Orlando Victims Did Not Die Because They Were Gay--They Were Unarmed!
Tomorrow I plan to visit a gun store(s) to add one or two firearms to my collection.
This retired state worker can afford to since I inherited some money.
Thinking of a 9mm carbine since some day it may be very hard to find or afford .223-cal AR15 ammo.
Thinking 9mm and .38-cal. ammo will hopefully always be out there somewhere.
I will build up my ammo hoard regardless.
Left over from my corrections career and semi-retired security guard days, I have three revolver speed loaders that will hold preferable .357 Magnum rounds as well as .38s.
The revolver I seek fires both like one I used to have before I traded it for a .45 I no longer have either.
PC old dino ain't.
I even keep both a shotgun and a Bible in reach my bed. Not to mention six inches of steel in an old-fashioned Italian switchblade.
Obama has to hate how I cling to certain things. What can I say?
I'm just an old dino. And allosaurs were North Americans.
This retired state worker can afford to since I inherited some money.
Thinking of a 9mm carbine since some day it may be very hard to find or afford .223-cal AR15 ammo.
Thinking 9mm and .38-cal. ammo will hopefully always be out there somewhere.
I will build up my ammo hoard regardless.
Left over from my corrections career and semi-retired security guard days, I have three revolver speed loaders that will hold preferable .357 Magnum rounds as well as .38s.
The revolver I seek fires both like one I used to have before I traded it for a .45 I no longer have either.
PC old dino ain't.
I even keep both a shotgun and a Bible in reach my bed. Not to mention six inches of steel in an old-fashioned Italian switchblade.
Obama has to hate how I cling to certain things. What can I say?
I'm just an old dino. And allosaurs were North Americans.
I'm a naughty old dino.
The safety on my pocket pistol is all that keeps a cocked hammer from dropping behind a chambered round.
Hear, hear. It would be good if our government wasn't setting up more kill zones of that nature too.
Regards,
O.A.
I cannot imaging shooting even 20 people in a confined space that were coming after me.
The meek will inherit nothing that some determined friend doesn't provide. The Democrats want to be the "friends" of the weak by making everyone but criminals weak.... then come the actions of unchecked power.
I also have a fair collection of non-projectile weapons (learned these at an early age). In Jersey it is most likely better to use one of those that a pistol or rifle. There would be no question that it was self defense and that the attacker was close and you knew his intent. Actually, here in jersey am not sure even that is true. Probably need a wound or two to really make the case.
Anyway, If I'm not mistaken, in Florida, you cannot carry into any establishment that sells or dispenses alcohol, it is a felony (I think tha's right, but haven't been to FLA in several years).
Remember all. Islam is a religion of peace and makes me think of the movie Mars Attacks. They said they come in peace as they are wiping out the US cabinet!!!
I resorted to carrying a hunting knife strapped upside-down inside a pants leg!
Unforgettable were the two dudes who came to do me harm inside a laundromat with no back door until one shook his head to cause the other to also chicken out.
My plan was to use some Marine Corp bayonet training on the first to open the door. I could have wound up in prison.
My first gun was a H&K .380 and it felt a lot better carrying than a knife.
Now when you buy a pistol in Alabama, you only have to wait for the salesman to check you out with a phone call and you have a new gun in 15 minutes or so.
You spend way more time selecting which one you want to buy.
Tomorrow I'm pretty sure I'll be at an indoor range I like shooting a new revolver or a carbine or both.
Today I bought a nice.357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver with a four-inch barrel and a very comfortable rubber handle.
My grown son and I went to a range and tried it out. First we (me 12 shots, he 12 shots) fired a 50 round box of .38s to get a feel for the weapon and for me to retrain myself on how to use a speed loader.
When I fired that first .357 round, I could not help but yell "Woooo!" I made a similar noised after I fired the other five rounds. Quite powerful!
I did not care for any 9mm carbines I saw at two places.
My son knows about a large gun shop 30 miles from home. We will take a look on this day next week..
and gets his head blown off before he can get out the "bar" part of it. That would be my definition of winning the war on terror.
I feel real under armed from those here. All I have is a single shot .22 air rifle. Unless lucky and shooting into an eye socket, not much stopping power. In the village where liberty has a tightening noose about it, that air rifle is illegal to own. It would be illegal to shoot it in my basement because the law says that no projectile can legally land within the village limits. They blank out since kids throw stones, baseballs, footballs, and even shoot basketballs, all projectiles landing within the village limits.
Say, maybe darts! Just be sure you also have one of those hanging targets with circles surrounding a bull's eye.
I've only taken aim from a prison tower at any real person. That was an inmate who decided that he did not want to try and escape after all. That was with an AR-15 by the way.
Can't remember if I held my breath or not at any point, but I was yelling at that pinhead off and on.
I caught him running from a work release van and trying to scramble up a steep grade behind the sally port of my back gate tower.
First he froze and slowly looked back to find me holding him in my rifle sights. He was done.
I have a framed commendation for that and an earlier one for stopping two inmates from making an attempt on a Labor Day dressed in baseball uniforms.
I think it was their intention to hitchhike. All inmate baseball team uniforms were destroyed after that. Well, they play softball, actually.
I don't! Ha! Ha! Dino made a funny.
Depending on the revolver think about 38+P. ad well I always bought the .357 version so I could load all three power levels and the Glasers. The last a long barrel Taurus S&W design in Stainless Steel. It's almost worth finding or fabricating a detachable stock.
Or maybe she is shooting.
Can't recall. Good night.
This is all about the governments inability to do something simple due to all the various special needs people that have invaded our culture. No one wants to risk "speaking truth" for fear of being spit-roasted as "mean", or "unfair".
A good 1911 is always nice to have. For most people I would suggest staying with a couple of calibers like 9m, 45, or even 40. For a smaill rifle since most people can't get 22LR, well switch over to .17HMR. It shoots faster (1950fps), it shoots flatter and you can still find the ammo. I love my .17HMR with a bull barrel.
