the mental health system. What if it had been possible to keep him there?
It didn't happen. A day or two later, he was released and returned to campus.
Virginia Tech officials say his care was out of their hands, and they could not know that he needed more help.
And what could they have done? When George Washington University and New York's Hunter College expelled students who appeared suicidal, the students sued.
Schools have to "balance the rights of students with the rights of the communities and with what parents want, and its not an easy thing to do," says Dr. Joanna Locke of the Jed Foundation, which works to prevent suicide and promote mental health among college students.
What about the mental health providers beyond campus who dealt directly with Cho? Couldn't they have done something?
Not unless Cho shared his morbid fantasies, and people like Cho almost never do, says Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychologist who has profiled mass murderers.
Cho "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks," Welner says.
If mental health providers couldn't follow him there, what if university police had pursued a case against him?
But that would have required the two female students to press stalking charges against Cho. And after speaking with Virginia Tech officers, the two women decided against it, police say.
Other female students said last week that they would almost certainly have made the same decision. Unusual behavior is not unusual on campus. No one wants to make trouble for others.
"Stalking happens on almost every campus across the country. It is a problem and people rarely know how to deal with it," says Michele Galietta, a clinical psychologist who is researching the treatment of stalkers.
"I think that's why sometimes officials are hesitant to take a heavy hand with it," she says. "Keep in mind that this guy (Cho) didn't threaten anyone. He did bizarre things."
But that hasn't stopped Galietta from mulling a whole series of what-ifs.
If the women had pursued a case, and if Cho had been convicted of stalking — rather than a misdemeanor charge of harassment — he would have entered the domain of the criminal justice system. If so, he might have served time and on release would have been assigned to a probation officer who could've have monitored his behavior. When he went to buy a gun, a criminal record would have prevented it, she says.
And that raises the emotionally charged question of Cho's access to guns.
What if firearms laws had been tougher?
The problem with that question is that, as easy as it is to buy a gun in a state like Virginia, a case can be made that Cho still shouldn't have made it through the net.
After Cho was evaluated at a psychiatric hospital in late 2005, a judge found that the student "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun under federal law, experts say.
But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment — and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital — they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.
The thread that runs through nearly all the what-ifs at Virginia Tech is the most obvious and perhaps the most difficult to parse. What if the university police and administration had taken more decisive action, at any number of junctures?
That opens up a debate about whether Virginia Tech did enough to protect itself against threats from within.
There are many who are willing to accept school officials' word that they took all possible security measures to prevent what happened here. College police departments are just as well-trained and sophisticated as any city department and they take just as aggressive a stance in preventing violence, says Ray Thrower, head of security at Minnesota's Gustavus Adolphus College and president-elect of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
If anything, Virginia Tech — one of the first campus police departments in the country to win professional accreditation — exemplifies that argument.
But could that argument be missing the point?
The problem with Virginia Tech's policing — and with most other college's approach to security — runs deeper than training or resources or dedication, says S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit watchdog group. The problem is mindset, he says.
On a campus, everyone is a big family — the administrators, the students, the faculty and the university's security officers.
As a result, "the tendency is to overlook or downplay potential problems," Carter says. "They don't want to think that their campus community members — their students — could be that dangerous."
Carter believes that mind-set was almost certainly a factor in how Virginia Tech officers handled — or mishandled — previous complaints about Cho. And it was clearly a factor in many of the things that went wrong early on a flurry-filled morning last Monday when a campus just stirring from its weekend slumber was shaken by gunfire, he says.
The dorm Cho chose for as his first target requires a magnetic card for entry. But students say they let each other into one another's dorms all the time. What if the security system had been more comprehensive?
When officers responded to a 911 call at West Ambler Johnston Hall and found the bodies of resident assistant Ryan Clark and freshman Emily Hilscher on the fourth floor, they began investigating the killings as a crime of domestic violence. The problem, Carter says, is that they even as they pursued that lead, investigators assumed as fact a theory that hadn't yet been proven.
What if they'd considered the possibility of shooter with a different profile, one who had no intention of stopping with two victims?
Administrators and police did not decide to lock down the campus and notify students of the violence taking place around them until the shootings that left 31 more people dead in Norris Hall. What if they'd acted sooner?
It is the last in a heart-rending series of what-ifs. Together, they weigh on the mind but not because it is essential to lay blame, or to find a culprit.
They matter because we need to understand. Because to know what, if anything could have been done differently, is the only means we have for squeezing a drop of reason, comfort or understanding from utter senselessness.
What if we had it all to do all over again? Would Reema Samaha have lived to dance once more? Would Michael Pohle still be here to don cap and gown this spring and clutch his diploma?
What if? Can there be anyone who hasn't asked themselves that question in recent days and not felt the ache of knowing it can never be adequately answered?
That is a feeling that Chris Flynn, director of Virginia Tech's mental health counseling center, is beginning to understand all too well.
What if? The question plays again and again through his head.
That, he says, is a question he'll ask "for the rest of my life."
Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed in Blacksburg and Matthew Barakat in McLean, Va., contributed to this report.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Harry Reid, The New "Jane Fonda"
Taken from AL-JAZEERA.NET:
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2007
6:20 MECCA TIME, 3:20 GMT
Iraq war 'lost' says top Democrat
The US war in Iraq is lost and a further build-up of US troops in the country will not recover the situation, the senior Democrat in the US senate has said.
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters.
Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.
Only political, economic and diplomatic means could bring success, he said.
His comments came as the US defence secretary told Iraqi leaders that US support for the country was not an "open-ended commitment".
Robert Gates was speaking as he left Tel Aviv for his first visit to Iraq since the US decided to send an extra 30,000 troops to the country in what the Bush administration has labelled a troop surge.
On Wednesday at least 180 people were killed in a series of bombings in Baghdad, with one blast near a market killing more than 140 people – the deadliest single bomb attack in the capital since the US-led invasion in 2003.
On Thursday, the violence continued when a suicide car bomber rammed into a fuel truck, killing 12 people and injuring 24 others in the Jadiriya district of Baghdad.
Angry reaction
Reid's comments drew a swift response from the White House and an angry reaction from Republicans in congress who accused the senate majority leader of turning his back on US troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States senate has declared the war is lost,'' Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican in the senate, said.
Reid's assessment of the situation in Iraq came before the House of Representatives voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Bush did not directly address Reid's comments.
However, a White House spokeswoman quickly fired back that they were at odds with US military assessments of the two-month-old effort to quell sectarian violence in Iraq.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war," Dana Perino said as Bush called for his plan to be given time to work.
Funding row
Locked in a bitter row with Democrats over emergency war funding, Bush said that no crackdown could ever fully banish such attacks such as the ones that took place in Baghdad on Wednesday.
"If the definition of success in Iraq - or anywhere - is 'no suicide bombers', we'll never be successful," he told an audience at a high school in Tipp City, Ohio.
"I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to have their troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two, we can succeed. I believe we're going to succeed," he said.
Democrats, who owe their control of the US congress to deep US public anger over the war, have tied timetables calling for a withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq in 2008 to a $100bn emergency war funding measure.
Bush, who has vowed to veto any measure with a deadline, warned on Thursday that "the very radicals and extremists who attack us would be emboldened" by a hasty US withdrawal, and violence could spread beyond Iraq's borders.
The version of the funding bill in the House of Representatives would pull US combat troops out by September 2008.
The senate version would begin getting US forces out in mid-2007 with the goal of having most of them withdrawn by March 31, 2008.
In my opinion, my fellow citizens, should join with me in demanding his resignation from the United states Senate immediately. This so much exceeds the exercise of free speech.
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2007
6:20 MECCA TIME, 3:20 GMT
Iraq war 'lost' says top Democrat
The US war in Iraq is lost and a further build-up of US troops in the country will not recover the situation, the senior Democrat in the US senate has said.
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters.
Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.
Only political, economic and diplomatic means could bring success, he said.
His comments came as the US defence secretary told Iraqi leaders that US support for the country was not an "open-ended commitment".
Robert Gates was speaking as he left Tel Aviv for his first visit to Iraq since the US decided to send an extra 30,000 troops to the country in what the Bush administration has labelled a troop surge.
On Wednesday at least 180 people were killed in a series of bombings in Baghdad, with one blast near a market killing more than 140 people – the deadliest single bomb attack in the capital since the US-led invasion in 2003.
On Thursday, the violence continued when a suicide car bomber rammed into a fuel truck, killing 12 people and injuring 24 others in the Jadiriya district of Baghdad.
Angry reaction
Reid's comments drew a swift response from the White House and an angry reaction from Republicans in congress who accused the senate majority leader of turning his back on US troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States senate has declared the war is lost,'' Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican in the senate, said.
Reid's assessment of the situation in Iraq came before the House of Representatives voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Bush did not directly address Reid's comments.
However, a White House spokeswoman quickly fired back that they were at odds with US military assessments of the two-month-old effort to quell sectarian violence in Iraq.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war," Dana Perino said as Bush called for his plan to be given time to work.
Funding row
Locked in a bitter row with Democrats over emergency war funding, Bush said that no crackdown could ever fully banish such attacks such as the ones that took place in Baghdad on Wednesday.
"If the definition of success in Iraq - or anywhere - is 'no suicide bombers', we'll never be successful," he told an audience at a high school in Tipp City, Ohio.
"I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to have their troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two, we can succeed. I believe we're going to succeed," he said.
Democrats, who owe their control of the US congress to deep US public anger over the war, have tied timetables calling for a withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq in 2008 to a $100bn emergency war funding measure.
Bush, who has vowed to veto any measure with a deadline, warned on Thursday that "the very radicals and extremists who attack us would be emboldened" by a hasty US withdrawal, and violence could spread beyond Iraq's borders.
The version of the funding bill in the House of Representatives would pull US combat troops out by September 2008.
The senate version would begin getting US forces out in mid-2007 with the goal of having most of them withdrawn by March 31, 2008.
In my opinion, my fellow citizens, should join with me in demanding his resignation from the United states Senate immediately. This so much exceeds the exercise of free speech.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Another Politician Who Believes Laws Are For Anyone Else But Him
Governor Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey was recently seriously injured in an automobile accident in New Jersey.
It would seem that his vehicle, driven by a New Jersey State Trooper, was proceeding along at about 91 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. According to news reports the governor's vehicle did have the emergency lights activated.
When a citizen tried to get out of the way, the citizen lost control of their vehicle which struck another vehicle with the ultimate result that one of the vehicles involved was Governor Corzine's vehicle.
