Flabergasted

...that's me.

After reading this editorial that popped up in my Google News alerts this am.

The whole thing made sense, until the last paragraph, where Ms. Lu Ann Maciulla McNabb decides to pose her question. The bills all look good, look like they will extend gun rights, and treat gun owners the way they should be treated. What makes a church so special that someone with a valid permit to carry shouldn't be allowed to do so? I know of several instances right here in IN where guns were carried to church and no mass shootings happened.

There are also cases of legally carried weapons in churches STOPPING a mass shooting.

But that's not what I want to talk about is right here:

My question has been and continues to be, how can Virginia, the place where the worst mass tragedy in American history occurred, and which loses over 800 people every year to gun violence, continue to ignore the loss of life and create policies that leave families and communities devastated.

I'm going to assume she means the attack at Virginia Tech, where 32 people lost their lives, and I'll grant that VT was a tragedy (a tragedy that some of the laws now being proposed might have prevented...entirely possibly). However, there is no way in HELL that the massacre at VT was the worst mass tragedy in American history.

• September 11th, 2001 ring a bell. The city of New York lost more EMTs / Paramedics in one day then VT lost in students. FDNY lost 10 times as many firefighters at Ground Zero as students were lost at VT. Nearly 100 times as many innocent civilians died at Ground Zero alone.
• December 7th, 1941, a day which will live in infamy. Japanese warplanes bomb and torpedo the ships at anchor at Pearl Harbor, leading the US into WWII. 2400 citizens of this county were killed.
• July 1-3, 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg, 46,000 Service men of this country, fighting one another lost their lives over a three day period.

In the face of these things, the attack at VT pales in comparison based on pure carnage. Don't try and use emotion, especially fake emotion to get your feel good nanny state laws passed!

--Jim

Feelings instead of Facts... Again...

Dana Parsons, a columnist at the LA times wrote an editorial a couple of weeks ago in support of Sandra Hutchens, the new Sheriff of Orange County. Sheriff Hutchens has changed the requirements in regards to getting a concealed carry permit in Orange County. Many of the people who currently have a valid permit will not be able to renew their permits, becuase they do not have "suffecient need."

Forget for a second that Sandra Hutchens doesn't know jack shit about any particular individuals "need" to carry a firearm (open or conealed.) Forget for a second that she is infringing on that right which "shall not be infringed." Forget for a second that she's out of lockstep with what the county commisioners (or whatever the governing body is) want, and is out of step with what her employees (at least some of them) want.

Dana admits, in an editorial this week, that when he opened his mouth in support of Sandra Hutches, he "knew there'd be hell to pay." Only the reaction wasn't what he thought it was. Apparently not everyone who chooses to carry a firearm for self defense is a cousin humping redneck who spits 'bacco. Dana goes on to say that he got dozens of emails, and the vast majority of them did not fit into the stereotype of "gun nuts." They zeroed in on the points that Dana had made, and argued their cases on merits.

So the Pro Rights crowd argued their case on the merits, but then Dana falls back on feelings, sharing the following:

As I suggested in the last column, I get the argument. I really do.

How can anyone dispute that if confronted on the street by a criminal intent on mayhem, it's much preferable to have a way to defend yourself?

But I and other pointy-headed people just can't extend that argument as far as the other side does. Bottom line: I wouldn't feel safer knowing that untold numbers of private citizens that I pass on the street -- yes, even salt-of-the-earth types who have been trained -- are packing guns.

Dana, I'm truly sorry that you feel less safe walking down the street knowing that good people might have guns. Now I have some bad news for you, the criminals that would prey upon the good people of this country, they don't go through the trouble of getting carry permits, and they're going to carry their firearms anyway. That means that by tightening the requirements on issuance of CCW permits, you're guaranteeing that the only guns around are the ones in the hands of the bad guys. That makes no sense at all dude.

Less gun control, more criminal control.

More Stupidity from the Courts...

Let me start by saying that I don't smoke, never have, and have no real desire to start.  Maybe when I'm a grandfather, I'll take up smoking pipe (I actually like that smell....).  That being said:

I'm sorry, but if you choose to smoke, you're stupid.  In this day and age, the disadvantages of smoking far outweigh the advantages of doing so, in the same way that the disadvantages of heroine or crack far outweigh the advantages.  I personally believe that as an adult, you should have the right to make all of those choices for yourself.

I'm honestly completely in favor of legalizing marijuana, heroine, cocaine, LSD, all of it.  Provided that it is something you are doing to yourself, or it is happening between 2 consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.  The government (at any level) should not be passing legislation telling citizens how to treat their own bodies.  The government should not be forcing a ban on smoking in all restaurants, and all bars. 

That all being said, if the effects of your choices come back to haunt you some day, well, they're also your responsibility.  Suing the tobacco industry because your husband died is just plain wrong, and the lady should have been laughed out of court.  It is extremely tragic that Stuart Hess died at the age of 55, from lung cancer, it truly is.  But the man had smoked for 40 years, even after knowing the risks, and quitting several times before making the decision to go back to it.  The tobacco industry did not stick the cigarettes in the mans mouth and light them up for him.

Hopefully the decision is overturned on appeal, but somehow I'm not sure that it will be.

And to Elaine Hess for trying to hold the tobacco industries responsible because your husband made piss poor choices: EPIC FAIL!