As far as AR rifles, it really depends on what you like to shoot, 300AC, 223, 7.62x39, 308 or 300wm and then of course your budget. AK's are fairly cheap and very customizable as are AR15's, and AR10's. If you step up to an AR chambered in the 300wm you will step up in price to 5 or 6k, but they are nice shooting rifles. AR15's are like the barbie doll's of rifles with a lot of changeable parts to doll it up (just don't over do it). Whatever you do, look around at your law enforcement persons as to what they shoot. Always staying with a caliber that law enforcement shoot is not a bad idea. Once you settle on your choice, stock up on about 3 to 4k rounds of each.
Practice, practice and practice. After practice,stop by the store and pick up what you just shot and rotate your inventory. Buying ammo a box or two at a time is perfect for a lot of people. Just don't HOARD your ammo.
When I saw activist libtards of the Occupy Movement carrying anti-Jew signs, I was all like "WHAT?!?!?"
The second group that flocked to Democrats around the time of Wilson/Roosevelt and for some good reasons are also in the same two groups. Young and old. There the differences are thinner but the older are more church going and often support Republicans while the younger are....(see above). Anyone making the fatal mistake of sterotyping the word before profiling, are just pitiable but don't waste a lot of time they aren't worth it. Their other traits are pro left wing fascist.
http://jpfo.org/
That said, though, in fact, the nightclub did have an armed security guard, a policeman working in the private sector. He failed to achieve target acquisition during the three hours of the incident.
Also, if 20 other people had had guns, then 50 deaths could have been the outcome. Bullets would be flying all over the place. Before you reply with calls for training, consider the Empire State Building shooting of a few years ago. The only innocent victims were the people shot by police - and the police are trained.
No one used any other weapon, no vodka bottles, no chairs. No one attacked back. This was a soft target, not much different than a school, really.
It is instructive to look at the holes remaining in that wall, as well. They teach us that we are responsible for every bullet until it comes to rest. Yet some of those, hitting at ground level or near roof level, could not have been accurately fired, or even aimed. The term "spray and pray" is used when you are outnumbered and you have a target-rich environment. But these cops were presumably aiming at a single individual, with a rifle to identify him, and yet they hit more innocents than anything else.
So what if a bunch of people inside the club were to have done the same thing? Does it make it any less lethal if it is the cops doing it?
(pic at http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/2016... and more about friendly fire here http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now...
But he is good. I was tossing clay pigeons out there and he was bring them down with a pistol. Almost all of them. Myself and other friends have remarked, "Glad he is on our side!"
My opinion is that individuals can do a better job defending themselves in such a situation if they are not disarmed by government that claims they are being disarmed for the greater good.
The results in this case are 103 casualties. The "security" was a failure for those people.
The nightclub hired what it considered the best available security, an "off duty" police officer. That the security guard failed in his duties speaks to many issues, but you have not identified one of them.
Ironic if you consider all the pulses that stopped there.
(As opposed to the kind of fire that shoots bullets).
Here just came another thought.
I'm thinking of that security guard and some repeated behavior exhibited by the South Vietnamese Army.
Cripes! Now I'm thinking of Monty Python's King Arthur: "Run away! Run away!"
I need to go to bed!
It's a real boomer inside a building. Imagine the psychological effect on terrorist victims.
People inside the enclosed Pulse were likely stunned by each and every shot and there were a lot of them one after the other..
"That's not like it is in the movies," he said and I agreed that I've long thought that movie indoor gunfights appear stray from audio reality.
":You know what people in real indoor gunfights hear?" my son added before he said, "EEEEEE!"
I told him that's all I could hear when a gun went off in an enclosed area back around 1982.
That deafening "EEEEEE! took a couple of minutes to clear up.
I could relate to that happening (due to an artillery shell) to the Tom Hanks character on Omaha Beach when I saw Saving Private Ryan years later.
It might be why I have tinnitus now.
That would confuse people who aren't used to it and make it hard to coordinate a response.
He have known what to expect and how to herd people like so many frightened sheep..
Very loud music and flashing lights all over the place too. Very hard to defend oneself with a lot of others packed into the room also wildly moving around.
Maybe we should all wear very accurate plastic gun replicas so a perp really doesnt know who is armed and who isnt. The deterrent would be beetter than bullets flying all around. If I had a gun there, the chances I could hit the perp instead of random other people isnt high. Its not like I am trained and practice all the time.
Yes. Under FL law as 15 years ago when I lived there you were not supposed concealed carry while drunk, which seems like a reasonable rule. I think there will always cases and situations where criminals get away with ghastly crimes. I can't envision a utopian world where we've finally done away with mass murder.
1) Stop disarming our citizens. The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
2) Bring back and actively pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases. If you are convicted of murder, you die. End of story. No endless appeals. No rotting in prison. No such thing as a "life" sentence. Prisons are for rehabilitating the person so they can rejoin society as a productive member. If their crimes are such that rehabilitation is deemed impossible, what good is it to anyone to wall them away?
3) Actively pursue policies based on true equality and rights. Murder is an extreme response to some other problem or motive. We need to address these other motives - regardless of their origin. We need to recognize that while the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it only does so to the point that that religion acknowledges the superiority of law of the Constitution of the United States. Any religion that actively seeks to supplant the Constitution with something else is not compatible and needs to be designated as such.
4) Tighten our immigration policies. We need to restrict entry into this nation to people who actually respect the Constitution of the United States. Whether guest or potential immigrant, visitors get a one-strike policy.
Oh, each inmate on death row gets his own color TV due to some class action.
This is supposed to help them keep up with stuff that may pertain to their particular death sentence being dragged out on appeal, on appeal, on appeal . . .
I'm actually not seeking anyone's approval. I'm more of a Roark wannabe in that regard.
It's odd that I agree with your conclusions (e.g. not restricting guns and not having to answer bogus questions like "what about mass murder?" and "nobody needs....") and I agree with 1 out of 4 of your suggested related policies, yet you still respond curtly. It seems like people in favor of less gov't are a circular firing squad.