Unbelievably, the head law enforcement officer of New Jersey was not wearing his seat belt. The Governor suffered some very serious injuries, injuries I suspect that would have been much reduced if he had his seat belt fastened in accordance with state law.
Recently, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police unbelievably stated that if the trooper driving the vehicle was found to have contributed to the accident, he would receive some type of punishment.
As a start, doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone must have contributed somewhat. The troopers failure to ensure (as required by law) that his passenger was buckled certainly contributed to the magnitude of injury.
On the other hand, is the trooper at fault when his passenger is his bosses' boss. The Governor of any State is the senior law enforcement officer of that state, sworn to uphold all laws.
This will be interesting to follow in the news. Perhaps the original citizen who was startled by the Governor will sue the Governor for damages caused by the Governor's misuse of his authority.
Since this can be seen as the result of misused authority the question is:
Who is paying the Governors medical bills and for vehicle repair or replacement.
It would seem that his vehicle, driven by a New Jersey State Trooper, was proceeding along at about 91 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. According to news reports the governor's vehicle did have the emergency lights activated.
When a citizen tried to get out of the way, the citizen lost control of their vehicle which struck another vehicle with the ultimate result that one of the vehicles involved was Governor Corzine's vehicle.
Unbelievably, the head law enforcement officer of New Jersey was not wearing his seat belt. The Governor suffered some very serious injuries, injuries I suspect that would have been much reduced if he had his seat belt fastened in accordance with state law.
Recently, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police unbelievably stated that if the trooper driving the vehicle was found to have contributed to the accident, he would receive some type of punishment.
As a start, doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone must have contributed somewhat. The troopers failure to ensure (as required by law) that his passenger was buckled certainly contributed to the magnitude of injury.
On the other hand, is the trooper at fault when his passenger is his bosses' boss. The Governor of any State is the senior law enforcement officer of that state, sworn to uphold all laws.
This will be interesting to follow in the news. Perhaps the original citizen who was startled by the Governor will sue the Governor for damages caused by the Governor's misuse of his authority.
Since this can be seen as the result of misused authority the question is:
Who is paying the Governors medical bills and for vehicle repair or replacement.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Neither The University Nor the Killer Will Be At Fault
Posted on "InTheLineOfDuty.com" a police informational website:
Did Virginia Tech's Gun Ban Contribute To Massacre?
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
In light of the recent Trolley Square Shootings, which were brought to a quick end by an armed off-duty Ogden Police Officer, we can't help but wonder if the tragic Virginia Tech shootings could have been stopped much sooner if someone, anyone, in that campus building was armed.
While the State Of Virginia allows licensed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, Virginia Tech forbids them on campus.
We unearthed this little gem, originally posted on April 13, 2005.
Would the chance of an armed response by faculty or students deter school shooters?
*************************************************************************************
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms.
By Kevin Miller
From roanoke.com
BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.
Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.
Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.
But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.
David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.
Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.
"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.
Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.
"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.
Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.
"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.
At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.
John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.
Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."
Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.
"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said.
Did Virginia Tech's Gun Ban Contribute To Massacre?
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
In light of the recent Trolley Square Shootings, which were brought to a quick end by an armed off-duty Ogden Police Officer, we can't help but wonder if the tragic Virginia Tech shootings could have been stopped much sooner if someone, anyone, in that campus building was armed.
While the State Of Virginia allows licensed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, Virginia Tech forbids them on campus.
We unearthed this little gem, originally posted on April 13, 2005.
Would the chance of an armed response by faculty or students deter school shooters?
*************************************************************************************
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms.
By Kevin Miller
From roanoke.com
BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.
Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.
Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.
But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.
David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.
Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.
"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.
Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.
"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.
Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.
"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.
At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.
John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.
Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."
Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.
"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said.
Pelosi May Be To Important To See Her Own Supporters
Marine's Mom Arrested
Associated Press | April 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The mother of a Marine who tried to kill himself after two tours of duty in Iraq was arrested Monday while protesting the war outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Tina Richards of Salem, Mo., was charged with disorderly conduct, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman. Schneider said Richards would be issued a citation and released.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, D-Calif., said Richards was with a group of 15 to 20 protesters when she was arrested in the hallway outside the speaker's office. He added that Pelosi's office made no complaint about the presence of the protesters and was informed of the arrests after they had taken place.
Gael Murphy, a spokesman for Codepink, an anti-war group that helped organize the protest at Pelosi's office, said Richards was arrested after chanting anti-war statements.
"I have been trying to meet with Speaker Pelosi since November because she needs to listen to the moms and other women affected by the war," Richards said in a statement.
Hammill said Richards' request for a meeting with Pelosi is pending. "She's met repeatedly with staff, and we've passed her concerns to the speaker," he said.
Last month, Richards confronted Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in her effort to persuade lawmakers to cut off funding for the war. That exchange was videotaped and played widely on YouTube.
"You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understand that," Obey told her during the exchange. He later apologized.
Associated Press | April 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The mother of a Marine who tried to kill himself after two tours of duty in Iraq was arrested Monday while protesting the war outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Tina Richards of Salem, Mo., was charged with disorderly conduct, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman. Schneider said Richards would be issued a citation and released.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, D-Calif., said Richards was with a group of 15 to 20 protesters when she was arrested in the hallway outside the speaker's office. He added that Pelosi's office made no complaint about the presence of the protesters and was informed of the arrests after they had taken place.
Gael Murphy, a spokesman for Codepink, an anti-war group that helped organize the protest at Pelosi's office, said Richards was arrested after chanting anti-war statements.
"I have been trying to meet with Speaker Pelosi since November because she needs to listen to the moms and other women affected by the war," Richards said in a statement.
Hammill said Richards' request for a meeting with Pelosi is pending. "She's met repeatedly with staff, and we've passed her concerns to the speaker," he said.
Last month, Richards confronted Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in her effort to persuade lawmakers to cut off funding for the war. That exchange was videotaped and played widely on YouTube.
"You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understand that," Obey told her during the exchange. He later apologized.
The Way I See It
I received this from my brother so I can not give credit to where it was originally published.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
From John McCain via AOL
Mr. McCain recently came under fire from Democrats and other critics for what they called an overly optimistic assessment of security conditions in a Baghdad market, which he toured under the protection of more than 100 soldiers. Mr. McCain later said that he would have been prepared to tour the market with much less protection.
In the interview, Mr. McCain said that if he became the commander in chief, he might keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary. For the post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he suggested that he would consider Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the newly appointed head of the Central Command. They are carrying out the new strategy in Baghdad. Mr. McCain has been critical of their predecessors, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the former American commander in Iraq, and the former secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld .
Mr. McCain also said he would seek to attract corporate leaders to improve the management of the Pentagon, citing figures like Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of FedEx Corporation, and John T. Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
“I would go to these people and say: ‘Look, you’ve made a billion dollars. Come on now, and do what David Packard did years ago. Serve your country,’ ” Mr. McCain said, referring to the co-founder of the Hewlett Packard Company who served as deputy defense secretary in the first Nixon administration.
Mr. McCain also described retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine commandant, as one of his closest friends, adding he expected he would “play a key role.”
Mr. McCain discussed Iraq during an hourlong session on Thursday at his Senate office, sipping cappuccino and talking in measured if intense tones in the presence of two aides. He ended the interview to go to the White House for a meeting with Mr. Bush.
“One of the things that I’m going to tell him, and I don’t often talk about my conversations with the president, is that the American people need to be told more often what’s happening,” he said. “Where we’re succeeding; where we’re failing; where we’ve made progress; where we haven’t, here’s the state of readiness, here’s why we continue to see suicide bombers.”
“There’s got to be more communication with the American people,” he added. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it.”
“So how do you motivate the Maliki government? Well, one of the ways is go sit down and have dinner with him like Lindsey Graham and I did last week,” he said, alluding to his Republican colleague from South Carolina. He said that he and Mr. Graham had warned Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the patience of the American public was running out. Many members of the Bush administration and other lawmakers have met with Mr. Maliki to make the same point.
“We’re telling you, there’s been votes in both houses of Congress which portend, unless the American people see measurable success, that we’re going to be out of here,” Mr. McCain said, recalling the message he had delivered to the Iraqi leader. “No matter whether I happen to agree with it or not.”
“He gets it. He gets it,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Maliki. “The question is whether they do it or not.”
According to the military’s deployment schedule, only three of the five additional combat brigades that are to be deployed in and around Baghdad under Mr. Bush’s plan have arrived. Mr. McCain said the prospects for the new strategy would be known “within months.”
Even more unclear is what Iraq might look like by the time a new president takes office in the United States. The most optimistic course of events he envisioned involved a steady reduction in violence and a gradual turnover of security responsibilities to the Iraqis during the remainder of the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, Mr. McCain said, the United States military would gradually withdraw to its bases in Iraq, though he did not provide a timetable for how long that might take.
American air and ground forces could continue to operate from those bases when needed but then eventually leave, he said. He said that he had recently met with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, and had been told that Pakistan and other Muslim nations would be prepared to help Iraq if the country was secure.
One plan proposed by some Democratic lawmakers is to withdraw American troops to Kuwait, from where they might carry out strikes against terrorists in Iraq belonging to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Mr. McCain argued that this approach reflected a naïve understanding of the difficulties in obtaining intelligence and conducting operations in Iraq. “The fact of modern warfare is that you can’t parachute into places,” he said. “You can’t go in without a solid base of support if you’re going to be engaged in heavy fighting.”
Another plan, advocated by Mrs. Clinton, would maintain a reduced force at bases in Iraq to stabilize Kurdistan, deter neighboring nations from intervening and to fight terrorist groups there. “That assumes somehow that the place has not descended into chaos,” said Mr. McCain, who warned that reducing the force without first stabilizing Iraq would put the American forces in the position of being “rocketed in their bases.”
Putting additional emphasis on training the Iraqi Army, Mr. McCain also argued, would not be effective unless security in Iraq was improved. “I’d be very reluctant to send your men into a country where there is chaos and tell them they’re going to be trainers.”
Partitioning Iraq into Sunni , Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, as some experts have proposed, was “totally unrealistic,” Mr. McCain argued, because the Iraqis are opposed to measures that would lead to the further dislocation of the population and even divide families.
He also suggested that setting deadlines for withdrawing troops — as many lawmakers were seeking to legislate — would backfire, hamstringing commanders and giving opponents a way to wait out the Americans.