And to the jury that found in favor of Mrs. Hess, kindly do the world a favor, and take a long walk off a short pier.

--Jim

Hope and Change...

or more of the same.

This pisses me off to no end.

As Breda mentioned overhearing:

"Why does the government assume that they are the only ones with a list?"

Legislation...

that I might actually support! More states should pass laws like this telling the federal government to get stuffed!

Stolen from No Looking Backwards.

Seen originally at Snowflakes in Hell.

--Jim

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Amen Dude!

And I'd be willing to bet that push come to shove, and the chips are down, I know how it would turn out.

Humans and Wildlife and "we know better than you" attitudes

Now, before anyone starts shouting otherwise, I have no issue with wildlife, and enjoy many of the scenes of nature. But when something like this happens, I get royally pissed off.

Now, for those of you who don't realize it, I lived the first couple of years of my life in Jefferson Twp. NJ, and then moved even further out in the country with my parents and brother. Although us seeing bear at home was a relatively rare event, it did happen, and it happened far more frequently around the county and area that I was really comfortable with.

Whenever the hunting community in the state would manage to get the state government to approve the bear hunt for the year, it would get canceled at the last minute, because hunting was cruel and inhumane.

It was so bad that you actually had to worry about protection yourself, and your loved ones if a bear invaded your yard, or even worse, your house.

The fact that the NJSPCA feels the need to charge the owner of the dog with a crime is ludicrous, and shows just how far over the edge NJ has finally fallen.

I'm glad I moved to the land of the free over a year ago...I'm not sure I could ever live as a subject again.

--Jim

Glad I got out of there...

Apparently New York was a little upset that NJ and Cali got better grades from the Brady Bunch the last time around. I'm actually glad I got out of NJ because of the attack on gun rights involved in that state.

So the State Assembly passed this kind of crap.

Can some one out there please tell me how any of this stuff is going to fight crime?

Copy / Paste of the entire ILA alert.

Anti-Gun Bills Head to State Senate in New York!

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Make Your Voice Heard Today! This week, several anti-gun measures passed the State Assembly and are now heading to the State Senate, where they will most likely be referred to the State Senate Codes Committee. Assembly Bill 6525A, sponsored by State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-88), would create new sales and reporting requirements for licensed firearms dealers and require dealers to carry a minimum of $1,000,000 of liability insurance. AB6525A passed by a vote of 85 to 53. Assembly Bill 9819A, authored by State Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-16), would ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "microstamping" technology. The bill requires all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state to microstamp an array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol on the firing pin, which would copy the characters onto the cartridge case upon firing. AB9819A passed by a vote of 90 to 43. Assembly Bill 7331, sponsored by State Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-61), would expand the ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons”, as well as require the ballistic “fingerprinting”(registration) of all semi-automatic “assault weapons” owned prior to a specified date. AB7331 passed by a vote of 85 to 46. Assembly Bill 3451, introduced by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would expand New York’s failed ballistic imaging program. AB3451 passed by a vote of 79 to 49. Assembly Bill 2772, authored by State Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D-3), would ban the sale, use or possession of any firearm with a bore diameter .50 caliber or larger. This bill would require gun owners in possession of these firearms to surrender them to law enforcement. Assembly Bill 829, sponsored by State Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-4), would prohibit the sale of any handgun that doesn’t contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of the handgun. AB829 passed by a vote of 86 to 46. Assembly Bill 76, sponsored by State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-20), would require the mandatory storage of all firearms. AB76 passed by a vote of 95 to 35. Assembly Bill 3447, introduced by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would ban the sale or possession of frangible ammunition. AB3447 passed by a vote of 85 to 40. It is critical that all of these measures are voted down in order to protect the Second Amendment rights of all gun-owners in New York State. Please contact your State Senator today through the Senate switchboard at (518) 455-2800 and respectfully urge him or her to vote "NO" on these NRA-opposed measures. To find your State Senator, please click here.

Hmmm... Pretty Bad when your own DA is against you!

Nutter, you really are a nut aren't you! I can't believe you thought the law abiding gun owners in the state would take this sitting down, and I can't believe you actually think this will do anything to help stop your crime rates from increasing!

How about you lock up the criminals, and stop punishing innocent gun owners? And really, if you're going to pass some stupid laws, wouldn't it at least make sense to check with the DA before you do so? I mean, how embarrassing is it to hear that your laws are unconstitutional, from your own DA?!?!??!?!

LOL. This actually brings a smile to my face, after the anger I felt when he signed the laws.

My only question now is, when will the DA arrest the mayor for violating the law?

Castle Doctrine - Why do we need it?

It's crap like this that pisses me off. Castle Doctrine is something that is important, and needs to be passed post haste (on that note, does anyone know if it has been passed in IN?)

If a freaking goblin were to break in my door in the middle of the night, he deserves whatever he gets. That's his problem, and that should extend to cover the financial part of it. Being drunk is NOT an excuse for not knowing what you're doing!

And while we're at it, why does everyone feel the need to sue everyone else? Your comment hurt my feelings, I'll sue you. I used the drill the wrong way and put a hole in my foot, and I sue the manufacturer! What the is wrong with all of this?

H/T to Sebastian, over at Snowflakes in Hell for sharing the link with us.