"I agree with 1 out of 4 of your suggested related policies, yet you still respond curtly."
I am waiting for an explanation into why you feel the way you do. You left the conversation hanging by asserting something and then offering nothing further: "Those reasons are in some ways related to why I disagree with #2, #3, and #4." (emphasis added) What are "those reasons" you refer to?
"It seems like people in favor of less gov't are a circular firing squad."
What a random sentence! You haven't proposed anything with a connection to "less government". You throw out a statement not only accusing me ("some people") of wronging you (putting you before the "firing squad") but somehow also being to blame for not reading your mind! If you want me to see things from your perspective, give me something to work with.
This point is totally true. I try to keep the answers short, slightly longer than a tweet. It's quantity rather than quality. If it doesn't fit in a paragraph, I just say "disagree with #2, #3, and #4," which is totally useless information from me, unless you're doing an opinion survey. I wouldn't do that if I were talking to you in person or writing an article, but b/c it's goofing off on the computer so... I see why it's dumb now.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I completely ignore Twitter. Most of the really good policy discussions and explanations take significantly more than 130 characters. More to the point, I philosophically object to any medium which encourages the type of sound-bite driven, meaningless media communications we are inundated with in this day and age. To me, every effort at communication deserves the time to treat the recipient like a human being, hoping they will do the same in return.
A sincere thank you for your attention!
My PC and a cheap cell phone is enough.
Well, I also like books with paper pages that you turn.
Second, we know for a fact that hundreds of people today were wrongfully convicted of murder. We have no idea about the past because no state will allow an appeal for an executed inmate. You cannot undo an execution. So, two lines of logic speak against the death penalty: it is misused; and it cannot be remediated.
Third, color TVs or whatever, the basic claim is that people in prison should suffer more than they do. Imprisonment is suffering. Make it as pleasant as you can, you cannot make it the same as not being in prison. Prison is pain. That is its only effect. That is why prisons are unmanageable. You are torturing people every minute of every day. ... and again, often for crimes that they did not commit...
And fourth, as for the crimes that they did commit, what possible punishment undoes the initial harm they caused? None. It is not metaphysically possible. Therefore, punishment is irrational.
Fifth, very few people came here come here knowing the Constitution. Very few Americans know it. When my grandparents came here, they had to learn English first so that they could take citizenship classes. It was never the other way around, that we taught Americanism on the shores of Europe and allowed in only those who passed a test. (It is an interesting proposal, but it was never that way before and that includes your own ancestors, of course.)
Sixth, religion is tough. The Supreme Court ruled in the matter of polygamy that you have a right to believe what you want, but no right to do what you want. The opinion in that case said that if we allow polygamy, someone will claim a religious right to human sacrifice. So, we have civil law. That said, in the US military, the chaplain's flag flies higher than the US flag while services are being held, as a nod to the fact that we recognize that moral law supersedes civil law. While St. Paul claimed that we must obey the authorities because God put them here to rule over us, that line in the book of Romans flies in the face of everything else in the Bible. The Bible is all about civil disobedience. You have to accept that on its own terms.
Finally, when my grandparents learned about the separation of church and state, they stopped going to church. Where they came from it was a civic requirement. Even today, in Switzerland (among other places) the government collects taxes for the churches -- which, in fact, many American colonies and early states did also. Just sayin'... I might agree with the legal subordination of churches to civil law - taxing them, for one thing - but I am not sure that most Americans (and certainly not most conservatives) would agree.
Deterrence is probably impossible to quantify, but maybe the above scenario is less likely to occur because the potential perpetrators decided not to beat you up in the first place because the jail time just isn't worth it." If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime" comes to mind.
Most "true victims" place themselves in harm's way by habit. Among the "pure victims" are children who are abused by family members.
You confuse prevention with punishment. If you wake up and find a stranger in your home, shooting first (and not even bothering with the questions) is the proper response. Capturing them and imprisoning them is irrational.
Prison as we know it today is a recent invention, going back to about 1780. Before that, people were held in prison before punishment. For the past 200+ years, we have made prison the punishment. Prison as we know it today was invented by Quakers, the political progressives of their day.
Your opinions were not informed by facts but by a mass-mediated mythology sold in the streams of conservativism. (Other political people consume different myths.) On the other hand criminologists study crime. Victimology is the most fruitful aspect of criminology that I found in the four years from my associate's to my master's.
"... unreal view of crime that is fed to you by the mass media"? How absurd and condescending! My view of crime is by first hand experience from being a victim and by knowing other victims. You have nothing to offer other than let the perps go because their crimes can't be undone. If this is what you learned in your criminology studies, then you wasted your time and money. You have nothing of value to offer.
I do not know what your victimization was, but it is not relevant to the discussion because pretty much everyone has been a victim of crime of one kind or another, including me. Perceiving yourself as a victim does not give you special insight. If anything, it clouds your judgement.
I've been a victim of the criminal minded in several ways, but I chose to use the "beating" scenario in my example above because I have been gang beaten for simply walking down the street on an otherwise beautiful day. Never saw it coming.
Not FOR punishment. AS punishment.
That is what I was taught at the Alabama Department of Corrections Academy in Selma, Alabama, during the eight week class of "'82-2."
As they are being punished, there are rehabilitation programs available.
Of course there are those who learn nothing and return to prison.
I saw that many times for 21 years. At least they were off the streets decent people walk one.
A quick story: Some years back I had a contract to do some coding for the Chevron refinery just north of Oakland, California. Some local workers took me out to lunch one afternoon and we drove through what appeared to be a very nice working class neighborhood. Nice ranch homes, lawns, flower gardens, etc. Except I noticed all the houses had bars (decorative as possible) over all the windows and doors. I asked my hosts what kind of "style" was that and the answer I got back was the gangs and criminals own the area after dark and the people have to protect themselves as best they can. Free America, huh? Things aren't the same as they used to be in my neighborhood, but I hope they don't get that bad.
Imagine the home invasions that even bars won't even then stop.