Mr. McCain acknowledged that his message — that a long, hard and uncertain road still lies ahead in Iraq — was not a popular one, and could mark the end of his political ambitions. However, it could be as politically treacherous for Mr. McCain to back away from his support of the war as it is for him to stay with it.
During a recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. McCain noted that he had recently met Petty Officer First Class Mark Robbins, a member of the Navy Seals who was shot in the eye in an ambush outside Baghdad, in a military hospital in Germany and that he planned personally to award him the Purple Heart.
“Oh, God, I’ve seen a lot of things in my life,” Mr. McCain recalled in the interview. “I’ve seen a lot of things. That kid sitting up there. His head. Blood all over the back of him.”
“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”
In the interview, Mr. McCain said that if he became the commander in chief, he might keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary. For the post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he suggested that he would consider Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the newly appointed head of the Central Command. They are carrying out the new strategy in Baghdad. Mr. McCain has been critical of their predecessors, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the former American commander in Iraq, and the former secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld .
Mr. McCain also said he would seek to attract corporate leaders to improve the management of the Pentagon, citing figures like Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of FedEx Corporation, and John T. Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
“I would go to these people and say: ‘Look, you’ve made a billion dollars. Come on now, and do what David Packard did years ago. Serve your country,’ ” Mr. McCain said, referring to the co-founder of the Hewlett Packard Company who served as deputy defense secretary in the first Nixon administration.
Mr. McCain also described retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine commandant, as one of his closest friends, adding he expected he would “play a key role.”
Mr. McCain discussed Iraq during an hourlong session on Thursday at his Senate office, sipping cappuccino and talking in measured if intense tones in the presence of two aides. He ended the interview to go to the White House for a meeting with Mr. Bush.
“One of the things that I’m going to tell him, and I don’t often talk about my conversations with the president, is that the American people need to be told more often what’s happening,” he said. “Where we’re succeeding; where we’re failing; where we’ve made progress; where we haven’t, here’s the state of readiness, here’s why we continue to see suicide bombers.”
“There’s got to be more communication with the American people,” he added. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it.”
“So how do you motivate the Maliki government? Well, one of the ways is go sit down and have dinner with him like Lindsey Graham and I did last week,” he said, alluding to his Republican colleague from South Carolina. He said that he and Mr. Graham had warned Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the patience of the American public was running out. Many members of the Bush administration and other lawmakers have met with Mr. Maliki to make the same point.
“We’re telling you, there’s been votes in both houses of Congress which portend, unless the American people see measurable success, that we’re going to be out of here,” Mr. McCain said, recalling the message he had delivered to the Iraqi leader. “No matter whether I happen to agree with it or not.”
“He gets it. He gets it,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Maliki. “The question is whether they do it or not.”
According to the military’s deployment schedule, only three of the five additional combat brigades that are to be deployed in and around Baghdad under Mr. Bush’s plan have arrived. Mr. McCain said the prospects for the new strategy would be known “within months.”
Even more unclear is what Iraq might look like by the time a new president takes office in the United States. The most optimistic course of events he envisioned involved a steady reduction in violence and a gradual turnover of security responsibilities to the Iraqis during the remainder of the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, Mr. McCain said, the United States military would gradually withdraw to its bases in Iraq, though he did not provide a timetable for how long that might take.
American air and ground forces could continue to operate from those bases when needed but then eventually leave, he said. He said that he had recently met with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, and had been told that Pakistan and other Muslim nations would be prepared to help Iraq if the country was secure.
One plan proposed by some Democratic lawmakers is to withdraw American troops to Kuwait, from where they might carry out strikes against terrorists in Iraq belonging to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Mr. McCain argued that this approach reflected a naïve understanding of the difficulties in obtaining intelligence and conducting operations in Iraq. “The fact of modern warfare is that you can’t parachute into places,” he said. “You can’t go in without a solid base of support if you’re going to be engaged in heavy fighting.”
Another plan, advocated by Mrs. Clinton, would maintain a reduced force at bases in Iraq to stabilize Kurdistan, deter neighboring nations from intervening and to fight terrorist groups there. “That assumes somehow that the place has not descended into chaos,” said Mr. McCain, who warned that reducing the force without first stabilizing Iraq would put the American forces in the position of being “rocketed in their bases.”
Putting additional emphasis on training the Iraqi Army, Mr. McCain also argued, would not be effective unless security in Iraq was improved. “I’d be very reluctant to send your men into a country where there is chaos and tell them they’re going to be trainers.”
Partitioning Iraq into Sunni , Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, as some experts have proposed, was “totally unrealistic,” Mr. McCain argued, because the Iraqis are opposed to measures that would lead to the further dislocation of the population and even divide families.
He also suggested that setting deadlines for withdrawing troops — as many lawmakers were seeking to legislate — would backfire, hamstringing commanders and giving opponents a way to wait out the Americans.
Mr. McCain acknowledged that his message — that a long, hard and uncertain road still lies ahead in Iraq — was not a popular one, and could mark the end of his political ambitions. However, it could be as politically treacherous for Mr. McCain to back away from his support of the war as it is for him to stay with it.
During a recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. McCain noted that he had recently met Petty Officer First Class Mark Robbins, a member of the Navy Seals who was shot in the eye in an ambush outside Baghdad, in a military hospital in Germany and that he planned personally to award him the Purple Heart.
“Oh, God, I’ve seen a lot of things in my life,” Mr. McCain recalled in the interview. “I’ve seen a lot of things. That kid sitting up there. His head. Blood all over the back of him.”
“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”
It's Not Massachusetts' Fault, Somebody Else Has To Be Responsible
This sounds like a good job for the Massachusetts National Guard. Place them all around the border to prevent the evil citizens of the United States of America from sending all of those nasty firearms to the citizens of Massachusetts who are misbehaving (committing crimes sounds so BAD).
In my honest opinion, when the honest citizens are restricted from firearm ownership, then the less honest and more willing to issue harm citizens can then have their own way.
I know the State of Massachusetts disagrees with me and I can only say:
How is it working out doing it your way?
Massachusetts Named Most Violent in the Northeast
Updated: April 13th, 2007 05:18 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
Story by thebostonchannel.com, taken from Officer.com on 4-14-07:
Amid an increase in youth violence, Massachusetts is now the most violent state in the northeast, according to the FBI.
NewsCenter 5's Steve Lacy reported that community leaders met on Thursday to look for ways to combat the trend.
"The proliferation of guns in my neighborhood and my community where I go to bed and hear gunshots -- I hear them. I don't come into my community and talk about it. I live it," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur.
Lawmakers are calling for new legislation to crack down on the number of guns flooding the city's streets.
"Gun violence tears at the soul of our community," said the Rev. Jeffery Brown of the Ten-Point Coalition.
The proposed changes would make it illegal to fail to report a lost or stolen gun; it would create a state database to track the resale of guns in the secondary market; and when setting bail, judges would be allowed to consider whether a suspect was in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest.
"We also want to see police with better tools at their finger tips when investigating these crimes," said Sen. Jarrett Barrios.
The renewed call to crackdown on guns comes as the city struggles to combat a recent spike in violent crime.
But not everyone is sold on creating new gun laws saying there are enough restrictions on lawful gun ownership and greater enforcement of existing laws is needed. People who live in some of the city's hardest hit neighborhoods disagree, saying any law that can reduce the number of guns is welcomed.
"We need to be using all of our forces at every border that surrounds Massachusetts and stop this flow of guns and drugs in our communities," said Rep. Gloria Fox.
There have been 17 homicides so far in 2007. Thirteen of the victims were 25 or younger.
In my honest opinion, when the honest citizens are restricted from firearm ownership, then the less honest and more willing to issue harm citizens can then have their own way.
I know the State of Massachusetts disagrees with me and I can only say:
How is it working out doing it your way?
Massachusetts Named Most Violent in the Northeast
Updated: April 13th, 2007 05:18 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
Story by thebostonchannel.com, taken from Officer.com on 4-14-07:
Amid an increase in youth violence, Massachusetts is now the most violent state in the northeast, according to the FBI.
NewsCenter 5's Steve Lacy reported that community leaders met on Thursday to look for ways to combat the trend.
"The proliferation of guns in my neighborhood and my community where I go to bed and hear gunshots -- I hear them. I don't come into my community and talk about it. I live it," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur.
Lawmakers are calling for new legislation to crack down on the number of guns flooding the city's streets.
"Gun violence tears at the soul of our community," said the Rev. Jeffery Brown of the Ten-Point Coalition.
The proposed changes would make it illegal to fail to report a lost or stolen gun; it would create a state database to track the resale of guns in the secondary market; and when setting bail, judges would be allowed to consider whether a suspect was in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest.
"We also want to see police with better tools at their finger tips when investigating these crimes," said Sen. Jarrett Barrios.
The renewed call to crackdown on guns comes as the city struggles to combat a recent spike in violent crime.
But not everyone is sold on creating new gun laws saying there are enough restrictions on lawful gun ownership and greater enforcement of existing laws is needed. People who live in some of the city's hardest hit neighborhoods disagree, saying any law that can reduce the number of guns is welcomed.
"We need to be using all of our forces at every border that surrounds Massachusetts and stop this flow of guns and drugs in our communities," said Rep. Gloria Fox.
There have been 17 homicides so far in 2007. Thirteen of the victims were 25 or younger.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I Believe
When I was growing up, all my heroes could make the world right. Whether it was Superman or Batman & Robin in the comic books or Roy Rgers, the Lone Ranger or Lash La Rue in the movies. As I got older there was Audie Murphy (a real hero as well as a movie hero) and John Wayne among many others.
When I graduated from high school, I tried to emulate my heroes by joining the U. S. Navy.
However, soon after I enlisted the world began to change drastically. People who did not like they way the world turned began to commit what they called acts of "civil disobediance." The incidents of "civil disobediance" continued in many different venues. Suddenly it was fashionable to leave the country to demonstrate "civil disobediance" then the acts of "civil disobediance" continued until they often became traitorous.
But our government did not prosecute those who committed tratorious acts. In fact one of the most famous went on to become President of the United States of America. Another ran for the same office not to long ago.
Now we are in the position where many of those who grew up on "civil disobediance" are now in high levels of government where they are still committing irresponsible acts in and out of the government.
They say they are exercising their rights of free speech, that honest discourse is necessary in our government.
I say these people are , as in the past, only interested in their own interests. Whether it is keeping their ass out of harms way, insuring their political survival or increasing their wealth.