I recall a news photo I took of a hole in a cinder block wall when I was a reporter for seven years during the 70s. A thief found a way past a drug store's entrance security system with a simple sledgehammer.
Sledgehammers and cutting tools will be all gangs of thugs will need to get at families without firearms.
Why would a gang need a single gun in that scenario?
You know, here's another thought on that neighborhood I went through. The so-called free people had to lock themselves behind bars while the thugs ran free as they pleased. Something wrong with that by my reckoning.
Edit add: I happen to notice that many of those "oh so wise more than equal elite betters" have armed security personnel protecting them at all times. Maybe their disarmament programs should start with those closest to them.
(My power has been out since roughly 3 PM central time).
I agree with everything he said.
OK, with all that said, I have a totally off topic question for you. You've mentioned in other posts that you enjoy working with electronic circuits. I haven't studied digital electronics since the '80s and I have an interesting problem I know there is a solution for, but it escapes me at this time. I'm short on time right now so without going into the story as to all the 'what fors" here's a simple illustration of the problem: Imagine I have to detect railroad wheels going down a track. There is a proximity detector built into the track and is eventually input to a digital input of a simple computer system. The prox has some hysteresis, but signals from a fast train can be missed. The problem probably has a number of causes, but the main cause I believe is the signal becomes "faster" than the computer can detect it. I'm the software engineer and I have written some very "tight" code, but it isn't fast enough. I recall from my past studies a device or circuit can be had to receive a fast input pulse but latch up its output for a longer time. That is, if I can get a device or circuit than can receive a (hypothetically) 100 micro-sec pulse and hold its output high for 5 to 10 milliseconds, that would fix the hardware end of the problem. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
This doesn't agree with me. I don't mind other people thinking it's sporting, but I find it grating.
"I'm the software engineer and I have written some very "tight" code, but it isn't fast enough. "
It sounds like you're polling and don't have the option of making it a hardware interrupt. You need a one-shot circuit. http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/w...
Another thought I have is to use aliasing: that's the thing where when your sampling rate is < 2 * freq (Nyquist criterion), and you see a signal that looks like a difference between the actual signal and the sampling rate because of the way the samples line up. If you know the train speed and the wheel separation (big ifs), could you set a sampling rate so you're guaranteed to sample when at least one wheel is on the sensor?
THANK YOU for the link to the monostable multivibrator. That is exactly what was on my mind but just couldn't remember the details or the name (don't get old, it sucks). I am polling as you guessed because the SBC being used does not have an interrupt available. I wish it did. The train speed is unknown and the wheel separation car to car is variable - sort of. Actually, there are two prox switches and train speed is determined by the timing of a given wheel moving between them. There's a lot going on in the code, but at the appropriate moments it is dedicated to the digital inputs and they can be easily "scanned" and checked in less than 4 milliseconds. I can speed that up a bit, but isn't worth the trouble at this time. Theoretically, the system as coded should be able to handle train speeds up to 40mph but I believe the prox switch inputs will fail before that. The track it's being tested on right now will never have a train that fast so it's not a problem, but I want to be ready for future installations.
On the other hand, police reports show that many victims are repeat targets. The same people fall for different frauds, for instance. Clearly, some other dynamic is at work.
Similarly, we do not excuse domestic violence, but solving it requires working with both the batterer and his victim. Both must be healed to break the cycle of violence that otherwise will be passed on to another generation.
There's a scene in The Fountainhead where Gus Webb and the bad guys are bitching about Howard Roark. "You're just mad because he doesn't notice you." "He'd notice me if I bashed his head in with a club." "No he wouldn't. He would just blame himself for not getting out of the way of the club."
Long decades ago, I got a job as a dispatcher for a trucking company in my neighborhood. One night, instead of making the bank drop, I locked up the office, went home to shower and change and came to back to finish the bills of lading. When I came back, the cash was gone. The place was old; locks or not, it was a sieve. Blame the thief if you want, I did not. It was my fault.
I suspect many victims and perpetrators are involved in crime because they're involved in an underground enterprise like undocumented labor, drugs, or the sex trade. When a problem occurs, they have to solve it themselves. They don't have the option of calling the police.
If I had checked the premises, I might have found the perp hiding in the bushes. Again, my bad....
A hundred years or more ago, there was a high official who visited a prison in Paris. Every inmate he met complained they were innocent and deserved to be set free.
Then there was just one who hung his head in shame and said he deserved to in prison for the crimes he committed.
The official told the warden to get that guy out of that prison before he corrupted the others.
I noticed during my 21-year career that few inmates who did not act like punk-assed thugs
did not also cry about their innocence.
But it's not a corrections officer's job to be concerned with that. It's all about custody,
control and keeping the little darlings safe so they don't hurt each other.
Transport officers (I also did that for while) take them to the hospital when they stick shanks into each other or really get sick.
And when visitors of all sorts come we look out for them too. And the prison chaplain and the shrinks and the GED school teachers and the get a trade teachers and the nurses and doctors and dentists. Oh, yeah, those four maintenance employees. Almost forgot about them, walking through inmates left and right.
I'm glad all that's behind me, though.
I had grandparents come over from Sweden.
They were Lutherans.
Despicable me is enjoying an inheritance because that grandpa and a great uncle built something Obama says they didn't.
Polygamy makes me think of Salt Lake City for some reason.
I read my Bible sometimes.
So the solution is to get rid of prisons? Okay...
"Second, we know for a fact that hundreds of people today were wrongfully convicted of murder."
If the only system you will accept is perfect, you will accept no system at all. I look at the crime rates - especially violent crime - and they have only gone up since we started restricting the death penalty. There used to be a significant deterrence effect in the use of the death penalty. No longer. (And BTW - for murder convictions, the rate from 1978 is 117 exonerations from a pool of nearly 1750 convictions - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.c.... I don't know where you're getting your "hundreds" figure.)
"Imprisonment is suffering." "punishment is irrational."
And you would argue that the crimes do not merit such? I most vehemently disagree. There must be a rule of law which is fair and impartial and just or there is no law. You mistake the purpose of suffering and punishment. The whole usefulness of suffering is to discourage future repeated action! It has nothing to do with recompense for the initial act. You are correct in that no action once taken may be undone, but to use this as an excuse to deny or override the consequences of one's actions is to deny law and justice itself. It is to deny the reality of choice and consequence.
"very few people came here come here knowing the Constitution."
Ignorance of a law doesn't absolve one's self from consequences. Claiming that one did not know about gravity does nothing to absolve them from the responsibility to fall to the ground if they attempt to fly by jumping off a building. Does it take effort to learn about the Constitution? Of course. Just as it takes effort to learn of anything. But to excuse any effort out of hand simply because it is inconvenient is ridiculous. What we are really arguing is whether or not there is sufficient justification - sufficient value - in vetting potential entrants to our nation based on their willingness to adhere to our civil code. I hold to the notion that in the wake of the growing threats to our Constitution it is more important than ever.
"The Bible is all about civil disobedience."
Wow. You must be reading a very different Bible than the one I'm familiar with. Christ subjected Himself to the Roman authorities even though his trial and conviction were illegal. What the Bible actually says is that one should stand up for what is right and that God will hold the authorities culpable in His own due time.
My point here was more about religious systems which are specifically at odds with the Constitution - namely Sharia law under Islam. I don't see many Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, or others complaining about how their religious rights are getting trampled by the Constitution - by government edicts such as the ACA most certainly, but not the Constitution itself. Islam is a wholly different mentality, however, because it attempts to place both secular and religious punishment and enforcement under one roof and in the hands of the clerics rather than a secular authority. That ideology is incompatible with the Constitution. A Christian can excommunicate a member for failing to adhere to standards, but they have no power to deprive that individual of life or property like Islam.
"I might agree with the legal subordination of churches to civil law"
As I just mentioned, religious organizations in the United States are legally subordinate to local, State, and Federal government. The only punishments they can mete out pertain to membership within their respective organizations. As to taxation, the reason that one is completely wrong is because it is an impingement on speech. Progressives would love to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious organizations because it could tax them into oblivion or use the tax rates themselves as punishments if the respective religions sided contrary to the government especially on moral issues like gay marriage or abortion. We can see it happening right now in Canada where the government's "hate crime" laws prohibit speech - even from the pulpit. Such actions violate the rights of men to choose to believe in what they see as leading them to "happiness" (Declaration of Independence) and act in accordance with that belief. I frequently wonder whether or not the real reason income taxes were invented had nothing to do with revenue, but were actually instituted in order to control the populace and circumvent the First Amendment.
It's about The Shawshank Redemption which I saw. That movie is not beloved because the indeed admirable hero was innocent.
It was revealed during his trial that he reloaded his gun while shooting his wife and her lover at least a couple times more, I think I recall,, which made his crime of passion even worse for less passionate and more vindictive..
And I, too, saw Shawshank (edited). I thought that in that one the protagonist was innocent and that he actually met the real perpetrator, but the perpetrator was trapped and terminated by the Warden who recognized the loss of his income. I don't remember the crime part coming up, but its been quite a while since I saw it.
I thought for sure the movie that would come up was "The Green Mile". That one's all about death sentences...
Thought the star's character being guilty was refreshing.
Now I'm wondering if I should watch that movie again.
You need to defend yourself and protect your loved ones. Anyone who breaks into your home while you are in it is not rational. It is not a time for discussion.
It is not a matter of punishing the perpetrator. The other person is irrelevant: it could be a bear ... You (and your loved ones) are the primary consideration.
That said, we do not have guns here in our home. I could get a permit pretty easily, this being Texas. But the choice is mine (and thine) and that's all there is to it.
I do not see a causal relationship between the increase in gun ownership and the drop in violent crime. Crime has been falling for decades. I attribute that to birth control and (ultimately) to legally available pregnancy terminations.
And regarding guns, you're not saying people should not be armed. You're just saying it is not a primary factor in decreasing crime.
Great rid of guns and gangs of punks will be kicking in doors all over the place.
In that respect guns reduce crime.
I agree with your points about locking people up being wasteful. My reason is I think criminals are deterred more by the probability of getting caught than what happens years later in the unlikely event they're caught.
When I think of crime and punishment, the entire purpose is to give the perpetrator a chance to change their ways. If the system does not act as an institute of learning and facilitate rehabilitation of the subject, it is failing in its primary goal. Every sentence should be geared around the potential rehabilitation of the subject. If the crime committed, however, is so heinous that no rehabilitation is deemed possible, the system is acknowledging the inability of the subject to be rehabilitated at all. In such cases, then, a system of rehabilitation is insufficient and the death penalty steps in. But I see no value either to society or the criminal in being incarcerated for life: there is no possibility of rehabilitation - no possibility of again becoming a productive member of society. I agree that this is a serious decision which should not be made lightly or considered for anything other than grave crimes, but I don't believe taking it off the table furthers the goal of rehabilitation at all and certainly eliminates any potential for a prohibitive effect on potential perpetrators - a noted downside.
My wife worked at DoJ in DC 20 years ago. She said she mentioned that some policy they were discussing does not thing for rehabilitation. They referred her to the mission statement for the federal prison system, and there's nothing in there about rehabilitation. This is so wrong, not just for humanitarian reasons but if they're going to be getting out while they're young enough to commit crimes, I really want them rehabilitated and to have a fair chance at a job other than being a criminal.
The biggest issues with the criminal justice system are 1) We should focus more on increasing probability of getting caught rather than worse penalties for getting caught b/c I don't think criminals are long-range thinkers. 2) I want fewer things illegal, so everyone feels like the police are on their side if they're not stealing or purposely hurting people. This way people are less inclined to take the law into their own hands or just ignore crime.
With respect to fewer actions being criminalized, Reality determines the consequences of certain actions - not people. We can either choose to pattern our laws around reality, or attempt to deceive ourselves by decriminalizing actions with which reality disagrees (aka crimes) or criminalizing actions reality agrees with (commonly called freedoms). While a simple answer is appealing, I must question its effectiveness.