There are still citizens who feel like I did then and still do now. However, they are busy supporting their country, trying to protect their fellow citizens from those who would destroy us.
Unlike their fellow citizens who use the rights obtained by the U. S. citizen soldier, sailor or airman for their own personal gain these citizens put themselves in harms way .
After a 30 year career in the U. S. Navy, I understand life sucks sometimes and then you die. But until that time, I believe in protecting this country from those who would do us harm and supporting the military who makes it all happen.
Whenever I take one of those on-line quizzes to determine whether I am a liberal or a conservative I come up on the liberal side. Whenever I look at the liberal politicians I see really scary people. When I look at the conservative side I feel they are somewhat more honest, but not to bright.
At this point in time, I do not believe that either political party is doing what they are voted in for at this time. I really can not believe the opportunities each side is throwing away in their stampede for power, for their side.
When I graduated from high school, I tried to emulate my heroes by joining the U. S. Navy.
However, soon after I enlisted the world began to change drastically. People who did not like they way the world turned began to commit what they called acts of "civil disobediance." The incidents of "civil disobediance" continued in many different venues. Suddenly it was fashionable to leave the country to demonstrate "civil disobediance" then the acts of "civil disobediance" continued until they often became traitorous.
But our government did not prosecute those who committed tratorious acts. In fact one of the most famous went on to become President of the United States of America. Another ran for the same office not to long ago.
Now we are in the position where many of those who grew up on "civil disobediance" are now in high levels of government where they are still committing irresponsible acts in and out of the government.
They say they are exercising their rights of free speech, that honest discourse is necessary in our government.
I say these people are , as in the past, only interested in their own interests. Whether it is keeping their ass out of harms way, insuring their political survival or increasing their wealth.
There are still citizens who feel like I did then and still do now. However, they are busy supporting their country, trying to protect their fellow citizens from those who would destroy us.
Unlike their fellow citizens who use the rights obtained by the U. S. citizen soldier, sailor or airman for their own personal gain these citizens put themselves in harms way .
After a 30 year career in the U. S. Navy, I understand life sucks sometimes and then you die. But until that time, I believe in protecting this country from those who would do us harm and supporting the military who makes it all happen.
Whenever I take one of those on-line quizzes to determine whether I am a liberal or a conservative I come up on the liberal side. Whenever I look at the liberal politicians I see really scary people. When I look at the conservative side I feel they are somewhat more honest, but not to bright.
At this point in time, I do not believe that either political party is doing what they are voted in for at this time. I really can not believe the opportunities each side is throwing away in their stampede for power, for their side.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
From Neal Boortz: Somebody's Got To Say It
Sat Feb 10 2007
Global Freezing Returns
Ever notice that during December and the first part of January, the media was more than happy to report that global warming was going to end life as we know it and kill everything on the planet? Now, just in time for the UN's big report on climate change, we hardly hear a peep. Why? Because for most of the country, it's almost below zero outside. Tough to sell the global warming charade when people's car doors are frozen shut.
So as much of the Midwest and the Northeast enjoys wind chills below zero, let's take a look at some recent quotes from the global warming pimps on the Left. From Al Gore, the former Vice President and and Nobel Appeasement Prize nominee: "Never before has all of civilization been threatened. We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will. But political will is a renewable resource." Never before! Those are strong words, Al. Maybe this really is the end of the road for all of us.
Then we heard from Ted Turner, the cable TV titan and owner of his chain of buffalo burger restaurants. Said The Ted: Global warming is the "single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced. The biggest danger is we won't do enough soon enough." He called for a moratorium on all new carbon-producing power plants. Hey Ted...how about we build more nuclear power plants? No carbon emissions there. Just an idea.
And of course the great hypocrisy of the Left rolls on, for they do not practice what they preach. They tell us all how to live, how global warming is going to kill us all...then get into their private jets and Hummers and speed off to their next destination. Or in the case of Nancy Pelosi, her military jet. Must be nice!
Global Freezing Returns
Ever notice that during December and the first part of January, the media was more than happy to report that global warming was going to end life as we know it and kill everything on the planet? Now, just in time for the UN's big report on climate change, we hardly hear a peep. Why? Because for most of the country, it's almost below zero outside. Tough to sell the global warming charade when people's car doors are frozen shut.
So as much of the Midwest and the Northeast enjoys wind chills below zero, let's take a look at some recent quotes from the global warming pimps on the Left. From Al Gore, the former Vice President and and Nobel Appeasement Prize nominee: "Never before has all of civilization been threatened. We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will. But political will is a renewable resource." Never before! Those are strong words, Al. Maybe this really is the end of the road for all of us.
Then we heard from Ted Turner, the cable TV titan and owner of his chain of buffalo burger restaurants. Said The Ted: Global warming is the "single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced. The biggest danger is we won't do enough soon enough." He called for a moratorium on all new carbon-producing power plants. Hey Ted...how about we build more nuclear power plants? No carbon emissions there. Just an idea.
And of course the great hypocrisy of the Left rolls on, for they do not practice what they preach. They tell us all how to live, how global warming is going to kill us all...then get into their private jets and Hummers and speed off to their next destination. Or in the case of Nancy Pelosi, her military jet. Must be nice!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Toys for Tots
Tonight my local radio station in Melbourne, Florida reported that the USMC Tots for Tots program had turned down 4000 talking Jesus dolls. The company that manufactures these dolls also makes, according to the news broadcast, Mary, Joseph and Noah dolls that also talk.
The doll company reported the USMC response to their offer of free dolls was basically:
"As a government entity, they could not allow these dolls to be given inadvertently to Jewish or Muslim families."
HOW ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The doll company reported the USMC response to their offer of free dolls was basically:
"As a government entity, they could not allow these dolls to be given inadvertently to Jewish or Muslim families."
HOW ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
From a USMC Sergeant
John Kerry said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq”
So I wrote him a letter:
I am a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently on my second tour in Iraq, a tour in which I volunteered for. I speak Arabic and Spanish and I plan to tackle Persian Farsi soon. I have a Bachelors and an Associates Degree and between deployments I am pursuing an M.B.A. In college I was a member of several academic honor societies, including the Golden Key Honor Society. I am not unique among the enlisted troops. Many of my enlisted colleagues include lawyers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, musicians and artists just to name a few. You say that your comments were directed towards the President and not us. If we were stupid Senator Kerry, we might have believed you.
I am not a victim of President Bush. I proudly serve him because he is my Commander and Chief. If it was you who was President, I would serve you just as faithfully. I serve America Senator Kerry, and I am also providing a service to the good people of Iraq. I have not terrorized them in the middle of the night, raped them or murdered them as you have accused me of before. I am doing my part to help them rebuild. My role is a simple one, but important. You see Senator Kerry, like it or not, we came here and removed a tyrant (who terrorized Iraqis in the middle of the night, and raped them and murdered them). And we have a responsibility to see to it that another one doesn’t take his place. The people of Iraq are recovering from an abusive relationship with a terrible government and it’s going to take some time to help them recover from that. We can’t treat this conflict like a microwave dinner and throw a temper tantrum because we feel like it’s taking too long.
Senator Kerry, you don’t have to agree with this war. You don’t have to say nice things about those of us who choose to make sacrifices for the rights of every American rather than sit back and simply feel entitled to it. But please Senator Kerry, if you’re going to call me a stupid murdering rapist, stick by what you say. Don’t tell me that I misunderstood or that you would never insult a veteran because you’re one too. Having been there and done that does not give you a free pass to insult me.
My suggestion for you, Senator Kerry, is to remember that your speeches are recorded, and broadcast to us simpletons over here. You may want to write down what you want to say before you say it, maybe have somebody look at it before you say it and tell you what others might hear. Remember that we can’t read your mind, if there are any misinterpretations in what you say, it’s because you didn’t communicate clearly.
Good luck to you Senator Kerry, if nothing else it’s always entertaining to watch you try and climb out of the holes that you constantly dig for yourself.
Sincerely,
Somebody who is watching his daughter grow up in photographs so that you can have the right to say whatever you want about him.
This was copied from my daughter's blog @ http://www.jacquibeepink.blogspot.com/
So I wrote him a letter:
I am a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently on my second tour in Iraq, a tour in which I volunteered for. I speak Arabic and Spanish and I plan to tackle Persian Farsi soon. I have a Bachelors and an Associates Degree and between deployments I am pursuing an M.B.A. In college I was a member of several academic honor societies, including the Golden Key Honor Society. I am not unique among the enlisted troops. Many of my enlisted colleagues include lawyers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, musicians and artists just to name a few. You say that your comments were directed towards the President and not us. If we were stupid Senator Kerry, we might have believed you.
I am not a victim of President Bush. I proudly serve him because he is my Commander and Chief. If it was you who was President, I would serve you just as faithfully. I serve America Senator Kerry, and I am also providing a service to the good people of Iraq. I have not terrorized them in the middle of the night, raped them or murdered them as you have accused me of before. I am doing my part to help them rebuild. My role is a simple one, but important. You see Senator Kerry, like it or not, we came here and removed a tyrant (who terrorized Iraqis in the middle of the night, and raped them and murdered them). And we have a responsibility to see to it that another one doesn’t take his place. The people of Iraq are recovering from an abusive relationship with a terrible government and it’s going to take some time to help them recover from that. We can’t treat this conflict like a microwave dinner and throw a temper tantrum because we feel like it’s taking too long.
Senator Kerry, you don’t have to agree with this war. You don’t have to say nice things about those of us who choose to make sacrifices for the rights of every American rather than sit back and simply feel entitled to it. But please Senator Kerry, if you’re going to call me a stupid murdering rapist, stick by what you say. Don’t tell me that I misunderstood or that you would never insult a veteran because you’re one too. Having been there and done that does not give you a free pass to insult me.
My suggestion for you, Senator Kerry, is to remember that your speeches are recorded, and broadcast to us simpletons over here. You may want to write down what you want to say before you say it, maybe have somebody look at it before you say it and tell you what others might hear. Remember that we can’t read your mind, if there are any misinterpretations in what you say, it’s because you didn’t communicate clearly.
Good luck to you Senator Kerry, if nothing else it’s always entertaining to watch you try and climb out of the holes that you constantly dig for yourself.
Sincerely,
Somebody who is watching his daughter grow up in photographs so that you can have the right to say whatever you want about him.