I think the other part of the philosophical question we have to ask is simple: to what end? All laws have an end in mind: a goal or purpose. Ultimately every moral issue gets down to a core principle. Identify that core principle and it makes the actual moral discussion possible.
"But the only way to increase the probability of getting caught is either to outlaw more things (not my favorite option and from #2 above not yours either) or increase surveillance"
I'm actually saying laws tightly focused on a few crimes might increase the chance of getting caught. If there are countless laws, the police could stop anyone and find they're breaking some law, but that doesn't make someone thinking of breaking into a house more likely to be caught.
I have very mixed thoughts on surveillance. It's getting cheaper and easier, and law enforcement can't resist using it to do their job. I almost think we have to admit aloud we're watching everyone's every move and then have strict rules on how that data is accessed. There's no expectation of privacy in public, so the police could hire someone to follow you around all day, but it would be too costly. Now all that data's being collected and stored electronically, so it is practical to monitor everyone.
I would like some rule that ensures that data is encrypted and the key can only be given by a judge with notice to the public that it's happening, just like a regular search warrant.
That's possible. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
"Now all that data's being collected and stored electronically, so it is practical to monitor everyone."
The problem many legal scholars bring up is that even in public places, the gathering of evidence must be substantiated at a bare minimum by probable cause and in most cases an actual warrant. You can't just tape every moment of someone's life and then go back afterwards and look for infractions. This is the whole controversy involving the CIA/NSA digital surveillance problem. Investigation and prosecution are only supposed to begin after a crime has been committed and identified, a suspect named, and warrants issued. To do otherwise is to toss out the very "innocent until proven guilty" principle our legal system is founded on to replace it with "we reserve the right to prosecute you for anything you could have done in the past if we choose to review the surveillance tapes of your behavior." That's not really a future I want to comprehend.
I'm for decriminalizing many things that are not directly hurting someone. So that could be: drug laws, gun laws, seatbelt/helmet laws, non-forcible sex crimes, workplace safety laws, tax laws, no-smoking laws, traffic laws, and so on. Note that I'm saying decreasing, not going overboard and allowing activities that will immediately lead to people getting hurt. The idea is the police aren't a force like bad luck that could come down on anyone. They're only looking for those few things. This means if people see a crime they can fee free to work with the police without worrying about the police investigating them. This means people help the police more and take the law into their own hands less.
"To do otherwise is to toss out the very "innocent until proven guilty" principle our legal system is founded on to replace it with we reserve the right to prosecute you for anything you could have done in the past if we choose to review the surveillance tapes of your behavior. "
I think things are going that way though, regardless of the foundations of our legal system, because it's so easy now. My understanding of what they do now is they look at the tapes illegally, then they go try to find some plausible way they could have gotten that same evidence independently without admitting their investigation began with an illegal search. I've just heard that; not sure. But if they do that, I want them to stop it and/or institute rules that prevent abuse.
If people think that they have a chance to evade, you can do the most horrific thing to them, they will still chance it. But if they know that they will be caught inevitably, swift or slow is the same to the rational actor.
The key is "rational." I am not sure that premeditated murder is as common as prosecutors claim. I think that some people just stay mad (irrational) a lot longer.
This is another consequence of studying criminology in college and at university. Everyone else has a "mass mediated hyper reality" view of crime. They have opinions. Criminologists have facts. I assure you, it was a learning experience for me, as well.
I would be disappointed to learn that cruel punishments, banning guns, or arbitrary searches are effective because I'm for protecting people's rights even if the price is more crime. Maybe some people can't accept that freedom is not free.
It reminds me of people exploiting or denying climate change. Naomi Klein in her book This Changes Everything says she went from hoping we'd find a policy and technological solution of some sort to being giddy that this is just the right crisis big enough and global enough to sell the world on socialism. "Yippie!!" It's so disgusting I could not finish the book. She doesn't care about the truth. She wants an excuse for gov't involvement in the economy. People who don't want gov't in the economy do the same damn thing, telling themselves it must all be a conspiracy.
It's easy to ignore facts that complicate one's goals.
But the idea that the perp would never know if someone had a gun ready for defense is a good deterrent.
Its not going to help if we allow the syrian muslim refugees into the country when we dont have to, and its just a liberal humanitarian thing. Too risky I think. How can you possibly vet all those people when we cant even figure out if our own citizens are going to snap and turn allegiance to some muslim craziness.
Yes. I know of people who for whatever reasons go to a bar to party and take no alcohol or drugs. There might be one there. Someone could be picking up their friend. Law-abiding gun owners are everywhere.
Your last paragraph seems completely unrelated except that we can never vet people and predict if they're going to commit crimes, so it's an impossible request when people say we shouldn't let people into the country or have guns until we know they're not going to commit a violent crime.
Correct. It has to do with presumption of innocence and that rights are never constrained or until after one has been tried and convicted in court with the opportunity to present their defense. It's also the reason why denying gun ownership based on one's presence on the "no-fly" list is blatantly un-Constitutional, since no prosecution is required to be added to the list.
That being said, we most certainly can require that anyone entering the country agree to live according to our laws while they act as guests. I don't know if you've applied for a visa in a foreign country or not, but most of them are pretty explicit in that you don't get your visa unless you agree to live by the rules of the host nation. It doesn't mean we know whether or not they are going to commit a crime, but we can sure be proactive and let them know the expectation. For those being granted special status for entry (refugees, etc.) they have a responsibility to vet those people prior to allowing them in. Until they can be positively vetted (positive character reference, guardianship, etc.), they stay where they are.
Absolutely. I'm just generally for liberalizing laws about what can cross the border. We already send software easily, but there's all this paperwork to move people and materials. It's a vestige from an earlier age.
1. Neither software nor materials can act of their own accord (software is a special case). We don't worry about cars turning themselves on and running people over. People are agents, however. They can and should deserve treatment accordingly which IMO includes a background check or other suitability test prior to entry.