This was copied from my daughter's blog @ http://www.jacquibeepink.blogspot.com/
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Immigration
After a lot of thought I have decided that immigration amnesty is not the way to go. I really do not care how many immigrants we let in legally with proper registration, finger prints, etc. However, those who come in illegal need to be sent back to the end of the line with some form of punishment.
I do not support providing multiple signs in all the various languages of the world. As child in the 1950's I remember the Hungarian revolution where the Hungarian tried to throw out the Russians and the Russian supported Hungarian government. Many of those who escaped Hungary came to the US. Some even came to upstate New York where I grew up. But the had to mix and mingle in English to get ahead.
I am happy to welcome new folks who want to be US citizens to this country. I am not interested in adding 2 million Mexicans who feel that California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas really belong to Mexico.
So for those legals who come here, "Welcome Aboard." For the ILLEGALs, my vote will get you some time in jail and more time added to your inprocessing.
Our laws need to be changed and enforced to ensure the safety of this country and neither political party seems to really care about our internal security as long as they can pander for more votes.
I do not support providing multiple signs in all the various languages of the world. As child in the 1950's I remember the Hungarian revolution where the Hungarian tried to throw out the Russians and the Russian supported Hungarian government. Many of those who escaped Hungary came to the US. Some even came to upstate New York where I grew up. But the had to mix and mingle in English to get ahead.
I am happy to welcome new folks who want to be US citizens to this country. I am not interested in adding 2 million Mexicans who feel that California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas really belong to Mexico.
So for those legals who come here, "Welcome Aboard." For the ILLEGALs, my vote will get you some time in jail and more time added to your inprocessing.
Our laws need to be changed and enforced to ensure the safety of this country and neither political party seems to really care about our internal security as long as they can pander for more votes.
Friday, August 18, 2006
History Channels Show on the Waffen SS
The History Channel has a series of shows titled "SS". This series is on the Waffen SS units of WWII. Should you watch any of these shows, particularly the ones concerning Himmler or Heydrich look for any parallels between their beliefs and behaviors and those of the Muslim zealots that exist today. Another show deals with lower ranked individuals, the gophers if you will, all of whom killed people they believed to be "less than" themselves. This "less than" was the official party line of the German Nazi Party and it was not limited to Jews only.
If you notice any similarity between Nazi's and fanatic (or as they say, devout) Muslims you might want to ask the following questions:
1. Is Muslim-American really an oxymoron?
2. Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen.
And you might consider checking out this website:
www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-oxymoron.htm
If you notice any similarity between Nazi's and fanatic (or as they say, devout) Muslims you might want to ask the following questions:
1. Is Muslim-American really an oxymoron?
2. Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen.
And you might consider checking out this website:
www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-oxymoron.htm
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson and I differ on many things; one being the Second Amendment and another his possible feelings about Jews. However, the man was drunk. After serving in the US Navy for 30 years and being in law enforcement for another 15 years full-time plus a few years part-time I have interacted with more than my fair share of drunks. I can also admit that sometimes I was the drunk.
Drunks embarrass themselves, their famly and friends. Their tongues may be a little looser and their inhibitions fall by the wayside.
During my last five years in the US Navy, I was assigned to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). At DEOMI we interacted with males, females, enlisteds, and officers of all of the miltary services plus the US Coast guard. Although their were only token Marines because they tried to convince everyone they only saw Marine green.
This was a school that had started as the Race Relations Institute back in the early 1970s if I am correct on the time. I arrived in early 1987. During this period that school with all of those fine instructors could not teach anyone to like another person of the same or different race, gender or religion. In fact, by the time I arrived that was no longer their goal. The goal was to put facts in front of people that caused those people internal dissonance. Once the seeds of dissonance were sowed and the facts were conflicting with their thoughts it was up to them to decide how they wanted to handle what they had experienced.
They left knowing the military rules and regulations that governed their behavior.
In my opinion, many folks went completely through the course and neither understood nor agreed with anything put forward to them. However, they knew what was required of them if they wanted to complete their military careers. These folks retained their pre-DEOMI beliefs and basically went underground.
Another smaller group understood some of the topics better than others, perhaps racism but not sexism. These folks were making efforts to comply and tried to learn how to understand their internal dissonance and grow by challenging some of their previously held beliefs. I often visualize many of thse folks, two or even three years later, going: "Aha, now I understand what they were trying to tell or show me in%2
Drunks embarrass themselves, their famly and friends. Their tongues may be a little looser and their inhibitions fall by the wayside.
During my last five years in the US Navy, I was assigned to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). At DEOMI we interacted with males, females, enlisteds, and officers of all of the miltary services plus the US Coast guard. Although their were only token Marines because they tried to convince everyone they only saw Marine green.
This was a school that had started as the Race Relations Institute back in the early 1970s if I am correct on the time. I arrived in early 1987. During this period that school with all of those fine instructors could not teach anyone to like another person of the same or different race, gender or religion. In fact, by the time I arrived that was no longer their goal. The goal was to put facts in front of people that caused those people internal dissonance. Once the seeds of dissonance were sowed and the facts were conflicting with their thoughts it was up to them to decide how they wanted to handle what they had experienced.
They left knowing the military rules and regulations that governed their behavior.
In my opinion, many folks went completely through the course and neither understood nor agreed with anything put forward to them. However, they knew what was required of them if they wanted to complete their military careers. These folks retained their pre-DEOMI beliefs and basically went underground.
Another smaller group understood some of the topics better than others, perhaps racism but not sexism. These folks were making efforts to comply and tried to learn how to understand their internal dissonance and grow by challenging some of their previously held beliefs. I often visualize many of thse folks, two or even three years later, going: "Aha, now I understand what they were trying to tell or show me in%2
Friday, July 21, 2006
Thanks Brian Williams, NBC News, for your interpretation
Tonight, while listening to Brian Williams, NBC News I heard him say there were 335 casualties in Lebanon, most of whom were civilian. After having served a career in the military I thought all Hezbollah personnel were civilian.
As a submarine sailor I have never participated in a war. However, I have been watching wars in or on the news all of my life. The History Channel continually shows bombings of Germany during WWII and pictures exhibit miles of desolate territory throughout Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. During those bombings the civilian populace were targeted much as Hezbollah is targeting Israel.
If Israel was targeting Lebanese civilians the death tolls would be a hell of a lot higher than 335. Hezbollah aims their weapons using a somewhat basic point and shoot method like oldtime chinese rockets. Israel aims their weapons using modern ballistics.
Brian Williams may want to come up with a new term other than "civilians" to identify the Hezbollah thugs and their supporters who are dying in Lebanon.
As a submarine sailor I have never participated in a war. However, I have been watching wars in or on the news all of my life. The History Channel continually shows bombings of Germany during WWII and pictures exhibit miles of desolate territory throughout Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. During those bombings the civilian populace were targeted much as Hezbollah is targeting Israel.
If Israel was targeting Lebanese civilians the death tolls would be a hell of a lot higher than 335. Hezbollah aims their weapons using a somewhat basic point and shoot method like oldtime chinese rockets. Israel aims their weapons using modern ballistics.
Brian Williams may want to come up with a new term other than "civilians" to identify the Hezbollah thugs and their supporters who are dying in Lebanon.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Rules for a Gun Fight
1. Have a gun. Preferably one you have demonstrated skill with and bring as many of your other guns as possible. If possible, bring all of your friends and their guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting multiple times, ammo is cheap but life is not.
3. Only hits count. You can't miss fast enough to win. (Front sight & trigger squeeze!)
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker, distance is your friend. Try to move both laterally and diagonally if at all possible.
6. If you have the opportunity to choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun. Bring as many as possible of your friends with their long guns.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. Those that remember will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and/or running.
9. Accuracy is relative, more combat shooting standards are dependent on "pucker factor" then the built in accuracy of the gun. Long barrel guns are inherently more accurate than short barrel guns due to multiple factors.
10. It is much more important to use a gun that WORKS EVERY TIME. It is imperative that you know how to operate the gun under adverse conditions. Although all skills are in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the pan of your musket.
11. Someday it is possible someone may kill you with your own gun, However, they should have to beat you to death with it because it will be empty.
12. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
13. Have a plan and a have a back-up plan or two, because your first plan can and will go to sh*t in a heartbeat.
14. Know the difference between cover and concealment and use both to your advantage as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary whenever possible but ensure you cover yours.
16. Don't drop your guard. Be prepared.
17. Always tactically reload and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill but so can feet. Be very alert when giving commands that require hand and/or foot movements.
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Your number two option for personal security is lifelong training and preparation for when your number one option fails.
25. Do not knowingly attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller then "4". Rule #1: Have a gun may sometimes trump this rule.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting multiple times, ammo is cheap but life is not.
3. Only hits count. You can't miss fast enough to win. (Front sight & trigger squeeze!)
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker, distance is your friend. Try to move both laterally and diagonally if at all possible.
6. If you have the opportunity to choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun. Bring as many as possible of your friends with their long guns.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. Those that remember will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and/or running.
9. Accuracy is relative, more combat shooting standards are dependent on "pucker factor" then the built in accuracy of the gun. Long barrel guns are inherently more accurate than short barrel guns due to multiple factors.
10. It is much more important to use a gun that WORKS EVERY TIME. It is imperative that you know how to operate the gun under adverse conditions. Although all skills are in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the pan of your musket.
11. Someday it is possible someone may kill you with your own gun, However, they should have to beat you to death with it because it will be empty.
12. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
13. Have a plan and a have a back-up plan or two, because your first plan can and will go to sh*t in a heartbeat.
14. Know the difference between cover and concealment and use both to your advantage as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary whenever possible but ensure you cover yours.
16. Don't drop your guard. Be prepared.
17. Always tactically reload and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill but so can feet. Be very alert when giving commands that require hand and/or foot movements.
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Your number two option for personal security is lifelong training and preparation for when your number one option fails.
25. Do not knowingly attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller then "4". Rule #1: Have a gun may sometimes trump this rule.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
The Mastermind
The following letter of mine appeared in the Florida Today on 01-25-05:
Graner unpersuasive as abuse mastermind
As a retired U. S. Navy master chief petty officer, I can only imagine that those people who believe Army Specialist Charles A Graner Jr. was the ringleader in hte Abu Ghraib abuse scandal will also believe this;
That CBS newscaster Dan Rather was taken in by his underlings in the now discredited story of President Bush's National Guard Service.
I am not saying Graner was not involved. But his grade as a specialist is very low on the military food chain.