2. I agree that there is paperwork, but I happen to support the paperwork - not because of its impediments to business but because I support going back to tax collection based on trade tariffs the way the original Constitution was set up.
I agree. I just think it's the right thing to do and a good policy for all concerned.
If coming from a religious tradition that involves killing non-believers is reason not to enter a country, that's basically a blanket rule that affects most of humankind.
Do you really want people around you who want to kill you if you dont believe their religion? Taking them in I think is NOT the thing to do and definitely NOT a good policy. As far as I am concerned, if they want me to accept their religion, they have to accept and be ok with mine- and not say they are going to kill me if I dont change my religion to believe theirs. Its only fair.
In the meantime, they can sit in their cold, dark tents as far as i am concerned. Call me politically incorrect. When it comes to immigration, I think we should be looking to people who will better OUR society, not make us less safe.
Muslims want to fundamentally change our society.
They also want to convert us.
Or else.
I want everyone to accept the Enlightenment values and religious pluralism, or they should not come here. Saying "I want people to disavow" sounds like you want to take away their olive tree. That's exactly what extremists want.
You said that before, and it really has no meaning when I hear it. I first heard of it in the 90s, when people started saying "disabled" instead of "handicapped." It's turned into something else that I completely don't understand.
context means not calling the muslims (all of them) on the carpet for NOT abandoning that part of their belief structure that says "kill the infidels". Until a muslim does that, I dont want anything to do with him/her, and I dont want any more of them allowed into the country.
And its not racism. Its right in their bible that because I dont believe in their religion, its OK to kill me off.
I have seen this behavior. I don't call it "PC", but I really oppose that thing where we create safe spaces free of disagreement. At first I thought it wasn't real, but I've seen some signs of it.
Also, if someone is offended by "ace erasure" or "otherkin hate", I find that amusing. They can excuse my insensitivity b/c I'm over 40. :)
But the culture in which a person is raised has long lasting and deep effects on their behavior in my experience, anyway
There are elements of cultures that are good and bad, and some are bad enough to stay away from. ( discriminate against). So I would describe myself as a culturist. For example, I don't like the entitled culture today of the young blacks (and whites too for that matter). I don't want to live around them and I don't want to sell to them or hire them.
So I am politically incorrect when it comes to a lot of blacks today, especially after Obama has coddled them into entitlement at my expense. There are so many now that initially I tend to initially equate black with arrogance and entitlement. Big deal. It's a numbers game in our huge society. If I avoid all blacks, I will miss out on some black people but I correctly identify a lot more that I wouldn't want to deal with
Obama is a prime example of someone I want nothing to do with- an arrogant, petulant and entitled, brat in my view
I have a certain finger on my hand to respond to their garbage with.
This is a very good point. In the 90s it meant not saying "handicapped", but rather "disabled", "differently-abled" or "challenged" if you're super-PC. Term was talking about PC meaning not calling religious people on the carpet for the actions of extremists who say they act in the name of religion. I strongly believe in not doing that for many reasons that maybe merit a new thread.
My opinion the 90s PC is pointless b/c eventually the PC word comes to mean the old word. If you associated "challenged" with someone whose legs don't function, what's the difference what it's called. It's also someone insulting to people who have a disability to suggest we need to invent special language to describe it.
My opinion on the modern PC is it's the wild-card straw man. You don't actually have to think of a straw man to refute. You can say, "We need to stop being PC and [insert some policy here.]"
In one case above PC meant "pluralism." So while the PC wild card is being played as "pluralism", I'm a huge supporter of it.
From merriams:
Negro adjective sometimes offensive
negroid play \ˈnē-ˌgrȯid\ adjective or noun often capitalized sometimes offensive
Negroness play -grō-nəs\ noun sometimes offensive
Yet "black" (same source):
a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : swarthy b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin (2) : of or relating to the African-American people or their culture (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture
The terms describe the same thing, exactly. Yet one is pejorative, the other is not. Why? Who determined that? The political class did, in concert with people who felt oppressed and were trying to destroy anything associated with that oppression. Yet other terms (the infamous "n word") are used by the same people, and accepted, but if someone else uses it, it is not.
Groups are manipulated by small groups to use words as hot button triggers for some action. MLK used the term "negro" as it had always been used, yet never did I hear of him saying it was "offensive". Instead, a group of people who wanted power ascribe offense to it in the late 60's after he was killed, and made it into "offensive". PC is all about manipulation of meaning, and assigning YOUR value to it, to incite an emotional response, whether warranted or not. It is a tool used by people who want to control others, and employ a form of powerr and violence on them, so they HAVE to give in and cave to their demands. As soon as a term enters into the PC realm, that group is immediately granted legitimacy, and can proceed with their agenda. That was why it started to grow from the 60's on. It became a way to manipulate and control opinion and induce power in the group supposedly "offended". This is a root reason for Donald Trumps success, he expresses the underlying frustration felt by the people who do not see the emotional connection to a term or word, and thus do not participate in the "PC" world. They are self appointed realists, who will believe their own observations and develop their own opinions and not care about the manipulation. I also see some skew to the "PC" world with some of their actions but they rely on the emotional slogan tool, "Make America Great Again" to drive their emotional button pushing. In fact, Trump turns the PC thing around and uses it to retaliate oon those who go after him, and it works sometimes, and not others (such as the Mexican thing). I think it will end badly for him, as I think the "PC Programmed" crowd is much larger than the "Honest slogan" crowd, and will be easily persuaded that HillaryBeasts criminal acts, incompetence, corruption and general low lifeness, is better than someone who offends the gods by calling someone "Mexican" and questions their impartiality. After all, the vast majority of America knows if you cannot speak civilly and correctly, with proper deference to every easily offended person, you are not worth defecatory output variation.
So I get how language changes over time and region, but I do not see the sinister aspect of this. It seems to me people already assign value to thinks and the words are just markers of that.
The thing you suggest reminds me of Newspeak in 1984, but I don't see that happening. I don't see words being consolidated and simplified.