Some questions that might spring from this situation are:
Where was his leadership? What was his chain of command? Whether his chain of command knew or not, they should have been held responsible for his behavior.
Ringleader my eye.
**********************************************************************************
Now almost a year later, I still wonder about that chain of command. What type punishments were handed out to the senior non-commissioned officers as well as the junior and senior grade officers above Spec4 Graner.
I did see recently that LtGen Sanchez (3 star) who was in total charge during this incident has decided to retire rather than be promoted to General ($ star) and go through Senate hearings on his leadership during the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Perhaps if he had actually been leading and properly investigated the situation and handed out appropriate discipline to those involved he could have enjoyed the rank he most surely earned for his service.
Graner unpersuasive as abuse mastermind
As a retired U. S. Navy master chief petty officer, I can only imagine that those people who believe Army Specialist Charles A Graner Jr. was the ringleader in hte Abu Ghraib abuse scandal will also believe this;
That CBS newscaster Dan Rather was taken in by his underlings in the now discredited story of President Bush's National Guard Service.
I am not saying Graner was not involved. But his grade as a specialist is very low on the military food chain.
Some questions that might spring from this situation are:
Where was his leadership? What was his chain of command? Whether his chain of command knew or not, they should have been held responsible for his behavior.
Ringleader my eye.
**********************************************************************************
Now almost a year later, I still wonder about that chain of command. What type punishments were handed out to the senior non-commissioned officers as well as the junior and senior grade officers above Spec4 Graner.
I did see recently that LtGen Sanchez (3 star) who was in total charge during this incident has decided to retire rather than be promoted to General ($ star) and go through Senate hearings on his leadership during the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Perhaps if he had actually been leading and properly investigated the situation and handed out appropriate discipline to those involved he could have enjoyed the rank he most surely earned for his service.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
J****
Real early this morning my son called to see if we had any information regarding his best friend. The initial word he heard was his friend shot himself with drugs and was found dead. These two guys have been pals since kindergarten. He did not want to call J****'s mom at 0130 hrs but Ryan said she was on his answer machine and she sounded real grim.
This morning, my wife called his mom and learned J**** had been shot to death in his apartment but she had no further information as yet.
By 0900 my wife had found out that J**** and two other people ( his off again on again girlfriend and another guy) had been doing drugs and alcohol overnight. Early in the morning the guy and gal started to trash the apartment and J**** told them to stop doing that. The end result was J**** went to his room, got his pistol and shot the two who were trashing the apartment. The male is in critical condition and the female was dead. Then J**** went into his room and shot himself. He died at the hospital.
This was one really nice kid, who would have never done anything like that without the substance abuse. At this time, I have no idea how often he used drugs and alcohol or what substances he used.
I do remember him as a cub scout and boy scout. He was a very good kid all through school. He graduated with my son, Ryan. Him and Ryan also worked often around our house as my wife's lifters and movers and assisting her in many varied projects. The kid and his many talents will be missed.
And he will be remembered by many for the wrong reasons.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Brevard Shutters, Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida
I ordered my hurricane shutters on 01/07/2005, they are installing my accordion shutters today, 10/14/2005, as I write this. This does not mean the job is or even will completed today, it is only part of a long list of screw-ups by this company. But I must let them finish the job so I can detail all of the errors.
Since April of this year when they actually started installing things, the job has gone downhill. While they were putting up the wrong type rails to hold the aluminum shutters I told them. They completed that install but when I asked them where the see through panels were The installer basically said "Aw s**t and left. Today is the first day they have managed to get back here.
While some of the problem is the fact that suppliers are overwhelmed by their orders since last years hurricanes most of the problem seems to be poor management. The see through panels were finally ordered on 06/01/2005 a fact that no one bothered to tell us. In fact there has been almost absolutely no communication from Brevard shutters to us and more than one failure to return our calls.
More to follow as the adventure continues.
Today is the 18th of November. My shutter installation is still not complete. About 3 weeks ago, I had a visit from the owner of the company who came to offer his apologies and ensure the job was finished right. He went over everything , listened to me and told me of some of the problems his company had suffered. He then called a work crew with explicit instructions to report to my home between )800 and )900 the next day, Saturday to complete the job.
At 0815 I on Saturday, I called their office to see where my installers were. I was told they had to attend an officew meeting but were on their way. They arrived about an hour later and commenced work.
They did complete everything except my upstairs bonus room. Initially the shutter peices had been cut to long and their boss told them to cut off about one and a half inches. This they did without checking. However, they had also replaced the L2 track and installed a plate behind it for a better fit. Each time the lower track was replaced (they were up to 4 timesnow) the measurements changed. They then cut the shutters IAW their bosses instructions abd Voila, they are now to short. When I came out they were preparing to lower the upper track to make the shutters fit.
At this point, I said NO Way. Each time they move the track, I get four more holes in the front of my house. They plug them with caulk BUT. I told them I wanted the upper track where it was and they needed to go get shutters that fit.
The next week I was out of town and the week after that I had doctors appointments and personal items to take care of. My last phone conversation with them, in which Lynette again asked me who I was I told them to get together a plan and call me. Still no phone call almost three weeks later yet when the installers left they assured me they had the necessary material in the shop.
More to follow as the adventure continues.
Yeah Right!
Just before Christmas, I called Brevard Shutters and asked what they plan was. Craig told me he was reviewing my file and wondered what else I needed besides an outside lock. I told him the lock had been installed weeks ago but that I really needed the second floor window completed, that the rails were in place and all I needed was the hurricane panels installed. He said he would send a man right out. I told them there would be know one home and to be sure and bring a ladder because it was a second floor window. I even said just put the shutters up and after I inspect them, I will take them down.
That night when my wife came home she found a business card from Brevard Shutters tucked in the door but no shutters. Today the date is 01-07-06. A year ago today, we ordered these shutters and the last flurry of action from Brevard Shutters was before Christmas when they stuck a card in the door.
The work they do seems to be good, but you could die of old age waiting for them to install your shutters.
Since April of this year when they actually started installing things, the job has gone downhill. While they were putting up the wrong type rails to hold the aluminum shutters I told them. They completed that install but when I asked them where the see through panels were The installer basically said "Aw s**t and left. Today is the first day they have managed to get back here.
While some of the problem is the fact that suppliers are overwhelmed by their orders since last years hurricanes most of the problem seems to be poor management. The see through panels were finally ordered on 06/01/2005 a fact that no one bothered to tell us. In fact there has been almost absolutely no communication from Brevard shutters to us and more than one failure to return our calls.
More to follow as the adventure continues.
Today is the 18th of November. My shutter installation is still not complete. About 3 weeks ago, I had a visit from the owner of the company who came to offer his apologies and ensure the job was finished right. He went over everything , listened to me and told me of some of the problems his company had suffered. He then called a work crew with explicit instructions to report to my home between )800 and )900 the next day, Saturday to complete the job.
At 0815 I on Saturday, I called their office to see where my installers were. I was told they had to attend an officew meeting but were on their way. They arrived about an hour later and commenced work.
They did complete everything except my upstairs bonus room. Initially the shutter peices had been cut to long and their boss told them to cut off about one and a half inches. This they did without checking. However, they had also replaced the L2 track and installed a plate behind it for a better fit. Each time the lower track was replaced (they were up to 4 timesnow) the measurements changed. They then cut the shutters IAW their bosses instructions abd Voila, they are now to short. When I came out they were preparing to lower the upper track to make the shutters fit.
At this point, I said NO Way. Each time they move the track, I get four more holes in the front of my house. They plug them with caulk BUT. I told them I wanted the upper track where it was and they needed to go get shutters that fit.
The next week I was out of town and the week after that I had doctors appointments and personal items to take care of. My last phone conversation with them, in which Lynette again asked me who I was I told them to get together a plan and call me. Still no phone call almost three weeks later yet when the installers left they assured me they had the necessary material in the shop.
More to follow as the adventure continues.
Yeah Right!
Just before Christmas, I called Brevard Shutters and asked what they plan was. Craig told me he was reviewing my file and wondered what else I needed besides an outside lock. I told him the lock had been installed weeks ago but that I really needed the second floor window completed, that the rails were in place and all I needed was the hurricane panels installed. He said he would send a man right out. I told them there would be know one home and to be sure and bring a ladder because it was a second floor window. I even said just put the shutters up and after I inspect them, I will take them down.
That night when my wife came home she found a business card from Brevard Shutters tucked in the door but no shutters. Today the date is 01-07-06. A year ago today, we ordered these shutters and the last flurry of action from Brevard Shutters was before Christmas when they stuck a card in the door.
The work they do seems to be good, but you could die of old age waiting for them to install your shutters.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Sex Offenders and Sexual Predators
Thank goodness for small politicians and loud causes. Sex offenders and predators belong to the State of Florida. Politicians in counties and cities need to be more concerned with road repair, maintenance of replacement of public buildings and funding of city or county services.
With every jurisdiction in the State coming up with different restrictions on sex offenders and predators the job of the Department of Corrections Probation Officer assigned will become almost impossible.
As a former DOC Probation Officer with a caseload of sex offenders I can assure you that not all sex offenders are equal in their crimes, some who were charged with serious crimes pled down to lower level crimes and other offenders were so purely evi, you wanted to ensure your firearm was with you at all times.
With the new proposed criteria of having local police check their status more often than the State's requirements I cannot help but wonder: If the subject commits another sex crime, has the local jurisdiction supposedly watching him or her now assumed at least some liability from the state. Who will the attorneys for the victim come after now.
And most of these sex offenders WILL recommit more sex offenses.
Are these jurisdictions who intend to use their police to follow sex offenders prepared to hire more police officers or do they intend to act like the state and continue to increase the workload without proper funding?
When you read in the paper that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says X number of predators and Y number of sex offenders live within a particular jurisdiction remember this: sex offenders lie, they change their locations without notification and they are ALWAYS positioning themselves in their search for new victims. In addition, they also move from other states without following the rules of the state they left or the one they moved into.
I might also add that the ACLU is surely waiting in the wings to initiate lawsuits regarding the unequal application of restrictions on a class of people in this state.
In my opinion, if citizens are not satisfied with the Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement they should make their feelings known the their state representatives and state senators to have the laws changed.
With every jurisdiction in the State coming up with different restrictions on sex offenders and predators the job of the Department of Corrections Probation Officer assigned will become almost impossible.