I do not understand what you're saying about "Make America Great Again" as it relates to PC. It seems like a straightforward thing for politicians to say. Someone said President Clinton and other politicians have used it.
"he expresses the underlying frustration felt by the people who do not see the emotional connection to a term or word,"
I don't get why people would vote differently just because of a word. There must be more going on. To me "retarded" doesn't sound as offensive to me as retarded, but I'm not looking for a candidate who uses the word.
" the "PC Programmed" crowd is much larger than the "Honest slogan" crowd"
I don't see any difference between "honest slogan" and "PC programmed". In either case it sounds like their putting too much focus on language.
Even in the one example you give, of questioning someone's impartiality based on their being Mexican, sounds like the wild-card straw man. Rational people would have to verify the Mexican in question is indeed Mexican and determine if the issue at hand is related to Mexico. Of course as you say the wild card can be played either way. "I reject the PC argument that this person is impartial." "Only in your PC narrative is this person biased." It's like they're too lazy to formulate a real straw man.
I appreciate your trying to explain it. I didn't mean to be snide about the wild card thing. I'm sort of doing the same straw man thing I criticize by creating a guess of what PC means when I really don't understand. I can still recall when I first heard the word in 1990, but it was because I was alone with a girl looking at magazines; I don't remember anything of what the article said.
PC ain't for the home of the free.
PC is for yellow pee-pee.
Thirty four states do not have such self-destructive unconstitutional restrictions and they don't have such massacres either. Twenty six states made it easier to carry in such places since 2013, but Florida still exposes its people to unacceptable risks in violation of the Second Amendment.
Of course, the idiotic statist propaganda campaign against firearms probably reduces the number who would even consider carrying a firearm by a large percentage, too.
Ever fire a weapon, CG? (No need to answer if you think it is an invasion of your privacy. I respect privacy of all gun owners, especially in light of government's intent to disarm everyone.)
When I was there, you could carry in a place that serves alcohol, but you could not get drunk. I think you could not physically sit at the bar (I don't understand that one.) even if not drunk. But you could sit at a table at a place that has a bar. It may have changed since I lived there.
(I made edits to my previous comment above possibly after your reply.)
The public decides what is unacceptable. The degree of unacceptable dictates the punishment. The ultimate punishment is execution. I't also the least expensive in terms of costs to the public and costs to the public by allowing certain offenders to commit even more crimes.
Fly swatter theory...
Not for revenge , not in hopes of retraining or producing a socially acceptable citizen, not in hopes of changing the minds of the other wanna be capital crimes felons.
The fly swatter theory does one thing and does it well. That particular fly will never bother your picnic again.
SWAT! If it encourages someone to invent a different method that's fine too. Lobotomy not acceptable what's next best? Not for me to worry about. Chance of an innocent fly getting fried or gassed too high - no such thing by definition.
Society has deemed all flys born and unbord are subject the death penalty on site and on sight. That sets a standard.
And really even the sob sisters of the left cannot in truth give me the name of the last fly they slaughtered.much less legally executed
Obviously few bothered to go to the link, or this discussion would be much different.
They were targeted because they were gay, however. And the only people talking about that are those within the LGBTQ community and religious wackos who say it's a good thing my friends are dead.
If any of you think that, keep it to yourself. You are the problem.
One even plays the piano at a church.
But when I worked at a state prison, one of the most dangerous fights I ever broke up was due to a love triangle.
Another time I managed to stop with hasty verbalization a huge jealous lover from dropping a Jodie he held upside-down over the rail of a second floor tier onto a concrete floor.
Then there was that inmate who said he had a crush on me. No, thank you.
My dad bought gas from an old-fashioned just a gas station where your oil and water got checked and your windshield got wiped. The drivier did not even have to get out of his car.
That gass station was run by a Klansman with Klan literature pasted all over the place inside.
At least he was nice enough to have a restroom for "COLORED."
As a kid on a hot day and at just about any gas station anywhere, I really felt sorry for black people when I got to drink ice water from a fountain set beside a water fountain only for tap water.
My ice water fountain was marked "WHITES ONLY" while the other had that "COLORED" sign again.
During 1970 I shared canteen water with a black Marine. Even drank after him. That was a first.
While Florida is normally a pro-gun state, they do prohibit firearms in establishments where liquor is served, such as the nightclub where the massacre happened. While I understand the argument that guns and liquor don't mix, things like this give me pause...
we are living in very despicable times i am very sorry to say. if your 25 or have children the world they are growing up in is not good.
I would just like to see police have some sort of immobilizing tool that would help protect peoples' rights without all these accidental police shootings
the weapon used was acquired illegally. It is a kind not available for sale to any private individual? (In Florida)
If so, whatever the pros and cons of banning weapons, that particular one was already banned.
I think what was even more disgraceful is that the assassin was working for the Federal government and had passed their background check too despite openly posting on his Facebook account his plans! The FBI even said they had this fellow on a watchlist, but chose to ignore the warnings given by fellow employees about hid radical behavior and comments because he was Muslim.
Later on my PC I saw a photo of holes knocked open by police through a cinder block wall during that three-hour nightmare.
Lewis and Clark's Girandoni air rifle could arguably support a similar massacre, and was one reason the native americans allowed them free passage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girando...
Did anyone remember that the National Rifle Association began as the Black Rifle Association? The word National in the name tells the tale. Blacks in this country organized it to protect themselves against the Ku Klux Klan.
"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.
An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.
Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.
The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, Royal Rangers, National High School Rodeo Association and others."
The NRA did not organize to protect blacks against the KKK. I see this bandied about a lot and it's just not true. Many freed blacks did take up arms as defense against the KKK, but that was not ever part of the NRA's original purpose.
But that had nothing to do with the NRA.
Smooth-bores could be ramrod loaded faster than muzzle-loaded rifles but were less accurate due to its lack of rifling.
Smooth-bores were to be fired as fast as possible into standing enemy ranks with both sides using a "Napoleonic" style of fighting that made the Civil War the bloodiest war in USA history.
Just felt moved to bring that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...
Load more comments...