As a former DOC Probation Officer with a caseload of sex offenders I can assure you that not all sex offenders are equal in their crimes, some who were charged with serious crimes pled down to lower level crimes and other offenders were so purely evi, you wanted to ensure your firearm was with you at all times.
With the new proposed criteria of having local police check their status more often than the State's requirements I cannot help but wonder: If the subject commits another sex crime, has the local jurisdiction supposedly watching him or her now assumed at least some liability from the state. Who will the attorneys for the victim come after now.
And most of these sex offenders WILL recommit more sex offenses.
Are these jurisdictions who intend to use their police to follow sex offenders prepared to hire more police officers or do they intend to act like the state and continue to increase the workload without proper funding?
When you read in the paper that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says X number of predators and Y number of sex offenders live within a particular jurisdiction remember this: sex offenders lie, they change their locations without notification and they are ALWAYS positioning themselves in their search for new victims. In addition, they also move from other states without following the rules of the state they left or the one they moved into.
I might also add that the ACLU is surely waiting in the wings to initiate lawsuits regarding the unequal application of restrictions on a class of people in this state.
In my opinion, if citizens are not satisfied with the Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement they should make their feelings known the their state representatives and state senators to have the laws changed.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Sheep, Wolves and Sheep Dogs
The people of this world are divided into three categories.
The first are those categorized as Sheep. Sheep have to be taken care of. They have to be protected from predators of all shapes and sizes. Most of the people in the world are sheep. That is to say they go through their life totally oblivious to what is happening around them and if they are not protected by someone or some thing different than their fellow sheep, they are injured or killed off by predators.
Wolves are the segment of the population that consists of predators. These predators that exist to feed off the sheep. Wolves go after sheep for food or fun. The damage caused by wolves is not limited to just what the wolf needs to survive. For the wolf it is almost a bloodsport to kill, injure or just terrify sheep, singular or plural.
The final and perhaps smallest part of the population are the sheep dogs. Sheep dogs exist to protect the sheep from the wolf and any other physical danger that may arise. Sheep dogs have been known to sacrifice themselves when they are highly outnumbered by the wolves.
I suppose each of us has the ability to consciouslly decide whether to be a sheep, a wolf, or a sheep dog.
The main problem for those who become sheep, whether they reached that staus consciously or not, is there are never enough sheep dogs to protect all of the sheep every minute of every day throughout the lifetime of each sheep. Additionally, the sheep normally refuse to foot the bill for the cost of 24 and 7 sheep dogs. When it comes to finances, the sheep are always prepared to sacrifice some other member of the flock to hold down costs. Although some sheep often use the following battle cry "for the good of the lambs" when they try to interest the flock to increase their protective blankets.
The first are those categorized as Sheep. Sheep have to be taken care of. They have to be protected from predators of all shapes and sizes. Most of the people in the world are sheep. That is to say they go through their life totally oblivious to what is happening around them and if they are not protected by someone or some thing different than their fellow sheep, they are injured or killed off by predators.
Wolves are the segment of the population that consists of predators. These predators that exist to feed off the sheep. Wolves go after sheep for food or fun. The damage caused by wolves is not limited to just what the wolf needs to survive. For the wolf it is almost a bloodsport to kill, injure or just terrify sheep, singular or plural.
The final and perhaps smallest part of the population are the sheep dogs. Sheep dogs exist to protect the sheep from the wolf and any other physical danger that may arise. Sheep dogs have been known to sacrifice themselves when they are highly outnumbered by the wolves.
I suppose each of us has the ability to consciouslly decide whether to be a sheep, a wolf, or a sheep dog.
The main problem for those who become sheep, whether they reached that staus consciously or not, is there are never enough sheep dogs to protect all of the sheep every minute of every day throughout the lifetime of each sheep. Additionally, the sheep normally refuse to foot the bill for the cost of 24 and 7 sheep dogs. When it comes to finances, the sheep are always prepared to sacrifice some other member of the flock to hold down costs. Although some sheep often use the following battle cry "for the good of the lambs" when they try to interest the flock to increase their protective blankets.
Illegal Confiscation of Firearms in New Orleans
This post includes the main points of a message I forwarded to each Florida Senator and to my Congressman, Dave Weldon:
Dear Senator or Congressman,
In the article below, Deputy Chief Warren Riley from the New Orleans Police Department states: "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
This mans own police officers are seen on national television looting a Wal Mart store. While looting, they were shown in uniform and wearing sidearms.
The situation as deacribed below is totally unsatisfactory. I am a police officer in Florida and these people, such as Deputy Chief Riley, are using their position to further their personal agendas. And while doing so, they are violating the civil rights of honest and law abiding citzens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Educates World On Need For Owning Guns
by Erich Pratt
"All our operators are busy right now. Please remain on the line and an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us."
Can you imagine any words more horrifying after dialing 9-1-1? Your life's in danger, but there's no one available to help you.
For several days in September, life was absolutely terrifying for many New Orleans residents who got stranded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There were no operators... there were no phone calls being handled.
Heck, there was no 9-1-1. Even if the phone lines had been working, there were no police officers waiting to be dispatched.
Hundreds of New Orleans police officers had fled the city. Some took their badges and threw them out the windows of their cars as they sped away. Others participated in the looting of the city.
While there were many officers who acted honorably -- even apprehending dangerous thugs while grieving the loss of their own family members -- most residents were forced to fend for themselves.
Many did so successfully, using their own firearms, until New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass III issued the order to confiscate their guns.
Anti-gun zealots confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens
On September 8, several news outlets began reporting that officials in New Orleans were confiscating firearms... not from looters, but from law-abiding citizens who legally owned firearms!
"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."
It was like a scene out of the former Soviet Union or Communist China.
The Associated Press quoted Compass, the police commissioner, as saying, "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."
Well, there you have it. Given the chance, gun control advocates will always implement their real agenda -- confiscation of firearms from everyone... except the police!
ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.
Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."
Many never would have expected it -- confiscating firearms from decent people who were relying on those firearms to protect themselves from the looters.
It was an outrageous order -- one that should not have been obeyed. There was no constitutional authority for the directive, and it ignored the fact that many good people had already used firearms to successfully defend their lives and property.
Guns were saving lives and protecting property prior to the confiscation order
As flood waters started rising in New Orleans, a wave of violence rolled through the city.
"It was pandemonium for a couple of nights," said Charlie Hackett, a New Orleans resident. "We just felt that when [looters] got done with the stores, they’d come to the homes."
Hackett was right... which is why he and his neighbor, John Carolan, stood guard over their homes to ward off looters who, rummaging through the neighborhoods, were smashing windows and ransacking stores.
Armed looters did eventually come to Carolan's house and demanded his generator. But Carolan showed them his gun and they left.
No wonder then that gun stores, which weren't under water, were selling firearms at a record pace to people looking to defend themselves. "I've got people like you wouldn't believe, lots of people, coming in and buying handguns," said Briley Reed, the assistant manager of the E-Z Pawn store in Baton Rouge.
"I've even had soldiers coming in here buying guns," Reed said.
Makeshift militias patrol neighborhoods
In the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans, dozens of neighbors banded together to protect their neighborhood.
"There's about 20 or 30 guys in addition to us. We know all of them and where they are," Gregg Harris said. "People armed themselves so quickly, rallying together. I think it's why [our] neighborhood survived."
Harris isn't joking about the armaments. A gun battle erupted one afternoon between armed neighbors and looters. Two of the thugs were shot.
Since then, no more looters have bothered the neighborhood. But the neighbors aren't letting their guard down. They all take their turn keeping watch.
Gareth Stubbs sits in a rocking chair on his front porch, holding his shotgun and a bottle of bug spray.
In another home, a 74-year old mother keeps the following near the bed: her rosary, a shotgun and a 38-caliber pistol.
Vinnie Pervel and two other volunteers man a balcony-turned-watchtower with five borrowed shotguns, a pistol, a flare gun, and old AK-47 and loads of ammunition.
To be sure, many of the weapons were borrowed from neighbors who fled before the storm hit. Pervel and Harris did not have any working firearms themselves in the aftermath of the storm. But because Pervel had been keeping in contact (via phone) with neighbors who had already evacuated, he got permission to go into the vacant homes and get his neighbors' weapons.
"I never thought I'd be going into my neighbor's house and taking their guns," Pervel said. "We wrote down what gun came from what house so we can return them when they get back."
Firearms were a hot commodity
It would be an understatement to say that firearms were the hottest commodity in the days following the massive destruction. In Gulf Port, Mississippi, Ron Roland, 51, lost everything -- three homes, four cars, a bait-and-tackle shop and a boat. It was all destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Nevertheless, Roland was determined to salvage what he could amidst the rubble -- with or without police protection. And it's a good thing, too, because there would be no such thing as "police protection" in the days following the storm.
Standing guard over one of his homes with a handgun in his waistband, Roland used his firearm to stop looters from rummaging through his storm-damaged property.
Roland and his son even performed a citizen's arrest on one plunderer and then warned future thieves by posting the following message in his yard: "NO TRESPASSERS! ARMED HOMEOWNERS."
Signs like this were common throughout the Gulf Coast region in the days following Katrina.
Unfortunately, some people had to learn the hard way about the utility of keeping firearms for protection.
Water, food... but what about guns?
The managers at the Covenant Home nursing center in New Orleans were more than prepared to ride out the hurricane. They had food and supplies to last the 80 residents for more than ten days.
They had planned for every contingency... or so they thought.
"We had excellent plans. We had enough food for 10 days," said Peggy Hoffman, the home's Executive Director.
But they had no firearms. So when carjackers hijacked the home's bus and drove by the center shouting "Get out!" to the residents, they were completely helpless.
All of the residents, most of them in wheelchairs, were evacuated to other nursing homes in the state.
Hoffman says she has now learned her lesson.
Next time, "We'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot," she said.
Thank goodness someone is learning from their mistakes.
Does anyone remember Los Angeles?
We should have learned this lesson more than ten years ago when the entire country saw horrifying images coming out of Los Angeles.
If the riots of 1992 taught us anything, it is that the police can't always be there to protect us.
For several days, that city was in complete turmoil as stores were looted and burned. Motorists were dragged from their cars and beaten.
Further aggravating the situation, police were very slow in responding to the crisis. Many Guardsmen, after being mobilized to the affected areas, sat by and watched the violence because their rifles were low on ammunition.
But not everybody in Los Angeles suffered. In some of the hot spots, Korean merchants were able to successfully protect their stores with semi-automatic firearms.
In areas where armed citizens banded together for self-protection, their businesses were spared while others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.
The pictures of Korean merchants defending their stores left quite an impression on one group of people living in Los Angeles: those who had previously identified themselves as gun control advocates.
Press reports described how life-long gun control supporters were even running to gun stores to buy an item they never thought they would need -- a gun. Tragically, they were surprised (and outraged!) to learn there was a 15-day waiting period upon firearms.
Confiscating guns puts people at risk
Fast forward more than a decade, it seems that many folks still haven't learned the lessons from previous tragedies. If the Mayor and his cronies really wanted to help the decent citizens of New Orleans, they would have been issuing people firearms instead of taking them away.
These guns were the only thing that prevented many good folks from becoming victims in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Now that residents are disarmed, will the Mayor provide 24-hour, round-the-clock protection for each of these disarmed families? Will he make himself personally liable for anyone who is injured or killed as a result of being prevented from defending himself or his family?
When your life is in danger, you don't want to rely on a police force that is stretched way too thin. And the last thing you want to hear when you call 9-1-1 is, "All our operators are busy right now...."
That might just be the last thing you ever hear.
Dear Senator or Congressman,
In the article below, Deputy Chief Warren Riley from the New Orleans Police Department states: "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
This mans own police officers are seen on national television looting a Wal Mart store. While looting, they were shown in uniform and wearing sidearms.
The situation as deacribed below is totally unsatisfactory. I am a police officer in Florida and these people, such as Deputy Chief Riley, are using their position to further their personal agendas. And while doing so, they are violating the civil rights of honest and law abiding citzens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Educates World On Need For Owning Guns
by Erich Pratt
"All our operators are busy right now. Please remain on the line and an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us."
Can you imagine any words more horrifying after dialing 9-1-1? Your life's in danger, but there's no one available to help you.
For several days in September, life was absolutely terrifying for many New Orleans residents who got stranded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There were no operators... there were no phone calls being handled.
Heck, there was no 9-1-1. Even if the phone lines had been working, there were no police officers waiting to be dispatched.
Hundreds of New Orleans police officers had fled the city. Some took their badges and threw them out the windows of their cars as they sped away. Others participated in the looting of the city.
While there were many officers who acted honorably -- even apprehending dangerous thugs while grieving the loss of their own family members -- most residents were forced to fend for themselves.
Many did so successfully, using their own firearms, until New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass III issued the order to confiscate their guns.
Anti-gun zealots confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens
On September 8, several news outlets began reporting that officials in New Orleans were confiscating firearms... not from looters, but from law-abiding citizens who legally owned firearms!
"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."
It was like a scene out of the former Soviet Union or Communist China.
The Associated Press quoted Compass, the police commissioner, as saying, "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."
Well, there you have it. Given the chance, gun control advocates will always implement their real agenda -- confiscation of firearms from everyone... except the police!
ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.
Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."
Many never would have expected it -- confiscating firearms from decent people who were relying on those firearms to protect themselves from the looters.
It was an outrageous order -- one that should not have been obeyed. There was no constitutional authority for the directive, and it ignored the fact that many good people had already used firearms to successfully defend their lives and property.
Guns were saving lives and protecting property prior to the confiscation order
As flood waters started rising in New Orleans, a wave of violence rolled through the city.
"It was pandemonium for a couple of nights," said Charlie Hackett, a New Orleans resident. "We just felt that when [looters] got done with the stores, they’d come to the homes."
Hackett was right... which is why he and his neighbor, John Carolan, stood guard over their homes to ward off looters who, rummaging through the neighborhoods, were smashing windows and ransacking stores.
Armed looters did eventually come to Carolan's house and demanded his generator. But Carolan showed them his gun and they left.
No wonder then that gun stores, which weren't under water, were selling firearms at a record pace to people looking to defend themselves. "I've got people like you wouldn't believe, lots of people, coming in and buying handguns," said Briley Reed, the assistant manager of the E-Z Pawn store in Baton Rouge.
"I've even had soldiers coming in here buying guns," Reed said.
Makeshift militias patrol neighborhoods
In the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans, dozens of neighbors banded together to protect their neighborhood.
"There's about 20 or 30 guys in addition to us. We know all of them and where they are," Gregg Harris said. "People armed themselves so quickly, rallying together. I think it's why [our] neighborhood survived."
Harris isn't joking about the armaments. A gun battle erupted one afternoon between armed neighbors and looters. Two of the thugs were shot.
Since then, no more looters have bothered the neighborhood. But the neighbors aren't letting their guard down. They all take their turn keeping watch.
Gareth Stubbs sits in a rocking chair on his front porch, holding his shotgun and a bottle of bug spray.
In another home, a 74-year old mother keeps the following near the bed: her rosary, a shotgun and a 38-caliber pistol.
Vinnie Pervel and two other volunteers man a balcony-turned-watchtower with five borrowed shotguns, a pistol, a flare gun, and old AK-47 and loads of ammunition.
To be sure, many of the weapons were borrowed from neighbors who fled before the storm hit. Pervel and Harris did not have any working firearms themselves in the aftermath of the storm. But because Pervel had been keeping in contact (via phone) with neighbors who had already evacuated, he got permission to go into the vacant homes and get his neighbors' weapons.
"I never thought I'd be going into my neighbor's house and taking their guns," Pervel said. "We wrote down what gun came from what house so we can return them when they get back."
Firearms were a hot commodity
It would be an understatement to say that firearms were the hottest commodity in the days following the massive destruction. In Gulf Port, Mississippi, Ron Roland, 51, lost everything -- three homes, four cars, a bait-and-tackle shop and a boat. It was all destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Nevertheless, Roland was determined to salvage what he could amidst the rubble -- with or without police protection. And it's a good thing, too, because there would be no such thing as "police protection" in the days following the storm.
Standing guard over one of his homes with a handgun in his waistband, Roland used his firearm to stop looters from rummaging through his storm-damaged property.
Roland and his son even performed a citizen's arrest on one plunderer and then warned future thieves by posting the following message in his yard: "NO TRESPASSERS! ARMED HOMEOWNERS."
Signs like this were common throughout the Gulf Coast region in the days following Katrina.
Unfortunately, some people had to learn the hard way about the utility of keeping firearms for protection.
Water, food... but what about guns?
The managers at the Covenant Home nursing center in New Orleans were more than prepared to ride out the hurricane. They had food and supplies to last the 80 residents for more than ten days.
They had planned for every contingency... or so they thought.
"We had excellent plans. We had enough food for 10 days," said Peggy Hoffman, the home's Executive Director.
But they had no firearms. So when carjackers hijacked the home's bus and drove by the center shouting "Get out!" to the residents, they were completely helpless.
All of the residents, most of them in wheelchairs, were evacuated to other nursing homes in the state.
Hoffman says she has now learned her lesson.
Next time, "We'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot," she said.
Thank goodness someone is learning from their mistakes.
Does anyone remember Los Angeles?
We should have learned this lesson more than ten years ago when the entire country saw horrifying images coming out of Los Angeles.
If the riots of 1992 taught us anything, it is that the police can't always be there to protect us.
For several days, that city was in complete turmoil as stores were looted and burned. Motorists were dragged from their cars and beaten.
Further aggravating the situation, police were very slow in responding to the crisis. Many Guardsmen, after being mobilized to the affected areas, sat by and watched the violence because their rifles were low on ammunition.
But not everybody in Los Angeles suffered. In some of the hot spots, Korean merchants were able to successfully protect their stores with semi-automatic firearms.
In areas where armed citizens banded together for self-protection, their businesses were spared while others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.
The pictures of Korean merchants defending their stores left quite an impression on one group of people living in Los Angeles: those who had previously identified themselves as gun control advocates.
Press reports described how life-long gun control supporters were even running to gun stores to buy an item they never thought they would need -- a gun. Tragically, they were surprised (and outraged!) to learn there was a 15-day waiting period upon firearms.
Confiscating guns puts people at risk
Fast forward more than a decade, it seems that many folks still haven't learned the lessons from previous tragedies. If the Mayor and his cronies really wanted to help the decent citizens of New Orleans, they would have been issuing people firearms instead of taking them away.
These guns were the only thing that prevented many good folks from becoming victims in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Now that residents are disarmed, will the Mayor provide 24-hour, round-the-clock protection for each of these disarmed families? Will he make himself personally liable for anyone who is injured or killed as a result of being prevented from defending himself or his family?
When your life is in danger, you don't want to rely on a police force that is stretched way too thin. And the last thing you want to hear when you call 9-1-1 is, "All our operators are busy right now...."
That might just be the last thing you ever hear.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
High Fuel Costs
Senator Martinez, Senator Nelson, Congressman Weldon
Like many of my friends I want reasonably priced fuel, be it gas, diesel or heating oil.
One of our major problems is this counties inability to refine crude oil to create the amount of fuel used in this country.
I believe that it is the job of our senators and congressmen to ensure that new refineries are created that are as modern as possible.
I believe that it is your job to ensure that those seeking oil must do it it with safeguards to protect the environment.
I do not believe that it is your job to play NIMBY (not in my back yard) to the detriment of this countries ability to obtain needed fuel.
No one wants oil stuff on their beaches, yet we all drive vehicles on the road.
The federal government has aided truckers for so long we basically have no trains or ships to move mass cargos.
I want cheaper fuel, my friends want cheaper fuel, we do not care where the oil wells are drilled...they will be in sombody's back yard.
Your job is to ensure when the oil wells are drilled and the refineries are built that they are as environmentally friendly as possible for that type of heavy industry.
Like many of my friends I want reasonably priced fuel, be it gas, diesel or heating oil.
One of our major problems is this counties inability to refine crude oil to create the amount of fuel used in this country.
I believe that it is the job of our senators and congressmen to ensure that new refineries are created that are as modern as possible.
I believe that it is your job to ensure that those seeking oil must do it it with safeguards to protect the environment.
I do not believe that it is your job to play NIMBY (not in my back yard) to the detriment of this countries ability to obtain needed fuel.
No one wants oil stuff on their beaches, yet we all drive vehicles on the road.
The federal government has aided truckers for so long we basically have no trains or ships to move mass cargos.
I want cheaper fuel, my friends want cheaper fuel, we do not care where the oil wells are drilled...they will be in sombody's back yard.
Your job is to ensure when the oil wells are drilled and the refineries are built that they are as environmentally friendly as possible for that type of heavy industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)